33-5 


S THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY, | 
%  Princeton,  N.  J.  |  ^ 


BR  121  .W34  1830  ^^  ^^^^ 
Watson,  Richard,  1781-1833 
Theological  institutes 


/ 


4 


j^A    .  ciJtiu 


TIIEOL O GIC Ali  IJVSTITU TK S ; 


OR, 


A  VIEW  OF  THE 


EVIDENCES,  DOCTRINES,  MORALS,  AND  INSTITUTIONS 


CHRISTIANITY. 


BY    RICHARD    WATSON. 


THEOLOGIjE  autem  objectnm  est  ipse  Deus. — Habent  alias  omnes  acientiae  sua  objecta,  nobilia'certe,  et  di"na 
in  quibus  huniana  mens  considerandis  tenipus,  otium,  et  diligentiam  adhibeat.  Ha;c  una  circa  Ens  cntium  et 
Causam  causarum,  circa  Principium  naturre,  et  gratia3  in  natura  existentis,  naturse  adsLsteutis,  et  naturarn 
circumsistcntis  versatur.  Dignissimum  itaque  koc  est  Objectum  et  plenum  venerand^  Majestatis,  prcecel- 
lensque  rcliquis.  AUMDVIUS. 


Stereotype  Hiiition. 
COMPLETE   IN   ONE   VOLUME. 


PRINTED  AND  PUBLISHED  BY  J.  .^  /.  HARPER,  82  CLIFF-ST. 

Sold  by  Collins  &  Ilannay,  Collins  &  Co.,  G.  &  C.  &  H.  Carvill,  Wlute,  Gallaher,  &  Wliite,  J.  Leavitt,  T. 
&  J.  Swords  &  (;o.,  and  J.  P.  Haven ;— Piiiladklphia,  Carey  &  Lea,  John  Grisg,  Towar  &  J.  &  D.  M. 
HoKun,  U.  Hunt,  E.  I-.  Carey  &  A.  Hart,  T.  Desilver,  jr.,  and  M'Carty  &  Davis;— Baltimore,  Cusluug 
ic  Sons,  J.  Jcwett,  W.  &,.].  INeal,  (;.  M'Dowell  &  Son,  and  Armstrong  &  Plasket ;— Boston,  Richardson, 
Lord,  &  llolbrook,  UUliard,  Gray,  i.  Co.,  and  Carter  &  Ueudee ;— Albamy,  O.  Steele,  and  Little  &  Cuimnings. 

1830. 


^"^ 


REV.  JABEZ  BUNTING,  A.M. 

THE   FOLLOWING   WORK 
IS 

AS  AN  EXPRESSION  OF  RESPECT 

FOR  HIS   TALENTS  AND  VIRTUES, 

AND  OF  THE  VALUE 

PLACED  UPON  HIS  FRIENDSHIP 

BY 

THE  AUTHOR. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


The  object  of  this  work  is  to  exhibit  the  EvroENCES,  Doctrines,  Morals, 
and  Institutions  of  Christianity,  in  a  form  adapted  to  the  use  of  young 
Ministers,  and  Students  in  Divinity.  It  is  hoped  also,  that  it  may  supply  the 
desideratum  of  a  Body  of  Divinity,  adapted  to  the  present  state  of  theological 
literature,  neither  Calvinistic  on  the  one  hand,  nor  Pelagian  on  the  other. 

The  reader  will  perceive  that  the  object  has  been  to  follow  a  course  of  plain 
and  close  argument  on  the  various  subjects  discussed,  without  any  attempt  at 
embellishment  of  style,  and  without  adding  practical  uses  and  reflections, 
which,  however  important,  did  not  fall  within  the  plan  of  this  publication. 
The  various  controversies  on  fundamental  and  important  points  have  been 
introduced ;  but  it  has  been  the  sincere  aim  of  the  Author  to  discuss  every  sub- 
ject with  fairness  and  candour :  and  honestly,  but  in  the  spirit  of  "  the  truth," 
which  he  more  anxiously  wishes  to  be  taught  than  to  teach,  to  exhibit  what  he 
believes  to  be  the  sense  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  to  whose  authority,  he  trusts,  he 
has  unreservedly  subjected  all  Ms  own  opinions. 

London,  March  26,  1823. 


CONTENTS. 


PART  I. — Evidences  of   the  Divine  Authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

CHAP.  PAGE 

I.  Man  a  Moral  Agent 9 

II.  The  Rule  which  determines  the  Quality  of  Moral  Actions  must  be  presumed 

to  be  Matter  of  Revelation  from  God 10 

III.  Farther  Presumptions  of  a  direct  Revelation,  from  the  Weakness  and  Cor- 

ruption of  human  Reason,  and  the  Want  of  Authority  in  merely  hu- 
man Opinions 12 

IV.  Farther  Proofs  of  the  Weakness  and  Uncertainty  of  hmnan  Reason  ...  13 
V.  The  Origin  of  those  Truths  which  are  found  in  the  Writings  and  religious 

Systems  of  the  Heathen 16 

VI.  The  Necessity  of  Revelation — State   of  religious  Knowledge  among   the 

Heathen 23 

VII.  State  of  Morals  among  the  Heathen    ...  27 

VIII.  Religions  of  the  Heathen 28 

IX.  The  Evidences  necessary  to  authenticate  a  Revelation — External  Evidence  32 

X. Internal  Evidence 

— Collateral  Evidence 38 

XI.   The  Use  and  Limitation  of  Reason  m  Religion 41 

XII.  Antiquity  of  the  Scriptures » 44 

XIII.  The  uncorrupted  Preservation  of  the  Books  of  Scripture 54 

XIV.  The  Credibility  of  the  Testimony  of  the  Sacred  Writers 57 

XV.  The  Miracles  of  Scripture '.  58 

XVI.  Objections  to  the  Proof  from  Miracles  considered 61 

XVII.  Prophecies  of  Scripture 69 

XVIII.  Objections  to  the  Evidence  from  Prophecy  considered 75 

XIX.  Internal  Evidence  of  the  Truth  of  Scripture — Collateral  Evidence       ...  78 

XX.  Miscellaneous  Objections  answered 89 

PART  II. — Doctrines  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

I.  The  Existence  of  God "^9 

II.  Attributes  of  God: — Unity,  Spirituality 123 

III.  Eternity,  Omnipotence,  Ubiquity 129 

IV.  Omniscience 135 

V.  Immutability,  Wisdom 144 

VI. Goodness 148 

VII. Holiness 157 

VIII.  God:— The  Trinity  in  Unity 161 

IX.  Trinity: — Scripture  Testimony 167 

X.  Pre-existence  of  Christ 170 

XI.  Jesus  Christ  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament 173 

XII.  The  Titles  of  Christ 180 

XIII.  Christ  possessed  of  Divine  Attributes 204 

XIV.  Acts  of  Christ  Proofs  of  his  Divinity 208 

XV.  Divine  Worship  paid  to  Christ      .    ' 211 

XVI.  Humanity  of  Christ — Hypostatic  Union — Errors  as  to  the  Person  of  Christ  .  217 

XVII.  Personality  and  Deity  of  the  Holy  Ghost 221 

XVIII.  Fall  of  Man— Original  Sin 226 

XIX.  Redemption — Principles  of  God's  Moral  Government ■     .     .  254 

XX.  Death  of  Christ  propitiatory 259 

XXI.  Sacrifices  of  the  Law 274 

XXII.  Primitive  Sacrifices 282 

XXIII.  Benefits  derived  to  Man  from  the  Atonement — Justification 294 

XXIV. — - —  Concomitants  of  Justification  313 

XXV.  Extent  of  the  Atonement 319 


viii  CONTENTS. 

CHAP.  PAGE 

XXVI.  The  same  subject  continued 327 

XXVII.  An   Examination  of  certain  Passages  of  Scripture  supposed  to  limit  the 

Extent  of  (Jhrist's  Redemption 345 

XXVIII.  Theories  which  limit  the  Extent  of  the  Death  of  Christ 3.51 

XXIX.  Redemption,  Benefits  of, 374 

PART  III. — The  Morals  of  Christianity. 

I.  The  Moral  Law 381 

II.  The  Duties  we  owe  to  God 385 

III.  The  same  subject  continued — ^The  Lord's  Day 394 

IV.  Duties  to  our  Neighbour 399 

PART  IV. — The  Institutions  of  Christianity. 

I.  The  Christian  Church 416 

II.  The  Sacraments 427 

III.  Baptism 429 

IV.  The  Lord's  Supper 445 

Index  of  Texts 449 

General  Index 451 


TIIF.OL.OGICAL.    INSTITUTES. 


PART  FIRST. 

EVIDENCES  OF  THE  DIVINE  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Man  a.  Moral  Agent. 
The  Theological  System  ol'tlie  Holy  Scriptures  be- 
ing the  subject  of  our  inquiries,  it  is  eseential  to  our 
undertaking  to  establisli  their  Divine  Authority.  ]5ut 
before  the  direct  evidence  which  the  case  admits  is 
adduced,  our  attention  may  be  profitably  engaged  by 
several  considerations,  which  ailbrd  presumptive  evi- 
dence in  favour  of  the  Revelations  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments.  These  are  of  so  much  weight  that  they 
ought  not,  in  fairness,  to  be  overlooked;  nor  can  their 
force  be  easily  resisted  by  the  impartial  inquirer. 

The  Moral  Agency  of  man  is  a  principle  on  which  much 
depends  in  such  an  investigation ;  and,  from  its  bearing 
upon  the  question  at  issue,  requires  our  first  notice. 

He  is  a  moral  agent  who  is  capable  of  performing 
moral  actions  ;  and  an  action  is  rendered  moral  by  two 
circumstances, — that  it  is  voluntary, — and  that  it  has 
respect  to  some  rule  which  determines  it  to  be  good  or 
evil.  "  Moral  good  and  evil,"  says  Locke,  "  is  the  con- 
formity or  disagreement  of  our  voluntary  actions  to 
some  law,  whereby  good  or  evil  is  drawn  upon  us  from 
the  will  or  power  of  the  law-rnaker." 

The  terms  found  in  all  languages,  and  the  laws  which 
have  been  enacted  in  all  states  with  accompanying 
penalties,  as  well  as  the  praise  or  dispraise  which  men 
in  all  ages  have  expressed  respecting  the  conduct  of 
each  other,  sulilcicntly  show,  that  man  has  always 
been  consiilured  as  an  agent  actually  performing,  or 
capable  of  performing  moral  actions,  for  as  such  he 
has  been  treated.  IVo  one  ever  thought  of  making 
laws  to  regulate  the  conduct  of  the  inferior  anunals  ;  or 
of  holding  them  up  to  public  censure  or  approbation. 

The  rules  by  which  the  moral  quality  of  actions  has 
been  determined  are,  however,  not  those  only  which 
have  been  imbodied  in  the  legislation  of  civil  commu- 
nities. Many  actions  would  be  judged  good  or  evil, 
were  all  civil  codes  abolished;  and  others  are  daily 
condemned  or  approved  in  the  judgment  of  mankind, 
which  are  not  of  a  kind  to  be  recognised  by  pui'lic  laws. 
Of  the  moral  nature  of  human  actions  there  must  have 
been  a  perception  in  the  minds  of  men,  previous  to  the 
enactment  of  laws.  U|)0ii  tbis  common  perception  all 
law  is  founded,  and  claims  the  consent  and  support  of 
society,  for  in  all  himian  legislative  codes  there  is  an 
express  or  tacit  appeal  to  principles  previously  ac- 
knowledged, as  reasons  for  their  enactment. 

This  distinction  in  the  moral  quality  of  actions  pre- 
vious to  the  establishment  of  civil  regulations,  and  in- 
dependent of  them,  may  in  part  be  traced  to  its  having 
been  observed,  that  certain  acUoiis  are  injurious  to  so- 
ciety, and  that  to  abstain  from  tlicni  is  essential  to  its 
well-being.  Murder  and  tlicil  njay  be  given  as  in- 
stances. .It  has  also  been  per(-eived,  that  such  actions 
result  from  certiihi  afTections  of  the  mind;  and  the  in- 
dujgence  or  restraint  of  such  affections  has  therefore 


been  also  regarded  as  a  moral  act.  Anger,  revenge, 
and  cupidity  have  been  deemed  evils  as  the  sources  of 
injuries  of  various  kinds ;  and  humanity,  self-govern- 
ment, and  integrity  have  been  ranked  among  the  vir- 
tues ;  and  thus  both  certain  actions,  and  the  jirineiples 
from  which  they  spring,  have,  from  th«ir  effect  upon 
society,  been  determined  to  be  good  or  evil. 

But  it  has  likewise  been  observed  by  every  man 
that  individual  happiness,  as  truly  as  social  order  and 
interests,  is  materially  affected  by  ijarticular  acts,  and 
by  those  feelings  of  the  heart  which  give  rise  to  them  ; 
as,  for  instance,  by  anger,  malice,  envy,  impatience,  cu- 
pidity, &c. ;  and  that  whatever  civilized  men  in  all 
places  and  in  all  ages  have  agreed  to  call  vice,  is  ini- 
mical to  health  of  body,  or  to  peace  of  mind,  or  to 
both.  This,  it  is  true,  has  had  little  influence  upon 
human  conduct,  but  it  has  been  acknowledged  by  the 
poets,  sages,  and  satirists  of  all  countries,  and  is  ad 
verted  to  as  matter  of  universal  experience.  While 
therefore  there  is  in  the  moral  condition  and  habits  of 
man  something  which  propels  liiin  to  vice,  uncorrected 
by  the  miseries  which  it  never  fails  to  inflict,  there  is 
also  sometlmig  in  the  constitution  of  the  human  soul 
which  renders  vice  subversive  of  its  happiness,  and 
something  in  the  established  law  and  nature  of  things, 
which  renders  vice  incompatible  with  the  collective  in- 
terests of  men  in  the  social  state. 

Let  that  then  be  granted  by  the  TnEisT  which  he 
cannot  consistently  deny,  the  existence  of  a  Supreme 
Creator,  of  infinite  power,  wisdom,  goodness,  and  jus- 
tice, who  has  both  made  men  and  continues  to  govern 
them;  and  the  strongest  presumption  is  afforded  by 
the  very  constitution  of  the  nature  of  man,  and  the 
relations  established  among  hmnan  affairs,  which  with 
so  much  constancy  dissociate  happiness  from  vicious 
passions,  health  from  intemperance,  the  peace,  secu- 
rity, and  improvement  of  society  from  violence  and  in- 
justice,^-tliat  the  course  of  action  which  best  secures 
human  liapi)ine,ss  has  the  sanction  of  his  will,  or  in 
other  words,  that  he,  by  these  circumstances,  has 
given  his  authority  in  favour  of  the  practice  of  virtue, 
and  opposed  it  to  the  practice  of  vice.(l) 

But  though  that  perception  of  the  difference  of  mtf- 


(I)  "  As  the  manifold  appearances  of  design  and 
of  final  causes,  in  the  constitution  of  the  world,  prove 
it  to  bo  the  work  of  an  intelligent  mind  ;  so  ilw.  parti- 
cular final  causes  of  jileasure  and  pain,  distributed 
among  his  creatures,  prove  that  they  are  imder  his  go- 
vernment^what  may  be  called  liis  natural  govern- 
ment of  creatures  endued  with  sense  and  rea.son. 
This,  however,  implies  somewhat  more  th.in  seems 
usually  attended  to  when  we  speak  of  (iod's  naturfil 
government  of  the  worlrl.  li  implies  govi^riuncnt  of 
the  very  same  kind  with  that  which  a  master  ex(!rci.sex 
over  his  servants,  or  a  civil  magistrate  over  hie  sub 
jccts."— ii;j.  BUTtEK. 


10 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  L 


ral  actions  whicli  is  antecedent  to  luiman  laws,  must 
have  been  stnmjily  eonlirnied  hy  these  facts  ol'  expe- 
rience, aiul  l)y  such  observations,  we  have  no  reason 
to  conclude,  that  those  rules  by  which  the  mora!  qua- 
lity of  actions  lias,  in  all  ages,  been  determined,  were 
formed  solely  from  a  course  of  oiiservation  on  their 
tendency  to  promote  or  obstruct  human  hajjpincss ;  be- 
cause we  caimot  collect  either  from  history  or  tradi- 
tion, that  the  world  was  ever  without  such  rules, 
though  they  were  often  warped  and  corrupted.  Tlie 
evidence  of  both,  on  the  contrary,  shows,  that  so  far 
from  these  rules  having  originat*^!  from  observing 
what  was  injurious  and  what  beneficial  to  mankind, 
there  has  been  among  almost  all  nations,  a  constant 
reference  to  a  declared  wUl  of  the  Sui)reme  tiod,  or  of 
supposed  deities,  as  the  rule  which  determines  the 
good  or  the  evil  of  the  conduct  of  men ;  which  will 
was  considered  by  them  as  a  law,  prescribing  the  one 
and  restraining  the  other,  under  the  sanction,  not  only 
of  our  being  left  to  the  natural  injurious  conse(iuenccs 
of  vicious  habit  and  jiraclice  in  the  jinisent  life,  or  of 
continuing  to  enjoy  the  benefits  of  obedience  in  per- 
sonal and  social  happiness  here;  but  of  positive  re- 
ward and  positive  punishment  in  a  future  life. 

Whoever  speculated  on  the  subject  of  morals  and 
moral  obligation  in  any  age,  was  previously  furnished 
with  these  general  notions  and  disunctioiis.  They 
were  in  the  world  bel'ore  him ;  and  if  all  tradition  be 
not  a  fable,  if  the  testimony  of  all  antiquity,  whether 
found  in  poets  or  historians,  be  not  delusive,  they  were 
in  the  world  in  those  early  periods  when  the  great 
body  of  the  human  race  remained  near  the  original 
seat  of  the  parent  families  of  all  the  modern  and  now 
widely  extended  nations  of  the  earth  ;  and  in  those 
early  periods  they  were  not  regarded  as  distinctions 
of  mere  human  opinion  and  consent,  but  were  invested 
with  a  Divine  AiUlioritij. 

We  have,  then,  before  us  two  presumptions,  each  of 
great  weight.  Fikst,  that  those  actions  which  among 
men  have  almost  universally  been  jutlged  good,  have 
the  impUed  sanction  of  the  will  of  our  wise  and  goud 
Creator,  being  Ibund  in  experience,  and  by  the  consti- 
tution of  our  nature  and  of  human  society,  most  con- 
ducive to  human  happiness.  And,  Skco.nd,  that  they 
were  originally  in  some  mode  or  other  prescribed  and 
enjoined  as  his  laii',  and  their  contraries  ijroliibitcd. 

If,  therefore,  there  is  presumptive  evidence  of  only 
ordinary  sirength,  that  the  rule  by  which  our  actions 
are  determined  to  be  good  or  evil  is  ]>rimarily  a  law  of 
the  Creator,  we  are  all  deeply  interested  in  ascertain- 
ing where  that  law  exists  in  its  clearest  manife.station. 
For  ignorance  ol'  the  law,  in  whole  or  in  part,  will  be 
no  excuse  for  disobedience,  if  we  have  the  oiiportunity 
of  acquainting  ourselves  with  it ;  and  an  accurate  ac- 
quaintance with  the  rule  may  assist  our  practice  in  cases 
of  which  human  laws  take'  no  cognizance,  and  which 
the  wilfully  corrupted  general  judgment  of  mankind 
may  have  darkened.  And  should  it  appear  either  that 
in  many  things  we  have  offended  more  deeply  than  we 
suspect,  whether  wilfully  or  from  an  evitable  igno- 
rance ;  or  that,  from  some  common  accident  which  has 
befiiUen  our  nature,  we  have  lost  the  power  of  entire 
obedience  without  the  use  of  new  and  extraordinary 
means,  the  knowledge  of  the  rule  is  of  the  utmost  con- 
sequence to  us,  because  by  it  wc  may  be  enabled  to 
ascertain  the  precise  relation  in  which  we  stand  to 
God  our  Maker ;  tlie  dangers  we  have  incurred  ;  and 
the  means  of  escape,  if  any  have  been  placed  within 
our  reach. 


CHAPTER  II. 

The  Rule  which  de.termin.es  the  Quality  of  Moral 

Actions  nncst  be  presumed  to  be  7natter  of  Rkvklh- 

TioN  from  God. 

It  is  well  observed  by  a  judicious  writer,  that  "all 
the  distinctions  of  good  and  evil  refer  to  some  principle 
above  ourselves ;  lor  were  thitre  no  Supreme  (Governor 
and  Judge  to  reward  and  punish,  the  very  notions  of 
good  and  evil  would  vanish  away.  They  could  not 
exist  in  the  mindsof  men,  if  there  were  not  a  Supreme 
Director  in  give  laws  for  tli(!  measure  ihereof  "(2) 

If  we  deny  the  existence  of  a  Divine  law  obligatory 
upon  man,  we  must  deny  that  the  world  is  uniler  Di- 


vine government,  for  government  without  rule  or  law 
is  a  solecism ;  and  to  deny  the  Divine  government 
would  leave  it  imiiossible  for  us  to  account  for  that 
jieculiar  nature  wliich  has  been  given  to  man,  and 
tliose  reLalions  among  hnnian  concerns  and  interests 
to  which  we  have  adverled.  and  which  are  so  power- 
fully allicted  by  our  conduct :  certain  actions  and 
habits  which  almost  all  mankind  have  agreed  to  call 
Hiiod,  being  connected  with  the  lia|i))iiiess  of  the  indivi- 
dual and  the  well-being  of  society  ;  and  so  on  the  con- 
trary. This  too  has  been  matter  of  uniform  and  con- 
stant exiierience  from  the  earliest  ages,  and  warrants, 
therefore,  the  conclusion,  that  the  effect  anses  from  ori- 
ginal principles  and  a  constitution  of  things  which  the 
Creator  has  established.  Nor  can  any  reason  be  offered 
why  such  a  nature  should  be  given  to  man.  and  such 
a  law  impressed  on  the  circumstances  and  beings  with 
which  he  is  surrounded,  except  that  both  had  an  in- 
tended relation  to  certain  courses  of  action  as  the 
sources  of  order  and  happiness,  as  truly  as  there  was 
an  intended  relation  bel  ween  the  light,  and  the  eye 
which  is  formed  to  rei;eive  its  rays. 

But  as  man  is  not  carrii^d  to  this  course  of  action  by 
physical  impulse  or  necessity  ;  as  moral  conduct  sup- 
po.ses  choice,  and  therefore  instruction,  and  the  persua- 
sion of  motives  an.sing  out  of  it ;  the  benevolent 
intention  of  the  (.'realor,  as  to  our  hajipiness,  could  not 
be  accomiilished  without  in.struction,  warning,  reward, 
and  punishment ;  all  of  which  necessarily  imply  su- 
perintendence and  control,  or,  in  other  words,  a  moral 
government.  The  creation,  therefore,  of  a  being  of 
such  a  nature  as  man  implies  Divine  government; 
and  that  government  a  Divine  law. 

Such  a  law  must  be  the  subject  of  revelation. 
Law  is  the  will  of  a  superior  jiower;  but  the  will  of  a 
superior  visible  power  cannot  be  known  without  some 
indication  by  words  or  sii^ns,  in  other  terms,  without  a 
revelation;  and  much  less  the  will  of  an  invisible 
power,  of  an  order  superior  to  our  own,  and  confess- 
edly mysterious  in  his  mode  of  existence  and  the  attri- 
butes of  his  nature. 

Again,  the  will  of  a  superior  is  not  In  justice  bind- 
ing until,  in  some  mode,  it  is  sufficiently  declared ;  and 
the  presumption,  therefore,  that  (iod  wills  the  practice 
of  any  particular  course  of  action  on  the  jiart  of  his 
creatures,  establishes  the  farther  presumption,  that  of 
that  will  there  has  been  a  manifestation  ;  and  the  more 
so,  if  there  is  reason  to  sujipose  that  any  penalty  of  a 
serious  nature  has  been  attached  to  disobedience. 

The  revelation  of  this  will  or  law  of  t;od  may  be 
made  either  by  action,  from  which  it  is  to  be  inferred, 
or  by  direct  communication  in  language.  Any  indica- 
tion of  the  moral  perfections  of  God,  or  of  his  design  in 
forming  moral  beings,  which  the  visible  creation  jire- 
sents  to  the  mind;  or  any  instance  of  his  favour  or 
displeasure  towards  his  creatures,  clearly  and  fre- 
quently connected  in  his  administration  with  any  par- 
ticular cour.se  of  conduct,  may  be  considered  a.s  a 
revelation  of  his  will  by  action  ;  and  is  not  at  all  in- 
consistent with  a  farther  revelation  by  the  direct  means 
of  language. 

The  Theist  admits  that  a  revelation  of  the  will  of 
God  has  been  made  by  significant  actions,  from  which 
the  duty  of  creatures  is  to  be  inferred,  and  contends 
that  this  is  sufficient.  "They  who  never  heard  of  any 
extcrn.il  revelation,  yet  if  they  knew  from  the  nature 
of  things  wlia;  is  fit  for  them  to  do,  they  know  all  that 
God  will  or  can  reijuire  ol'them."(3) 

They  who  believe  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  contain  a 
revelation  of  (;od's  will,  do  not  deny  that  indications  of 
his  will  nave  b(«n  made  by  actum;  but  they  cmiiend 
that  they  are  in  themselves  imperfect  and  iiisullliient, 
and  that  they  were  not  designed  to  supersede  a  direct 
revelation.  They  hold,  also,  that  a  direct  cnrMniiinica- 
tion  of  the  Divine  will  was  made  to  the  progmitors  of 
the  human  race,  which  received  additions  at  subsequent 
periods,  and  that  the  whole  was  at  length  imboilied  in 
the  book  called,  by  way  of  eminence,  "The  Bible." 


(2)  Ellis's  Knowledge  of  Divine  Things,  &c. 


(3)  Christ imiilii  as  Old  as  the  Creation,]).  233.—"  By 
employing  our  reason  to  collect  the  will  of  God  from 
the  Hind  of  our  nature  physical  and  moral,  we  may 
acipnre  not  only  a  particular  knowledge  of  those  laws 
which  are  deducible  from  Iheni,  but  a  ^.'iiieral  know- 
ledge ef  the  manner  in  wliich  God  is  pleased  to  exer- 
cise his  supreme  powers  la  this  system-''— iiw'i'"^- 
brake's  Works,  vol.  5,  p.  100. 


THEOLOGICAL  LXSTITUTES, 


CuAP.  IL] 

The  question  immediately  before  us  is,  on  which 
side  there  is  the  strongest  presumption,  of  truth.  Are 
there,  in  the  natural  worlis  of  God,  or  in  his  manner  of 
governing  the  world,  such  indications  of  Uie  will  of 
God  concerning  us,  as  can  afford  suflieient  direction  in 
forming  a  perfectly  virtuous  character,  and  sufficient 
information  as  to  the  means  by  which  it  is  to  be 
effected  ?  We  may  try  ttiis  question  by  a  few  obvious 
instances. 

The  Theist  will  himself  acknowledge,  that  temper- 
ance, justire,  and  benevolence  are  essential  to  moral 
virtue.  With  respect  to  the  first,  nothing  appears  in 
the  constitution  of  nature,  or  in  the  proceedings  of  the 
Divine  administration,  to  indicate  it  to  be  the  will  of 
God  that  the  appetites  of  the  body  should  be  restrained 
within  the  rules  of  sobriety,  except  that,  by  a  connex- 
ion which  has  been  established  by  him,  the  excessive 
indulgence  of  those  appetites  usually  impairs  health. 
If,  therefore,  we  suppose  this  to  amount  to  a  tacit  pro- 
hibition of  excess,  it  still  leaves  those  free  from  the 
rule  whose  firm  constitutions  do  not  suffer  from  intem- 
perate gratifications ;  it  gives  one  rule  for  the  man  of 
vigorous,  and  another  for  the  man  of  feeble  health  ;  and 
it  is  no  guard  against  that  occasional  insobriety,  which 
may  be  indulged  in  without  obvious  danger  to  health, 
but  which,  nevertheless,  may  be  excessive  in  degree, 
though  occasional  in  recurrence.  The  rule  is  therefore 
imperfect. 

Nor  are  the  obligations  of  justice  in  this  way  indi- 
cated with  adequate  clearness.  Acts  of  injustice  are 
not,  like  acts  of  excessive  intemperance,  punishable 
in  the  ordinary  course  of  providence  by  pain  and  dis- 
ease and  premature  death,  as  their  natural  general 
consequences;  nor,  in  most  instances,  by  any  other 
m.irked  infliction  of  the  Divine  displeasure  in  the  pre- 
sent life.  From  their  injurious  effects  upon  society 
at  large,  indications  of  the  will  of  God  respecting  them 
may  doubtless  be  inferred,  but  such  effects  arise  out 
of  the  grosser  acts  of  fraud  and  rapine ;  those  only 
affect  the  movements  of  society  (which  goes  on  with- 
out being  visibly  disturbed  by  the  violations  of  the 
nicer  distinctions  of  equity,  which  form  an  essential 
part  of  virtue),  and  never  fail  to  degrade  and  corrupt 
individual  character.  Rules  of  justice,  therefore,  thus 
indicated,  would,  like  those  of  temperance,  be  very  im- 
perfect. 

The  third  branch  of  virtue  is  benevolence,  the  dispo- 
sition and  the  habit  of  doing  good  to  others.  But  in 
what  manner,  except  by  revelation,  are  the  extent  and 
the  obligation  of  this  virtue  to  be  explained  '.  If  it  be 
said,  that  "  the  goodness  of  God  himself,  as  manifested 
in  creation  and  providence,  presents  so  striking  an  e.v- 
ample  of  beneficence  to  his  creatures,  that  his  u-ill,  as 
to  the  cultivation  of  this  virtue,  may  be  unequivocally 
inferred  from  it,"  we  cannot  but  perceive  that  this  ex- 
ample itself  is  imperfect,  unless  other  parts  of  the  Di- 
vine conduct  be  explained  to  us,  as  the  Scriptures 
explain  them.  For  if  we  have  manifestations  of  his 
goodness,  we  see  also  fearful  prools  of  Ms  severity. 
Such  are  the  permission  of  pestilence,  earthquakes, 
inundations,  and  the  infliction  of  pain  and  death  upon 
all  men,  even  upon  infants  and  unsinnhig  animals.  If 
the  will  of  God  in  favour  of  beneficent  actions  is  to  be 
inferred  from  the  pleasure  which  is  afforded  to  those 
who  perform  them,  it  is  only  indicated  to  those  to  whom 
a  beneficent  act  gives  pleasure,  and  its  non-pertbrmance 
pain ;  and  it  cannot,  therefore,  be  at  all  apprehended  by 
those  who  by  constitution  are  obdurate,  or  by  habit 
selfish.  The  rule  would  therefore  be  uncertain  and 
dark,  and  entirely  silent  as  to  the  extent  to  which  be- 
neficence is  to  be  carried,  and  whether  there  may  not  be 
exceptions  to  its  exercise  as  to  individuals,  such  as 
enemies,  vicious  persons,  and  strangers. 

Whatever  general  indications  there  may  be  in  the 
acts  of  God,  in  the  constitution  of  human  nature,  or  in 
the  relations  of  society,  that  some  actions  are  according 
to  the  will  of  Ctod,  and  therefore  good,  and  that  others 
are  opposed  to  his  will,  and  therefore  evil ;  it  follows 
then,  that  they  form  a  rule  too  vague  in  itself,  and  too 
liable  to  different  interpretations,  to  place  the  conduct 
of  men  under  adequate  regulation,  even  in  respect  of 
temperance,  justice,  and  beneficence.  But  if  these  and 
other  virtues,  in  their  nicest  shades,  were  indicated  by 
the  tyiies  of  nature,  and  the  manifestations  of  the  will 
of  God  in  his  moral  government,  thcs.' tyi)es  and  this 
moral  government  are  either  eatircU  silent,  or  speak 
equivocally  as  to  subjects  of  vital  importance  to  the 


11 


right  conduct  and  effectual  moral  control,  aJ5  well  as  to 
the  hopes  and  the  happiness  of  man. 

There  is  no  indication,  tor  instance,  in  cither  nature 
or  providence,  that  it  is  the  will  of  (iod  that  his  crea- 
tures should  worsliip  him ;  and  the  moral  effects  of 
adoration,  homage,  and  praise,  on  this  system,  would 
be  lost.  There  is  no  indication  that  (iod  will  be  ap- 
proached in  prayer,  and  this  hope  and  solace  of  man  is 
unprovided  tor.  Nor  is  there  a  suflicieiit  indication  of 
a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punishment ;  because 
there  is  no  indubitable  declaration  of  man's  immorta- 
lity, nor  any  facts  and  principles  so  obvious  as  to  en- 
able us  confidently  to  infer  it.  All  observation  lies 
directly  against  the  doctrine  of  the  immortality  of  man. 
He  dies,  and  the  probabilities  of  a  future  life  which 
have  been  established  upon  the  unequal  distribu- 
tion of  rewards  and  punishments  in  tiiis  life,  and  the 
capacities  of  the  human  soul,  are  a  presumptive  evi- 
dence which  has  been  adduced,  as  we  shall  afterward 
show,  only  by  those  to  whom  the  doctrine  had  been 
trunsmitted  by  tradition,  and  who  were  therefore  in 
jiossession  of  the  idea ;  and,  even  then,  to  have  any 
effectual  force  of  persuasion,  they  must  be  built  upon 
antecedent  principles,  furnished  oiUy  by  the  Revelations 
contained  in  Holy  Scripture.  Hence  some  of  the  wisest 
heathens,  who  were  not  wholly  unaided  in  their  spe- 
culations on  these  subjects  by  the  reflected  light  of 
those  revelations,  confes.sed  themselves  unable  to  come 
to  any  satisfactory  conclusion.  The  doubts  of  So- 
crates, who  expressed  himself  the  most  hopefully  of 
any  on  the  subject  of  a  future  life,  are  well  known  ; 
and  Cicero,  who  occasionally  expatiates  with  so  much 
eloquence  on  tills  topic,  shows  by  the  skeptical  expres- 
sions which  he  throws  in,  that  his  belief  was  by  no 
means  confirmed.(4)  If,  therefore,  without  any  help  from 
direct  or  traditional  instruction,  we  could  go  so  far  as 
they,  it  is  plain  that  our  religious  system  would  be 
deficient  in  all  those  motives  to  virtue  which  arise  from 
the  doctrines  of  man's  accountability  and  a  future  life, 
and  in  that  moral  control  which  such  doctrines  exert; 
the  necessity  of  which,  for  the  moral  government  of 
the  world,  is  snfiiciently  proved  by  the  wickedness 
which  prevails,  even  where  these  doctrines  are  fully 
taught. 

Still  farther,  there  is  nothing  in  those  manifestations 
of  God  and  of  his  will,  which  the  most  attentive  con- 
templatist  can  be  supposed  to  collect  from  his  natural 
works,  and  from  his  sovereign  rule,  to  afford  the  hope 
of  pardon  to  any  one  who  is  conscious  of  having 
offended  him,  or  any  assurance  of  felicity  in  a  future 
state,  should  one  exist. 

Some  consciousness  of  offence  is  felt  by  every  man; 
and  though  he  siiould  not  know  the  precise  nature  or 
extent  of  the  penally  attached  to  transgression,  he  has 
no  reason  to  conclude  that  he  is  under  a  mild  and  fondly 
merciful  government,  and  that  therefore  his  offences 
will  in  course  be  forgiven.  All  observation  and  expe- 
rience lie  against  this ;  and  the  case  is  the  more  alarm- 
ing to  a  considerate  mind,  that  so  little  of  the  sad  infer- 
ence, that  the  hitman  race  is  under  a  rigorous  admi- 
nistration, depends  upon  reasoning  and  opinion :  it  is 
fact  of  common  and  daily  observation.  The  minds  of 
men  are  in  general  a  prey  to  discontent  and  care,  and 
are  agitated  by  various  evil  passions.  The  race  itself 
is  doomed  to  wasting  labours  of  the  body  or  the  mind, 
in  order  to  obtain  subsistence.  Their  employments  are 
for  the  most  part  low  and  grovelling,  in  comparison 
of  the  capacity  of  the  soul  for  intellectual  pleasure  and 
attainments.  The  mental  powers,  though  distributed 
with  great  equality  among  the  various  classes  of  men, 
are  only  in  the  case  of  a  few  individuals  ever  awakened. 
The  pleasures  most  strenuously  sought  are  therefore 
sensual,  degradhig,  and  transient.  Life  itself,  -too,  is 
precarious:  infants  suffer  and  die,  youth  is  blighted, 
and  thus  by  far  the  greater  part  of  inanldnd  is  swept 
away  before  the  prime  of  life  is  attained.  Casualties, 
plagues,  famines,  floods,  and  war  carry  on  the  work  of 
destruction.    In  the  majority  of  states  the  poor  are  op- 


(4)  So  in  his  Tusc.  Quest.  1,  he  says, "  Expone  igitur, 
nisi  mohstiim  est,  primum  ani/iios,  si  potes,remanere 
post  mortem;  turn  si  minus  id  obtinebis  {est  enim 
ardiiv.m),  docebis  carere  omni  malo  mortem.  Show 
me  first,  if  you  can,  and  if  it  be  not  too  troublesome, 
that  souls  remain  after  death  ,  or  if  you  cannot  prove 
that  (lor  it  is  dilliculf),  declare  iiow  there  is  no  evil  in 
death." 


12 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  I. 


jiressrd,  the  rich  arc  insecure,  private  wrone  is  added 
to  public  opprftHsioii,  widows  arc  wrotiged,  orphans  are 
deprived  of  bread,  and  tlie  sick  and  nffed  are  iiecleoted. 
The  very  religions  of  the  world  have  (•oni]>lclerl  human 
■wrelcheduesH  by  obduratin|L'  the  heart,  by  giving  birth 
to  sanguinary  superstitions,' and  by  introducing  a  cor- 
ruption (if  murals  destructive  of  the  very  elements  of 
well-(ii(li;rc'd  society.  Part  of  these  evils  are  pir/itittml 
by  the  Supreme  Governor,  and  pari  (<(//(( /,ii,  eillier  by 
connecting  tlicm  as  conseipienis  to  cert.im  actions,  or 
to  llie  constitution  of  tlie  iialuial  world  more  immedi- 
ately ;  but  wliether  jierinilled  or  inthcted,  tliey  are  pii- 
nitive  acts  of  lus  administration,  and  jirescnt  liim 
before  us,  nolwillislaiidinK  innumerable  instances  of 
his  benevolence,  as  a  Heine  of  "  terrible  majesty ."(5) 

To  remove  in  jiart  the  awful  mystery  which  over- 
hangs such  an  administration,  the  most  sober  Theists 
of  former  times,  ditl'cring  from  the  horde  of  vulgar 
blasphemers  and  metaphysical  Atheists  who  have 
arisen  in  our  own  day,  have  been  ready  to  suppose 
another  state  of  being,  to  which  the  present  has  respect, 
and  which  may  discover  some  means  of  connecting 
this  permission  of  evil  and  this  inlhciion  of  misery 
(often  on  the  apparently  innocent),  with  the  character 
ofa  Governor  of  perfect  wisdom,  eipiuy,  and  t;oodness. 
But  in  jiroportion  as  any  one  feels  hiiiiself  obliged  to 
admit  and  to  expect  a  state  of  future  existence,  lie  must 
fee!  the  necessity  of  being  assunnl  that  it  will  be  a 
felicitous  one.  Yet  should  he  be  conscious  of  frequent 
transgressions  of  the  divine  law,  and  at  the  same  time 
see  it  demonstrated  by  facts  occurring  daily,  that  in  the 
present  life  the  government  of  (iod  is  thus  rigorous, 
the  only  fair  conclusion  to  which  he  can  come  is,  that 
the  Divine  government  will  be  conducted  on  precisely 
the  same  iiriiiciplesin  anotlier;  lor  an  infinitely  perfect 
Iteing  changes  not.  Farther  discoveries  may  then  be 
made  ;  but  they  may  go  only  to  establish  this  jioiiit, 
that  the  apjiarent  severity  of  his  dispensations  in  the 
present  life  are  quite  consistent  with  justice,  and  even 
the  continued  inlliction  of  punishment  with  goodness 
itself,  because  other  moral  agents  rnav  bo  benefited  by 
the  example.  The  idea  of  a  future  life  does  not  there- 
liire  relieve  the  case.  If  it  be  just  that  man  should  be 
jiunislicd  here,  it  may  be  reijuired  by  the  same  just 
regard  to  tlie  princi]ilesof  a  strictly  moral  government, 
that  he  sliould  be  ])Uiiished  hercalter. 

If,  then,  we  are  oft'eiidcrs  ai;uiiist  the  Majesty  of  so 
dread  a  Iteing,  as  the  actual  adimnistration  of  tlie  world 
shows  its  <;overnor  to  be,  it  is  in  the  highest  degree 
necessary,  if  there  he  in  him  a  disposition  to  forgive 
our  olfences,  that  we  should  be  made  acquainted  with 
it,  and  with  the  means  and  conditions  upon  which  his 
placability  can  become  available  to  us.  If  he  is  not  dis- 
posed to  forgive,  we  have  the  greatest  cause  for  alarm  ; 
if  an  inclination  to  forgive  docs  exist  in  the  Divine 
Mind,  there  is  as  strong  a  reason  to  presume  that  it  is 
indicated  to  us  sumt'ii'hire,  as  that  the  Imv  under  which 
we  are  placi'd  should  liavi-  lieen  expressly  promulgated  ; 
and  especially  if  such  a  scheme  of  bestowing  pardon 
has  been  adojited  as  will  Ke<-ure  the  ends  of  moral  go- 
vernment, and  lead  to  our  future  obedience,— the  only 
one  which  wc  can  conceive  to  be  worthy  of  (iod. 

Now  it  is  not  necessary  to  jirove  at  length,  what  is  so 
obvious,  that  if  wv.  had  no  method  of  knowing  the  will 
and  piir|ioscs  of  (Joil,  but  by  inlbrring  them  from  his 
■works  uiid  bis  government,  we  could  liave  no  informa- 
tion as  to  any  jmrpose  in  the  Divine  Mind  lo  forgive  his 
sinning  creatures.  The  Theist,  in  order  to  support  tins 
hope,  dwells  upon  the  proofs  of  the  goodness  of  (iod 
with  which  this  world  abounds,  but  shuts  his  eyes 
\ipon  thedemoiistralionsof  his  severity  ;  y<:t  these  sur- 
round him  as  well  as  the  other,  and  the  argument  from 
the  severity  of  God  is  as  forcible  against  pardon,  as  the 

(5)  "  Some  men  seem  to  think  tlie  only  character  of 
the  Author  of  Nature  to  be  that  of  .Simpli^  Absolute 
Itcnevoli^nci'. — 'I'hcre  may  possibly  be  in  the  creation 
beings  to  whom  he  manifests  Himself  under  this  most 
nmiahle  of  all  characters;  for  it  is  the  most  amiable, 
KU|jposingil  not,  as  perlia]is  it  is  not,  mcompalible  with 
.Instil!!' ;  but  he  manifests  Himself  to  im  as  a  Ilight- 
t'ous  Ciivirimr.  He  may,  coiisistenlly  with  tli!s,  be 
.simply  and  absolutely  benevolent ;  but  he  is,  for  he  has 
Sjivcii  us  a  proof  in  the  constitution  and  conduct  of  the 
•world  that  he  is,  a  (loveriior  over  servants,  as  he  re- 
xvarils  and  punislies  tis  for  our  actions."— Butleu's 


argument  from  his  goodness  is  in  its  favour.  At  the 
best,  it  is  lell  entirely  uncertain ;  a  ground  is  laid  for 
heart-reiidmg  doubts  and  fearful  anticijiations ;  and,  for 
any  thing  he  can  show  to  the  contrarj',  the  goodncsa 
which  (iod  has  displayed  in  nature  and  providence  may 
only  render  the  otlenco  of  man  more  aggravated,  and 
serve  to  slrengthen  the  jiresumption  against  the  for- 
giveness of  a  uilful  ofiender,  rather  than  afford  him 
any  reason  for  hope. 

The  whole  of  this  argument  is  designed  to  prove, 
that  had  we  been  left,  lor  the  regulation  of  our  conduct, 
lo  infer  the  will  and  jmrjioses  of  the  Supreme  Being 
from  liis  natural  works,  and  his  administration  of  the 
affairs  of  the  world,  our  knowledge  of  both  would 
have  been  ewsciitially  delicient  ;  and  it  establishes  a 
strong  presunqition  in  favour  of  a  direct  revelation  from 
God  to  his  creatures,  that  neither  his  will  concerning 
us,  nor  the  hope  of  forgiveness,  might  be  left  to  dark  and 
uncertain  inference,  but  be  the  subjects  of  an  express 
declaration. 


CHAPTER  III. 

Farther  Presumption  op  a  direct  Rkvelatiok, 
fr(nn  the  Weakness  and  Corruption  of  human  Rea- 
son, atul  the  Want  of  Authority  in  merely  human 
Opinions. 

If  we  should  allow  that  a  perfect  reason  exercised  in 
contemplating  the  naturitl  works  of  (iod  and  the  course 
of  his  moral  government  imglit  rnriiisb  us,  by  means 
of  an  accurate  process  of  induction,  with  a  sufiicient 
rule  to  determine  the  quality  of  moral  actions,  and  with 
sufiicient  motives  to  obedience,  jet  the  case  would  not 
be  altered  ;  for  that  perfect  reason  is  not  lo  be  found 
among  men.  It  would  be  useless  to  urge  upon  those 
who  deny  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  as  to  the  fall  of  man, 
that  his  understanding  and  reason  are  weakened  by  the 
deterioration  of  his  whole  intellectual  nature.  But  it 
will  be  quite  as  apposite  to  the  argument  to  state  a  fact 
not  to  be  controverted,  that  the  reasoning  powers  of 
men  greatly  differ  in  strength  ;  and  that  from  premises, 
which  all  must  allow  to  be  somewhat  obscure,  dilferent 
inferences  would  inevitably  be  (h^awn.  Either  then  the 
Divine  law  would  be  what  every  man  might  take  it  to 
be,  and,  by  consequence,  a  variable  rule,  a  position 
which  cannot  surely  be  maintained ;  or  many  per.sons 
must  fail  of  duly  apprehending  it.  And  thoiigb  in  this 
case  it  should  be  contended,  that  he  is  not  iniiiisluible 
who  obeys  the  law  as  far  as  he  knows  it,  yet  surely  the 
ends  of  a  steady  and  wisely  formed  plan  of  general  go- 
vernment would  on  this  ground  be  frustrated.  The 
presumption  here  also  must  therefore  be  in  favour  of  an 
express  declaration  of  the  will  of  (iod,  in  terms  which 
the  common  undrrst.iiiilingsot'  men  iiia\  apprehend,  as 
the  only  means  by  which  siitlicicnt  moral  (hrection  can 
be  given,  and  rlli'ctual  control  exerted. 

Thenolloii,  that  by  rational  induction  the  will  of  God 
may  be  inferred  from  Ins  acts  in  a  sufficient  degree  for 
every  purjio.se  of  moral  direction,  is  farther  vitiated  by 
its  assuming  that  men  in  general  are  so  contemplative 
in  their  habits  as  to  pursue  such  inquiries  with  interest; 
and  so  well  disposed  as  in  most  cases  to  make  them 
with  honesty.    Neither  of  these  is  true. 

The  mass  of  mankind  neither  are,  nor  ever  have  been, 
contiunphilivc,  and  must  therelbre,  if  not  otherwise 
insinicted,  remain  iL'iioraiil  of  theirduty ;  for  questions 
of  virtue,  morals,  and  religion,  as  ni.ay  be  shown  tVom 
the  contentions  of  the  wisest  of  men,  do  not  for  the 
most  jiart  lie  level  to  the  minds  of  the  populace,  without 
a  revelation. ((5) 

(fi)  "If  rinlosophy  had  gone  farther  than  it  did,  and 
from  undeniable  prinei)ilcs  given  us  Ethics  in  a  science, 
like  Mathematics,  in  every  part  demonstrable,  this  yet 
would  not  have  been  so  ofTcctual  to  man  in  tliis  imper- 
fect state,  nor  pnqier  for  \\w  cure.  The  greatest  part 
of  mankind  want  leisure  or  capacity  for  ihMiionstration, 
nor  can  carry  a  tr.ain  of  proofs,  whiih  in  that  way  thoy 
must  always  deiiend  upon  for  conviciion.  and  cannot  be 
iiMpiired  to  assent  to  till  they  see  the  demon.'^t ration. 
W  herevtr  they  stick,  the  teachers  are  alwa\s  put  upon 
prool,  and  must  clear  the  doubt  by  a  thread  of  coherent 
deiluctioiis  from  the  first  jirinciple,  how  long  or  how 
iiitrlcale  soever  that  be.  And  you  may  as  soon  hope  to 
have  all  the  day-labourers  and  tradesmen,  the  spinatcrs 


Chap.  V.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


13 


It  is  equally  a  matter  of  undoubted  fact,  that  in  all 
questions  of  morals  which  restrain  the  vices,  passions, 
and  immediate  interests  of  men,  conviction  is  generally 
resisted,  and  the  rule  is  brought  down  to  the  practice, 
rather  than  the  practice  raised  to  the  rule;  so  that  the 
most  flimsy  sophisms  are  admitted  as  argunienis,  and 
principles  the  most  lax  displace  those  of  rigid  rectitude 
and  virtue.  This  is  matter  of  daily  obsiivation,  and 
cannot  he  denied.  The  irresistible  inference  from  this 
is,  that,  at  least,  the  great  body  of  mankind,  not  being 
accustomed  to  intellectual  exercises  ;  not  having  even 
leisure  lor  them  on  account  of  their  being  doomed  to  sordid 
labours ;  and  not  being  di.sposed  to  conduct  the  investiga- 
tion with  care  and  accuracy,  would  never  become  ac- 
quainted with  the  will  of  the  Supreme  Governor,  if  the 
knowledge  of  it  were  onl  y  to  be  obtained  from  habi  tual  ob- 
servation  and  reasoning.  Should  it  be  said,  "  that  the  in- 
tellectual and  instructed  part  of  mankind  ought  to  teach 
the  rest,"  it  may  be  replied,  that  even  that  would  be 
dilKcult,  because  their  own  knowledge  mu.st  be  com- 
municated to  others  by  the  same  process  of  diliicult 
induction  through  which  they  attain  it  themselves,  or 
rational  conviction  could  not  be  produced  in  the  minds 
of  the  learners.  The  task  would  therefore  be  hopeless 
as  to  the  majority,  both  from  their  want  of  time  and 
intellectual  capacity.  But,  if  practicable,  the  Thcistical 
system  has  no  provision  tor  such  instruction.  It  neither 
makes  it  the  duty  of  some  to  teach,  nor  of  others  to 
learn.  It  has  no  authorized  teachers ;  no  day  of  rest 
from  labour,  on  which  to  collect  the  auditors  ;  no  au- 
thorized religious  ordinances  by  which  moral  truth  may 
be  brought  home  to  the  ears  and  the  hearts  of  men  : 
and,  if  it  had,  its  best  knowledge  being  rather  contained 
in  difTuse  and  hesitating  speculation,  than  concentrated 
in  maxims  and  first  principles,  imbodied  in  a  few  plain 
words,  which  at  once  indicate  some  master  mind  fully 
adequate  to  the  whole  subject,  and  suddenly  irradiate 
the  understandings  of  the  most  listless  and  illiterate, — it 
would  be  taught  in  vain. 

Let  us  however  suppose  the  truth  discovered,  the 
teachers  of  it  appointed,  and  days  for  the  cduiniuiiication 
of  instruction  set  apart.  With  what  aiithonlu  would 
these  teachers  be  invested  7  They  plead  no  commission 
from  Him  whose  will  they  affect  to  teach,  and  they 
work  no  miracles  in  confirmation  of  the  truth  of  their 
doctrine.  That  doctrine  cannot,  from  the  nature  of 
things,  be  mathematically  demonstrated  so  as  to  enforce 
conviction,  and  it  would  therefore  be  considered,  and 
justly  considered,  as  the  opinion  of  the  teacher,  and 
nothing  but  an  opinion  to  which  every  one  might  hsten 
or  not  without  any  consciousness  of  violating  an  obli- 
gation, and  which  every  one  might  and  would  receive 
as  his  own  judgment  agreed  with  or  dissented  from  his 
unauthorized  teacher,  or  as  his  interests  and  passions 
might  commend  or  disparage  the  doctrine  so  taught. (7) 

and  dairy-maids,  perfect  mathematicians,  as  to  have 
them  perfect  in  etliics  this  way  :  having  plain  coininamls 
is  the  sure  and  only  course  to  bring  them  to  obedience 
and  practice  :  the  greatest  part  cannot  know,  and  there- 
fore they  must  believe.  And  I  a.sk,  whether  one  coming 
from  heaven  in  the  power  of  God,  in  full  and  clear  evi- 
dence and  demonstration  of  miracle.s,  giving  plain  and 
direct  rules  of  morality  and  obedience,  be  not  likelier  to 
enlighten  the  bulk  of  mankind,  and  set  them  right  in 
their  duties,  and  bring  them  to  do  thern,  than  by  rea- 
soning with  them  from  general  notions  and  princi- 
ples of  human  reason  1"— Locke'^  Reasonableness  of 
Christianity. 

(7)  "Let  it  be  granted  (though  not  true)  that  all  the 
moral  prece))ts  of  the  Gospel  were  known  by  somebody 
or  other  among  mankind  before.  But  where,  or  how, 
or  of  what  use,  is  not  considered.  Suppose  they  may 
be  picked  up,  here  and  there;  some  from  Soi.on,  and 
Bias,  in  Greece  ;  others  from  Ti'lly  in  Italy,  and,  to 
complete  the  work,  let  Confucius  as  far  as  China  be 
consulted,  and  xVnacharsis  the  Scytliian  contribute  his 
share.  What  will  all  this  do  to  give  the  world  a  com- 
plete morality,  thai  maybe  to  mankind  the  unques- 
tionable rule  of  life  and  manners  ?  What  would  this 
amount  to  towards  being  a  steady  rule,  a  certain  tran- 
script of  a  law  that  we  are  under  ?  Did  the  .layinij  of 
Aristippus  or  Coniucius  give  it  an  authority  7  Was 
Zkno  a  lawgiver  to  mankind  1  If  not,  what  he  or  any 
other  philosopher  delivered  was  but  a  saying  of  lux. 
Mankind  might  hearken  to  it,  or  r-iect  it,  as  they 
pleased,  or  as  it  suited  their  interest,  passions,  princi- 


Facts  are  sufKciently  in  proof  of  this.  The  sages  of 
antiijuity  were  moral  teachers ;  they  tbtmded  schools ; 
they  collected  disciples ;  they  platted  their  fame  in  their 
wisdom ;  yet  there  was  little  agreement  among  them, 
even  upon  the  first  principles  of  religion  and  morals; 
and  they  neither  generally  refbnn<(l  their  own  hves  nor 
tho.se  of  others.  This  is  acknowledged  by  Cicero : — 
"Do  you  tliink  that  these  things  had  any  hifluence 
upon  the  men  (a  very  few  excepted)  who  thought,  and 
wrote,  and  disputed  about  them?  Who  is  there  of  all 
the  philosophers,  whose  mind,  life,  and  manners  were 
conformable  to  right  reason  ?  Who  ever  made  his  phi- 
lo.sophy  the  law  and  rule  of  his  life,  and  not  a  mere 
show  of  his  wit  and  parts  ?  Who  observed  his  own 
instructions,  and  lived  in  obedience  to  his  owii  pre- 
cepts ?  On  the  contrary,  many  of  them  were  slaves  to 
filthy  lusts,  many  to  pride,  many  to  covetousness," 
&c.(8) 

Such  a  system  of  moral  direction  and  control,  then, 
could  it  be  formed,  would  bear  no  comparison  to  that 
wliich  is  provided  by  direct  and  external  revelation,  of 
which  the  doctrine,  though  delivered  by  different  men, 
in  different  ages,  is  consentaneous  throughout ;  which 
is  rendered  authoritative  by  divine  attestation  ;  which 
consists  in  clear  and  legislative  enunciation,  and  not  in 
human  speculation  and  laborious  inference ;  of  which 
the  teachers  were  as  holy  as  their  doctrine  was  sub- 
lime ;  and  which  in  all  ages  has  exerted  a  powerful 
moral  influence  upon  the  conduct  of  men.  "  I  know 
of  but  one  Phitdo  and  one  rolenion  tliroughout  all 
Greece,"  saith  Origen,  "  who  were  ever  made  better 
by  their  philosophy  ;  whereas  Christianity  hath  brought 
back  its  myriads  from  vice  to  virtue." 

All  these  considerations,  then,  still  farther  support 
the  presumption  that  the  will  of  G'od  has  been  the  sub- 
ject of  express  revelation  to  man,  because  such  a  decla- 
ration of  it  is  the  only  one  which  can  be  conceived 
ADEQUATK  ;  complete;  ok  common  appkeuension  ; 

SUFFICIENTLY     AUTHORITATIVE;     AND     ADAPTED     TO 
THE    CIRCUMSTANCES    OF   MANKIND. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Farther  Proofs  of  the  Weakness  and  Uncer- 
tainty OF  Human  Reason. 

The  opinion  that  sufficient  notices  of  the  will  and 
purposes  of  God  with  respect  to  man,  may  be  collected 
by  rational  induction  from  his  works  and  government, 
attributes  too  much  to  the  power  of  human  reason  and 
the  circumstances  under  wliich,  in  that  case,  it  must 
necessarily  commence  its  exercise. 

Human  reason  must  be  taken,  as  it  is  in  fact,  a  weak 
and  erring  facidty,  and  as  subject  to  have  its  operations 
suspended  or  disturbed  by  the  intluence  of  vicious  prin- 
ciples and  attachment  to  earthly  things;  neither  of 
which  can  be  denied,  however  differently  they  may  be 
accounted  for. 

It  is  another  consideration  of  importance,  that  the 
exercise  of  rea.son  is  limited  by  our  knowledge ;  ui 
otiier  words,  that  it  must  be  furnished  with  subjects 
which  it  may  arrange,  compare,  and  judge  ;  for  beyond 
what  it  clearly  conceives  its  power  does  not  extend. 

It  does  not  follow,  that,  because  many  doctrines  in 
religion  and  many  rules  in  morals  carry  clear  and  de- 
cided conviction  to  the  judgment  instantly  upon  their 
being  proposed,  ihey  were  discoverable,  in  the  Jirst 
instance,  by  rational  induction ;  any  more  than  that  the 
great  and  simple  truths  of  philosophy,  whicli  hiivebeen 
brought  to  light  bytheeflbrtsof  menof  suiniiur  itjinds, 
were  witliin  the  compass  of  ordinary  underst:iiidiiigs  ; 


pies,  or  humours  : — they  were  under  no  obligation :  the 
opinion  of  this  or  that  philosopher  was  of  no  author- 
ity."—  Locke's  Reasonableness,  \c. 

"  The  truths  which  the  philosophers  proved  by  specu- 
lative Reason  were  destitute  of  some  more  sensible 
authority  to  back  them ;  and  the  pr(tcepts  which  they 
laid  doivn,  how  reasonable  soever  in  themselves, 
seemed  still  to  want  weight,  and  to  be  no  more  than 
precepts  of  men."— />!■.  Sam.  (Clarke. 

(8)  Sed  hsc  eadcm  num  censes  s))ud  eos  ipsos  valere, 
nisi  admodum  paucos,  a  quibus  inventa,  disputata, 
conscripta  sunt  ?  Quotus  eiiim  quisque  philosophorum 
invenitur,  qui  sit  Ha  moratus,  ita  aniino  ac  vita  coiiati- 
tutus,  ut  ratio  postulat !  &c.~7'iw(c;.  Q.u,est.  2. 


14 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  I. 


because,  after  they  were  revealed  by  those  who  made 
the  discovery,  they  instantly  cominandi  1 1  tlic  assent  of 
almost  all  to  whom  they  were  ijropo-  -a  The  very 
first  princii)Ics  of  what  is  called  natural  i,  iiuioii(9)  are 
probably  of  1  his  kind.  The  reason  of  nian,  though  it 
Bhould  assent  to  them,  thoujih  the  i!c  noiistration  of 
them  should  be  now  easy,  may  be  iiiduhted  even  for 
them  to  I  he  revelation  of  a  superior  mind,  and  that 
mind  the  mind  of  Ciod.(l) 

This  is  rcnilered  the  more  probable,  inasmuch  as  the 
preat  principles  of  all  religion,  the  existent*  of  (Jod, 
the  immortality  ot  the  human  soul,  the  accountablem^ss 
of  man,  the  good  or  evil  (juality  of  the  most  important 
moral  actions,  have  by  none  who  have  written  upon 
them,  by  no  legislator,  poet,  or  sage  of  antiquity,  how- 
ever ancient,  been  represented  as  discoveries  made 
by  them  in  the  course  of  rational  investigation ;  but 
they  are  spoken  of  as  things  commonly  known  among 


(9)  The  term  Natiiral  Religion  is  often  used  equivo- 
cally. "  Some  understand  by  it  every  thing  in  religion 
with  regard  to  truih  and  duty,  which,  when  once  dis- 
covered, may  be  clearly  shown  to  have  a  real  founda- 
tion in  the  natu'eand  relations  of  things,  and  which 
uniircjudiceil  rerisui;  \\\\\  approve,  when  fairly  proposed 
and  sot  in  a  propci-  :^  jht ;  and  accordingly  very  lUir  and 
goodly  schemes  of  Natural  Keligion  have  been  drawn 
up  by  Christian  piiilosophers  and  divines,  in  which  they 
have  comprehended  a  considerable  part  of  what  is  con- 
tained in  the  Scripture  Revelation.  In  this  view.  Na- 
tural Religion  is  not  so  called  because  it  was  originally 
disi^overed  by  natural  reason  ;  but  because,  when  once 
known,  it  is  what  the  reason  of  mankind  duly  exer- 
cised approves,  as  founded  in  truth  and  nature.  Others 
take  Natural  Religion  to  signify  that  religion  which 
men  discover  in  the  sole  exercise  of  their  natural  facul- 
ties, without  liigher  assistance." — Leland. 

(1)  "  When  truths  are  once  known  to  us,  though  by 
tmdilion,  we  arc  apt  to  be  favourable  to  our  own  parts, 
and  ascribe  to  our  own  understanding  the  discovery  of 
what,  in  reality,  we  borrowed  from  others;  or,  at  least, 
finding  we  can  prove  what  at  first  we  learned  from 
others,  we  arc  forward  to  conclude  it  an  obvious  truth, 
which,  if  we  had  sought,  we  could  not  have  missed. 
Nothing  seems  hard  to  our  understandings  that  is  once 
known ;  and  because  what  we  see,  we  see  with  our 
own  eyes,  we  are  apt  to  overlook  or  forget  the  help  we 
had  from  others  who  showed  it  us,  and  first  made  us 
see  it,  as  if  we  were  not  at  all  beholden  to  them  for 
those  truths  they  opened  the  way  to  and  led  us  into ; 
for  knowledge  being  only  of  truths  that  are  perceived 
to  he  so,  we  are  favourable  enough  to  onr  own  facul- 
ties to  conclude  that  they,  of  their  own  strength,  would 
have  attained  those  discoveries  without  any  foreign 
assistance,  and  that  we  know  those  truths  by  the 
strength  and  native  light  of  our  own  minds,  as  they  did 
fl-om  whom  we  received  them  by  theirs  ;  only  they  had 
the  luck  to  be  before  us.  Thus  the  whole  stock  of 
human  knowleilge  is  claimed  by  every  one  as  his  |)ri- 
vate  possession,  as  soon  as  he  (profiting  by  others' dis- 
coveries) has  got  it  into  his  own  mind:  and  so  it  is; 
but  not  properly  by  his  own  single  industry,  nor  of  his 
own  acquisition.  lie  studies,  it  is  true,  and  takes 
])aiiis  to  make  a  i)rogress  in  what  others  have  delivered ; 
but  their  |i;ims  were  of  another  sort  who  first  brought 
those  truths  to  light  which  ho  alterv^rard  derives  froin 
them.  He  that  travels  the  roads  now  ai)plauds  liis 
own  strength  and  legs  that  have  carried  him  so  lar 
in  such  a  scantling  of  time,  and  ascribes  all  to  his  own 
vigour;  little  con.sidering  how  much  he  owes  to  their 
pains  who  cleared  tlie  woods,  drained  the  bogs,  built 
the  bndges,  and  made  the  ways  passable,  without 
which  he  might  have  toiled  much  with  little  progress. 
A  great  many  things  which  we  have  been  bred  up  in 
th(!  bidief  of  from  our  cradles,  and  are  now  grown  fami- 
liar (and,  as  it  were,  natural  to  us  under  the  Gospel), 
We  take  for  umjuestionable,  obvious  truths,  and  easily 
demonstrable,  without  considering  how  long  we  might 
have  been  in  doubt  or  ignorance  of  them  had  revela- 
tion been  silent.  And  many  others  arc  beholden  to 
revelation  who  do  not  acknowledge  it.  It  is  no  dimi- 
nishing to  rc^velation,  that  reason  gives  its  suffrage  too 
to  the  truths  revelation  hits  ihscovcred  ;  but  it  is  our 
mistake  to  think,  that,  because  reason  confirms  Ihem 
to  us,  we  hud  the  first  certain  knowledge  of  them  from 
thence,  and  in  that  clear  evidence  we  now  [lossess 
them." — LoflvU. 


men,  which  they  propose  to  defend,  explain,  demon- 
strate, or  deny,  ai-cording  to  their  reK|H>ctive  opinions. 
If  we  overlook  the  insjiiration  of  the  w  riiings  of  Moses, 
they  command  respect  as  the  most  aiicitut  records  in 
the  world,  and  as  imbodying  the  religious  dpimons  of 
the  earliest  ages ;  but  Moses  nowhere  jm  ttiiils  to  be 
the  author  of  any  of  these  fundamiiital  truths,  'i'he 
book  of  Genesis  o|)eiis  with  the  words,  "  In  l)u  brsm- 
nini;  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth  ;"h\ii  here 
the  term  "  (Jod"'  is  used  familiarly ;  and  it  is  taken  for 
granted,  that  both  the  name  and  the  idea  conveyed  by 
it  were  commonly  received  by  the  people  for  whom 
Moses  wrote. 

The  same  writer  gives  the  history  of  ages  much 
higher  than  liis  own,  and  introduces  the  Patriarchs  of 
the  human  race  holding  conversations  with  one  an- 
other, in  which  the  leading  subjects  of  religion  and 
morals  are  of^en  incidentally  introduced;  but  they  are 
never  presented  to  us  in  the  form  of  discussion ;  no 
Patriarch,  however  high  liis  antiquity,  represents  him- 
self as  the  discoverer  of  these  first  principles,  though 
he  might,  as  Noah,  be  a  "  preacher"  of  that  "  righteous- 
ness" which  was  established  upon  them.  Moses  men- 
tions the  antediluvians,  who  were  inventors  of  the  arts 
of  working  metals,  and  of  forming  and  playing  upon 
musical  instruments;  but^he  introduces  no  one  as  the 
inventor  of  any  branch  of  moral  or  religious  science, 
though  they  are  so  much  superior  in  imiK)rtance  to 
mankind. 

In  farther  illustration  it  may  be  observe.d,  that,  in 
point  of  fact,  those  views  on  the  subject  just  mentioned, 
which,  to  the  reason  of  all  sober  Theists,  since  the 
Christian  revelation  was  given,  appear  the  most  clear 
and  satisfactory,  have  been  liiuiul  nowhere  since  pa- 
triarchal times,  except  in  the  Scn)iiiircs,  which  profess 
to  iinbody  the  true  religious  traditions  and  revelations 
of  all  ages,  or  among  those  whose  reason  derived  prin- 
ciples from  these  revelations,  on  which  to  establish  its 
inferences. 

We  generally  think  it  a  truth  easily  and  convincingly 
demonstrated,  that  there  is  a  (Jod,  and  yet  many  of  the 
philosophers  of  antKpiity  speak  doubtingly  on  this 
point,  and  some  of  them  denied  it.  At  the  jiresent  day, 
not  merely  a  few  speculative  jihilosoplicrs  in  the  hea- 
then world,  but  the  many  millions  of  the  human  race 
who  profess  the  religion  of  liiidhu,  not  only  deny  a 
Supreme  First  Cause,  but  dispute  with  subtlety  and 
vehemence  against  the  doctrine. 

We  feel  that  our  reason  rests  with  full  satisfaction 
in  the  doctrine  that  all  things  are  created  by  one  eternal 
and  self-e.vistent  Being;  but  the  Greek  philo.sophers 
held  that  matter  was  eternally  coexistent  with  (iod. 
This  was  the  opinion  of  Plato,  who  has  been  called  the 
Moses  of  philosojihers.  Through  the  whole  "  Tirnanis" 
Plato  supposes  two  eternal  and  independent  causes  of 
all  things :  one,  that  by  which  all  things  are  made, 
which  is  Gorf;  the  other,  thai  from  which  all  things 
are  made,  which  is  matter.  Dr.  Cudworlh  has  in  vain 
attempted  to  clear  Plato  of  this  charge.  The  learned 
Dr.  Thomas  Burnet,  who  was  well  acquainted  with 
the  oiiinions  of  the  ancients,  says,  that  "  the  Ionic,  Py- 
thagoric,  Platonic,  and  Stoic  schools  all  agreed  in  as- 
serting the  eternity  of  matter ;  and  that  the  doctrine 
that  matter  was  created  out  of  nothing,  scms  to  have 
been  unknown  to  the  philosophers,  ami  is  one  of  which 
they  had  no  notion."  Aristotle  assirlcd  tin-  <ternity  of 
the  world,  both  in  matter  am\/orm  too,  which  was  but 
an  easy  deduction  from  the  former  principle,  and  is 
suiriciently  in  proof  of  its  Atheistical  tendency. 

The  same  doctrine  was  extensively  spread  at  a  very 
ancient  period  throughout  the  East,  and  jilaiidy  lakes 
away  a  great  part  of  the  foundation  of  tliosu  argu- 
ments for  the  existence  of  a  Supn'ine  Deity,  on  which 
the  moderns  have  so  confidently  rested  lor  the  demon- 
stration of  the  existence  of  (iodby  rational  induction, 
whether  drawn  from  the  works  of  nature  or  from 
metaphysical  princijiles  ;  so  much  arc  those  ablo  works 
which  have  been  written  on  this  subject  iiidebled  to 
that  revelation  on  which  their  auilmrs  too  often  close 
their  eyes,  for  the  very  ba.ies  on  whiidi  their  most  con- 
vincing arguments  are  built.  The  same  Atheistical 
results  lojjically  followed  from  the  ancient  Magian  doc- 
trine of  two  denial  principles,  one  good,  and  the  other 
evil ;  a  nolion  which  also  infected  the  Greek  schools, 
as  appears  from  the  e.\ample  of  Plutarch,  and  the  in- 
stances adduced  by  birn. 

No  one,  ciilightcfied  by  the  Scriptures,  whether  he 


Chap.  IV] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


l! 


aiknowledges  his  obligations  to  them  or  not,  has  ever 
been  betrayed  into  so  greal  an  absurdity  as  to  deny  the 
indiciduality  of  tlio  tiuinan  soul ;  and  yet,  where  the 
light  of  revelation  has  not  spread,  absurd  and  destruc- 
tive to  morals  as  tliis  notion  is,  it  very  extensively  pre- 
vails. The  opinion  that  tlie  human  soul  is  a  part  of 
t;od,  enclosed  for  a  short  time  in  matter,  but  still  a  por- 
tion of  his  essence,  runs  through  much  of  the  Greek 
Philosophy.  It  is  still  more  ancient  than  that,  and,  at 
the  present  day,  the  same  opinion  destroys  all  idea  of 
accountability  among  those  who  in  India  follow  the 
Brahminicar system.  "The  human  soul  is  God,  and 
the  acts  of  the  human  .soul  are  therefore  the^acts  of 
God."  This  is  the  popular  arginnent  by  which  their 
crimes  are  justified. 

The  doctrine  of  one  Supreme,  All-wise,  and  tlncon- 
trollable  Providence  commends  itself  to  our  reason  as 
one  of  the  noblest  and  most  supporting  of  truths ;  but 
we  are  not  to  overlook  the  source  from  whence  even 
those  draw  it  who  think  the  reason  of  man  equal  to 
its  full  developement.  So  far  were  pagans  from  being 
able  to  conceive  so  lofly  a  thought,  that  the  wisest  of 
them  invented  subordinate  agents  to  carry  on  the  af- 
fairs of  the  world ;  beings  often  divided  among  them- 
selves, and  subject  to  human  passions ;  thereby  de- 
stroying the  doctrine  of  providence,  and  taking  away 
the  very  foundation  of  human  Xxxv^i  in  a  Supreme 
Power.  This  invention  of  subordinate  deities  gave 
birth  to  idolatry,  which  is  sufficiently  in  proof  both  of 
its  extent  and  antiquity. 

The  beautiful  and  well-sustained  series  of  arguments 
which  have  often  in  modern  times  been  brought  to 
support  the  presumption  "  that  the  human  soul  is  im- 
mortal," may  be  read  with  profit ;  but  it  is  not  to  be 
accounted  for,  that  those  who  profess  to  confine  them- 
selves to  human  reason  in  the  inquiry,  should  argue 
with  so  much  greater  strength  than  the  philosophers 
of  ancient  times,  except  that  they  have  received  assist- 
ance from  a  source  which  they  are  unfair  enough  not 
to  acknowledge.  Some  fine  passages  on  this  subject 
may  be  collected  from  Plato,  Cicero,  Seneca,  and  others 
but  we  must  take  them  with  others  which  express 
sometimes  doubt  and  sometimes  unbeUef.  With  us 
this  is  a  matter  of  general  belief;  but  not  so  with  the 
generality  of  either  ancient  or  modern  pagans.  The 
same  darkness  which  obscured  the  glory  of  God,  pro- 
portionably  diminished  the  glory  of  man, — his  true  and 
proper  immortality.  The  very  ancient  notion  of  an 
absorption  of  souls  back  again  into  the  Divme  Essence 
was  with  the  ancients,  what  we  knovv  it  to  be  now  in 
the  metaphysical  system  of  the  Hindoos,  a  denial  of 
individual  immortality  ;  nor  have  the  demonstrations 
of  reason  done  any  thing  to  convince  the  other  grand 
division  of  metaphysical  pagans  into  which  modern 
heatheni.sm  is  divided,  the  followers  of  IJudhu,  who 
believe  in  the  total  annihilation  both  of  men  and  gods 
after  a  series  of  ages, — a  point  of  faith  held  jirobably 
by  the  majority  of  the  present  race  of  mankind. (2) 


(2)  "  The  religion  of  Budhu,''  says  Dr.  Davy,  "  is 
more  widely  extended  than  any  other  religion.  It  ap- 
pears to  be  the  religion  of  the  whole  of  Tartary,  of 
China,  of  Japan,  and  their  dependencies,  and  of  all  the 
countries  between  China  and  the  Burrampooter. 

"  The  Budhists  do  not  believe  in  the  existence  of  a 
Supreme  Being,  self-existent  and  eternal,  the  Crea- 
tor and  Preserver  of  the  Universe ;  indeed,  it  is  doubt- 
ftil  if  they  believe  in  the  existence  and  operation  of  any 
cause  besides  fate  and  necessity,  to  which  they  seem 
to  refer  all  changes  iu  the  moral  and  physical  world. 
They  appear  to  be  materialists  ui  the  strictest  sense  of 
the  term,  and  to  have  no  notion  of  pure  spirit  or  rnind. 
Prune  and  hitta,  life  and  intelligence,  the  most  learned 
of  them  appear  to  consider  identical  :  seated  in  the 
heart,  radiating  from  thence  to  different  parts  of  the 
body,  like  heat  from  a  fire ;  uncreated,  without  begin- 
ning, at  least  that  they  know  of;  capable  of  being  mo- 
dified by  a  variety  of  circumstances,  Uke  the  breath  in 
dfflTerent  musical  instruments ;— and  like  a  vapour,  ca- 
pable of  passing  from  one  body  to  another; — and  like 
a  flame,  liable  to  be  extinguished  and  totally  annihi- 
lated. Gods,  demons,  men,  reptiles,  even  the  mmutest 
and  most  imperfect  animalcules,  they  consider  as  simi- 
lar beings,  formed  of  the  four  elements — heat,  air,  wa- 
ter, and  that  which  is  tangible,  and  animated  by  prune 
and  hitta.  They  believe  that  a  man  may  become  a  gorl 
or  a  demon ;  or  that  a  god  may  become  a  man  or  an  aul- 


These  instances  might  be  enlarged ;  but  they  amply 
show  that  they  who  speak  of  the  sufficiency  of  human 
reason  in  matters  of  morals  and  religion  neglect  almost 
all  the  facts  which  the  history  of  human  oi)inion  furnish- 
es ;  and  that  they  owe  all  tlieir  best  views  to  tluit  liiun- 
tain  of  inspiration  from  which  they  so  irMiiiiially  turn 
aside.  For  how  otherwise  can  the  instances  we  have  just 
mentioned  be  explained  ?  and  how  is  it  that  those  fun- 
damental principles  in  morals  and  religion,  which  mo- 
dern philosophers  have  exhibited  as  demonstrable  by 
the  unassisted  powers  of  the  human  mind,  were  either 
held  doubtfully,  or  connected  with  some  manifest  ab- 
surdity, or  utterly  denied  by  the  wisest  moral  teachers 
among  the  Gentiles,  who  lived  before  the  Christian 
revelation  was  given  ">  They  had  the  same  works  of 
God  to  behold,  and  the  same  course  of  providence  to 
reason  from,  to  neither  of  which  were  they  inattentive. 
Tliey  had  intellectual  endowments,  w-hich  have  been 
the  admiration  of  all  subsequent  ages  ;  and  their  rea- 
son was  rendered  acute  and  discriminative  by  the  disci- 
pline of  mathematical  and  dialectic  science.  They 
liad  every  thing  which  the  moderns  have  except  the 
Bible  ;  and  yet  on  points  wliich  have  been  generally 
settled  among  the  moral  philosophers  of  our  own  age 
as  fundamental  to  ilatural  religion,  they  had  no  just 
views  and  no  settled  conviction.  "  The  various  appre- 
hensions of  wise  men,"  says  Cicero,  "  will  justify  the 
doublings  and  demurs  of  skeptics,  and  it  will  then  be 
sufficient  to  blame  them,  si  out  consenserint  alii,  aut 
erit  inventus  aliquis,  qiii  rjuid  i^ernm  sit  invenerit, 
when  others  agree,  or  any  one  has  found  out  the  truth. 
We  say  not  that  nothing  is  true ;  but  that  some  false 
things  are  annexed  to  all  that  is  true,  tanta  similitu- 
dine  lit  iis  nulla  sit  certa  judicandi,  et  assentiendi 
nota,  and  that  wath  so  much  likeness,  that  there  is  no 
certain  note  of  judging  what  is  true,  or  assenting  to  it. 
We  deny  not,  that  something  may  be  true  ;  percipi 
posse  negamus,  but  we  deny  that  it  can  be  perceived 
so  to  be  :  for,  ([uid  hahemtis  in  rebus  bonis  et  malis  ex- 
plorati,  what  have  we  certain  concerning  good  and 
evil  ?  Nor  for  this  are  we  to  be  blamed,  but  nature, 
which  has  hidden  the  truth  in  the  deep,  natunun  ac- 
eusa  qu<B  in  profunda  veritatem  penitus  abstru- 
serit.'\3) 

On  this  subject  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke,  though  so  great 
an  advocate  of  natural  religion,  concedes,  that  "  of  the 
philosophers,  some  argued  themselves  out  of  the  belief 
of  the  very  being  of  a  God  ;  some  by  ascribing  all  things 
to  chance,  others  to  absolute  fatality,  equally  subverted 
all  true  notions  of  religions,  and  made  the  doctrine  of 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead  and  a  futwre  judgment 
needless  and  impossible.  Some  professed  open  im- 
morality, others,  by  subtle  distinctions  patronised  par- 
ticular vices.  The  better  sort  of  them,  who  were  most 
celebrated,  discoursed  with  the  greatest  reason,  yet 
with  much  uncertainty  and  doubtfulness,  concerning 
things  of  the  liighest  importance, — the  providence  of 
God  in  governing  the  world,  the  immortality  of  the 
so7il,  and  a  future  judgment." 

If  such  facts  prove  the  weakness  and  insufficiency 
of  human  reason,  those  just  thoughts  respecting  God, 
his  providence,  Ms  will,  and  a  future  state,  which 
sometimes  appear  in  the  writings  of  the  wisest  heathen, 
are  not  however,  on  the  contrary,  to  be  attributed  to  its 
strength.  Even  if  they  were,  the  argument  for  the 
sufficiency  of  reason  would  not  be  much  advanced 
thereby ;  for  the  case  would  then  be,  that  the  reason 
which  occasionally  reached  the  truth  had  not  firmnesa 
enough  to  hold  it  fast,  and  the  pinion  which  sometimes 
bore  the  mind  into  fields  of  light  could  not  maintain 
it  in  its  elevation.  But  it  cannot  even  be  admitted,  that 
the  truth  which  occasionally  breaks  forth  in  their  works 
was  the  discovery"  of  their  own  powers.  There  is 
much  evidence  to  show,  that  they  were  indebted  to  a 
traihtional  knowledge  much  earlier  than  their  own  day', 
and  that  moral  and  religious  knowledge  among  them 
received  occasional  and  important  accessions  from  the 
descendants  of  Abraham,  a  people  who  iiossessed  re- 
cords which,  laying  aside  the  question  of  their  inspira- 
tion for  the  present,  all  candid  Theists  themselves  will 


inalcule ;  that  ordinary  death  is  merely  a  change  of 
form;  and  that  this  change  is  almost  infinite,  and 
bounded  only  by  annihilation,  wbicli  they  esteem  the 
acme  of  liapiiiness  ^"—Account  of  Ceylon. 

(3)  Vide  De  Nat.  Dcorum,lib.  1,  n.  10, 11.    Acad.Qu. 
hb.  2,  n.  fifi.  120. 


16 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  I. 


acknowleJ!,'e,  contuiii  nolili:  and  just  vitiws  of  CJoil  anil 
a  correct  morality.  While  it  cannot  be  proved  thcit  hu- 
man reason  inadu  a  single  discovery  in  either  moral 
0/  roli(,'ious  truth,  it  may  be  satisliictorily  Vstablished, 
tiat  just  nolidiis  as  to  both  were  placed  within  its 
reacli,  wliicU  it  first  obscured,  and  then  corrujjted. 


CHAPTER  V. 

The  Origin,  of  those  Trutlis  which  are  found  in  the 
VV'ritiitgs  and  Religiuus  !:>y stems  of  the  Heathen. 

We  have  seen  that  some  of  the  leadin<;  truths  of  reli- 
gion and  morals  which  arc  adverted  to  by  heathen 
writers,  or  assumed  in  heathen  systems,  are  spoken  of 
as  truths  previously  known  to  the  world,  and  with 
which  mankind  were  familiar.  Also  that  no  lef,'islalor, 
Jjoet,  or  ])hilos(ipher  of  antiquity  ever  pretended  to  the 
discovery  of  the  doctrines  of  the  existence  of  a  God,  of 
providence,  a  luture  state,  and  of  the  rules  by  which 
actions  are  deternuned  to  be  good  or  evil,  whether  these 
opinions  were  held  by  them  with  f\ill  conviction  of 
their  certainty,  or  only  doubtfully.  That  they  were 
transmitted  by  Iradilion  from  an  torlier  age;  or  were 
lirought  from  some  collateral  source  of  information;  or 
that  they  llowed  from  both ;  are  therefore  the  only  ra- 
tional conclusions. 

To  traditi'm  the  wisest  of  the  heathen  often  aclmow- 
Icdge  themselves  indebted. 

A  previous  age  of  superior  truth,  rectitude,  and  hap- 
jiiness,  sometimes  called  the  golden  age,  was  a  com- 
monly received  notion  among  them.  It  Is  at  least  as 
high  as  llesiod,  who  rivals  Homer  in  antiquity.  It  was 
likewise  a  common  opinion,  that  sages  existed  in  ages 
anterior  to  their  own,  who  received  knowledge  from 
the  gods,  and  coimrmnicated  it  to  men.  The  wisest 
heathens,  notwithstanding  the  many  great  things  said 
of  nature  and  reason,  derive  the  origin,  obligation,  and 
efficacy  of  law  from  the  gods  alone.  "  No  mortal," 
says  Plato  in  his  Republic,  "  can  make  laws  to  pur- 
pose." Uemostbeues  calls  law  tvmiiia  kui  Scapov  Bcw, 
"  the  invention  and  gift  of  (loil."  They  speak  of  vujjuh 
nyp'vlioi,  •'  unwritten  laws,"  and  ascribe  both  them 
and  the  laws  which  were  introduced  by  tlieir  various 
legislators,  to  the  gods.  Xenophon  represents  it  as 
the  opinion  of  Socrates,  that  the  unwritten  laws  re- 
ceived over  the  whole  earth,  which  it  was  impossible 
ll'M  all  mankind,  as  being  of  different  languages,  and 
not  to  be  assembled  in  one  place,  should  make,  were 
given  by  the  gods.(4)  Plato  is  express  on  this  sub- 
ject. "  After  a  certain  flood,  which  but  few  escaped, 
on  the  increase  of  mankind,  they  had  neither  letters, 
writing,  nor  laws,  but  obeyed  the  manners  and  insti- 
tutions of  their  fathers  as  laws ;  but  when  colonies  se- 
parated from  them,  they  took  an  elder  for  their  leader. 


(4)  Xen.  Mem.  lil).  4,  cap.  4,  sect.  19,  20.— To  the 
same  effect  is  that  noble  passage  of  Cicero  cited  by  Lac- 
tantius  out  of  his  work  Ue  Rrjmblica. 

"  Est  ((uidemvera  lex,  recta  ratio, nanira?  congruens, 
diffusa  in  oianes,  constans,  sempiierna,  qua;  vocet  ad 
ollicium  jubendo,  vetando  a  fraude  delcrreat ;  qu!B 
tiinu^n  neipie  probos  fruslra  jubet,  aut  vetat ;  nee  iin- 
probos  jubendo  aut  vetando  movet.  Iluic  legi  nee  abro- 
gari  fas  est ;  nee  dcrogari  ex  hac  aliquid  licet ;  neiiue 
tota  abrogari  polest.  Nee  vero  aut  jier  senatum,  aut 
per  |)opulum  solvi  hac  lege  possumus  ;  neque  est  quw- 
renrtusexiilanator,  ant  interpres  ejus  alius.  Nee  enim 
alia  lex  Roma',  alia  Athenis,  alia  nunc,  aUa  po.sthac ;  sed 
et  omnes  gentes,  ('t  omni  tempore,  una  lex  et  senijii- 
tema,  et  immutabilis  continebit;  unusque  erit  connnu- 
nis  quasi  magister  et  inipeiator  omnium  Ueus,  ille  Icgis 
hujus  inventor,  disce|itator,  lator;  cui  qui  non  parebit, 
ips(!  se  fugiet,  ac  naluriim  hominis  asiiernabitur ;  atque 
hoc  ipso  luet  maximas  paenas,  etiamsi  cetera  supplicia, 
quB  putantur,  effugerit."  From  which  it  is  clear  that 
Cicero  acknowledged  a  law  antecedent  to  all  human 
civil  inslilulions,  and  indepiMidcnt  of  Ihein,  binding 
upon  all,  constant  and  perpiMial,  the  same  in  all  limes 
and  places,  not  one  thing  at  Koine  and  anolhir  at  Athens ; 
of  an  authority  so  high  that  no  Innnan  power  had  the 
right  til  alter  or  annul  it;  Uuviii:^  (;od  lor  ils  author,  in 
hlscharai'.teroruiiiver.salma.stcraiid  suvenigii  ;  taking 
hold  of  the  very  consciences  of  men,  and  lollowing 
them  with  its  aiiiiiiadvursions,  though  Ihey  should  es- 
iM\ii'  the  liund  oi'iiiun  and  the  iivnalties  of  human  codes. 


and  in  their  new  settlements  retained  ihe  ctistoms  of 
their  ancestors,  those  especially  which  related  to  t/trir 
ifods :  and  thus  transmitted  than  to  thiir  posterity ; 
they  imprinted  them  on  the  minds  of  their  suns ;  and 
they  did  the.  same  to  their  children.  This  was  the 
origin  of  right  laws,  and  of  the  diirerent  forms  of  go- 
vernment."(5) 

'I'liis  so  exactly  harmonizes  with  the  Mosaic  account, 
as  to  the  Hood  of  Noah,  the  origin  of  nations,  and  the 
Divine  institution  of  religion  and  laws,  that  either  the 
patriarchal  traditions  imbodied  in  tlie  writings ofMoses 
had  gone  do\vn  with  great  exactness  to  the  times  of 
Plato  ;  or  the  writings  of  Moses  were  known  to  him ; 
or  he  had  gathered  the  substance  of  them  in  his  travels 
from  the  Egyptian,  the  Chaldean,  or  the  Magian  philo- 
sophers. 

Nor  is  this  an  unsupported  hj-pothesis.  The  evi- 
dence is  most  abundant,  that  the  primitive  source  from 
whence  every  great  religious  and  moral  truth  was 
drawn,  must  be  fixed  in  that  part  of  the  world  where 
Moses  places  the  dwelUng  of  the  patriarchs  of  the  hu- 
man race,  who  walked  with  God,  and  received  the  law 
from  his  mouth. (0)  There,  in  the  earliest  times,  civi- 
lization and  polity  were  found,  while  the  rest  of  the 
earth  was  covered  with  savage  tribes, — a  sufficient 
proof  that  Asia  was  the  coimnon  centre  from  whence 
the  rest  of  mankiad  dispersed,  who,  as  they  wandered 
from  these  primitive  seats,  and  addicted  themselves 
more  to  the  chase  than  to  agriculture,  became  in  most 
instances  barbarous.(7) 

In  the  multifarious  and  bewildering  superstitions  of 
all  nations  we  also  discover  a  very  remarkable  suh- 
stratuni  of  common  tradition  and  religious  faith. 

The  practice  of  sacrifice,  which  may  at  once  be  traced 
into  all  nations,  and  to  the  remotest  antiquity,  affords 
an  eminent  proof  of  the  common  origin  of  religion  ;  in- 
asmuch as  no  rciiKon  drawn  from  the  nature  of  the 
rite  itself,  or  the  circumstances  of  men,  can  be  given 
for  the  universality  of  the  practice:  and  as  it  is  clearly 
a  jiositive  institute,  and  opposed  to  the  interests  of  men, 
it  can  only  be  accounted  lor  by  an  injunction,  issued 
at  a  very  early  period  of  the  world,  and  solemnly  im- 
posed. This  injunction,  indeed,  received  a  force,  either 
from  its  original  appointment,  or  from  subsequent  cir- 
cumstances, from  which  the  human  mind  could  never 
free  itself.  "  ITicre  continued,"  says  Dr.  Shuckford, 
"  for  a  long  time  among  the  nations  usages  which 
show  that  there  had  been  an  ancient  universal  religion; 
several  traces  of  which  appeared  in  the  rites  and  cere- 
monies which  were  observed  in  religious  worship. 
Such  was  the  custom  of  sacrifices  expiatory  and  pre- 
catory, both  the  sacrifice  of  animals  and  the  oblations 
of  wine,  oil,  and  Ihe  fruits  and  iiroducls  of  the  earth. 
These  and  other  things  which  were  in  use  among  the 
patriarctis  obtained  also  among  the  Gentiles." 

The  events,  and  some  of  the  leading  opinions  of  the 
earliest  ages,  mentioned  in  Scripture,  may  also  be 
traced  among  the  most  barbarous,  as  well  as  in  the  Ori- 
ental, the  Grecian,  and  the  Roman  systems  of  mytho- 
logy. Such  are  the  forhatxon  of  the  world  ;  the 
FA  I.I,  AND  couniPTioN  OF  MAN  ;  the  hostility  of  a  jiow- 
erful  and  supernatural  agent  of  wickedness  under  liia 
appropriate  and  scrijiturul  emblem,  the  Slrtknt  ;  the 

DESTRUCTION  OF  THE  WORLD  BY  WATER  ;   the  REt'KO- 


(5)  De  Leg.  3. 

(6)  "  The  East  was  the  source  of  knowledge  from 
whence  it  wascommuiiicalcd  to  the  western  parts  of  the 
world.  There  the  most  precious  remains  of  ancient  tra- 
dition were  found.  Thither  the  most  celebrated  (ireek 
philosophers  travelled  in  quest  of  science,  or  the  know- 
ledge of  things  divine  and  human,  and  thither  the  law- 
givers had  recourse,  in  order  to  their  being  instructed 
in  laws  and  civil  policy." — I.ui.and. 

(7)  The  spocuUitions  of  infidels  as  to  the  gradual  pro- 
gress of  the  original  men  from  the  savage  life,  and  the 
invention  of  language,  art.s,  laws,  &c.,  have  been  loo 
much  coiiiileiianicil  by  iihilosopliirs  bearing  the  name 
ol'Chrisl.somcof  them  even  holding  the  ofii(-e  ofte.ich- 
ers  of  his  religion.  'J'lie  wniings  of  Moses  sulliriently 
show  that  there  never  was  a  period  in  wliiih  the  original 
tribes  of  men  were  in  a  savage  slate,  and  the  ;;ra(lual 
process  of  Ihe  devclopemenl  of  a  higher  c(Miditi(pn  is  a 
cinniera.  To  those  who  proless  to  believe'  the  Scrip- 
lures,  their  testimony  ought  to  be  sullicii^nt  :  to  lhos<j 
who  do  not,  they  are  at  least  as  good  history  as  any 
other. 


Chap.  V.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


17 


PLINO  OF  IT  BY  THK  SONS  OF  NoAJI  ;  the  EXPECTATION 

OF  ITS  KiNAL  DEsTRrcTioN  BY  FIRE  ;  and,  above  all, 
the  promise  of  a  great  and  Divine  Dt'LivKiiEK.(h) 

The  only  method  of  iiccountins  for  this  is,  th;it  the 
same  traditions  were  transmitted  from  the  profji-iiilors 
of  the  different  families  of  mankind  alter  the  llood  ; 
that  in  some  plaees  they  were  strcngtluiicd  and  tlie 
impressions  deepened  by  successive  revelations,  which 
assumed  the  first  traditions,  as  being  of  Divine  original, 
for  their  basis,  and  thus  renewed  the  knowledj^e  which 
had  formerly  been  communicated,  at  the  very  time 
they  enlarged  it :  and  farther,  that  from  the  written  re- 
velations which  were  afterward  made  to  one  people, 
8ome  rays  of  reflected  light  were  constantly  glancing 
upon  the  surrounding  nations. 

Nor  are  we  at  a  loss  to  trace  this  communication  of 
truth  from  a  common  source  to  the  Gentile  nations; 
and  also  to  show  that  Ihey  actually  did  receive  acces- 
sions of  information,  both  directly  and  indirectly,  from 
a  people  who  retained  the  primitive  theological  system 
in  its  greatest  purity. 

We  shall  see  sulBciont  reasons,  when  we  come  to 
speak  on  that  subject,  to  conclude  that  all  mankind 
have  descended  from  one  common  pair. 

If  man  is  now  a  moral  agent,  the  first  man  must  be 
allowed  to  have  been  a  moral  agent,  and,  as  such,  under 
rules  of  obedience,  in  which  rules  it  is  far  more  pro- 
bable, that  he  should  be  instructed  by  his  Maker  by 
means  of  direct  communication,  than  that  he  should  be 
left  to  colleot  the  will  of  his  Maker  from  observation 
and  experience.  Those  who  deny  the  Scrijiture  ac- 
count of  the  introduction  of  death  into  the  world,  and 
think  the  human  species  were  always  liable  to  it,  are 
bound  to  admit  a  revelation  from  God  to  the  first  pair 
as  to  the  wholesomeness  of  certain  fruits,  and  the  de- 
structive habits  of  certain  animals,  or  our  first  proge- 
nitors would  have  been  far  more  exposed  to  danger 
from  deleterious  fruits,  &c.,  and  in  a  more  inLserable 
condition  through  their  fears,  than  any  of  their  descend- 
ants, because  they  were  without  e.xperience,  and  could 
have  no  information. (9)    But  it  is  far  more  probable 

will  of  God  concerning  thffr 


that  they  should  have  excess  information  as  to  the 
had  settled,  by  a   course  of  rational  induction,  what 


•iduct ;  for  until  they 


was  right  and  what  wrong,  they  could  not,  pro- 
perly speaking,  be  moral  agents  ;  and  from  the  difiicul- 
ties  of  such  an  inquiry,  especially  until  they  had  had 
a  long  e.xperience  of  the  steady  course  of  nature,  and 
the  effect  of  certain  actions  upon  themselves  and  so- 
ciety, they  might  possibly  arrive  at  very  different  con- 
clusion.-!.(l) 

But  in  whatever  way  the  moral  and  religious  know- 
ledge of  the  first  man  was  obtained,  if  he  is  allowed  to 
have  been  under  an  efficient  law,  he  must  at  least  have 
known,  in  order  to  the  right  regulation  of  himself,  every 
truth  essential  to  religion,  and  to  personal,  domestic, 
and  social  morals.  The  truth  on  these  subjects  was  as 
essential  to  him  as  to  his  descendants,  and  more  espe- 
cially because  he  was  so  soon  to  be  the  head  and  the 
paternal  governor,  by  a  natural  relation,  of  a  numerous 
race,  and  to  possess,  by  virtue  of  that  office,  great  in- 
fluence over  them.  If  we  assimie,  therefore,  that  the 
knowledge  of  the  first  man  was  taught  to  his  children, 
and  it  were  the  greatest  absurdity  to  suppose  the  con- 
trary, then,  whether  he  received  his  information  on  the 
principal  doctrines  of  relieion  and  the  principal  rules  of 
morals  by  express  revelation  fhini  God,  or  by  the  ex- 
ercise of  his  own  natural  powers,  all  the  great  princi- 
ples of  religion,  and  of  personal,  domestic,  and  social 
morals,  must  have  been  at  mice  communicated  to  his 
children  immediately  descending  from  him ;  and  we 
clearly  enough  see  the  reason  why  the  earliest  writers 
on  these  subjects  never  pretend  to  have  been  the  dis- 
coverers of  the  leading  truths  of  morals  and  religion, 
but  speak  of  them  as  opinions  fanruliar  to  men,  and 
generally  received.  This  primitive  religious  and  moral 
system,  as  far  as  regards  first  principles  and  all  their 
important  particular  aiiplications,  was  also  complete, 
or  there  had  been  neither  efficient  religion  nor  morality 
in  the  first  ages,  which  is  contrary  to  all  tradition  anil 
to  all  history ;  and.  that  this  s>  stem  was  actually  trans- 

(8)  See  note  A,  at  the  end  of  this  chapter. 

(9)  See  Dev-aney's  Revelation  examined  with  Can- 
dour, Dissertations  I  and  2. 

(1 )  "  It  if,  very  probable,"  savs  Puffendorf, "  that  God 
taught  tli»j  first  men  the  chief  heads  of  natural  law." 


mitted  is  clear  from  this,  that  the  wisdom  of  ver>' early 
ages  consisted  not  so  much  in  natural  and  sjieculative 
science  as  in  moral  notions,  rules  of  conduct,  and  an 
acquaintance  with  the  opinions  of  the  wise  of  still  car- 
Uer  periods. 

The  few  persons  through  whom  this  system  was 
transmitted  to  Noah  (lor,  in  fact,  .Meihuselah  was  con- 
temporary both  with  Adam  and  ^oah)  rendered  any 
great  corrujition  inqrassible;  and  thcrelore,  the  crimes 
charged  upon  the  antediluvians  are  riulenrv,  and  other 
immoralities,  rather  than  the  corruption  of  trvth;  and 
Noah  was  "  a  preacher  of  righteous?iess,"  rather  than 
a  restorer  of  doctrine. 

The  flood,(2)  being  so  awful  and  marked  a  declara- 
tion of  God's  anger  against  the  violation  of  the  laws  of 
this  primitive  religion,  would  give  great  force  and 
sanction  to  it  as  a  religious  system,  in  the  minds  of 
Noah's  immediate  descendants.  The  existence  of  God ; 
his  providence ;  his  favour  to  the  good ;  his  anger 
against  evil-doers ;  the  great  rules  of  justice  and  mercy  ; 
the  practice  of  a  sacrificial  worshi]) ;  the  observance  of 
•the  Sabbath ;  the  promise  of  a  deliverer,  and  other  simi- 
lar tenets,  were  among  the  articles  and  religious  rites 
of  this  primitive  system:  nor  can  any  satisfactory  ac- 
count be  given  why  they  were  transmitted  to  so  many 
peo])le  in  different  parts  of  the  world  ;  why  they  have 
continued  to  glimmer  through  the  darkness  of  pagan- 
ism to  this  day  ;  why  we  find  them  more  or  less  recog- 
nised in  the  mythology,  traditions,  and  customs  of 
almost  all  ages,  ancient  and  modem,  except  that  they 
received  some  original  sanction  of  great  eflicacy, 
deeply  fixing  them  in  the  hearts  of  the  patriarchs  of  all 
the  families  of  men.  Those  who  deny  the  revelations 
contained  in  the  Scriptures  have  no  means  of  account- 
ing for  these  facts,  which  in  themselves  are  indisput- 
able. 1'hey  have  no  theory  respecting  them  which  is 
not  too  childish  to  deserve  serious  reiutation,  and  they 
usually  prefer  to  pass  them  over  in  silence.  But  the 
believer  in  the  Bible  can  account  for  them,  and  he 
alone.  The  destruction  of  wicked  men  by  the  flood  put 
the  seal  of  Heaven  upon  the  religious  system  trans- 
mitted from  Adam  ;  and  under  the  force  of  this  Divine 
and  unequivocal  atte.siation  of  ita  truth,  the  sons  and 
descendants  of  Noah  went  forth  into  their  different  set- 
tlements, bearing  for  ages  the  deep  impression  of  its 
sanctity  and  authority.  The  impression,  it  is  true,  at 
length  gave  way  to  vice,  superstition,  and  false  philo- 
sophy; but  superstition  perverted  truth  rather  than 
displaced  it;  and  the  doctrines,  the  history,  and  even 
the  ho])es  of  the  first  ages  were  never  entirely  banished 
even  from  those  fables  which  became  baleful  substi- 
tutes for  their  simplicity. 

In  the  family  of  Abraham  the  true  God  was  acknow- 
ledged. Melchizedeck  was  the  sovereign  of  one  of  the 
nations  of  Canaan,  and  priest  of  the  Mo.st  High  God  ; 
and  his  subjects  must,  therefore,  have  been  wor- 
shippers of  the  true  Divinity.  Abimelech,  the  Phihs- 
tine,  and  his  people,  both  in  Abraham's  days  and  in 
Isaac's,  were  also  worshippers  of  Jehovah,  and  acknow- 
ledged the  same  moral  principles  which  were  held  sa- 
cred in  the  elect  family.  The  revelations  and  promises 
made  to  Abraham  would  enlarge  the  boundaries  of  re- 
ligious knowledge,  both  among  the  descendants  of 
Ishmacl,  and  those  of  his  sons  by  Keturah  ;  as  those 
made  to  Shem  would,  with  the  patriarchal  theology,  be 
transmitted  to  his  posterity— the  Persians,  Assyrians, 
and  Mesopotamians.(3)  In  Egypt,  even  in  the  days  of 
Joseph,  he  and  the  king  of  Egypt  speak  of  the  true  God 
as  of  a  being  mutually  known  and  acknowledced. 


(2)  Whatever  may  be  thought  respecting  the  circum- 
stances of  the  flood  as  mentioned  tjy  Moses,  there  is 
nothing  in  that  event,  considered  as  the  punishment  of 
a  guilty  race,  and  as  giving  an  attestation  of  (Jod's  ap- 
probation of  right  principles  and  a  right  conduct,  to 
wliicli  a  consistent  Tlieist  can  object.  For  if  the  will 
of  God  is  to  be  collected  from  observing  the  course  of 
nature  and  providence,  such  signal  and  remarkable 
events  in  his  government  as  the  deluge,  whether  uni- 
versal, or  only  co-extensive  vnlh  the  existing  race  of 
men,  may  be  expected  to  occur ;  and  especially  when 
an  almost  universal  punishment,  as  connected  with  an 
almost  universal  wickedness,  so  strikingly  indicated 
an  observant  and  a  righteous  government. 

(3)  See  Bishop  Horsley's  Dissertations  before  re- 
ferred to  ;  and  Lkland's  A'iew  of  the  Necessity  of  Re- 
velation, part  i.  chap.  2. 


18 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  I. 


Upon  the  arrival  of  the  Israelites  in  Canaan,  they  found 
a  few  persons  in  ihat  piThai)S  [iriniitive  seat  of  idolatry 
who  afknowlcilgeil  "Jclnnali  tube  did  in  lieofeii  aborr 
aiui  in  the  earth  beneath.'"  Tlirou^h  the  branch  of 
Esau,  the  knowledge  of  the  true  religion  would  pass 
from  the  family  of  Isaac,  with  its  farther  illustrations 
in  the  covenants  made  with  Atirahain  to  his  deseend- 
ants.  Job  and  his  friends,  who  probably  lived  between 
Abraham  and  Moses,  were  prolissorsol' the  i)atriarchal 
religion  ;  and  their  discourses  show,  that  it  was  bollia 
sublime  and  a  conijjrehensive  system.  The  plagues 
of  Egypt,  and  the  miraculous  escape  of  tlie  Israelites, 
and  the  destruction  of  the  Cauaanitish  nations,  were 
all  parts  of  an  awful  controversy  between  the  true  God 
and  the  idolatry  spreading  in  the  world ;  and  could  not 
fail  of  being  largely  noised  abroad  among  the  neigh- 
bouring nations,  and  of  making  the  religion  of  the 
Israelites  known. (4)  Ualaam,  a  Gentile  prophet,  in- 
termixes with  las  predictions  many  brief  but  elotjuent 
assertions  of  the  first  principles  of  religion,  the  omni- 
potence of  Ueity,  his  universal  providence,  and  the 
immutability  of  his  counsels  ;  and  the  names  and  epi- 
thets which  lie  applies  to  the  Supreme  Being  are,  as 
Bishop  ITorsley  observes,  the  very  same  which  are 
used  by  Moses,  .lob,  and  the  inspired  writers  of  the 
Jew.s ;  namely,  God,  the  Almighty,  the  Most  High,  and 
Jehovah;  which  is  a  proof,  that,  gross  as  the  corrup- 
tions of  idolatry  were  now  become,  the  patriarchal 
religion  was  not  Ibrgotten,  nor  its  language  become 
obsolete. 

The  frequent  and  jmblic  restorations  of  the  Israelites 
to  the  principles  of  the  patriarchal  religion,  after  they 
had  lapsed  into  idolatry  and  fallen  under  the  power  of 
other  nations,  could  not  fail  to  make  their  peculiar 
opinions  known  among  those  with  whom  they  were  so 
often  in  relations  of  amity  or  war,  of  slavery  or  domi- 
nion. We  have  evidence  collateral  to  that  of  the 
Scriptures,  that  the  building  of  the  celebrated  temjile 
of  Solomon,  and  the  fame  of  the  wisdom  of  that  mo- 
narch, produced  not  only  a  wide-spread  rumour,  but, 
a.s  it  was  intended  by  Divine  wi.sdom  and  goodness, 
moral  effects  upon  the  people  of  di.stant  nations  ;  and 
that  the  Abyssinians  received  the  .Jewish  religion  after 
the  visit  of  the  (jiurn  of  Slieba,  the  i)rinciples  of  that 
religion  being  probahly  HhiikI  to  accord  with  those  an- 
cient traditions  olthc  patriaivlis  which  remained  among 
thetn.(5)  The  intercourse  between  the  Jews  and  the 
.states  of  Syria  and  Uabylon  on  the  one  hand,  and 
Egypt  on  the  other,  jiowers  which  rose  to  great  emi- 
nence and  influence  in  the  ancient  world,  was  main- 
tained for  many  ages.  Their  freiinent  captivities  and 
dispersions  would  tend  to  preserve  in  jiart,  and  in  part 
to  revive,  the  knowledge  of  the  once  common  and  uni- 
versal faith  ;  for  we  have  instances,  that  in  the  worst 
periods  of  their  history,  there  were  among  the  captive 
Israelites  those  who  adhered  with  heroic  stcadCnsl.iicss 
to  their  own  religion.  We  have  the  instance  of  thi- 
female  captive  in  the  house  of  Naanian,  the  Syrian  ; 
and  at  a  later  perio<l,  the  subhme  example  of  the  three 
Hebrew  youths  and  of  Daniel,  in  the  court  of  Nobu- 
chadnez/.ar.  The  decree  of  this  prince,  after  the  deli- 
verance of  Shadrach  and  his  conijianions,  ought  not  to 
be  slightly  passed  over.  It  contained  a  public  procla- 
mation of  the  supremacy  of  Jehovah,  in  opjiosilion  to 
the  gods  of  his  country ;  and  that  moiiiirch,  after  his 
recovery  from  a  singular  disease,  became  hiiiLscIf  a 
■worshipper  of  the  true  God;  both  of  which  are  circum- 
stances which  could  not  but  e,\cite  attention,  among  a 


(4)  Jenknfs  Reasonableness  of  Christianity,  vol.1,  c.2. 

(5)  The  iirinces  of  Abyssinia  claim  descent  from  Me- 
nilek.  the  son  of  Solomon  by  the  ipicen  Of  Shcba.  The 
Abyssinians  say,  she  was  converted  to  the  Jewish  reli- 
gion. The  succession  is  hereditary  in  the  line  of  Solo- 
mon, and  the  device  of  their  kings  is  a  lion  passant, 
proper  upon  a  field  gules,  and  their  motto,  "  The  lion  of 
the  race  of  Solomon  and  tribe  of  Judah  hath  overcome." 
The  Abyssinian  eunuch,  who  was  met  by  i'liili)!,  was 
not  properly  a  .lewish  proselyte,  but  an  Abjssiiiiaii 
believer  in  Moses  and  the  I'rophels.  (hnstiaiiily 
spread  in  this  country  at  an  early  period ;  but  many  ol 
the  inhabitants  to  this  day  arc  of  the  Jewish  religion. 
Tyre  also  must  have  derived  an  accession  of  religious 
information  from  its  intercourse  with  the  Israelites  in 
the  time  of  Solomon  ;  and  we  rin<l  Hiram,  the  king, 
blessing  the  Lord  God  of  lurael,  "  as  Ihc  Maker  of 
heaven  and  earth," 


learned  and  curious  people,  to  the  religions  tenets  of 
tlie  Jews.  We  may  add  to  this,  also,  lliat  great  num- 
bers of  the  Jews  preserving  their  scrii)tures,  and  pub- 
licly worshipjiiiig  the  true  God,  never  returned  frora 
the  liabylonish  cajitivity,  but  remained  in  various 
parts  of  that  extensive  empire  after  it  was  conquered 
by  the  Persians.  The  Chaldean  philosophic  schools, 
to  which  many  of  the  (;reek  sages  resorted  for  instruc- 
tion, were  therefore  never  without  the  means  of  ac- 
quaintance with  the  theological  system  of  the  Jews, 
however  degenerate  in  process  of  time  their  wise  men 
became,  by  addicting  themselves  to  judicial  astrology; 
and  to  the  same  sacred  source  tlie  conquest  of  Babylon 
conducted  the  1'er.sians. 

Cyrus,  the  celebrated  snbverter  of  the  Babylonian 
monarchy,  was  of  the  Magian  religion,  who.se  votaries 
worshipped  (;od  uiiiler  the  emblem  of  fire,  but  held  an 
independent  and  eternal  jirinciiilc  of  darkness  and  evil, 
lie  was,  however,  somewhat  jirejiared  by  his  hostility 
to  idols,  to  listen  to  the  tenets  of  ihe  Jews ;  and  his 
favour  to  tli^'ii.  suMiiiently  stunvs,  that  the  influence 
which  IJaniers  cliaracler,  ihe  remarkable  facts  which 
had  occurreil  respeiting  him  at  the  courts  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar and  lielsliu/./.ar,  and  the  jiredictions  of  his  own 
success  by  Isaiah,  had  exerted  on  his  mind  was  very 
great.  In  his  decree  for  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple, 
recorded  in  Ezra,  chap.  i.  and  2  Chron.  xxxvi  23,  he 
acknowledges  "  Jehovah  to  be  the  God  of  heaven,"  who 
had  given  him  his  kingdom,  and  had  charged  him  to 
rebuild  the  temple.  Nor  could  tins  testimony  in  favour 
of  the  God  of  the  .Jews  be  without  efiect  upon  his  sub- 
jects;  one  proof  of  which,  and  of  the  inllucnce  of  Ju- 
daism upon  the  I'ersians,  is,  that  in  a  short  time  after 
his  reign,  a  considerable  improvement  in  some  parti- 
culars, and  alteration  in  others,  took  place  in  the  Magian 
religion  by  an  evident  admixture  with  it  of  the  tenets 
and  ceremonies  of  the  Jews.(r))  And  whatever  im- 
provements the  theology  of  the  I'ersians  thus  received, 
and  they  were  not  few  nor  nninqiorlaiit ;  whatever 
information  they  acquired  as  to  the  (ingm  of  the  world, 
the  events  of  the  first  ages,  and  questions  of  morals 
and  religion,  subjects  all(|^wbi(h  the  ancient  philoso- 
phers made  keen  aniW-agW  inquiries;  they  could  nst 
but  be  known  to  the  learunl  (; reeks,  whose  Jntcrcour.se 
with  the  I'ersians  was  coiiliiiued  lor  so  long  a  period, 
and  be  transmitted  also  into  tli.il  jiart  of  India  into  which 
the  Persian  monarchs  pushed  liieir  conquests. 

It  is  indeed  unquestioiiablo,  that  I  lie  credit  in  which 
the  .Jews  stood,  in  the  Persian  empire;  the  singular 
events  which  brought  them  into  notice  with  the  I'ersian 
monarchs  ;  the  favour  they  afterward  cxpsrienced  from 
Alexander  the  (Jreat  and  his  successors,  who  reigned 
111  Egypt,  where  they  became  so  numerous,  and  so 
generally  spoke  the  Greek,  that  a  translation  of  the 
Scriptures  into  that  language  was  rendered  necessary ; 
and  their  having  in  most  of  the  principal  cities  of  the 
Roman  empire,  even  when  most  cxtciidrd,  indeed  in  all 
till!  cities  which  were  cclclirated  forrtliiiciiiriil  and  phi- 
losophy, their  synagogues  and  public  worship,  in  Rome, 
Alexandria,  and  Antioch,  at  Athens,  Cormili,  Ephesu.s, 
(fee,  as  we  read  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  that 
for  a  long  time  before  the  Christian  era, — rendered  Iheir 
tenets  very  widely  known :  and  as  tliese  events  took 
place  after  tbiir  jinal  refimiiiitionfroin  idolatry,  the 
oiiinions  by  which  they  were  dislingnished  were  those 
suhslantiaily  which  are  taught  in  the  Scri|)tures.  The 
above  statements,  to  say  nothing  of  Ihe  fact  that  the 
character,  ollice,  ojiinions,  and  writings  of  Moses  were 
known  to  many  of  the  ancient  philosophers  and  histo- 
rians, who  mention  liim  by  niune,  and  describe  the 
religion  of  the  Jews,  are  suliicient  to  account  lor  those 
opinions  and  traditions  we  ociasionally  meet  wiih  in 
the  writings  of  tlie<;rcck  and  Roman  sai;es  wbicb  have 
the  greatest  correspondence  with  iruili,  and  agree  best 
with  Ihe  Holy  Scriptures.  They  llowed  in  upon  them 
from  many  cliaiinels,  branching  out  at  dilierent  times 
from  Ihc  ronnlain  of  truth;  but  Ihcy  were  received  by 
lliem  generally  as  mere  traditions  or  jihilosophic  no- 
tions, which  they  thought  themselves  at  hbcrtv  to 
adopt,  rejwt,  modify,  or  jxTvert,  as  ihe  principles  of 
Ibcir  schools  or  Iheir  own  fancy  led  them. 

I.el  then  every  question  which  respects  insiiirnlion, 
miracles,  prophecies,  be  for  the  jiresent  omilled,  Ihe 
lollowing  conclusions  may  properly  close  these  observa- 
tions:— 

(ti)  Sec  note  B,  at  Iho  end  of  litis  chapter. 


Chap.  V.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


19 


1.  Tliat  as  a  history  of  early  opinions  and  events,  the 
Scriptures  have  at  least  as  much  autliority  as  any  liis- 
tory  of  ancient  times  whatever;  nay,  tlie  very  idea  of 
their  sacredness,  wliether  well  founded  or  not,  renders 
their  historical  details  more  worthy  of  creiht,  because 
that  idea  led  to  their  more  careful  preservation. 

2.  That  their  history  is  often  confirmed  by  ancient 
pagan  traditions  and  liistories ;  and  in  no  material 
point,  or  on  any  ^ood  evidence,  contradicted. 

3.  That  those  fundamental  principles  of  what  is  called 
natural  rolii^ioii,  wliich  are  held  by  sober  Theists,  and 
by  them  denominated  rational,  the  discovery  of  which 
they  attribute  to  the  unas.sisted  understanding  of  man, 
are  to  be  found  in  the  earUest  of  these  sacred  writings, 
and  are  there  supposed  to  have  existed  in  the  world 
previous  to  the  date  of  those  writings  themselves. 

4.  That  a  religion  founded  on  common  notions  and 
common  traditions,  comprehensive  both  in  doctrines 
and  morals,  existed  in  very  early  periods  of  the  world ; 
and  that  from  the  agreement  of  almost  all  mythological 
systems,  in  certain  doctrines,  rites,  and  traditions,  it  is 
reasonable  to  believe,  that  this  primitive  theology  passed 
in  some  degree  into  all  nations. 

5.  That  it  was  retained  most  perfectly  among  those 
of  the  descendants  of  Abraham  who  formed  the  Israel- 
itish  state  and  subsisted  as  a  nation  collaterally  with 
the  successive  great  empires  of  antiquity  for  many  ages. 

6.  That  the  frequent  dispersions  ol  great  numljers  of 
that  people,  either  by  w'ar  or  from  choice,  and  their  resi- 
dence in  or  near  the  seats  of  ancient  learning  with  their 
sacred  books,  and  in  the  habit  of  observing  their  public 
worship,  as  in  Chaldea,  Egypt,  Persia,  and  other  iiarts 
of  the  ancient  world,  and  the  signal  notice  into  which 
they  and  their  opinions  were  occasionally  brought, 
could  not  but  make  their  cosmogony,  theology,  laws, 
and  history  very  extensively  known. 

7.  That  the  spirit  of  imjuiry  in  many  of  the  ancient 
philosophers  of  different  countries  led  them  to  travel 
for  information  on  these  very  subjects,  and  often  into 
those  countries  where  the  patriarchal  religion  had  for- 
merly existed  in  great  purity,  and  where  the  tenets  of 
the  .lews  which  tended  to  revive  or  restore  it  were  well 
known. 

8.  That  there  is  sufficient  evidence  that  these  tenets 
were  in  fact  known  to  many  of  the  sages  of  the  greatest 
name,  and  to  schools  of  the  greatest  influence,  who, 
however,  regarding  them  only  as  traditions  or  philo- 
sophical opinions,  interwove  such  of  them  as  best 
agreed  with  their  views  into  their  own  systems,  and 
rejected  or  refined  upon  others,  so  that  no  permanent 
and  convincing  system  of  morals  and  religion  was, 
after  all,  wrought  out  among  themselves,  while  they  left 
the  populace  generally  to  the  gross  ignorance  and  idola- 
try in  which  they  were  involved. (7) 

(7)  The  readiness  of  the  philosophers  of  antiquity  to 
seize  upon  every  notion  which  could  aid  them  in  their 
speculations,  is  manifest  by  the  use  which  those  of 
them  who  lived  when  Christianity  began  to  be  known 
and  to  acquire  credit,  made  of  its  discoveries  to  give 
greater  splendour  to  their  own  systems.  The  thirst  of 
kfiowledge  carried  the  ancient  sages  to  the  most  distant 
persons  and  places  in  search  of  wisdom,  nor  did  the 
later  philosophers  any  more  than  modern  infidels  neglect 
the  superior  light  of  Christiajiity,  when  brought  to  their 
own  doors,  but  they  were  equally  backward  to  acknow- 
ledge tiie  obligation.  "  As  the  ancients,'"  says  Justin 
Martyr,  "  Awi  borrowed  froin  the  prophets,  so  did  the 
moderns  from  the  Gospel."  Tertullian  observes  in  his 
Apology,  "  Whieh  of  your  poets,  which  of  your  sophists, 
have  not  drunk  from  the  fountains  of  ike  prophets  ?  It 
is  from  these  sacred  sources  likeiinse  that  your  philoso- 
phers have  refreshed  thnr  thirsty  spirits ;  and  if  they 
found  any  thing  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  to  please  their 
fancy  or  to  serve  their  hypotheses,  they  turned  it  to  their 
own  purpose  and  made  it  serve  their  curiosity ;  7iot 
considering  these  writings  to  be  sacred  and  unalierable, 
nor  understanding  their  sense ;  every  one  taking  or 
leaving,  adopting  or  re^nodelling,  as  his  imagination 
led  him.  Nor  do  I  wonder  that  the  philosophers  played 
such  foul  tricks  with  the  Old  Testament,  when  Ifnd 
some  of  the  same  generation,  among  ourselves  who  have 
m.ade  as  bold  with  the  Nerv,  and  composed  a  deadly  mix- 
ture (if  gospel  and  opinion,  led  by  a  philosophizing 
vanity." 

It  was  from  conversing  with  a  Christian  that  Epic- 
tetus  learned  to  reform  the  doctrine  and  abase  the  pride 
B  2 


9.  Finally,  that  so  far  from  there  being  any  evidence, 
that  any  of  those  fundamental  truths  of  religion  or 
morals  which  may  occasionally  appear  in  their  writings, 
were  discovered  by  their  unassisted  rea.son,  we  can 
trace  (hem  to  an  earlier  age,  and  can  show  that  they 
had  the  means  of  access  to  higher  sources  of  informa- 
tion ;  while  on  the  other  hand  it  may  be  exliibited  as  a 
proof  of  the  weakness  of  the  human  mind,  and  the 
corruptness  of  the  human  heart,  that  lliey  generally 
involved  in  doubt  the  great  principles  which  they  thus 
received  ;  built  upon  them  fanciful  systems  destructive 
of  their  moral  efficacy  ;  and  mixed  them  with  errors  of 
the  most  deteriorating  character.(8) 

The  last  observation  will  be  more  fully  illustrated  in 
the  ensuing  chapter. 

of  the  Stoics ;  nor  is  it  to  be  imagined  that  Marcus  An- 
toninu.s,  Maximus  Tyrius,  and  others  were  ignorant  of 
i\\"  Christian  doctrine. 

Rousseau  admits,  that  the  modern  philosopher  derives 
his  better  notions  on  many  subjects  from  those  very 
Scriptures  wiuch  he  reviles ;  from  the  early  impres- 
sions of  education ;  from  living  and  conversing  in  a 
Christian  country,  where  those  doctrines  are  publicly 
taught,  and  where,  in  spite  of  himself,  he  imbibes  some 
portion  of  that  religious  knowledge  which  the  sacred 
writings  have  every  where  ditfuised.— Works,  vol.9,  p. 
71;  1764. 

(8)  See  note  C,  at  the  end  of  this  chapter. 

Note  A. — Page  17. 

The  illustration  of  the  particulars  mentioned  in  the 
paragraph  from  which  reference  is  made  to  this  note, 
may  be  given  under  different  heads. 

Thk  formation  of  the  VV(jRLn  from  Chaotic 
Matti;r.— Some  remains  of  the  sentiments  of  the  an- 
cient Chaldeans  are  preserved  in  the  pages  of  Syncellus 
from  Berosus  and  Alexander  Polyhistor ;  and  when  the 
tradition  is  divested  of  its  fabulous  dress,  we  may  trace 
in  the  account  a  primordial  watery  chaos,  a  separation 
of  the  darkness  from  light,  and  of  earth  from  heaven, 
the  production  of  man  from  the  dust  of  the  earth,  and 
an  infusion  of  Divine  reason  into  the  man  so  formed. 
The  cosmogony  of  the  Phcenieians  as  detailed  by  San- 
choaiatho,  makes  the  principle  of  the  universe  a  dark 
air,  and  a  turbulent  chaos.  The  ancient  Persians 
taught  that  God  created  the  world,  at  six  different  times, 
in  manifest  allusion  to  the  six  days'  work  as  described 
by  Moses.  In  the  Institutes  of  Menu,  a  Hindoo  Tract, 
supposed  by  Sir  William  Jones  to  have  been  composed 
1280  years  before  the  Christian  era,  the  universe  is 
represented  as  involved  in  darkness,  when  the  sole  self- 
existing  power,  himself  undiscerned,  made  the  world 
discernible.  With  a  thought  he  first  created  the  water.s, 
which  are  called  Nara,  or  the  Spirit  of  Cod ;  and  since 
they  were  his  first  ayana,  or  place  of  motion,  he  is 
thence  named  Narayana,  or  moving  on  the  waters. 
The  order  of  the  creation  in  the  ancient  traditions  of  the 
Chinese  is, — the  heavens  were  first  formed  ;  the  founda- 
tions of  the  earth  were  next  laid  ;  the  atmosphere  was 
then  diffused  round  the  habitable  globe,  and  last  of  all 
man  was  created.  The  formation  of  the  world  from 
chaos  may  be  discovered  in  the  traditions  of  onr  Gothic 
ancestors. — See  the  Edda,  and  Faber's  HorcB  Mosaicm, 
vol.  ],  page  3. 

In  the  ancient  Greek  philosophy,  we  trace  the  same 
tradition,  and  Plato  clearly  borrowed  the  materials  of 
his  account  of  the  origin  of  things,  either  from  Moses, 
or  from  traditions  which  had  proceeded  from  the  same 
source.  Moses  speaks  of  God  in  the  plural  form  :  "  In 
the  beginning  Gods  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth  ;" 
and  Plato  has  a  kind  of  Trinity  in  his  to  ayaOov, "  the 
good,"  I'Hf,  or  "  intellect,"  who  was  properly  the  demi- 
urgus,  or  former  of  the  world,  and  his  Psyche,  or  uni- 
versal mundane  soul,  the  cause  of  all  the  motion  which 
is  in  the  world.  He  also  represents  the  first  matter 
out  of  which  the  universe  was  formed  as  a  rude  chaos. 
In  the  Greek  and  Latin  poets  we  have  frequent  allu- 
sions to  the  same  fact,  and  in  some  of  tlieiii  highly  po- 
etic descriptions  of  the  chaotic  state  of  the  world,  and  its 
reduction  to  order.  V/hen  America  was  discovered, 
traditions  bearing  a  very  remarkable  resemblance  to 
the  History  of  Moses  on  various  subjects,  were  found 
among  the  semi-civilized  nations  of  that  continent. 
Go-mara  states  in  his  history,  that  the  Peruvians  be- 
lie\ed,  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  world,  there  came 


20 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


from  llie  north  a  being  named  Con,  who  levelled  moun- 
tains and  raised  hills  solely  by  the  word  of  his  mouth  ; 
that  he  (illiil  the  earth  with  irien  and  women  whom  he 
had  (Tcaird,  nivinj;  them  fruits,  and  bread,  and  all 
thing's  iifii'ssary  for  their  subsistence;  but  that,  being 
oflVnded  witli  their  transgressions,  he  deprived  them  of 
the  blessings  which  they  had  originally  enjoyed,  and 
afflicted  their  lands  with  sterility. 

"  The  number  of  days  employed  in  the  work  of  cre- 
ation," says  i\lr.  I'abi'r,  " and  the  Divine  rest  on  the 
seventh  day,  produced  that  i)eculiar  measure  of  time, 
the  weeks,  wlucli  is  purely  arbitrary,  and  which  does 
not  spring,  \\kt;  a  day,  or  a  montli,  or  a  year,  from  the 
natural  mutioiis  of  the  heavenly  bodies.  Hence  the 
general  adoption  of  the  h(-hdoMjadal  period  is  itself  a 
proof  how  widely  a  knowledge  ol'tlic  true  cosmoRonical 
system  was  difi'uscd  aiiiojij;  the  posterity  of  Noah.'' 
Thus,  in  almost  every  jiart  of  the  globe,  from  Eurojje  to 
the  sliores  of  India,  and  anciently  among  the  Greeks, 
Romans,  and  (Jotlis,  as  well  as  among  the  .lews,  we 
find  the  week  used  as  a  familiar  measure  of  time,  and 
some  traces  of  the  Sabbath. 

Thk  Fall  of  Man. — That  the  human  race  were 
once  innocent  and  happy  is  an  opinion  of  high  anti- 
quity and  great  extent  among  the  Gentile  nations.  The 
passages  to  this  effect  in  the  classical  jioets  are  well 
known.  It  is  asserted  in  the  Kdda,  the  record  of  the 
opinions  of  our  Scythian  forefathers.  "  There  can  be 
little  doubt,"  says  Maurice  in  his  History  of  Hindostan, 
"  but  that  by  the  Saiya-age,  or  age  of  perfection,  the 
Brachmins  obscurely  allude  to  the  state  of  perfection 
and  happiness  enjoyed  by  man  in  Paradise.  Then 
justice,  truth,  idiilanthroiiy,  were  practised  among  all 
the  orders  and  classes  of  mankind."  That  man  is  a 
fallen  creature  is  now  the  universal  belief  of  this  class 
of  pagans;  and  the  degeneracy  of  the  human  soul,  its 
native  and  heredUari/  degeneracy,  runs  through  much  of 
the  Greek  philosophy.  The  immediate  occasion  oj'  the 
fall,  the  frailty  of  the  woman,  we  (ind  also  alluded  to 
equally  in  classical  fable,  in  ancient  Gothic  traditions, 
and  among  various  barbarous  tribes.  A  curious  jias- 
sage  to  this  effect  occurs  in  Campbell's  Travels  among 
the  Boschuana  Hottentots. 

TiiK  Skrpf.nt. — The  agency  of  an  evil  and  malig- 
nant spirit  is  (bund  also  in  these  widely  extended  an- 
cient traditions.  Little  doubt  can  be  entertained  but 
that  the  generally  received  notion  of  good  and  evil 
demons  grounded  itself  upon  the  Scripture  account  of 
good  and  evil  angels.  Scrpeiil-ii^Drahip  was  exceed- 
ingly general ,  especially  in  Egypt,  and  the  East,  and 
this  is  not  to  be  accounted  for  but  as  it  originated  from 
a  superstitious  fear  of  the  malignant  demon,  who,  under 
that  animal  form,  brought  death  into  the  world,  and 
obtained  a  destru-clive  dominion  over  men.  That  in 
ancient  scnljitures  and  paintings,  the  serpent  symbol  is 
sometimes  emblematical  of  wisdom,  eternity,  and  other 
moral  ideas,  may  be  allowed  ;  but  it  ot^en  appears  <  oii- 
nected  with  rciircscntations,  which  prove  that  under 
this  form  the  evil  principle  was  worshipped,  and  that 
human  sacrifices  were  offered  to  gratify  the  cruelty  of 
him,  who  was  a  "  murderer  from  the  beginning."  In 
the  model  of  the  tomb  of  I'sfimmix,  made  by  Mr.  Bel- 
zoni,  and  recently  exhibited  in  London,  and  in  the 
plates  which  accompany  bis  work  on  Eg>  pt,  are  seen 
various  rr|irisiiitalniiis  ol' monstrous  scrpriils,  with  the 
frihiilf  111  buiiiaii  laads  which  had  briii  (dlired  tothem. 
This  IS  siill  more  sirikiiifrly  exi-Mi|j|ilicd  in  a  copy  of 
part  of  the  mlrrior  of  an  EKyplian  loiiili,  at  IIiIkik  al 
Mclf>»l(  in  RiiiiarilsoiC.t  'I'mmls  in  F.^iiipl.  Ilclorc  an 
enormous  NcTpciit,  tlirc'c  men  are  rcpn-.si;iiled  on  their 
knees,  with  their  licaits  just  struck  off  by  the  execu- 
tioner, "while  tint  serpent  er<cis  bis  cre.st  to  a  level 
with  their  throats,  ready  to  drink  the  stream  of  life  as 
it  gurgles  from  their  veins."  This  was  jiroliably  the 
serpent  Typhon  of  the  ancient  Egyptians  ;  the  same  as 
the  Python  of  the  (ireeks ;  and,  as  observed  by  Mr. 
Kaber,  "  the  notion  that  the  Python  was  oracular,  may 
have  sprung  from  a  reculleition  of  the  vocal  responses 
which  the  tempter  gave  to  Eve,  under  the  borrowed 
figure  of  that  reptile."  Hy  consulting  .Moore's  Hindoo 
Pantheon,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  serpent  < 'aliya  is 
represented  as  the  decided  enemy  of  the  mediatorial 
(Jod,  Krishna,  whom  he  persccuirs,  and  on  whom  lie 
inflicts  various  sull'erinRS,  tbounb  hit  is  m  leiiglli  van- 
quished. Krishna,  pressed  withm  the  liilds  of  the  ser- 
pent, and  then  triumphing  over  hiin,  and  bruising  his 
head  beneath  his  feet,  is  the  subject  of  u  very  ancieitl 


[Part  L 

Hindoo  bas-relief,  and  carries  with  it  its  own  interpre- 
tation. 

In  the  Edda,  Fab.  16,  "  the  great  serpent  is  said  to 
be  an  emanation  from  Lake,  the  evil  principle ;  and 
}li:la,  or  hell,  or  ditath,  in  a  jioetical  vein  of  allegory 
not  unworthy  of  our  own  Milton,  is  celebrated  as  the 
daughter  of  that  jiersonage,  and  as  the  sister  of  the 
dragon.  Indignant  at  the  pertinacious  rebellion  of  the 
evil  principle,  the  universal  Father  despatchiul  cerlam 
of  the  gods  to  bring  those  children  to  him.  Wlieii 
they  were  come,  he  threw  the  serpent  down  to  the 
bottom  of  the  oc(!an.  But  there  the  monster  grew  so 
large,  that  he  wound  himself  round  the  whole  globe  of 
the  earth.  Death  meanwhile  was  iirecipitatod  into 
hell,  where  she  possesses  vast  aparlmenls,  strongly 
built,  and  fenced  with  grates  of  iron.  Her  hall  is 
(.iri'f;  her  table,  Fawjnf;  y^(//i°-tr,  her  knife;  Ihlay, 
her  servant ;  Finntne.ss,  her  porch  ;  Sii  1,-n  fx.i  and  Pam, 
her  bed  ;  and  hor  tent.  Cursing  and  Jluti/uifr. 

TiiK  Flood  of  Noah.— .losephus,  in  his  first  book 
aemnst  Apion,  slates, that  lliraaiis,  ilic  t'baldean  histo- 
rian, relates  in  asiiuilar  iiiaiiiiiT  to  .Moses,  ilu'  history  of 
tbellijudaiiillhe  preservatioii  oliNoali  in  an  ark  or  chest. 
In  Aliydemis's  ilistory  of  Ass)ria,  in  passanes  quoted 
by  Ensebius,  mention  is  made  of  an  aiK  leiii  prince  of 
ihe  namt;  o[  Sisitlirus,  who  was  forewanieil  lis  Satuni 
of  a  deluge.  In  this  account,  the  ship,  the  sending 
forth  and  returning  of  the  birds,  the  abating  of  the 
waters,  and  the  re.sting  of  the  ship  on  a  mountain,  are 
all  mentioned. — (Euseb.  Pra"p.  Evang.  lib.  9,  c.  12. — 
(Jrotius  on  the  Christian  Religion,  lib.  1,  sec.  Hi.) 
Lucian,  in  his  book  concerning  the  goddess  of  Syria, 
mentions  the  Syrian  traditions  as  to  this  event.  Here 
ISoah  is  called  Deucalion,  and  that  he  was  the  person 
intended  under  this  name  is  rendered  indubitable  by 
the  mention  of  the  wickedness  of  the  antediluvians, 
the  piety  of  Deucalion,  the  ark,  and  the  bringing  into  it 
of  tint  beasts  of  the  earth  by  pairs.  The  ancient  Per- 
sian traditions,  as  Dr.  Hyde  has  shown,  though  mixed 
with  fable,  have  a  substantial  agreement  with  the  Mo- 
saic account.  In  Hindostan,  the  ancient  poem  of  Blta- 
gavol  treats  of  a  flood  which  destroyed  all  mankind, 
except  a  pious  prince,  with  seven  of  liis  attendants  and 
their  wives.  The  Chinese  writers,  in  like  manner, 
make  mention  of  a  universal  flood.  In  the  legends  of 
the  ancient  Egyptians,  Goths,  and  Druids,  striking 
references  are  made  to  the  same  event  {Edda,  Fab.  4  ; 
Davies's  Mythology  of  the  British  Druids,  p.  226) ;  and 
it  was  found  represented  in  the  historical  paintings  of 
the  Mexicans,  and  among  the  American  nations.  The 
natives  of  Otaheite  believed  that  the  world  was  torn  in 
pieces  formerly  by  the  anger  of  their  gods;  the  inha- 
bitants of  the  Sandwich  Islands  have  a  tradition,  that 
the  Etooa,  who  cnaudthe  world,  afterward  destroyed 
it  by  an  inundation  ;  and  recollections  of  the  same 
event  are  preserved  among  the  New-Zealanders,  as  the 
author  had  the  opporliiiiity  of  ascertaining  lately  in  a 
conversation  with  two  of  their  chiefs,  through  ah  in- 
terpreter. For  large  illustrations  of  this  i>oint,  see 
BryaiWs  Uialheii  Mijlholugy  and  t'abtr's  HorcE  Mo- 
siuctr,, 

SAeRiKirE. — The  great  principle  of  the  three  dispen- 
sations of  religion  in  the  Scriptures, — the  Patriarchal, 
the  Mosaic,  and  the  Christian,— that  vithnut  xhiddirii; 
o/IiIiiihI,  llnrr  is  no  irniissin,!,  has  lived  ilself  in  every 
Jiagan  religion  ol'aiicieiit  and  inodeni  liiiies.  For  Ibough 
the  followers  of  Budhii  arc  ibiiiiddeii  lo  ollir  sanguinary 
s.irnliies  to  him,  they  offer  Itiem  lo  deinoiis  In  order  lo 
avirl  various  evils;  and  llnir  pre.sentalion  of  flowers 
and  fnnts  toBiidhn  hinisell  shows  that  one  iiarl  of  the 
original  rite  of  saciilire  has  been  retained,  though  the 
other,  through  a  pliilosuplnc  refinemint,  is  civen  up. 
Sacrilicea  are  however  offered  in  China,  where  the 
most  ancient  form  of  Hudhuisin  generally  prevails ;  a 
presumption  that  the  Budliuism  of  Ceylon  and  some 
parts  of  India  is  a  refinemenl  upon  a  more  ancient 's)s- 
tein.  "That  the  practice  of  dc'voiim;  ]uai-ular  victims 
has  at  one  period  or  another  prevailed  In  every  quarter 
of  the  globe,  and  that  it  has  been  aliki'  adopted  by  the 
most  barbarous  and  by  the  most  civilized  nations,  can 
scarcely  be  said  to  need  regular  and  formal  proof." 

EvcK.i  TATioN  OF  A  Df.i.iv !•  RKK. — Amid  tlic  miseries 
111  succeeding  ages,  the  ancient  pauan  world  was  always 
looKiiiK  Ibrward  to  the  appearance  of  a  great  Deliverer 
and  Restorer  ;  and  this  expeilation  was  so  general,  that 
It  is  mipoBsible  to  account  for  it  but  from  "the  pro- 
mises made  uiilo  the  lathers,"  beginning  with  the  pro- 


Chap.  V.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


21 


mise  of  conquest  to  the  seed  of  the  woman  over  IIh^ 
power  of  the  serpent.  It  is  a  singular  fact  and  still 
worthy  of  remark,  thouKli  so  often  stated,  that,  a  little 
before  our  Lord's  advent,  an  expectation  of  the  sjjeedy 
appearance  of  this  Deliverer  was  general  aiiioiij;  tiw. 
nations  of  antiquity.  "  The  fact,"  says  IJishop  Hnrs- 
ley,  "  is  so  notorious  to  all  who  have  any  knowled^'e  ol' 
antiquity,  tliat  if  any  one  would  deny  it,  I  woidd  de- 
cline all  dispute  with  such  an  adversary  as  too  ignorant 
to  receive  i-oiivii;tion,  or  too  disin;,'enuous  to  acknow- 
ledge what  he  must  sec'relly  admit."  It  is  another  sin- 
gular fiiit,  that  \'irt;d,  in  his  Futlio,  liy  an  application 
of  the  SyliiUuie  venses,  which  are  almost  literally  in 
the  hif^h  and  glowing  strains  in  which  Isaiah  prophe- 
sies of  Christ,  to  a  child  of  his  friend,  one  of  the  Koman 
consuls,  whose  birth  was  just  expected,  and  that  out 
of  an  extravagant  flattery  should  call  the  attention  of 
the  world  to  those  singular  and  mysterious  books,  so 
shortly  before  the  birth  of  him  who  alone  could  fulfil 
the  prophecies  they  contain.  For  a  farther  account  of 
the  Sybilline  verses,  the  reader  is  referred  to  Prideaux's 
("onnexion,  to  Bishop  Lowth's  Dissertations,  and  to 
Bishop  Horsley's  Dissertation  on  the  Prophecies  of  the 
Messiah  dispersed  among  the  Heathen.  It  is  enough 
here  to  say,  that  it  is  an  historical  fact  that  the  Sybil- 
line  books  existed  among  the  Romans  from  an  early 
period ;  that  these  oracles  of  the  Cumaean  Sybil  were 
held  in  such  veneration,  that  the  book  wliich  contained 
them  was  deposited  in  a  stone  chest,  in  the  tenqile  of 
Jupiter,  in  the  Capitol,  and  committed  to  the  care  of  two 
persons  appointed  to  that  office  expressly  ;  that  about  a 
century  before  our  Saviour's  birth,  the  book  was  de- 
stroyed in  the  lire  which  consumed  the  temjjle  in  which 
it  was  deposited ;  that  the  Roman  Senate  knew  that 
similar  oracles  existed  among  other  nations,  for,  to  re- 
pair'that  loss,  they  .sent  persons  to  make  a  new  collec- 
tion of  these  oracles  hi  different  parts  of  Asia,  in  the 
islands  of  the  Archipelago,  in  Africa,  and  in  Sicily,  who 
returned  with  about  a  thousand  verses,  which  were 
deposited  in  the  place  of  the  originals,  and  kept  with 
the  same  care  ;  and  that  the  predictions  which  Virgil 
weaves  into  liis  fourth  Eclogue,  of  the  appearance  of  a 
king,  whose  monarchy  was  to  be  universal,  and  who 
was  to  bestow  upon  mankind  the  blessings  he  de- 
scribes, were  contained  in  them.  It  follows,  therefore, 
that  such  predictions  existed  anciently  among  the 
Romans  ;  that  they  were  found  in  many  other  parts  of 
Europe,  and  Asia,  and  Africa ;  and  that  they  had  so 
marvellous  an  agreement  with  the  predictions  of  the 
Jewish  propliets,  that,  either  they  were  in  part  copies 
from  them,  or  predictions  of  an  inspiration  equally  sa- 
cred— the  fragments  of  very  ancient  prophecy  inter- 
woven probably  with  the  fables  of  later  times.  "  If," 
as  Bishop  Horsley  justly  observes,  "any  illiterate 
persons  were  to  hear  Virgil's  jioem  read,  with  the 
omission  of  a  few  allusions  to  the  heathen  mythology, 
which  would  not  affect  the  general  sense  of  it,  they 
would  withotit  hesitation  pronounce  it  to  be  a  pro- 
phecy of  the  Messiah."  It  might  seem,  indeed,  that  the 
|)oet  had  only  in  many  passages  translated  Isaiah,  did 
he  not  expressly  attribute  the  predictions  he  has  intro- 
duced into  his  poem  to  the  CumEean  Sybil ;  which  he 
would  not  have  done  if  such  passages  had  not  been 
found  in  the  oracles,  because  they  were  then  in  exist- 
ence, and  their  contents  were  known  to  many.  The 
subse(juent  Ibrgeries  of  these  oracles  in  the  first  ages 
of  the  Church,  also  prove  at  least  this,  that  the  true 
Sybilline  ver.ses  contained  prophetic  passages,  capable 
of  a  strong  application  to  the  true  universal  Deliverer, 
wliich  those  pious  frauds  aimed  at  making  more  parti- 
cular and  more  convincing.  Those  who  do  not  read 
Latin,  may  consult  "  the  Messiah"  of  Pope,  with  the 
principal  passages  from  Virgil  in  the  notes,  translated 
and  collated  with  prophecies  from  Isaiah,  which  will 
put  theBi  in  possessiciiofthe  substance  of  this  singular 
and  most  interesting  production. 

Nor  is  it  only  on  the  above  points  that  we  perceive 
the  ancient  traditions  and  o|iinions  preserved  in  their 
grand  outhne  among  different  heathen  nations,  but  also 
in  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  the  destruction  of  the  pre- 
sent system  of  material  nature.  The  Pythagoreans, 
Platonists,  Epicureans,  Stoics,  all  had  notions  of  a  ge- 
neral conflagration.  After  the  doctrine  of  the  Stoics, 
Ovid  thus  speaks,  Metam.  lib.  I. 

"  Esse  quoque  in  fatis  reminiscitnr  affore  tempus 
(iuo  mare,  quotellus,  correptaque  regie  cceli 
Ardeat,  et  mundi  moles  opcrosa  laboret." 


Rememb'ring  in  llio  fates  a  time  When  fire 
Should  to  the  balllcMiriits  ol' heaven  aspire. 
When  all  his  bla/.m;;  wmids  above  should  burn, 
And  all  th'  inferior  globe  lo  cinders  turn. 

Drydicn. 
Seneca,  speaking  of  the  same  event,  and  Murciam 
c.  ult.,  says,  "  Ttnipux  advenirct.  qui)  suiera  siileribvs 
inciirrent,  i^-c.  The  time  will  come  wlicn  the  whole 
world  will  be  consumed,  that  it  may  be  again  renewed  ; 
when  the  powers  of  nature  wll  be  turned  at'aiiist  her- 
.self ;  when  stars  will  rush  on  stars,  and  llic  whole 
material  world,  which  now  appears  so  resplendent  with 
beauty  and  harmony,  will  be  destroyed  m  one  general 
conflagration.  In  this  grand  catastrophe  ol'  nature  all 
animated  beings  (excepting  the  universal  intelligence), 
men,  heroes,  demons,  and  gods,  shall  perish  together." 
The  same  tradition  presents  itself  in  different  forms 
in  all  leading  systems  of  modern  paganism. 

Note  B.—Page  18. 
Of  the  controversy  as  to  Zoroaster,  Zeratusht,  or 
Zertushta,  and  the  sacred  books  said  to  have  been 
written  by  him,  called  Zend  or  Zendavesta,  which  have 
divided  critics  so  eminent,  it  would  answer  no  import- 
ant end  to  give  an  abstract.  Those  who  wish  for  in- 
formation on  the  subject  are  referred  to  Hyok's  Religio 
Veterum  Persarum ;  Pridkaux's  Connexion;  War- 
burton's  Divine  Legation;  Bryant's  Mythology  ;  the 
Universal  History;  Sir  W.  Jones's  Works, v(>L  3,  p. 
115;  M.  Du  Perron,  and  Richardson's  Dissertation 
prefixed  to  liis  Persian  and  Arabic  Dictionary.  But 
whatever  may  become  of  the  authority  of  the  whole  or 
part  of  the  Zendavesta,  and  ■with  whatever  fables  the 
History  of  the  Reformer  of  the  Magian  religion  may  be 
mixed,  the  learned  are  generally  agreed  that  such  a 
reformation  took  place  by  his  instrumentality.  "  Zera- 
tusht," says  Sir  W.  Jones,  "  reformed  the  old  religion 
by  the  addition  of  genii,  or  angels,  of  new  ceremonies 
in  tlie  veneration  shown  to  fire,  of  a  new  work  which 
he  pretended  to  have  received  from  heaven,  and,  above 
all,  by  establislii/ig  the  artual  culoration  of  the  Supreme 
Being ;"  and  he  farther  adds,  "  The  reformed  religion  of 
Persia  continued  in  force  till  that  country  was  con- 
quered by  the  Mussulmans;  and  without  studying  the 
Zend,  we  have  ample  information  concerning  it  in  the 
modern  Persian  writings  of  several  who  profess  it. 
Bahman  always  named  Zeratusht  with  reverence;  he 
was  in  truth  a  pure  Theist,  and  strongly  disi-laimed  any 
adoration  of  the  fire  or  other  elements,  and  he  denied 
that  the  doctrine  of  two  coeval  principles,  supremely 
good  and  supremely  bad,  formed  any  part  of  his  faith." 
"The  Zeratusht  of  Persia,  or  the  Zoroaster  of  the 
Greeks,"  says  Richardson,  "  was  highly  celebrated  by 
the  most  discerning  people  of  ancient  times  ;  and  his 
tenets,  we  are  told,  were  most  eagerly  and  rapidly  em- 
braced by  the  highest  in  rank,  and  the  wisest  men  in 
the  Persian  empire." — Dissertation  prefixed  to  his  Per- 
sian Dictionary.  He  distinguished  himself  by  denying 
tliat  good  and  evil,  re])resented  by  light  and  darkness, 
were  coeval,  independent  principles,  and  asserted  the 
sujircmacy  of  the  true  God,  in  exact  conformity  with 
the  doctrine  contained  in  a  part  of  that  celebrated  pro- 
phecy of  Is.aiah  in  which  Cvrus  is  mentioned  byname. 
"  /  ain  the  Lord,  and  there  is  none  else ;  there  is  no  God 
beside  me"  (no  coeval  power).  "/  form  the  light  and 
create  darkness,  1 7nnke  peace,  or  good,  and  create  evil ; 
I,  the  Lord,  do  all  these  things."  Fire,  by  Zerdushta, 
appears  to  have  been  used  em.blematically  only,  and  the 
ceremonies  for  preserving  and  transmitting  it,  intro- 
duced by  him,  were  manifestly  taken  from  the  Jews, 
and  the  sacred  fire  of  their  tabernacle  and  temple. 

The  old  religion  of  the  Persians  was  corrupted  by 
Sabianism,  or  the  worship  of  the  host  of  heaven,  with 
its  accompanying  superstition.  The  Magian  doctrine, 
whatever  it  might  be  at  first,  had  degenerated,  and  two 
eternal  principles,  good  and  evil,  had  been  introduced. 
It  was  therefore  necessarily  idolatrous,  also,  and  like 
all  other  fal.se  systems,  flattering  to  the  vicious  habitg 
of  the  peojile.  So  great  an  improvement  in  the  moral 
character  and  influence  of  the  religion  of  a  whole  na- 
tion as  was  eflected  by  Zoroaster,  a  change  which  is 
not  certainly  paralleled  in  the  history  of  the  religion  of 
mankind,  can  scarcely  therefi)re  be  thought  jjossible, 
except  we  suppose  a  Divine  interposition  either  directly, 
or  by  the  occurrence  of  some  very  impressive  events. 
Now,  as  there  are  so  many  authorities  for  fixing  the 
time  of  Zoroaster  or  Zeratusht  not  many  years  subse- 


22 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  L 


quent  to  the  death  of  the  great  Cyrus,  the  events  to 
which  we  have  referred  in  tlie  text  are  those,  and  in- 
deed the  only  ones,  wliich  will  account  for  his  success 
in  that  reformation  of  religion  of  whicli  he  was  the 
author;  for  liad  not  the  minds  of  men  been  prepared 
for  this  change  by  somelhiii);  extraordinary,  it  is  not 
supposable  that  they  would  have  adopted  a  purer  laith 
from  him.  That  he  gave  them  a  better  doctrine,  is  clear 
from  the  admissions  of  even  Dean  Prideaux,  who  has 
very  unjustly  branded  him  as  an  impostor.  Let  it 
then  be  rememl>ered,  that  as  "the  Most  High  rulelli  in 
the  kingdoms  of  men,"  he  often  overrules  great  poli- 
tical events  for  rnnral  purposes.  The  Jews  were  sent 
into  captivity  to  Uabylon  to  be  reformed  from  their 
idolatrous  propensities,  and  tlieir  reformation  com- 
menced with  their  calamity.  A  miracle  was  there 
wrought  in  favour  of  the  three  Hebrews,  confessors  of 
one  only  God,  and  that  under  circumstances  to  put 
shame  upon  a  popular  idol  in  the  presence  of  the  King 
"  and  all  the  rulers  of  the  pmi-mres"  that  the  issue  of 
this  controversy  between  Jehovah  and  idolatry  might 
be  made  known  throughout  that  vast  empire. — Wor- 
ship was  refused  to  the  idol  by  a  few  Hebrew  captives, 
and  I  tie  idol  had  no  power  to  punish  the  public  aflront : 
— the  servants  of  Jehovah  were  cast  into  a  furnace, 
and  he  delivered  them  unhurt ;  and  a  royal  decree  de- 
clared "  that  there  U'os  no  God  irho  could  deliver  after 
f /lis  sort."  The  proud  monarch  himself  is  smitten  with 
a  singular  disease  ;  he  remains  subject  to  it  until  he  ac- 
knowledges the  true  God  ;  and,  upon  his  recovery,  he 
publicly  a.scribes  to  him  both  the  justice  and  the  rnercy 
of  the  punishment.  This  event  takes  place  also  in  the 
accomplishment  of  a  dream  which  none  of  the  wise 
men  of  Bfihylon  could  interpret :  it  was  interpreted  by 
Daniel,  who  made  the  fulfilment  to  redound  to  the 
honour  of  the  true  God,  by  ascribing  to  him  the  perfec- 
tion of  knowing  the  future,  which  none  of  the  false 
gods  appealed  to  by  the  Chaldean  sages  possessed ; 
as  the  inability  of  their  sers'ants  to  interpret  the  dream 
sufficiently  proved.  After  these  singular  events,  Cyrus 
takes  Babylon,  and  he  finds  there  the  sage  and  the 
statesman,  Daniel  the  worshipper  of  tlie  Gocl  "  who  cre- 
ates both  good  and  evil,"  "  who  makes  the  light  and 
forms  the  darkvess."  Tliere  is  moral  certainty,  that  he 
and  the  principal  Persians  throughout  the  empire  would 
have  the  propliecy  of  Isaiah  respecting  Cyrus,  delivered 
more  than  a  hundred  years  before  he  was  born,  and  in 
which  his  name  .stood  recorded,  along  with  the  pre- 
dicted circumstances  of  the  capture  of  Babylon,  pointed 
out  to  them  ;  as  every  reason,  religious  and  jiolitical, 
urged  the  Jews  to  make  the  prediction  a  matter  of  no- 
toriety ;  and  from  Cyrus's  decree  in  Ezra  it  is  certain 
that  he  was  acquainted  with  it,  because  there  is  in  the 
decree  an  obvious  reference  to  the  prophecy.  This 
prophecy  so  strangely  fulfilled  would  give  mighty  force 
to  the  doctrine  connected  with  it,  and  wliich  it  pro- 
chiims  Willi  so  much  majesty. 
"  1  am  Jkhovah,  and  none  else. 
Forming  i.kjht,  and  creating  darkness, 
Making  pkaik,  and  creating  kvii., 
1  Jkhovah  am  the  author  of  all  these  things." 

Lowth's  Translation. 
Here  the  gfeat  principle  of  corrujiled  Magianism 
was  directly  attacked ;  and  in  proportion  as  tlie  fulfil- 
ment of  the  prophecy  was  felt  to  be  singular  and 
striking,  the  doctrine  blended  with  it  would  attract  no- 
tice. Its  force  was  both  felt  and  acknowledged,  as  we 
have  seen  in  the  decree  of  Cyrus  for  the  rebuilding  of 
the  temple.  In  that,  Cyri's  acknowledged  the  true 
God  to  be  supreme,  and  thus  renounced  his  former 
faith;  and  the  exaiiiplc,  tlie  (lublic  examide  of  a  prince 
80  beloved,  and  \vhi)se  rcigii  was  so  ixteiided,  could  not 
fail  to  influence  the  n  liguius  oinmoiis  of  his  people. 
That  the  efl'ect  did  not  terminate  in  (?>rus,  we  know  ; 
for  from  the  book  of  KzRA,it  apiiears  that  both  Darius 
and  Aktaxkrxks  made  decrees  in  favour  of  theJew.s, 
in  which  Jehovah  has  the  emphatic  appellation  repeat- 
edly given  to  him,  "  the  God  of  heaven ;"  the  very 
terms  used  by  Cyrus  himself.  Nor  are  we  to  suppose 
the  impre.ssinn  confined  to  the  court ;  lor  the  histor)' 
of  the  Hebrew  youths;  of  Nilnuliaihie/./ar's  dream, 
sickness,  and  reformation  froin  idolairy  ;  of  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  handwriting  on  the  wall  by  Daniel  the 
Bcrvant  of  the  living  (lod  ;  of  his  deliverance  from  the 
lions  ;  and  the  publicity  of  the  prophi'cy  of  Isaiah  re- 
specting Cyrus,  were  too  recent,  too  public,  and  too 
Btriking  in  their  nature,  not  to  be  often  and  largely 


talked  of.  Besides,  in  ihe  prophecy  respecting  Cyrus, 
the  intention  of  Almighty  God  in  recording  the  name 
of  that  monarch  in  an  inspired  book,  and  showing 
beforehand  that  he  had  chosen  him  to  overturn  the 
Babylonian  empire,  is  expressly  mentioned  as  having 
respect  to  two  great  objects— First,  The  deliverance  of 
Israel ;  and.  Second,  TJie  making  known  his  Supreme 
Divinity  mnont;  the  nations  of  the  earth.  1  again  quote 
Lowth's  Translation. 
"  For  the  sake  of  my  servant  Jacob 

And  of  Israel  my  chosen, 

I  have  even  called  thee  by  thy  name, 

1  have  surnamed  thee  though  thou  knewest  me  not. 

I  am  Jehovah,  and  none  else. 

Beside  me  there  is  no  f  iod ; 

I  will  gird  thee,  though  thou  hast  not  known  me, 

That  they  viay  hnoie,  from  the  rising  of  the  sun, 

And  from  the  West,  that  there  is  none  beside 

ME,"  &c. 

It  was  therefore  intended  by  this  proceeding  on  the 
part  of  Providence,  to  teach  not  only  Cyri's,  but  the 
people  of  his  vast  empire,  and  surrounding  nations, 
First,  that  He  was  Jehovah,  the  self-subsisleiit,  the 
etenial  God;  SKfONn,  That  he  was  God  alonk,  there 
being  no  Deity  be.sides  himself ;  and,  'J'iijrd,  That  good 
and  evil,  represented  by  light  and  darkness,  were  nei- 
ther independent  nor  eternal  subsistences ;  but  lus  great 
instruments  and  under  his  control. 

The  Persians,  who  had  so  vastly  extended  their  em- 
pire by  the  conquest  of  the  countries  formerly  held  by 
the  monarchs  of  Baliyloii,  were  thus  prepared  for  such 
a  reformation  of  their  religion  as  Zoroaster  effected. 
The  principles  he  advocated  had  been  previously 
adopted  by  several  of  the  Persian  monarchs,  and  pro- 
bably by  many  of  the  jirinciiial  persons  of  that  nation. 
Zoroaster  himself  thus  became  ac<iuainted  with  the 
great  truths  contained  in  this  famous  prophecy,  which 
attacked  the  very  foundations  of  every  idolatrous  and 
Manichean  system.  From  the  other  sacred  books  of 
the  Jews  who  mixed  with  the  Persians  in  every  part 
of  the  empire,  he  evidently  learned  more.  This  is  suf- 
ficiently proved  from  the  many  points  of  similarity  be- 
tween his  religion  and  Judaism,  though  he  should  not 
be  allowed  to  speak  so  much  in  the  style  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  as  some  passages  in  the  Zendavesta  would 
indicate.  He  found  the  people,  however,  '' prepared 
o/'Z'(e  iyord"  to  admit  his  relormalions,  and  he  carried 
them.  I  cannot  but  look  U]ion  this  as  one  instance  of 
several  merciful  dispensations  of  (Jod  to  the  Gentile 
world,  through  his  own  jieculiar  pro|ile  the  Jews,  by 
which  the  idolatries  of  the  healheii  \v<TcoHi-n  checked, 
and  the  light  of  truth  rekindled  among  lliem.  In  this 
view  the  ancient  Jews  evidently  considered  the  Jewish 
Church  as  appointed  not  to  preserve  only  but  to  exterid 
true  religion.  "  Godbeviercifiit  to  us  and  hlessvs,  that 
thy  iidi/s  tiuni  he  known  upon  earth,  thii  saving  health 
uHlii  III!  iiti/Kiiis.''  Tliis  renders  p:ii:aii  nations  more 
evidcnily  "  irilhniit  excuse."  That  lliisdls]"'nsali()n  of 
mercy  was  alicrward  neglected  among  Ihe  Persians  is 
certain.  How  long  the  etii n  contnined  we  know  not, 
nor  how  widely  it  spread  ;  perhaps  lunger  and  wider  than 
may  now  distinctly  appear.  If  the  Magi  who  (time 
from  the  East  to  seek  ('lirist  were  Persians,  some  true 
worshippers  of  God  would  appear  to  have  remained  in 
Persia  to  that  day  ;  and  if.  as  is  probable,  the  prophe- 
cies of  Isaiah  and  Daniel  were  retained  among  itiem, 
they  might  be  among  those  who  "  waihil  liir  redemp- 
tion" not  at  .Terusalem,  but  in  a  distant  jiart  of  the 
world.  The  Parsees,  who  were  nearly  extirpated  by 
INIahoinelan  fanaticism,  were  charged  by  their  oppres- 
sors with  Ihe  idolatry  of  fire,  and  this  was  probably 
true  of  the  multilude.  Some  of  their  writers,  however, 
warmly  defended  themselves  against  the  charge.  A 
considerable  number  of  them  remain  in  India  to  this 
day,  and  profess  to  have  the  books  of  Zoroaster. 

This  note  contains  a  considerable  digression,  but  its 
connexion  with  the  argument  in  the  text  is  obvious. 
He  who  rejects  the  aiithorily  of  Ihe  Scriptures  will  not 
be  influenced  by  what  has  been  said  of  the  jirophecies 
of  Isaiah,  or  the  events  of  Ihe  life  of  Daniel ;  but  still 
il  is  not  In  tx-  denied  thai  winle  the  Persian  empire 
remained,  a   Persian   moral    philosopher  who  taught 

subli doctrines  tlourislml,  and  that  his  opinions  had 

great  induence.  The  conncMoi!  of  Ihe  Jews  and  Per- 
sians is  an  undeniable  in:'.inr  of  historic  fact.  The 
tenets  ascribed  to  Zoroaster  bear  the  marks  of  Jewish 
origin,  because  they  are  muigled  with  some  of  the 


Chap.  VI.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


23 


peculiar  rites  and  cirriimstances  of  the  Jewish  Temiile. 
From  this  source  tlio  Theology  of  the  Persians  received 
improvements  in  correct  and  influential  notions  of 
Deity  especially,  and  was  enriched  with  tlie  history 
and  doctrines  of  the  Mosaic  records.  The  affairs  of  the 
Greeks  were  so  interwoven  with  those  of  the  Persians, 
that  the  sages  of  Greece  could  not  be  ignorant  of  the 
opinions  of  Zertushta,  known  to  them  by  the  name  of 
Zoroaster,  and  from  this  school  some  of  their  best  no- 
tions were  derived. 

Note  C.—Page  19. 

The  greatest  corruptions  of  religion  are  to  be  traced 
to  superstition,  and  to  that  vain  and  bewildering  habit 
of  philosophizing  which  obtained  among  the  ancients. 
Superstition  was  the  besetting  sin  of  the  ignorant,  vain 
speculation  of  the  intelligent.  Both  sprung  from  the 
vicious  state  of  the  heart ;  the  expression  was  different, 
but  the  effect  the  same.  The  evil  probably  arose  in 
Egypt,  and  was  largely  improved  upon  by  the  philoso- 
phers of  Greece  and  India.  Systems,  hypotheses, 
cosmogonies,  &c.  are  all  the  work  of  philosophy ;  and 
the  most  subtle  and  bewildering  errors,  such  as  the 
eternity  of  matter,  the  metempsychosis,  the  absorption 
of  the  human  soul  at  death,  <fce.,  have  sprung  from 
them.  Ancient  wisdom,  both  religious  and  moral,  was 
contained  in  great  principles,  expressed  in  maxims, 
without  affectation  of  systematic  relation  and  arrange- 
ment, and  without  any  deep  research  into  reasons  and 
causes.  The  moment  philosophy  attempted  this,  the 
weakness  and  waywardness  of  the  human  mind  began 
to  display  themselves.  Theories  sprung  up  in  suc- 
cession ;  and  confusion  and  contradiction  at  length  pro- 
duced skepticism  in  all,  and  in  many  matured  it  into 
total  unbelief  The  speculative  habit  affected  at  once 
the  opinions  of  ancient  Africa  and  Asia ;  and  in  India, 
the  philosophy  of  Egypt  and  (ireece  remains  to  tliis 
day,  ripened  into  its  full  bearing  of  deleterious  fruit. 

The  similarity  of  the  Greek  and  modern  Asiatic  sys- 
tems is  indeed  a  very  curious  subject ;  for  in  the  latter 
is  exhibited  at  this  day  the  philosophy  of  paganism, 
while  in  other  places  false  religion  is  seen  only  or 
chiefly  in  its  simple  form  of  superstition.  The  coinci- 
dence of  the  Hindoo  and  Greek  mythology  has  been 
traced  by  Sir  W.  Jones ;  and  his  opinions  on  this  sub- 
ject are  strongly  confirmed  by  the  still  more  striking 
coincidence  in  the  doctrines  of  the  Hindoo  and  Grecian 
philosfipUical  sects.  "  The  period,"  says  Mr.  Ward 
(  View  of  the  History  of  the  Hindoos,  S,-c.),  "  when  the 
most  eminent  of  the  Hindoo  philosophers  flourished,  is 
still  involved  in  much  obscurity;  but  the  apparent 
agreement  in  many  striking  particulars  between  the 
Hindoo  and  the  Greek  systems  of  philosophy,  not  only 
suggests  the  idea  of  some  union  in  their  origin,  but 
strongly  pleads  for  their  belonging  to  one  age,  notwith- 
standing the  unfathomable  antiquity  claimed  by  the 
Hindoos  ;  and  after  the  reader  shall  have  compared  the 
two  systems,  the  author  is  persuaded  he  will  not  con- 
sider the  conjecture  as  improbable,  that  Pythagoras  and 
others  did  really  visit  India,  or  that  Goutumu  and  Py- 
thagoras were  contemporaries,  or  nearly  so." — Vol.  4. 

"  Many  of  the  subjects  discussed  among  the  Hindoos 
were  the  very  subjects  which  excited  the  disputes  in 
the  Greek  academies,  such  as  the  eternity  of  matter, 
the  first  cause;  God  the  soul  of  the  world;  the  doc- 
trine of  atoms  ;  creation  ;  the  nature  of  the  gods ;  the 
doctrines  of  fate,  transmigration,  successive  revolu- 
tions of  worlds,  absorption  into  the  Divine  Being,  &c." 
Ibid,  page  115. 

Mr.  Ward  enters  at  large  into  this  coincidence  in  his 
Introductory  Remarks  to  his  fourth  volume,  to  which 
the  reader  is  referred.  It  shall  only  be  observed,  that 
those  speculations  and  subtle  arguments  just  men- 
tioned, both  in  the  Greek  and  A.siatic  branches  of  pasan 
philosophy,  gave  birth  to  absolute  Atheism.  Several  of 
the  Greek  philosopliic  sects,  as  is  well  known,  were 
professedly  Atheistic.  Cudworth  enumerates  four  forms 
assumed  by  this  species  of  unbelief  The  same  prin- 
ciples wliich  distinguished  their  sects  may  be  traced  in 
several  of  those  of  the  Hindoos,  and  above  all  the  Athe- 
istical system  of  Budhoo  branc'hed  off  from  the  vain 
philosophy  of  the  Brahminical  schools,  and  has  ex- 
tended farther  than  Hindooism  itself  The  reason  of 
all  this  is  truly  given  by  Bishop  VVarburton,  as  to  the 
Greeks,  and  it  is  equally  applicable  to  the  Asiatic  phi- 
Josophy  of  the  present  day,  which  is  so  clearly  one 
and  the  same,  and  also  to  many  errors  which  have 


crept  into  the  Church  of  Christ  itself.  "  The  philoso- 
l)hy  of  the  Greeks,"  be  observes,  led  to  unbelief,  "  be- 
cause it  was  above  measure  refined  and  speculative, 
and  used  to  be  determined  by  7iittniihysical  rather  than 
by  moral  principles,  and  to  stick  to  all  consequences, 
how  absurd  soever,  that  were  seen  to  arise  from  such 
principles." 


CHAPTER  VI. 

The  Necessittj  of  Revelation  ;— State  of  Religiotis 
Kiioidedge  among  the  Heathen. 

Severat.  presumptive  arguments  have  been  offered 
in  favour  of  the  opinion,  that  Almighty  God  in  his 
goodness  has  made  an  express  revelation  of  liis  will  to 
mankind.  They  have  been  drawn  from  the  fact,  that 
we  are  moral  agents,  and  therefore  under  a  law  or  rule 
of  conduct — from  the  consideration  tliat  no  law  can  be 
binding  till  made  known,  or  at  least  rendered  cognizable 
by  those  whom  it  is  intended  to  govern — from  the  ina- 
bility of  the  generality  of  men  to  collect  any  adequate 
information  on  moral  and  religious  subjects  by  pro- 
cesses of  induction — from  the  insufficiency  of  reason, 
even  in  the  wisest,  to  make  any  satisfactory  discovery 
of  the  first  jirinciples  of  religion  and  duty — from  the 
want  of  all  authority  and  influence  in  such  discoveries, 
upon  the  majority  of  mankind,  had  a  few  minds  of 
superior  order  and  with  more  favourable  opportunities 
been  capable  of  making  them — from  the  fact  that  no 
such  discover)'  was  ever  made  by  the  wisest  of  the 
ancient  sages,  inasmuch  as  the  truths  they  held  were 
in  existence  before  their  day,  even  in  the  earliest  pe- 
riods of  the  patriarchal  ages — and  from  the  fact,  that 
whatev^er  truths  they  collected  from  early  tradition,  or 
from  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  mediately  or  imme- 
diately, they  so  corrupted  under  pretence  of  improving 
them,('J)  as  to  destroy  their  harmony  and  moral  influ- 
ence, thereby  greatly  weakening  the  probability  that 
moral  truth  was  ever  an  object  of  the  steady  and  sin- 
cere pursuit  of  men.  To  these  presmnptions  in  favour 
of  an  express  revelation,  uritten,  preserved  mth  care, 
and  appointed  to  be  preached  and  jiublished  under  the 
authority  of  its  Author,  for  the  benefit  of  all,  wise  or 
unwise,  we  may  add  the  powerful  presumption  which 
is  afforded  by  the  necessity  of  the  case.  This  neces- 
sity of  a  revelation  is  to  be  collected,  not  only  from 
what  has  been  advanced,  but  from  the  state  of  moral 
and  religiousknowledge  and  practice,  in  those  countries 
where  the  records  which  ])rofess  to  contain  the  Mosaic 
and  the  Christian  revelations  have  been  or  are  still 
unknown. 

The  necessity  of  immediate  divine  instruction  was 
acknowledged  by  many  of  the  wisest  and  most  inquir- 
ing of  tile  heathen,  under  the  conviction  of  the  entire 
inability  of  man  unassisted  by  God  to  discover  truth 
with  certainty, — so  greatly  had  the  primitive  tradi- 
tional revelations  been  obscured  by  errors  before  the 
times  of  the  most  ancient  of  those  eages  among  the 
heathen  whose  writings  have  in  whole  or  in  part  been 
transmitted  to  us,  and  so  litde  confidence  had  they  in 
themselves  to  separate  truth  from  error,  or  to  say, 
"  Thi.s  is  tnie  and  that  false."  And  as  the  necessity  of^ 
an  express  and  authenticated  revelation  was  acknow- 
ledged, so  it  was  publicly  exhibited,  because  on  the 
very  first  principles  of  religion  and  morals,  there  was 
either  entire  ignorance,  or  no  settled  and  consonant 
opinions,  even  among  the  wisest  of  nianldnd  them- 
selves.(l) 


(9)  Plato,  in  his  Epinominis,  acknowledges  that  the 
Greeks  learned  many  things  firom  the  barbarians,  though 
he  asserts  that  they  improved  what  they  thus  borrowed, 
and  made  it  better,  especially  in  what  related  to  the 
v'orship  of  the  gods.  Plat.  Oper.  p.  703,  edit.  Ficin. 
Lugd.  1590. 

(1)  Plato,  beginning  his  discourse  of  the  gods  and  the 
generation  of  the  world,  cautions  liis  disciples  "  not  to 
expect  any  thing  beyond  a  likely  conjecture  concern- 
ing these  things."  Cicero,  referring  to  the  same  sub- 
ject, says,  "  Latent  ista  omnia  crassis  occulta  et  cir- 
cumfusa  tenebris ;  all  these  things  are  involved  in  deep 
obscurity." 

The  following  passage  from  the  same  author  may  be 
recommended  to  the  consideration  of  modem  exalters 
of  the  power  of  unassisted  reason.    The  treasures  of 


24 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  I. 


Some  proofs  of  this  have  already  been  adduced ;  but 
the  iniporl.iiicu  of  the  subject  requires  that  they  should 
be  enlaiKwl. 

Though  the  belief  of  one  Supreme  Being  has  been 
found  in  njiiiiy  parts  of  the  world,  yet  the  notion  of  sub- 
onhnale  deitiis,  the  irnrriediiite  dispensers  of  good  and 
evil  to  men,  and  the  objects  of  their  fear  and  worship, 
has  almost  eiiually  obtained;  and  this  of  necessity  de- 
stroyed or  greatly  counteracted  the  moral  influence  of 
that  just  opinion. 

••  The  people  -ienerally  among  the  GentUes,"  says 
Dr.  Tenison,  "  did  rise  little  tiigher  than  the  objects  of 
sense.  Tliey  worshipped  them  each  as  supreme  in 
their  kind,  or  no  otherwise  unequal  than  the  sun  and 
the  moon,  or  the  oilier  celestial  bodies,  by  the  adoration 
of  which  the  ancient  idolaters,  as  .lob  intimateth,  de- 
nied (or  e.xcluded)  the  God  that  is  above.  Porphyry 
himself',  one  of  the  most  plausible  apologists  tor  the 
religion  of  the  (imitiles,  doth  own  in  somo  the  most 
gross  and  blockisii  idolatry  of  mean  objects.  He  tells 
us,  that  it  is  not  a  matter  of  which  we  should  be  amazed, 
if  most  ignorant  men  esteemed  wood  and  stones  divine 
statues  ;  seeing  they  who  are  unlearned  look  upon  mo- 
numents which  have  inscriptions  upon  them  as  ordi- 
nary stones,  and  regard  books  as  so  many  bundles  of 
paper."(2) 

The  modern  idolatry  of  Ilindostan,  which  in  prin- 
ciple difl'ers  nothing  from  that  of  the  ancient  world, 
affords  a  striking  comment  upon  this  point,  and  indeed 
is  of  great  imporiance  in  enabling  us  to  conceive  justly 
of  the  true  character  and  iiractical  effects  of  idolatry  in 
all  ages.  One  Supreme  Being  is  acknowledged  by  the 
Hindoos,  but  they  never  viorship  him,  nor  tliink  that 
he  concerns  himself  with  human  affairs  at  all. 

"  The  Hindoos  believe  in  one  God,  so  completely  ab- 
stracted in  his  own  essence  however,  that  in  this  state 
lie  is  emphatically  the  unkrwwn,  and  is  consequently 
neither  the  object  of  hope  nor  of  fear,  he  is  even  des- 
titute of  intelligence,  and  remains  in  a  state  of  profound 
fepose."(.S) 

•'  This  being,"  says  Moore, (4)  "  is  called  Brahm,  one 
eternal  mind,  the  self-existing,  incomprehensible  Sjiirit. 
'I'o  him,  however,  the  Hindoos  erect  no  altars.  Tlie 
objects  of  their  adoration  commence  with  the  triad, — 
Brahma,  Vislmu,  and  ISeva,  which  represent  the 
almighty  powers  ot  creatian, preservation,  emi  destruc- 
tion." 

The  learned  among  the  classic  heathen,  it  is  true, 
occasionally  speak  nobly  concerning  God  and  liis  attri- 
butes; but  at  the  same  time  they  were  led  by  their 


the  pliilnsophy  of  past  ages  were  poured  at  his  feet,  and 
he  had  stiiilnil  i-vcry  branch  of  human  wisdom  with 
astonishing  industry  and  acuteness,  yet  he  observes, 
"  Quod  SI  tales  iios  iiatura  genuisset,  ut  eam  iiisam  intu- 
cri,  et  persiiicere,  eadenKjue  optima  duce  cursum  vitie 
conficere  possemus;  baud  erat  sane  quod  quisquam 
rationem,  ac  di)ilriiiam  requireret.  Nunc  parvulos  no- 
bis dedit  igiiinilos,  (|uos  celeriter  nialis  moribus,  o|ii- 
nioiiiliusqiie  dc|iravati  sic  restinguimus,  ut  nusquam  na- 
turie  lumen  aiipareat.  If  we  had  come  into  the  world 
in  such  circumstances,  as  that  we  could  clearly  and 
distinctly  have  discerned  nature  herself,  and  have  been 
able  in  the  course  of  our  lives  to  follow  her  true  and 
uncorru])ted  directions,  this  alone  might  have  been 
sufficient,  and  there  would  have  been  little  need  of 
teaching  and  instruction;  but  now  nature  has  given 
us  only  some  small  sparks  of  right  reason,  which  we 
so  quickly  extinguish  with  corrupt  opinions  and  evil 
practices,  that  the  true  light  of  nature  nowhere  ap- 
pears."— Tusc.  Uu.Est.  3. 

The  same  author,  Tusc.  Uuaest.  1,  having  reckoned 
up  the  opinions  of  philosophers  as  to  the  soul's  immor- 
tality, concludes  thus,  "  Jlarum  senteiitianiiiiiiuie  vera 
est  Deus  aliquis  viderit,  iiuie  verisiiiulhiiia  est,  magna 
qusBStiocst.  Which  of  these  opinions  is  true,  some  God 
must  tell  us;  which  is  most  like  truth,  is  a  great  ques- 
tion." Jamblieus,  speaking  of  the  principles  of  divine 
worship,  saith,  "  It  is  manifest  those  things  are  to  be 
dune:  which  are  pleasing  to  (Jod  ;  but  what  they  are,  it 
is  not  easy  to  know,  except  a  man  were  taught  them  by 
<;od  himself,  or  by  some  person  wlio  had  received  them 
from  God,  or  obtained  the  knowledge  of  them  by  some 
divine  means." — .lamb,  in  Vit.  I'ythag.  c.  28. 

(2)  Discourse  on  liloliitrv,  p.  50. 

(3)  Ward's  Hindoo  Mythology,  vol.  2,  p.  300. 

(4)  lUiidoo  I'anthcon,  p.  132. 


own  imaginations  and  reasonings  to  conclusions,  which 
neutralize  the;  effect  of  their  sublimer  conceptions  and 
often  contradict  tliem.  1'he  eternity  of  matter,  for  in- 
stance, was  held  by  the  Greek  and  Koman  philosophers 
and  by  their  jireceptors  in  the  Oriental  schools,  who 
thought  It  absolutely  iini)Ossible  that  any  thing  should 
be  produced  from  nolliing,  thus  destroying  the  notion 
of  creation  in  its  proper  sense,  and  of  a  Supreme  Crea- 
tor. This  opinion,  as  Bishop  Stillingfleet  shows,(5) 
is  contrary  to  the  omnipotence  and  independence  of 
God,  and  is  a  great  abatement  of  those  correct  views 
which  the  xvordu  of  the  ancient  philosophers  would 
seem  sometimes  to  express. ((i) 

It  had  another  injuridus  effect;  it  destroyed  the  in- 
teresting doctrine  of  Divine  government  as  to  those  na- 
tural evils  to  which  men  are  subject.  These  they 
traced  to  the  unchangeable  and  eternal  nature  of  mat- 
ter, which  even  the  Supreme  God  could  not  control. 
Thus  Seneca  says,(7)  "  that  evil  things  happen  to  good 
men,  quia  non  potest  Arti/'ex  -inuture  materiam,  be- 
cause God  the  Artificer  could  not  change  matter;  and 
that  o  ?nagrio  Arlijice  multa/ojmantur  prava,  many 
things  were  made  ill  by  the  great  Artificer ;  not  that  he 
wanted  art,buttlirough  the  stubbornness  of  matter,"  in 
which  they  generally  agree.  This  opinion  of  theirs 
was  brought  from  the  Oriental  schools,  where  it  had 
been  long  received ;  nor  was  it  confined  .to  Egypt  and 
Chaldea.  It  was  one  of  the  dogmas  which  Confucius 
taught  in  China  in  the  fifth  century  before  Christ,  that 
out  of  nothing  that  which  is  cannot  be  produced,  and 
that  material  bodies  must  have  existed  from  all  eternity. 
From  this  notion  it  follows,  that  there  is  no  calamity 
to  which  we  are  not  liable,  and  that  God  himself  is 
unable  to  protect  us  from  it.  Prayer  is  useless,  and 
trust  in  him  is  absurd.  The  noble  doctrine  of  the  in- 
fliction of  misery  by  a  wise  and  gracious  Being  for  our 
correction  and  improvement,  so  often  dwelt  upon  in 
Scripture,  could  have  no  place  in  a  system  wluch  ad- 
mitted this  tenet ;  God  could  neither  be  •'  a  refuge  in 
trouble,"  nor  a  Father  "  correcting  us  for  our  profit, 
that  we  might  be  partakers  of  his  holiness."  What 
they  knew  of  God  was  therefore  by  such  speculations 
rendered  entirely  unprofitable. 

But  a  worse  consequence  resulted  from  this  opinion. 
By  some  of  them  the  necessary  obliejuity  and  perverse- 
ness  of  matter  was  regarded  not  only  as  the  source  of 
natural  but  also  of  moral  evil ;  by  w  hich  they  either 
made  sin  necessary  and  irresistible,  or  found  in  this 
opinion  much  to  palliate  it. 

Others  refer  moral  evil  to  a  natural  principle  of  evil, 
an  evil  God,  "  emulous  of  the  good  God,"  which  Plu- 
tarch says,(8)  is  a  tradition  of  great  antiquity,  derived 
< . 

(5)  Origines  Sacr.'e,  1.  3,  c.  2. 

(6)  When  we  meet  with  passages  in  the  writings  of 
healliens  which  recommend  moral  virtues,  and  speak 
in  a  fit  and  becoming  manner  of  God,  we  are  apt  from 
our  more  elevated  knowledge  of  these  subjects  to  at- 
tach more  correct  and  preci.se  ideas  to  the  terms  used, 
than  the  original  writers  themselves,  and  to  give  them 
credit  for  better  views  than  they  entertained.  It  is 
one  proof,  that  though  some  of  them  sjieak,  for  instance, 
ofGod  seeing  and  knowing  all  things,  they  did  not 
conceive  of  the  ommseience  of  (Jod  in  the  manner  in 
winch  that  attribute  is  explained  by  those  who  have 
learned  what  (Jod  is  from  his  own  words;  that  some 
of  the  pagan  philosophers  who  lived  after  the  Christian 
era  complain  that  the  Clirislians  tia  !  mtroduced  a  very 
troublesome  and  busy  (iod,  who  did  "  i/i  umniiim  mo- 
res, actus,  omnium  vrThii  <iint'/iie,  et  Occvltas  cosila- 
tioiies  dilt!;enter  iiK/iiirerc,  diligently  ini|uiro  into  the 
manners,  actions,  words,  and  secret  thoughts  of  all 
men."  Cicero  too  denies  the  foreknowledge  of  God, 
and  for  the  same  reason  which  has  been  urged  against 
it  in  modern  limes  by  some  who,  lor  the  time  at  least, 
have  closed  their  eyes  upon  the  testimony  of  the  Scrip- 
tures on  tins  point,  and  been  willing  in  order  to  s«'rvB 
a  favourite  theory,  to  go  back  to  the  obscurity  of  pa- 
ganism. The  diilieulty  with  him  is,  that  prescinic  is 
inconsistent  ivitlicontinircnry.  ,'\Iilii  ne  in  Di'Uiii  ca- 
dere  videalur  ut  sciat  quid  casu  et  fbrtuilo  fiiturum 
sit ;  si  enim  .scit,  certe  illud  evemet  ;  ei  eerie  eveniet, 
nulla  fortunaest;  est  autem  liirtuna,  rerum  ergo  tor- 
tuiiaruin  nulla  prtBsensio  est.     De  Fato.  n.  12,  13. 

(T)  lie  Provid.  cap.  5. 

(8)  Ue  Isid.  et  Osir.— Dr.  Cudworth  thinks  that  Plu- 
tarch has  indulged  in  an  overstrained  assertion;  but 


Chap.  VI.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


25 


•'  from  the  divines,  ck  ^eoXoywv,  and  lawgivers  to  the 
poets  and  philosoplicrs,  wliose  first  author  cannot  be 
found."  But  wliether  natural  and  moral  evil  be  traced 
to  an  eternal  and  uncoiurollable  matter,  or  to  an  eternal 
and  independent  Auti-god,  it  is  clear,  that  tlie  notion  of 
a  Supreme  Deity,  as  coiilained  in  the  Scriptures,  and  as 
conceived  of  by  modern  Theists,  who  have  borrowed 
their  light  from  them,  could  have  no  existence  in  such 
systems ;  and  tliat  by  nialdng  moral  evil  necessary, 
men  were  taught  to  consider  it  as  a  misfortune  rather 
than  a  crime,  and  were  thus  in  fact  encouraged  to  com- 
mit it  by  regarding  it  as  unavoidable. 

In  like  manner,  though  occasionally  we  find  many 
excellent  things  said  of  the  providence  of  God,  all  these 
were  weakened  or  destroyed  by  other  opinions.  The 
Epicurean  sect  denied  the  doctrine,  and  laid  it  down 
as  a  maxim,  "  that  what  was  blessed  and  immortal 
gave  neither  any  trouble  to  itself  nor  to  others ;"  a  notion 
which  exactly  agrees  with  the  system  of  the  modern 
Hindoos.  "  According  to  the  doctrine  of  Aristotle, 
ftod  resides  in  the  celestial  sphere,  and  observes  no- 
thing and  cares  for  nothing  beyond  himself.  Residing 
in  the  first  sphere,  he  possesses  neither  immensity  nor 
omnipresence ;  far  removed  from  the  inferior  parts  of 
the  universe,  he  is  not  even  a  spectator  of  what  is 
passing  among  its  inhabitants. "(9)  The  Stoics  con- 
tended for  a  providence,  but  in  their  creed  it  was  coun- 
teracted by  the  doctrine  of  an  absolute  necessity,  or 
fate,  to  which  God  and  matter,  or  the  universe,  which 
consists,  as  they  thought,  of  both,  was  immutably  sub- 
ject ;  and  where  they  allow  it,  they  confine  the  care  of 
the  gods  to  great  affairs  only. 

The  Platonists  and  the  followers  of  Pythagoras  be- 
lieved that  all  things  hajipened  Kara  Sciav  npoi/oiav,  ac- 
cording to  Divirie  Frumdence  ;  but  this  they  overthrew 
by  joining  fortune  with  God.  "  God,  fortune,  and 
opportunity,"  says  Plato,  "  govern  all  the  affairs  of 
inen."(l) 

To  them  also  there  were  "  lords  many  and  gods 
many ;"  and  wherever  polytheism  is  admitted,  it  is  as 
destructive  of  the  doctrine  of  providence  as  fate,  though 
by  a  different  process.  The  fatalist  makes  all  things 
fixed  and  certain,  and  thus  excludes  government;  the 
polytheist  gives  up  the  government  of  the  world  to  in- 
numerable opposing  and  contrary  wdls,  and  thus  makes 
every  thing  uncertain.  If  the  favour  of  one  deity  be 
propitiated,  the  wrath  of  another,  equally  or  more  pow- 
erful, may  be  provoked ;  or  the  gods  may  quarrel 
among  themselves.  Such  is  the  only  providence  which 
can  be  discovered  in  the  Iliad  of  Homer  and  the  jEneid 
of  Virgil,  poems  which  unquestionably  inibody  the 
popular  belief  of  the  times  in  which  they  were  written. 
The  same  confused  and  contradictory  management  of 
the  affairs  of  men  we  see  in  all  modern  idolatrous  sys- 
tems, only  that  with  length  of  duration  they  appear  to 
have  become  more  oppressive  and  distracting.  Where 
so  many  deities  are  essentially  malignant  and  cruel  to 
men ;  where  demons  are  supposed  to  have  power  to 
afflict  and  to  destroy  at  pleasure ;  and  where  aspects  of 
the  stars,  and  the  screams  of  birds,  and  otlier  omi- 
nous circumstances  are  thought  to  have  an  irresistible 
influence  upon  the  fortunes  of  life  and  the  occurrences 
of  every  day  ;  and  especially  where,  to  crown  the  whole, 
there  is  an  utter  ignorance  of  one  supreme  controlling 
infinite  Mind,  or  his  existence  is  denied  ;  or  he  who  is 
capable  of  exercising  such  a  superintendence  as  might 
render  liim  the  object  of  hope,  is  .supposed  to  be  totally 
unconcerned  with  human  affairs ;  there  can  be  no 
ground  of  firm  trust,  no  settled  hope,  no  permanent  con- 
solation. Timidity  and  gloom  tenant  every  bosom,  and 
in  many  instances  render  life  a  burden. (2) 


the  confidence  with  which  the  philosopher  speaks  is  at 
least  a  proof  of  the  great  extent  of  this  opinion. 
(9)  Enfield's  History  of  Philosophy,  lib.  2,  cap.  9. 

(1)  De  Leg.  lib.  4. 

(2)  The  testimony  of  missionaries,  who  see  the  ac- 
tual effects  of  paganism  in  the  different  countries  where 
they  labour,  is  particularly  valuable.  On  the  point 
mentioned  in  the  text,  the  Wesleyan  missionaries  thus 
speak  of  the  state  of  the  Cingalese : — "  We  feel  our- 
selves incapable  of  giving  you  a  full  view  of  the  de- 
plorable state  of  a  people,  who  believe  that  all  things 
aregovenied  by  chance;  who  find  malignant  gods  or 
devils  in  every  planet,  whose  influence  over  mankind 
they  consider  to  be  exceeding  great,  and  the  agents 
who  inflict  all  the  evil  that  men  suffer  in  the  world. 


Another  great  principle  of  religion  is  the  doctrine  of 
a  future  state  of  rewards  and  puiiishinents;  and  though 
in  some  form  it  is  recognised  in  pagan  systems,  and 
the  traditions  of  the  primitive  ages  may  be  traced  to 
their  extravagant  perversions  and  fables ;  its  evidence 
was  either  greatly  diminished,  or  it  was  mixed  up 
with  notions  entirely  subversive  of  the  moral  effect 
which  it  was  originally  intended  to  produce. 

Of  the  ancient  Chaldean  philosophy,  not  much  is 
known.  In  its  best  state  it  contained  many  of  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  patriarchal  religion;  but  at  length,  as  we 
find  from  Scripture,  it  degenerated  into  the  doctrine  of 
judicial  astrology,  which  is  so  nearly  allied  to  fatalism, 
as  to  subvert  the  idea  of  the  present  life  being  a  state  of 
probation,  and  the  future  a  state  of  just  and  gracious 
rewards  and  punishments. 

Ancient  writers  difl'er  as  to  the  opinions  of  the  learned 
of  Egypt  on  the  human  soul.  Uiodorus  Siculus  says, 
they  believed  in  its  immortality  and  the  future  exist- 
ence of  the  just  among  the  gods.  Herodotus  ascribes 
to  them  the  doctrine  of  transmigration.  Both  may  be 
reconciled.  The  former  doctrine  was  the  most  ancient, 
the  latter  was  induced  by  that  progress  of  error  which 
we  observe  among  all  nations.  Another  subtle  notion 
grew  up  with  it,  which  infected  the  philosophy  of 
Greece,  and  spreading  throughout  Asia,  has  done  more 
to  destroy  the  moral  effect  of  a  beliefin  the  future  exist- 
ence of  man  than  any  other.  This  was,  "  that  God  is 
the  soul  of  the  world,"  from  which  all  human  spirits 
came  and  to  which  they  will  return,  .some  inmiediately, 
and  others  through  long  courses  of  transmigration. 
The  doctrine  of  ancient  revelation  of  which  this  was  a 
subtle  and  fatal  perversion  is  obvious.  The  Scripture 
account  is,  that  the  human  soul  was  from  God  by  cre- 
ation; the  refinement  of  pagan  philosophy,  that  it  is 
from  him  by  emanation,  or  separation  of  essence,  and 
still  remains  a  separate  portion  of  God,  seeking  its  re- 
turn to  him.  With  respect  to  the  future,  revelation 
always  taught,  that  the  souls  of  the  just  return  to  God 
at  death,  not  to  lose  their  individuality,  but  to  be 
united  to  him  in  holy  and  delightful  communion  ;  the 
philosophic  perversion  was,  that  the  parts  so  separated 
from  God,  and  connected  for  a  time  with  matter,  would 
be  reunited  to  the  great  source  by  refusion,  as  a  drop 
of  water  to  the  ocean. (3)  Thus  philosophy  refined 
upon  the  doctrine  of  immortality,  until  it  converted  it 
into  annihilation  itself,  for  so  it  is  in  the  most  absolute 
sense  as  to  distinct  consciousness  and  personality. 
The  prevalence  of  this  notion  under  different  modifica- 
tions is  indeed  very  remarkable. 

Bishop  Warburton  proves,  that  this  opinion  was 
held  not  merely  by  the  Atheistical  and  skeptical  sects 
among  the  Greeks,  but  by  what  he  calls  the  Philosophic 
Quaternion  of  dogmatic  Theists,  the  four  renowned 
Schools,  the  Pythagokit,  the  Platonic,  the  Peripa- 
TKTK  ,  and  the  Stoic  ;  and  on  this  ground  argues,  that 
though  they  taught  the  doctrine  of  future  rewards  and 
jiunishments  to  the  populace,  as  a  means  of  securing 
their  obedience  to  the  laws,  they  themselves  did  not 
believe  what  they  propagated;  and  in  this  he  was 
doubtless  correct.  With  future  reward  and  jiunishment, 
in  the  proper  and  commonly  received  sense  in  all  ages, 
this  notion  was  entirely  incompatible.  He  observes, 
"  And  that  the  reader  may  not  suspect  these  kind  of 
phrases,  that  the  soul  is  pari  ofGoii,  discerpted  from 
hirn,  of  his  nature,  which  periielnally  occiir  in  the 
writings  of  the  ancients,  to  be  only  highly  figurative  ex- 
pressions, and  not  to  be  measured  by  the  severe  stand- 
ard of  metaphysical  propriety,  he  is  desired  to  take  no- 
tice of  one  consequence  drawn  from  this  principle,  and 
universally  held  by  antiquity,  which  was  this,  that  the 
soul  was  eternal  a  parte  ante,  as  well  as  a  parte  post, 
wliich  the  Latins  well  express  by  the  word  sempiter- 


A  people  so  circumstanced  need  no  addition  to  their 
miseries,  but  are  objects  towards  which  C'hristian  pity 
will  extend  itself,  as  far  as  the  voice  of  their  case  can 
reach.  They  are  literally,  through  fear  of  death,  or 
malignant  demons,  all  their  lifetime  subject  to  bondage." 
(3)  "  Interim  tamen  vix  ulli  fuere  (qu*  humansB 
mentis  caligo,  atque  imbecillitas  est),  qui  non  incide- 
rint  in  errorem  ilium  de  refusione  in  Animain  mundi. 
Mmirum,  sicut  existimurunt  singulorum  animas  par- 
ticulas  es.se  anirnfe  mundanre  quarum  qu^libet  suo 
corpore,  ut  aqua  vase,  eflluere,  ac  auunae  mundi,  e  qua 
deducta  fuerit,  iterum  uniri." — Gassendi  Animadv.  in 
Lib.  10,  Diog.  Laertii,  p.  550. 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  L 


nus.  But  whon  the  ancients  are  said  to  hold  the  pre 
and  po.if.  ejuslrncf  Dlthc  soul,  and  tlicrefore  to  altnbut(^ 
a  proper  oternily  to  it,  we  must  not  suppose  that  they 
understood  it  to  be  eternal  in  its  distinct  and  jiecuhar 
existence ;  but  lliat  it  was  discerpted  from  the  sub- 
stance of  Cod  in  fi7ne  and  would  in  time  be  rejoined 
and  resolved  into  it  ajrain  ;  which  tttey  explain  by  a 
bottle's  being  filled  wiUi  sea  water,  that  swimming 
there  awhile,  on  the  bottle's  breaking,  flowed  in  again, 
and  mingled  with  the  common  mass.  They  only  dif- 
fered about  the  time  of  this  reunion  and  resolution — 
the  greater  i)art  holding  it  to  be  at  death  ;  but  tlie  Py- 
thagoreans, not  till  after  many  transmigrations.  The 
Platonists  went  between  these  two  opinions,  and  re- 
joined pure  and  niiiiolluted  souls,  immediately  on  death, 
to  the  universal  Spirit.  But  tho.se  which  had  con- 
tracted much  defilement,  were  sent  into  a  succession 
of  other  bodies  to  i)urge  and  purify  them  before  they 
returned  to  their  jiarent  substance." 

Some  learned  men  have  denied  the  consequence 
which  Warburton  wished  to  establish  from  these  pre- 
mises, and  consider  the  resorption  of  these  sages  as 
figurative,  and  consei)ueiitly  compatible  with  distinct 
consciousness  and  individuality.  The  researche.s,  how- 
ever, since  that  time  made  into  the  corresponding  phi- 
losophy of  the  Hindoos,  bear  this  acute  and  learned  man 
out  to  the  full  length  of  his  conclusion.  "God,  as 
separated  from  matter,  the  Hindoos  contemplate  as  a 
being  re|i()sing  in  Ins  own  happiness,  destitute  of  ideas; 
as  infimii'  plandity;  as  an  niirudled  sea  of  bli.ss;  as 
being  perfectly  abstracted  and  void  of  consciousness. 
They  therefore  deem  it  the  height  of  perfection  to  be 
like  this  being.  The  person  whose  very  nature,  say 
they,  is  absorbed  in  divine  mcihtation ;  whose  life  is 
like"  a  sweet  sleep,  unconscious  and  undisturbed  ;  who 
does  not  even  desire  God,  and  who  is  changed  into  the 
image  of  the  ever  blessed,  obtains  absorption  into 
Bruinhu."(4)  And  that  this  doctrine  of  absorption  is 
taken  literally  is  proved,  not  merely  by  tlie  terms  in 
■which  it  is  expressed,  though  these  are  sufficiently  un- 
equivocal :  but  by  its  being  opposed  by  some  of  the 
followers  of  Vislmoo,  and  by  a  few  also  of  their  philo- 
sophers. Mr.  Ward  quotes  Jumndugnee,  as  an  tjxcep- 
tion  to  the  common  opinion.  He  says,  "  the  idea  of 
losing  a  distinct  existence  by  absorption,  as  a  drop  is 
lost  in  the  ocean,  is  abhorrent.  It  is  pleasant  to  feed 
on  sweetmeats,  but  no  one  wishes  to  be  the  sweet- 
meat itself."  So  satislactorily  is  this  point  made  out 
against  the  "  xrisdnm  of  this  world  ;"— by  it  the  world 
neither  knew  Gad  nor  inan. 

Another  notion  equally  extensive  and  equally  de- 
structive of  the  original  doctrines  of  the  immortality  of 
the  human  soul,  and  a  state  of  future  rewards  and  jm- 
nishrnents,  which  sprung  up  in  the  Egyptian  schools, 
and  was  from  thence  transmitted  into  Greece,  India, 
and  throughout  all  Asia,  was  that  of  a  periodical  de- 
struction and  renovation  of  all  things.  "  They  con- 
ceived," says  Diodorus  Siculus,  "  that  the  universe  un- 
dergoes a  periodii^al  i^nfiagration,  after  which  all  things 
were  to  be  restored  to  their  primitive  form,  to  pass 
again  through  a  similar  succession  of  changes."  The 
primitive  tenet,  of  which  this  was  a  ciirriiption,  is  also 
evident ;  and  it  affords  another  sinmilar  instance  of  the 
subtlety  and  mischief  ol' that  spirit  of  error  which  ope- 
rated with  so  much  activity  m  early  times,  that  tlie 
doctrine  of  the  destruction  of  the  world,  and  the  con- 
sequent termination  of  the  probationary  state  of  the  hu- 
man race  preparatory  to  the  general  judgment,  an 
awful  and  most  salutary  revelation,  should  have  been 
so  wrouL'ht  into  philosophic  theory,  and  so  surrounded 
with  poetic  ciribcllisliiinnt,  as  to  engage  the  intellect 
and  to  attrai-t  (lie  iniayniation,  only  the  more  effectually 
to  destroy  the  grent  inaral  of  a  doctrine  which  was  not 
denied,  and  covertly  to  induce  an  entire  unbelief  in  the 
eternal  future exisieiicitof  man. 

As  the  Stoics  held  that  all  inferior  divinities  and  hu- 
man souls  were  portions  separated  from  the  soul  of  the 
world,  and  would  return  into  the  first  celestial  fire,  so 
they  supposed,  that  at  thugfune  time  the  whole  visible 
world  would  be  consumeinn  one  general  conllagration. 
"  Then,"  says  Seneca,  "  al\er  an  interval  the  world 
•will  be  entirely  renewed,  every  animal  will  be  repro- 
duced, and  a  race  of  men  free  from  guilt  will  repcoplc 
the  earth.     Degeneracy  and  corrupt  ion  are,  however. 


(4)  Ward's  View  of  the  Hindoos,  Svo.  vol.  2,  p.  17 

i:a. 


to  creep  in  again,  and  the  same  process  is  to  go  on  for 
ever."(5)  This,  loo,  is  the  Urahmiriical  nolion  :  ''The 
Hindoos  are  taught  to  believe,  that  at  the  end  of  every 
Calpa  (creation  or  formation)  all  things  are  absorbed  in 
the  Deity,  and  at  a  stated  time  the  creative  power  will 
again  be  called  into  action."(6)  And  thougli  the  sys- 
tem of  the  Uudhists  denies  a  creator,  it  holds  the  same 
species  of  revolution.  "  Tliey  are  of  opinion  that  the 
universe  is  eternal,  at  least  they  neither  know  it  had  a 
beginning  or  will  have  an  end ;  that  it  is  hotnogeneou.s 
and  composed  of  an  infinite  number  of  similar  worlds, 
each  of  which  is  a  likeness  of  the  other,  and  each  of 
which  is  in  a  constant  state  of  alteration, — not  station- 
ary for  a  moment, — at  the  instant  of  greatest  perfection 
beginning  to  decline,  and  at  the  moment  of  greatest 
chaotic  ruin  beginning  to  regenerate.  They  compare 
such  changes  to  a  wheel  in  motion  perpetually  gouig 
round."(7) ' 

Hut  other  instances  of  darkness  and  error  among 
even  civilizedheathens  respecting  the  human  soul  and  a 
future  state,  are  not  wanting;  lor  it  is  a  fact  which 
ought  never  to  be  lost  sight  of  in  these  inijuiries,  that 
among  pagans  ojiinions  on  these  subjects  have  never 
been  either  certain  or  rational ;  and  that  error  once  re- 
ceived has  in  no  instance  been  exchanged  for  truth ;  but 
has  gone  on  multiplying  itself,  and  assuming  an  infinite 
variety  of  forms.  The  doctrine  of  Aristotle  and  the  I'e- 
ripaletics  gives  no  coimtenance  to  the  opinion  of  the 
soul's  immortality,  or  even  of  its  existence  after  death. 
Uemocritus  and  his  followers  taught,  that  the  .soul  is 
material  and  mortal ;  Heraclitus,  that  when  the  soul 
is  purified  from  moLst  vapours,  it  returns  into  the  soul 
of  the  universe;  if  not,  it  perishes:  Epicurus  and  his 
followers,  that  "  alien  death  is,  we  are  not."  The 
leading  men  among  the  Romans,  when  philosophy  was 
introduced  among  them,  followed  the  various  Greek 
sects.  We  have  seen  the  uncertainty  of  ('icero  (S) 
Pliny  declares,  that  "  non  magis  a  morte  sens^us  nil  us 
aid  animm  aut  corpori  quam  ante  natulan,  the  soul 
and  body  have  no  more  sense  after  death,  than  before 
we  were  born.(9)  Cjesar,"  that  beyond  death,  there  is 
neque  cnriB  neqiie  gnvdio  Inrurii,  neither  place  for  care 
or  joy."(l)  Seneca  in  his  l()2d  Epistle  speaks  of  adivine 
part  within  us,  which  joins  us  to  the  Gods  ;  and  tells 
Lucilius,  "  that  the  day  which  he  fears  as  his  last  wtrrui 
natalis  est,  is  the  birth-day  of  eternity;"  but  tlu-n  he 
says,  "  he  was  willing  to  hope  it  might  he  so,  on  the 
account  of  some  great  men,  rem  eratissitnani  promit- 
tentium  maais  qvam  protdn/;?/??!,  who  promised  what 
they  could  not  prove ;"  and  on  other  occasions  he  speaks 

(5)  Ep.  9. 

(())  Moore's  Hindoo  Pantheon. 

(7)  Dr.  Davey's  .\ccount  of  Ceylon. 

(8)  From  the  philosophicsil  works  of  Cicero  it  may 
be  difficult  to  collect  his  own  opinions,  as  he  chiefly 
occupies  himself  in  explaining  those  of  others;  but  in 
his  Epistles  to  his  friends,  when,  as  Warburton  oh- 
.serves,  we  see  the  man  divested  of  the  politician  and 
the  sojihist,  he  professes  his  disbelief  of  a  future  state 
in  the  frankest  manner.  Thus  in  Lib.  fi,  Epist.  ,3,  to 
Toniuatus,  written  in  order  to  console  him  in  the  un- 
fortunate state  of  the  affairs  of  their  parly,  he  observes : 
"  Sed  hicc  consolntio  levis  est ;  ilia  gravior,  qtia  te  uti 
spero;  ego  certe  utor.  Nee  enim  dum  cro,  angar  ulla 
re,  cum  omni  vacem  culpa;  et  si  non  ero,  sensu  om- 
nino  carebo.  Hut  there  is  another  and  a  far  higher  con- 
solation which  I  hoiw  is  your  support,  as  it  certainly  is 
mine.  For  so  long  as  1  shall  preserve  my  innocence, 
I  will  never  while  1  exist  be  anxiously  disturbed  at 
any  event  thai  may  haiipen ;  and  if  I  shall  cease  to  ex- 
ist, all  scnsihiliu  iriusi  erase  wilh  me." 

Similar  evpressioiis  are  found  in  his  letters  to  Tora- 
nius,  to  l.unus  Mescinius,  and  others,  which  those  who 
wish  to  (irove  him  a  believer  in  the  soul's  immortality 
endeavour  lo  account  for  by  supposing  that  lie  nc,-om- 
modaled  his  sentiments  to  the  principles  of  nis  friends. 
A  siiigiilarsi>liilloii,and  one  which  scarcely  ran  be  se- 
riously adopted,  since  in  the  aliove-cited  passage  he 
so  stroiiLdy  expresses  what  is  his  own  opinion,  and 
hopes  that  his  friend  takes  refuge  in  \.M  same  conso- 
lation. It  may  be  allowed  that  Cicero  alternated  be- 
iwi'cn  unbelief  and  doubt  ;  hut  never  I  think  between 
doulit  and  cert.ainty.  The  last  was  a  point  to  which 
he  never  seems  lo  have  reached. 

('.))  Nat.  Hi.st.lib.  7,  cap.  .O.V 

(1)  Sallust.  dc  BcUo  Caiil.  sec.  5. 


Chap.  VII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


27 


out  plainly,  and  says,  that  death  makes  us  incapable  of 
good  or  evil.    The  poets,  it  is  true,  spoke  of  a  future 
state  of  rewards  and  punishments ;  they  luul  the  joys 
of  Elysium  and  the  tortures  of  Tartarus  ;  but  both  pni- 
losophers  ami  poets  re;;arded  them  as  vulgar  fables. 
Virgil  does  not  lade  tins,  and  numerous  quotations  of 
the  same  import  might  be  given  both  from  him  and 
others  of  their  poets. 
"  Feli.x  qui  potuit  rerum  cognoscere  causas ; 
Atque  metus  omnes  et  inexorabile  fatum 
Subjeeit  pedibus,  strepitumque  Acherontis  avari." 
Georg.  2,  /.  490,  fVc. 
Happy  the  man  whose  vig'rous  soul  can  pierce 
Througli  the  formation  of  this  universe, 
Who  nobly  dares  despise  with  soul  sedate 
The  din  of  Acheron,  and  vulgar  fears,  and  fate. 
Wartov. 
Nor  was  the  skepticism  and  unbelief  of  the  wise  and 
great  long  kept  from  the  vulgar,  among  whom  they 
wished  to  maintain  the  old  superstitions  as  instruments 
by  which  they  might  be  controlled.    (Jicero  complains, 
that  the  common  people  in  his  day  mostly  followed  the 
doctrine  of  Epicurus. 

Since,  then,  these  erroneous  and  mischievous  views 
concerning  God,  providence,  and  a  future  state,  or 
the  total  denial  of  all  of  them,  are  found  to  have  re- 
sulted from  the  rejection  or  loss  of  the  primitive  tra- 
ditions ;  and  farther  as  it  is  clear  that  such  errors  are 
totally  subversive  of  the  fundamental  principles  of 
morals  and  religion,  and  afford  inducement  to  the  com- 
mission of  every  species  of  crime  without  remor.se  or 
fear  of  punishment ;  the  necessity  of  a  republication  of 
these  great  doctrines  in  an  explicit  and  authentic  man- 
ner, and  of  institutions  for  teaching  and  enforcing  them 
upon  all  ranks  of  men,  is  evident;  and  whatever  proof 
may  be  adduced  for  the  authentication  of  the  Christian 
revelation,  it  can  never  be  pretended,  that  a  revelation 
to  restore  these  great  principles  was  not  called  for  by 
the  actual  condition  of  man ;  and,  in  proportion  to  the 
necessity  ofthecase,  is  the  strength  of  thepresiuiiption 
that  one  has  been  mercifully  aiforded. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

The  Necessity  of  Revelntimi:— State  of  Morals  among 
the  Heathe7i. 
If  the  necessity  of  a  revelation  may  be  argued  from 
the  canfused,  contradictory,  and  false  notions  of  hea- 
then nations  as  to  the  principal  doctrines  of  religion; 
no  less  forcibly  may  the  argument  be  pursued  from 
the  state  of  their  morals  both  in  knowledge  and  in 
practice. 

This  argument  is  simple  and  obvious.  If  the  nature, 
extent,  and  obligation  of  moral  rules  had  become  in- 
volved in  great  misapprehension  and  obscurity ;  if 
what  they  knew  of  right  and  wrong  wanted  an  enforce- 
ment and  an  authority  which  it  could  not  receive  from 
their  respective  systems  ;  and  if,  for  want  of  efficient 
counteracting  religious  principles,  the  general  practice 
had  become  irretrievably  vicious  : — a  direct  interposi- 
tion of  the  Divine  Being  was  required  for  the  republica- 
tion of  moral  rules,  and  for  their  stronger  enforce- 
ment. 

The  notions  of  all  civilized  heathens  on  moral  sub- 
jects, like  their  knowledge  of  the  fir.st  principles  of  re- 
Ugion,  mingled  as  they  were  with  their  superstitions, 
prove  that  both  were  derived  from  a  common  source. 
There  was  a  substantial  agreement  among  them  in 
many  questions  of  right  and  wrong  ;  but  the  boundaries 
which  they  themselves  acknowledged  were  not  kept 
Tip,  and  the  rule  was  gradually  lowered  to  the  practice, 
though  not  in  all  cases  so  as  entirely  to  eflTace  the  ori- 
ginal communication. 

This  is  an  important  consideration,  inasmuch  as  it 
indicates  the  transmission  of  both  religion  and  morals 
from  the  patriarchal  system,  and  that  both  the  primitive 
doctrines  and  their  corresponding  morals  received  early 
sanctions,  the  force  of  which  was  felt  through  suc- 
ceeding ages.  It  shows,  too,  that  even  the  heathen  have 
always  been  under  a  moral  government.  The  laws  of 
God  have  never  been  quite  oblil(rale<l,  though  their 
practice  has  ever  been  below  their  knowledge,  and 
though  the  law  itself  was  greatly  and  wilfully  cor- 
rupted through  the  influence  of  tiieirvicions  inclinations. 
This  subject  may  perhaps  be  best  illustrated  by  ad- 


verting to  some  of  the  precepts  of  the  Second  Table, 
which  imbodied  the  morals  of  tlie  jiatriarchal  ages, 
under  a  new  sanction.  Of  the  obligation  of  these,  all 
hcathi^n  nations  have  been  sensible  ;  and  yet,  in  all,  the 
rule  was  perverted  in  theory,  and  violated  in  practice. 

.MiiiDKii  has,  in  all  ages,  and  among  all  civili/.ed  and 
most  savage  heathen  nations  also,  been  regarded  as  an 
atrocious  crime  ;  and  yet  the  rule  was  so  far  accommo- 
dated to  the  violent  and  ferocious  habits  of  men,  as  to 
fill  every  heathen  land  with  blood-guiltiness.  The 
slight  regard  p.aid  to  the  life  of  man  in  all  heathen 
countries  cannot  have  escaped  the  notice  of  reflecting 
minds.  They  knew  the  rvle;  but  the  act  under  its 
grosser  and  more  deliberate  forms  only  was  tlioufht  to 
violate  it.  Among  the  Romans,  men  were inunlcrtd  in 
their  very  pastimes,  by  being  made  to  fight  with  wild 
beasts  and  with  each  other ;  and  though  this  was  some- 
times condemned  as  a  '■^spectamlum  crudele  ct  inhii- 
mdHMin,"  yet  the  passion  for  blood  increased,  and  no 
war  ever  caused  so  great  a  slaughter  as  did  the  gladia- 
torial combats.  They  were  at  first  confined  to  the  fu- 
nerals of  great  persons.  The  first  show  of  this  kind 
exhibited  in  Rome  by  the  Bruti  on  the  death  of  their 
father,  consisted  of  three  coui)les,  but  afterward  the 
number  greatly  increased.  Juhus  Csesar  presented  3f)0 
pairs  of  gladiators ;  and  the  emperor  Trajan  10,000  of 
them  for  the  entertainment  of  the  people.  Sometimes 
these  horrid  exhibitions,  in  which,  as  Seneca  says, 
"  Homo,  sacra  res,  homo  jam  per  lusum  et  jocum  occi- 
ditur,"  when  the  practice  had  attained  its  height,  de- 
prived Europe  of  20,000  lives  in  one  month. (2) 

This  is  farther  illustrated  by  the  treatment  of  slaves, 
which  composed  so  large  a  portion  of  the  population  of 
ancient  states. (3)  They  knew  and  acknowledged  the 
evil  of  murder,  and  had  laws  for  its  punishment ;  hut 
to  this  despised  class  of  human  beings  they  did  not 
extend  the  rule;  nor  was  killing  them  accounted  mur- 
der, any  more  than  the  killing  of  a  beast.  The  master 
had  absolute  power  of  life,  or  death,  or  torture ;  and 
their  lives  were  therefore  sacrificed  in  the  most  wanton 
manner.(4) 

By  various  sophistries  suggested  by  their  vices,  their 
selfishness,  and  their  cruelty,  the  destruction  of  children 
also,  under  certain  circumstances,  ceased  to  be  regarded 
as  a  crime.  In  many  heathen  nations  it  was  allowed 
to  destroy  the  foetus  in  the  womb ;  to  strangle,  or 
drown,  or  expose  infants,  especially  if  sickly  or  de- 
formed ;  and  that  which  in  Christian  states  is  considered 
as  the  most  atrocious  of  crimes,  was,  by  the  most  cele- 
brated of  ancient  pagan  nations,  esteemed  a  wise  and 
political  expedient  to  rid  the  state  of  useless  or  trouble- 
some members,  and  was  even  enjoined  by  some  of  their 
most  celebrated  sages  and  legislators.  The  same  prac- 
tice continues  to  this  day  in  a  most  affecting  extent,  not 
only  among  uncivilized  pagans,  but  amon"  the  Hindoos 
and  the  Chinese. 

This  practice  of  perverting  and  narrowing  the  extent 
of  the  holy  law  of  God  which  had  been  transmitted  to 


(2)  Though  Cicero,  Seneca,  and  others,  condemned 
these  barbarities,  it  was  in  so  incidental  and  indifferent 
a  manner,  as  to  produce  no  effect.  They  were  abolished 
soon  after  the  establishment  of  Christianity,  and  this 
affords  an  illustration  of  the  admis.sion  of  Rousseau 
himself  "  La  Philosophic  ne  pent  faire  aucun  hien, 
que  la  Religion  ne  le  fasse  encore  mieux  :  et  la  Religion 
en  fait  beaucoup  que  la  philosophic  ne  sauroit  faire." 

(3)  In  the  110th  Olympiad,  there  were  at  Athens  only 
21,000  citizens  and  40,(100  slaves.  It  was  common  for 
a  private  citizen  of  Rome  to  have  10  or  20,000. — Tav- 
lok's  Civil  Lau'. 

(4)  The  youth  of  Sparta  made  it  their  pastime  fre- 
quently to  lie  in  ambush  by  night  for  the  slaves,  and  sally 
out  with  daggers  upon  ever)'  Helot  who  came  near  them, 
and  murder  him  in  cold  blood.  The  Ephori,  as  soon  as 
they  entered  upon  their  office,  declared  war  against 
them  in  form,  that  there  might  be  an  appearance  of  de- 
stroying them  legally.  It  was  the  custom  for  Vedius 
Pollio,  when  his  slaves  had  committed  a  fault,  some- 
times a  very  trifling  one,  to  order  them  to  be  thrown 
into  his  fish-ponds,  to  feed  his  lampreys.  It  was  the 
ainatant  custom,  as  we  learn  them  Tacitus,  Annal.  xiv. 
43,  when  a  master  was  murdered  in  his  own  house,  to 
put  all  the  slaves  to  death  indiscriminately.  For  a  just 
and  affecting  account  of  the  condition  of  slaves  in 
ancient  states,  see  Porteus's  Beneficial  Effects  of 
Christianity. 


S8 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  I. 


them,  was  expmplified  also  in  the  allowing  or  rather 
comnieinling  the  i)r:iclice  of  suicide. 

Doubtless,  the  i)nmitive  law  against  murder  con- 
demned also  n\TRBi)  and  revknge.  Our  Lord  restored 
it  to  its  true  meaning  among  the  Jews  ;  and  that  it  was 
so  understood  even  among  the  ancient  heathens,  is  clear 
from  a  placable  and  forgiving  spirit  being  sometimes 
praised,  and  the  contrary  censured,  by  their  sages,  mo- 
ralists, and  poets.  Yet  not  only  was  the  rule  violated 
almost  universally  in  practice;  but  it  was  also  disputed 
and  denied  in  many  of  its  applications  by  the  authonty 
of  their  wise  and  learned  men  ;  so  that,  as  far  as  the 
authority  of  moral  teachers  went,  a  full  scope  was  given 
for  tlie  induliitMie  of  hatred,  malice,  and  insatiate  re- 
venge. One  of  the  (iualilies  of  the  good  ma/t  described 
by  Cicero  is,  that  he  hurts  no  one,  except  he  be  injured 
himself  "  Qui  nemiiii  nocet,  nisi  lacessitus  injuria ;" 
and  he  declares  as  to  himself,  "  sic  ulciscar  facinora 
singiUa  q ue7nadmi>du7)i  a  qnilnisque  sutn  provocatus  : 
I  will  revenge  all  injuries,  according  as  1  am  provoked 
by  any :"  and  Aristotle  speaks  of  meekness  as  a  defect, 
because  the  meek  man  will  not  avenge  himself,  and  of 
revenge,  as  "  avOpuintKurcpov  naWof,  a  more  manly 
thing."(5) 

"Thou  shall  not  commit  xnuLTERY,"  was  another 
great  branch  of  the  jiatriarchal  law,  existing  before  the 
Decalogue,  as  appears  from  the  sacred  history.  It 
forbids  uncleanness  of  every  kind  in  thought  and  deed, 
and  specially  guards  the  sanctity  of  marriage  :  nor  is 
there  any  precept  more  essential  to  public  morals  and 
to  the  whole  traiu  of  personal,  social,  domestic,  and 
national  virtues. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  bring  detailed  proof  of  the 
almost  universal  gross  and  habitual  violation  of  this 
sacred  law  in  all  pagan  nations,  both  ancient  and 
modern,  from  its  lirst  stages  down  to  crimes  irapa  (pv(ni'. 
This  is  sufficiently  notorious  to  all  acquainted  with  the 
history  of  the  ancient  and  modern  pagan  world ;  and 
will  not  be  denied  by  any.  It  is  onlyrecjuisite  to  show, 
that  they  had  the  law,  and  that  it  was  weakened  and 
corrupted,  so  as  to  rcnilrr  :i  republication  necessary. 

The  public  laws  against  adultery  in  almost  all  heathen 
states,  and  the  censures  of  moralists  and  satirists,  are 
sufficiently  in  proof,  that  such  a'law  was  known;  and 
the  higher  the  antiipiity  of  the  times,  the  more  respect 
me  see  paid  to  chastity,  and  the  better  was  the  practice. 
Nor  was  the  act  only  considiTcd  by  some  of  their  mo- 
ralists assiiiAll ;  but  the  lljouglil  and  desire,  as  maybe 
■observed  in  passages  both  in  (Ireekaiid  Roman  writers. 
But  as  to  this  vice  loo.  as  well  as  others,  the  practice 
lowered  the  rule ;  and  the  authority  of  one  lawgiver 
and  moralist  being  neutralized  by  another,  license  was 
given  to  unbounded  offence. 

Divorce,  formerly  i)erinltted  only  in  cases  of  adultery, 
became  at  length  a  mere  matter  of  cajirice,  and  that 
both  with  Jews  and  Gentiles ;  and  among  the  latter, 
adultery  was  chiefly  interpreted  as  the  violation  of  the 
marriage  covenant  by  the  wife  only,  or  by  the  man  with 
a  married  woman,  thus  leaving  the  husband  a  large 
licenseof  vicious  indulgence.  Towhoredom  and  similar 
vices,  lawgivers,  statesmen,  philosoj)hers,  and  moralists 
gave  the  sanciion  of  llieir  opinions  and  their  practice; 
which  foul  blot  of  ancient  heathenism  continues  to  this 
day  to  mark  the  morals  of  pagan  countries.(6) 

(5)  Moral.  1.  4,c.  U. 

(6)  Terence  says  of  .simple  fornication,  "Non  est 
scehi.s,  adohsciitluliim  scortnri  fiaiiUium  est."  Tlie 
Spartans,  through  a  priiii-i|il(!  in  the  institutions  of  Ly- 
ciirgus,  which  controlled  their  ancient  opinions  on  this 
subject,  in  certain  prescribed  cases,  allowed  adultery  in 
the  wife  ;  and  I'lutarch,  in  his  Life  of  Lycurgus,  men- 
tioning these  laws,  commends  them  as  being  made 
"  (l>iiaiK(i)g  Kat  vo^inKiof,  according  to  nature  and  polity." 
('allicratides,  the  I'ylliaizoreiiii,  tells  the  wife,  that  she 
must  bear  with  her  husbanil's  irreijularities,  since  the 
luri'  allows  this  to  the  man  and  not  to  the  woman.  Plu- 
tarch speaks  to  the  same  pur|i(>se  in  several  places  of 
his  writings.  On  the  oilier  hand,  some  of  the  philoso- 
phers condenmed  adultery  ;  and,  in  many  places,  it  was 
punished  in  the  woman  with  deatli,  in  the  man  with 
infamy.  Still,  however,  the  same  vacillation  of  judg- 
inenl,  and  the  same  limitations,  of  what  iheysonietiniis 
confess  to  be  llie  ancient  rule  and  custriin.  nmy  be  ol)- 
nerved  throughout ;  but  as  far  as  llir'  aiitbonty  of  phi- 
losophers went,  it  was  cliiedy  on  the  side  oi'  vicious 
practice. 


In  most  civilized  states,  the  very  existence  of  society, 
and  the  natural  selfishness  of  man,  led  to  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  ancient  laws  against  thekt  and  rafink, 
anil  to  the  due  execution  of  the  statutes  made  against 
them ;  but  in  this  also  we  see  the  same  disposition  to 
corrupt  the  original  jiroliibition.  It  was  not  extended 
to  strangers,  or  to  foreign  countries  ;  nor  was  it  gene- 
rally interpreted  to  reach  to  any  thing  more  than  Hagrant 
acts  of  violence.  Usurj',  extortion,  and  fraud  were 
rather  regarded  as  laudatory  acts,  than  as  injurious  to 
(^hfiracter ;  and  so  they  continue  to  be  esteemed 
wherever  Christianity  lias  not  issued  her  authoritative 
laws  against  injustice  in  all  its  degrees.  Throughout 
India,  there  is  said  to  be  scarcely  such  a  thing  as  common 
honesty. 

Another  great  branch  of  morality  is  triith  ;  but  on 
the  obvious  obligation  to  speak  it,  we  find  the  same 
laxity  both  of  ojiinion  and  practice;  and  in  this, 
heathciiisni  presents  a  striking  contrast  to  Christianity, 
which  ((iiiiMiands  us  "  to  speak  the  truth  one  to  another," 
and  denounces  damnation  against  him  that  '^  loves  or 
jfiakes  a  Ite." 

They  knew,  that  "  toUeiidum  est  ex  rebus  contra- 
hendis  om?Le  mendaciv.m,(~)  no  lie  was  to  be  used  in 
contracts ;"  and  that  an  honest  man  should  do  and  speak 
nottiing  m  falsehood  and  with  hypocrisy  ;  but  they  more 
frequently  departed  from  litis  rule  than  enjoined  it. 
The  rule  of  Menander  was,  "  a  lie  is  belter  than  a 
hurtful  truth."  Plato  says,  "  he  may  lie  who  knows 
how  to  do  it  in  a  Jit  season ;"  and  Slaximus  Tyrius, 
"  that  there  is  nothing  decorous  in  truth,  but  when  it  is 
profitable ;"  and  both  Plato  and  the  Stoics  frame  a  Je- 
suitical distinction  between  lying  u-itU  the  lips  and  in 
the  mind.  Deceit  and  falsehood  have  been  therefore  the 
character  of  all  pagan  nations,  and  continue  so  to  be  to 
this  day.  This  is  the  character  of  the  Chinese,  as  given 
by  the  best  authorities  ;  and  of  the  Hindoos  it  is  stated 
by  the  most  res])ectable  Europeans,  not  merely  mis- 
sionaries, but  by  those  who  have  long  held  official  civil 
and  judicial  situationsamonglhem,  that  their  disregard 
of  truth  is  uniform  and  systematic.  When  discovered, 
it  causes  no  surprise  in  llie  one  party,  or  humiliation  in 
the  other.  Even  when  they  have  truth  to  tell,  they 
seldom  fail  to  bolster  it  up  with  some  appended  false- 
hoods.(8) 

Nor  can  the  force  of  the  argument  in  favour  of  the 
necessity  of  a  direct  revelation  of  the  will  of  Cod,  by 
these  facts  be  weakened  by  alleging,  what  is  unhappily 
loo  true,  that  where  the  Christian  revelation  has  been 
known,  great  violations  of  all  these  rules  have  been 
commonly  observed ;  for,  not  to  urge  the  moral  supe- 
riority of  the  worst  of  Christian  states,  in  all  of  them 
the  authority  and  sanction  of  religion  is  directi'd  against 
vice  ;  while  among  luallieiis  their  rellgjoii  itself,  having 
been  corrupted  by  the  wickedness  of  man,  has  become 
the  great  instrument  of  encouraging  every  species  of 
wickedness.  This  circumstance  so  fully  demonstrates 
the  necessity  of  an  interposition  on  the  pari  of  (;od  to 
restore  truth  to  the  world,  that  it  deserves  a  particular 
consideration. 


CHAPTER  Vra. 

The  Necessity  of  Rmelation : — Religioiis  of  the 

Heathen. 
Tn\T  the  religions  which  have  prevailed   ameng 
pagan  nations  have  been  destructive  of  morality,  cannot 
be  denied. 

How  far  the  speculative  principles  which  they  imbo- 
died  had  this  effect,  has  already  been  shown;  we  pro- 
ceed to  their  more  direct  intiuence. 

(7)  Cic.de  Off.  1.  iii.  n.  81. 

(8)  "  It  is  the  business  of  all,"  says  Sir  John  Shore, 
"from  the  Kyot  to  the  Devvan,  to  conceal  and  deceive. 
The  simplest  matters  of  fai-t  are  designedly  covered 
with  a  veil,  which  no  human  understanding  can  pene- 
trate." 'I'he  prevalence  of  perjury  is  so  universal,  as 
to  involve  the  judges  in  extreme  periilexity.  "  The 
hoiieMi  men,"  says  Mr.  Strachey,  "  as  well  as  the  rogues, 
are  |ier|ured.  Even  where  the  real  facta  are  sufficient 
to  ciiiivul  the  olleniler,  the  wilnesses  against  him  must 
add  others,  ollen  notoriously  tiilse,  or  utterly  incredible, 
such  aa  in  Europe  would  wholly  invaliJatu  their  tes- 
tiniony." 


Chap.  VIIL] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


29 


The  gloomy  superstition  which  pervaded  most  of 
them  fostered  ferocious  and  cruel  dispositions. 

The  horrible  practice  of  offering  human  sacrifices 
prevailed  throughout  every  region  of  the  heathen  word, 
to  a  decrree  which  is  almost  incredible ;  and  it  still  pre- 
vails in  many  populous  countries,  where  Christiani  > 
has  not  yet  been  made  known.  There  are^mcontestable 
proofs  of  Its  having  subsisted  among  the  Egyptians,  the 
Syrians,  the  Per.siaus,  the  Phffinicians,  and  all  the  various 
nations  of  the  East.'  It  was  one  of  the  "ying  ^ns  of 
thp  Canaaniles  The  contagion  spread  over  every  pari 
of  Asfa  Mrica  and  Europe."  The  Greeks  and  Romans, 
though  less  involved  in  this  guilt  than  many  other  na- 
tions! were  not  altogether  untainted  with  it.  On  grea 
and  extraordinary  occasions,  they  had  recourse  to  what 
was  esteemed  the  most  efficacious  and  most  meritonous 
sacrifice  that  could  be  offered  to  the  gods,  the  eflusion 
of  human  blood.(O)  But  among  more  barbarous  nations 
this  practice  took  a  firmer  root.  The  Scythians  and 
Thracians,  the  Gauls  and  the  Germans,  were  strongly 
addicted  to  it ;  and  our  own  island,  under  the  g'oomy 
and  ferocious  despotism  of  the  Druids,  was  polluted 
■with  the  religious  murder  of  its  inhabitants.  In  tne 
semi-civilized  kingdoms  on  the  western  side  of  Africa,  as 
Dahoiny,  Ashantee  and  others,  many  thousands  lall  every 
year  victims  to  superstition.  In  America,  Montezuma 
offered  20,000  victims  yearly  to  the  sun;  and  modern 
navigators  have  found  the  practice  throughout  the  whole 
extent  of  the  vast  Pacific  Ocean.  As  for  India,  the  cries 
of  Us  abominable  and  cruel  superstitions  have  been 
sounded  repeatedly  in  the  ears  of  the  British  public  and 
its  legislature  ;  and,  including  infants  and  widows,  not 
fewer  than  10,000  lives  fall  a  sacrifice  to  idolatry  ifl  our 
own  eastern  dominions  yearly  !(1)  ,      »•       .i. 

The  influence  of  these  practices  m  obdurating  tne 
heart,  and  disposing  it  to  habitual  cruelty,  need  not  be 
pointed  out ;  but  the  religions  of  paganism  have  been 
as  productive  of  impurity  as  of  blood. 

The  ftoralia  among  the  Romans  were  celebrated  for 
four  days  together  by  the  most  shameless  actions ;  and 
their  mysteries  in  every  country,  whatever  might  be 
their  original  intent,  became  horribly  corrupt.  It  was 
in  the  temples  of  many  of  their  deities,  and  on  their  re- 
ligious festivals,  that  every  kind  of  impurity  was  most 
practised ;  and  this  continues  lo  the  present  day 
throughout  all  the  regions  of  modern  paganisin.(2) 

This  immoral  tendency  of  their  religion  was  con- 
firmed and  perfected  by  the  very  character  and  actions 
of  their  gods,  whose  names  were  perpetually  in  their 
mouths ;  and  whose  murderous  or  obscene  explolts^ 
whose  villanies  and  chicaneries,  whose  hatreds  and 
strifes,  were  the  subject  of  their  popular  legends ; 
which  made  up  in  fact  the  only  theology,  if  so  it  may 
be  called,  of  the  body  of  the  people.  That  they  should 
be  better  than  their  gods  was  not  to  be  expected  and 
worse  they  could  not  be.  Deities  with  such  attributes 
could  not  but  corrupt,  and  be  appealed  to,  not  merely 
to  excuse,  but  lo  sanctify  the  worst  practices.CS) 
Let  this  argument  then  be  summed  up.  .    .     . 

All  the  leading  doctrines  on  which  religion  rests  had 
either  been  corrupted  by  a  grovelling  and  immoral  su- 
perstition among  heathen  nations ;  or  the  philosophic 
speculations  of  their  wisest  men  had  introduced  prin- 
ciples destructive  of  man's  accountability  and  present 
and  future  hope.  On  morals  themselves,  the  onginal 
rules  were  generally  perverted,  limited,  or  rejected ; 
whiie  the  religious  rites,  and  the  legendary  character 


(9)  Plutarch  in  the  Lives  of  Themistocles,  Marcellus, 
and  Aristides.— Livy,  1.  22,  c.  57.— Florus,  1.  1,  c.  13.— 
Virg.  Mn.  x.  518,  xi.  81.  ,_  .  . 

(1)  See  Maurice's  Indian  Antiquities;  the  writings 
of  Dr  Claudius  Buchanan;  Ward  on  the  Hindoos; 
Dubois  on  Hindoo  Manners,  <fcc. ;  Robertson's  History 
of  America-  Bowditcli's  Account  of  Ashantee  ;  Moore's 
Hindoo  Pantheon ;  and  Porteus  and  Ryan  on  the  effects 
of  Christianity. 

(2)  See  Leland,  and  Whitby,  on  the  necessity  of  a 
Revelation  ;  and  the  writers  on  the  customs  of  India,— 
Ward  Dubois,  Buchanan,and  Moore— before  referred  to. 

(3)  Hence  Chferea,  in  Terence,  pertinently  enough 
asks.  Quod  fecit  is  qui  templa  reli  summa  sonit^i  con- 
cutit,  ego  homtmcio  nan  facerem  1  Eunuch,  act  3.  sc. 
5  _He  only  imitated  Jupiter.  And,  says  Sextus  Em- 
pyricus,  "  That  cannot  be  unjust,  which  is  done  by  the 
god  Mercury,  the  prince  of  thieves ;  for  how  can  a  god 
be  wicked  !"— Apud  Enseb.  Fraep.  lib.  6,  cap  10 


of  the  deities  worshipped,  to  (he  exclusion  of  the  true 
God,  gave  direct  incitement  and  encouragement  to  vice. 
Thus  the  grossest  ignorance  on  divine  subjects  univer- 
sally prevailed ;  the  learned  were  involved  in  inextri- 
cable perplexities ;  and  the  unlearned  received  as  truth 
the   most  absurd  and  monstrous  fahles,  all  of  them, 
however,  favourable  to  vicious  indulgence.    The  ac- 
tual state  of  morals  also  accorded  with  the  corrupt  re- 
li<'ious  systems  and  the  lax  moral  principles  which 
they  adopted ;  so  that  in  every  heathen  state  of  ancient 
times,  the  description  of  the  Apostle  Paul  m  the  first 
chapter  of  Romans  is  supported  by  the  evidence  of 
their  own  historians  and  poets.    The  same  may  also 
be  affirmed  of  modern  ]iagan  countries,  whose  moral 
condition  may  explain  more  fully,  as  they  are  now  so 
well  knowni  through  our  intercourse  with  them,  the 
genius  and  moral  tendency  of  the  ancient  idolatries, 
with  wliich  those  of  India  and  other  parts  of  the  East 
especially,  so  exactly  agree.  .     i 

These  are  the  facts.    They  affect  not  a  small  portion 
of  jnankind,  but  all  who  have  not  had  the  benefits  of 
the  doctrines  and  morals  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  :  there 
are  no  exceptions  from  this  of  any  consequence  to  the 
argument,  though  some  difference  in  the  morals  of 
heathen  states  may  be  allowed.    Wliere  the  Scriptures 
are  unknown,  there  is  not,  nor  ever  has  been  since  the 
corruption  of  the  primitive  religion,  a  religious  system 
which  has  contained  just  views  of  God  and  religious 
truth,  the  Theists  of  the  present  day  being  judges ; 
—none  which  has  enjoined  a  correct  morality,  or  even 
opposed  any  effectual  barrier  against  the  detenoration  of 
public  manners.    These  facts  cannot  be  denied  :  for  the 
allegations  formerly  made  of  the  morality  of  modern 
pagan  nations  have  been  sufficiently  refuted  by  a  better 
acquaintance  with  them ;  and  the  conclusion  is  irre- 
sistible, that  an  express  revelation  of  the  will  of  God, 
accompanied  with  efficient  corrective  instilutions,  was 
become  necessary,  and  is  still  demanded  by  the  igno- 
rance and  vices,  the  miseries  and  disorders  of  every 
part  of  the  earth  into  which  Christianity  has  not  been 
introduced.  „,  .       ......        - .,,  ' 

But  we  may  go  another  step.  This  exhibition  of  the 
moral  condition  of  those  nations  who  have  not  had  the 
benefit  of  the  renewal  and  republication  of  the  truths 
of  the  patriarchial  religion,  not  only  supports  the  con- 
clusion that  new  and  direct  revelations  from  God  were 
necessary  ;  but  the  wants,  which  that  condition  so  ob- 
viously created,  will  support  other  presumptions  as  to 
the  nature  and  morfc  of  that  revelation,  in  the  case  of 
such  a  <nft  being  bestowed  in  the  exercise  of  the  Divino 
mercy  "  For  if  there  is  ground  to  presume,  that  Al- 
mighty God  in  Ills  compassion  for  his  creatures  would 
not  leave  them  to  the  unchecked  influence  of  error 
and  vice  ;  nor,  upon  the  corruption  of  that  simple  but 
comprehensive  doctrine,  worship,  and  morals  commu- 
nicated to  the  progenitors  of  all  those  great  branches 
of  the  family  of  man  which  have  been  spread  over  the 
earth,  refuse  to  interpose  to  renew  and  to  perfect  that  reli- 
gious system  which  existed  in  an  elementary  form  in  the 
earliest  ages,  and  give  to  it  a  form  less  liable  to  altera 
tion  and  decay  than  when  left  to  be  transmitted  by  tra- 
dition alone;  there  is  equal  ground  to  presume,  that  the 
revelation,  whenever  vouchsafed,  should  be  of  that  na- 
ture, and  accompanied  by  such  circumstances,  as 
would  most  effectually  accomplish  this  benevolent 
purpose.  .       , .  ^ 

Presumptions  as  to  the  manner  in  which  such  a  re- 
velation would  be  made  most  effectually  to  accom- 
plish its  ends  are  indeed  to  be  guarded,  lest  we 
should  set  up  ourselves  as  adequate  judges  in  a  ca.se 
which  involves  large  views  and  extensive  bearings  ol 
the  Divine  government.  But  without  violating  this 
rule,  it  may,  from  the  obviousness  of  the  case,  be  jire- 
sum'ed,  that  such  a  supernatural  manifestation  of  truth 
should,  1.  contain  explicit  information  on  those  impor- 
tant subjects  on  which  mankind  had  most  greatly  and 
most  fatally  en-ed.  2.  That  it  should  accord  wuh  the 
i.rinciples  of  former  revelations,  given  to  men  in  the 
same  state  of  guilt  and  moral  incapacity  as  we  find 
them  in  the  present  day.  3.  That  it  .should  have  a 
sati.sfactory  external  authentication.  4.  Ihntu  should 
contain  provisions  for  its  effectual  promulgation  among 
all  classes  of  men.  All  this,  allowing  the  necessUy 
and  the  probability  of  a  supernatural  communication 
of  the  will  of  God,  must  certainly  be  expected ;  and 
if  the  Christian  revelation  bears  this  character,  it  has 
certainly  these  presumptions  in  it's  favour,  that  it  meets 


30 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  I. 


an  obvious  case  of  necessity,  and  confers  the  advan- 
tages just  enumerated. 

1.  It  gives  information  on  those  subjects  which  are 
most  important  to  man,  and  whu^h  tlie  world  haddarli- 
ened  with  ttie  greatest  errors— //(c  nature  and  perfi:c- 
tions,  claims  aiul  relatioyui  of  God — his  \vii,l(4)  as  the 
Kci.K  of  moral  good  and  m'il — the  means  of  obtaining' 
PAKDUN  and  of  conquering  vice — the  true  Meuiatur 
between  God  and  man — Dioine  Providknck — the 
Chief  (Joon  nf?nim,  n^spccting  vvliicli  alone  more  than 
three  hundred  diflbrent  opinions  among  the  ancient 
sages  have  been  reckoned  uj) — man's  immortality 
and  accduntahUily,  and  a  fstire  state. 

2.  It  is  also  required  that  a  revelation  should  accord 
with  the  principles  of  former  revelations,  should  any 
have  been  given. 

For  since  it  is  a  first  principle,  that  God  cannot  err 
himself,  nor  deceive  us.  so  far  as  one  revelation  renews 
or  explains  any  truth  in  a  jireceding  one,  it  must  agree 
with  the  previous  communication  ;  and  in  what  it  adds 
to  a  preceding  revelation,  it  cannot  contradict  any  thing 
■which  it  contains,  if  it  be  exhibited  as  a  truth  of  un- 
changeable character  or  a  duty  of  perpetual  obligation. 

Now  whatever  direct  proof  may  be  adduced  in  fa- 
vour of  the  Uivine  authority  of  the  Jewish  and  Chris- 
tian revelations,  this  at  least  may  be  confidently  urged 
as  evidence  in  their  favour,  that  they  have  a  substantial 
agreement  and  harmony  among  themselves,  and  with 
that  ancient  traditional  system  which  existed  in  the 
earliest  ages,  and  the  fragEnents  of  which  we  find  scat- 
tered among  all  nations.  As  to  the  i)atriarclial  system 
of  religion,  to  which  reference  has  been  so  often  made, 
besides  the  notices  of  it  which  are  every  where  scat- 
tered in  the  book  of  Cenesis,  we  liave  ample  and  most 
satisfactory  information  in  the  ancient  book  of  Job,  of 
which  sufficient  evidence  may  be  given,  that  it  was 
w^ritten  not  later  than  the  time  of  Moses ;  and  that  Job 
himself  lived  between  the  flood  of  Noah  and  the  call 
of  Abraham.  Of  the  religion  of  the  patriarclis,  just  as 
it  existed  at  that  period  when  Sabianism,  or  the  wor- 
ship of  the  heavenly  luminaries,  began  to  make  its 
appearance,  and  was  restrained  by  the  authority  of 
the  "  Judges,"  who  were  the  heads  of  tribes  or  fami- 
lies, and  ns  it  existed  in  the  ])receding  ages,  as  we  find 
from  the  reference  made  by  Job  and  his  li-iends  to  the 
authority  of  their  "  Fathers,"  this  book  contains  an 
ample  and  most  satisfactory  record  ;  and  from  this  ve- 
nerable relic  a  very  copious  body  of  doctrinal  and  prac- 
tical theology  might  be  collected ;  but  the  following 
particulars  will  be  suflicient  for  the  present  argument. 

One  Supreme  Being  alone  is  recognised  throughout, 
as  the  object  of  adoration,  worshi)!,  hope,  trust,  and 
tear:  who  is  represented  as  of  infinite  and  unsearch- 
able majesty, — eternal,  omnipresent,  omni.scient,  al- 
mighty, and  of  perfect  wisdom,  justice,  goodness  ;  go- 
verning all  things,  noting  and  judging  individuals, 
regarding  the  good,  puni.shing  the  wicked,  placable, 
listening  to  the  prayers  of  the  penitent.  The  natural 
corruption  of  man's  nature  is  also  stated,  and  his  own 
inability  to  cleanse  his  heart  from  sin.  Man,  we  are 
told,  cannot  be  just  with  God,  and  therefore  needs  an 
intercessor.  Sacrifices,  as  of  Uivine  appointment,  and 
propitiatory  in  their  nature,  are  also  adverted  to  as 
commonly  practised.  Express  reference  is  made  to  a 
Divine  Redeemer  and  his  future  incarnation,  as  an  ob- 
ject of  hope.  The  doctrines  of  an  immortal  spirit  in 
man,  and  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  a  future 
judgment,  have  all  a  place  in  this  system.  Creation  is 
ascribed  to  Ood ;  and  not  only  the  general  doctrine  of 
Providence,  but  that  most  intoresting  branch  of  it,  the 
connexion  of  dispensations  of  prosperity  and  afiliction 
with  moral  ends.  Murder,  theil,  oppression,  injustice, 
adultery,  intemperance,  arc  all  iioiiited  out  as  viola- 
tions of  the  laws  of  (iod  ;  and  also  wrath,  envy,  and 
other  evil  passions.  I'urity  of  heart,  kindness,  com- 
passion to  the  |.oor,  fee.  arc  spoken  of  as  virtues  of 
the  higluHt  <ililig:ition;  and  Ihe  fear  and  love  of  God 

arc  en|c]i I,  w;ih  a  calm  and  cheerful  submission  to 

his  will,  HI  hiinilile  trust  lliai  Ihe  darkness  of  present 
events  will  hr  ullimately  rlrarrd  up,  and  shown  lo  be 
consistent  with  ihe  wisdom,  juslue.  holiness,  and  truth 
of  God.  The  siiiie  points  of  doctrine  and  morals  may 
also  be  collected  from  the  book  of  Genesis. 

Such  was  the  comprehensive  system  of  patriarchal 
theology ;  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  stop  to  point  out, 

(4)  See  note  A,  at  the  <md  of  the  chapter. 


that  tliese  great  principles  are  all  recognised  and  taken 
up  in  the  .successive  revelations  by  Moses  and  by 
Christ,  cxtiibitmg  three  religious  systejns,  varying 
greatly  in  circumstances;  introduced  at  uidel'j  dis- 
tant periods,  ami  liy  agents  greatly  diffi  ring  in  their 
condition  and  circumstances;  hut  exactly  harmo- 
nizing in  every  leading  doctrinal  tenet,  and  agreeing 
in  their  great  moral  impression  upon  mankind — per- 
fect PURITY  op  heart  and  CONIII'CT. 

3.  That  it  should  be  accompanied  with  an  explicit  and 
impressive  uli nuil  iiiithi  atuintion,  of  suclia  nature  as 
to  make  lis  trulli  olivKius  lu  the  mass  ol  maiikiiid,and  to 
leave  no  reasonalde  doubt  of  its  Divine  authority. 

The  reason  of  this  is  evident.  A  mere  impression  of 
truth  on  Ihe  understanding  could  not  by  itself  be  dis- 
tinguished from  a  discovery  made  by  the  human  intel- 
lect, and  could  have  no  authorily,  as  a  declaralion  of 
the  will  of  a  superior,  with  the  person  receiving  it ; 
and  as  to  others,  it  could  only  pass  lor  the  opinion  of 
the  individual  who  might  promulge  it.(5)  An  authen- 
tication of  a  system  of  truth,  wliich  iirofesses  to  be 
the  rvill,  the  law  of  him,  who,  having  made,  has  the 
right  to  command  us,  external  to  the  matter  of  the 
doctrine  itself,  is  therefore  necessary  to  give  It  authority, 
and  to  create  the  obligation  of  oljedn^nce.  This  accords 
witli  the  oiiinion  of  all  nations  up  to  the  earliest  ages, 
and  was  so  deejily  wrought  in  the  common  sense  of 
mankind,  that  all  the  heathen  legislators  of  anticiuity 
afi'ected  a  Divine  commission,  and  all  false  religions 
have  leaned  for  support  upon  pretended  supeni.itural 
sanctions.  The  proofs  of  this  are  so  numerous  and 
well  known,  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  adduce  them. 

The  authority  of  tlie  ancient  patriarchal  religion 
rested  on  proof  external  to  itself  We  do  not  now 
examine  the  truth  of  its  alleged  authentications — they 
were  admitted;  and  the  force  of  Ihe  revelation  de- 
pended upon  them  in  the  judgment  of  mankind.  We 
have  a  most  ancient  book,  which  records  the  oiiinions 
of  tile  ante-mosaic  ages.  The  theology  oftho.se  ages 
has  been  stated  ;  and  from  the  history  contained  in  that 
book,  we  learn,  that  the  received  opinion  was,  that  the 
Almiglity  Lawgiver  himself  conversed  with  our  first 
parents  and  with  the  patriarclis,  under  celestial  ap- 
pearances; and  that  his  mercies  to  men,  or  his  judg- 
ments, failed  not  to  follow  ordinarily  the  observance  or 
violation  of  the  laws  thus  delivered,  which  was  in  fact 
an  authentication  of  them  renewed  from  time  to  time. 
The  course  of  nature,  disjilaying  the  eternal  power  and 
Godhead,  as  well  as  the  visitations  of  providence,  was 
to  them  a  constant  confirmation  of  several  of  the  lead- 
ing truths  in  the  theology  they  had  received ;  and  by 
the  deep  impress  of  Divinity  which  this  system  re- 
ceived in  the  earliest  ages  from  the  attestations  of  sin- 
gular judgments,  and  especially  the  flood,  it  is  only 
rationally  to  be  accounted  for,  that  it  was  universally 
transmitted,  and  waged  so  long  a  war  against  religious 
corruption.s. 

Kilt  notwithstanding  the  authentication  of  the  primi- 
tive religion  as  a  matter  of  Divine  revelation,  and  Ihe 
eflTects  produced  by  it  in  the  world  for  many  ages  ;  and 
indeed  slIU  produced  by  it  in  its  very  broken  and  cor- 
rupted state,  in  condemning  many  sinful  actions,  so  as 
to  render  (he  crimes  of  heathens  wiihout  excuse  ;  that 
system  was  iraditional,  and  liable  to  be  altered  by 
transmission.  In  projiorllon,  also,  as  historical  events 
were  confounded  by  the  lapse  of  tunc,  and  as  the  mi- 
gralloiis  and  jiolltlcal  convulsions  of  nations  gave  rise 
to  fabulous  slori(s,  Ihe  external  auihciulcating  eviileiice 
becami'  weak,  and  llius  a  merciful  inlerposilion  on  the 
partottJod  was,  as  we  have  seen,  rendered  necessary 
by  the  general  Jgiiniance  of  mankind.  Indeed,  the  jiri- 
niillve  revelations  supposed  fnlure  ones,  and  were  not 
in  Ihemselves  regarded  as  conijilete.  Hut  if  a  repub- 
lication only  of  the  truth  had  been  necessary,  Ihe  old 
external  evideine  was  so  greatly  weakened  by  Ihe 
lapse  of  ages,  which,  as  to  most  nalions,  had  broken 
the  line  ol'  hislorical  testimony  on  which  it  so  greatly 
rested,  that  It  reipnred  a  new  authenlicalion,  in  a  lorin 
mlapled  to  ilie  circunistanci^s of  the  world  ;  and  if  an 
enlarged  revelalion  were  vouihsafed,  every  addition  to 
Ihe  deelared  will  of  God  needed  an  authentication  of 
the  same  kiiul  as  at  first. 

If  we  presume,  therefore,  that  a  new  revelation  was 
necessary,  *ve  must  presume  that,  when  given,  ii  w  ould 
have  an  external  authentication  as  coming  from  God, 


(5)  Vide  Chap.  3. 


Chap.  VIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


31 


from  which  there  could  be  no  reasonable  appeal ;  and 
wt^  therelbre  conclude,  that  as  the  aiosaic  and  Christian 
Ri'velatlons  profess  bolh  to  republish  and  to  enlarge 
former  Revelations,  the  circumstance  of  their  restiiij; 
ihfir  claims  on  the  external  evidence  of  miracles  and 
pro])h<'cy,  is  a  presumption  in  their  favour.  Whether 
the  evidence  winch  ihey  otfer  be  decisive  or  not,  is  a 
future  question;  but  ni  exhibiting  such  evidence,  they 
accord  with  the  reason  of  the  thing,  and  with  the  com- 
mon sense  of  all  ages. 

4.  It  is  farther  presumed,  that  should  a  revelation 
of  religious  truth  and  the  will  of  God  be  made,  it  would 
provide  means  lor  its  effectual  communication  to  all 
classes  of  men. 

As  the  revelation  supposed  must  be  designed  to  re- 
store and  enlarge  the  communications  of  truth,  and  a.s, 
from  the  increase  and  dispersion  of  the  human  race, 
tradition  had  become  an  imperfect  medium  of  convey- 
ing it.  it  is  a  fair  presumption,  that  the  persons  through 
whom  the  communication  was  made  should  record  it 
in  WRITING.  A  revelation  to  every  individual  could 
not  maintain  the  force  of  its  original  authentication  ; 
because,  as  its  attestation  must  be  of  a  supernatural 
kind,  its  constant  recurrence  would  divest  it  of  that 
character,  or  weaken  its  force  by  bringing  it  among 
common  and  ordinary  events.  A  revelation,  on  the 
contrary,  to  few,  properly  and  publicly  attested  by  su- 
pernatural occurrences,  needed  not  repetition ;  but  the 
most  natural  and  effectual  mode  of  preserving  the  com- 
munication, once  made,  would  be  to  transmit  it  by 
writing.  Any  corruption  of  the  record  would  be  ren- 
dered impracticable  by  its  being  publicly  taught  in  the 
first  instance;  by  a  standard  copy  being  preserved  with 
care ;  or  by  such  a  number  of  copies  being  dispersed 
as  to  defy  material  alteration.  This  presumption  is 
reali/.ed  also  in  the  Jewish  and  Christian  Revelations; 
as  will  be  seen  when  the  subject  of  the  authority  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  comes  to  be  discussed.  They  were 
first  publicly  taught,  then  committed  to  writing,  and 
the  copies  were  multiplied. 

Another  method  of  preserving  and  diffusing  the 
knowledge  of  a  revelation  once  made,  would  be  the 
institution  of  public  commemorative  rites,  at  once  pre- 
serving the  memory  of  the  fact  and  of  the  doctrine 
connected  with  it  among  great  bodies  of  people,  and 
leading  them  to  such  periodical  inquiries  as  might  pre- 
serve both  vvith  the  greatest  accuracy.  These  also  we 
find  in  the  institutions  of  Moses  and  of  Christ ;  and 
their  weight  in  the  argument  for  the  truth  of  the  mis- 
sion of  each,  will  be  adduced  in  its  proper  place. 

Allowing  It  to  be  reasonable  to  presume  that  a  Reve- 
lation wtnild  be  vouchsafed,  it  is  equally  so  to  presume 
that  It  should  contain  some  injunctions  favourable  to 
its  propagation  among  men  of  all  ranks.  For  as  the 
compassion  of  God  to  the  moral  necessities  of  his  crea- 
tures generally  is  the  ground  on  which  so  great  a 
favour  rests,  we  cannot  suppose  that  one  class  of  men 
should  be  allowed  to  make  a  monopoly  of  this  advan- 
tage ;  and  this  would  be  a  great  temptation  to  them 
to  publish  their  own  favourite  or  interested  opinions 
under  a  pretended  Divine  sanction,  and  tend  to  coun- 
teract the  very  purpose  for  which  a  revelation  was 
given.  Such  a  monopoly  was  claimed  by  the  priests 
of  ancient  pagan  nations ;  and  that  fatal  effect  fol- 
lowed. It  was  claimed  for  a  time  by  a  branch  of  the 
Christian  priesthood,  contrary  to  the  obligations  of  the 
institution  itself;  and  the  consequences  were  similar. 
Among  the  heathens,  the  effect  of  this  species  of  mo- 
nopoly was,  that  those  who  encouraged  superstition 
and  ignorance  among  the  people  speedily  themselves 
lo.st  the  truth,  which,  through  a  wicked  policy,  they 
concealed  ;  and  the  case  might  have  been  the  same  in 
(Christendom,  but  for  the  sacred  records,  and  for  those 
witnesses  to  the  truth,  who  prophesied  and  suffered, 
more  or  less,  throughout  the  darkest  ages.(6) 

This  reasonable  expectation  also  is  reaUzed  in  the 
Mosaic  and  Christian  revelations ; — both  provided  for 

(6)  Bishop  Warburton  endeavours  to  prove,  by  an 
elaborate  argument  in  his  "  Divine  Legation,"  that  in 
the  greater  mysteries,  the  Divine  Unity  and  the  errors 
of  Polytheism  were  constantly  taught.  This,  however, 
is  most  satisfactorily  disproved  by  Dr.  Leland,  in  his 
"  Advantage  and  Necessity  of  a  Divnie  Revelation ;"  to 
both  of  which  works  the  reader  is  rel'eiTed  for  inform- 
ation as  to  those  singular  institutions— the  Heathen 
Mysteries. 


their  general  publication— both  institutfid  an  order  of 
men,  not  to  conceal,  but  to  read  and  teach  the  truth 
committed  to  them — both  recognised  a  right  in  the 
peoi)le  to  search  the  record,  and  by  it  to  judge  of  the 
ministration  of  the  priests — both  made  it  obligatory  on 
the  ]>eo])le  to  be  taught — and  both  separated  one  day  in 
seven  to  afford  leisure  for  that  purpose. 

Nothing  but  such  a  revelation,  and  with  such  accom- 
panying circumstances,  appears  capaole  of  reaching 
the  actual  case  of  mankind,  and  of  etlectually  instruct- 
ing and  bringing  them  under  moral  coiurol  ;(7)  and 
whether  the  Bible  can  be  proved  to  be  of  Divine  author- 
ity or  not,  this  at  least  must  be  granted — that  it  pre- 
sents itself  to  us  under  these  circumstances,  and 
claims,  for  this  very  reason,  the  most  serious  and  un 
prejudiced  attention. 


(7)  See  note  B,  at  the  end  of  the  chapter. 
Note  A.— Page  30. 

Different  opinions  have  been  held  as  to  the  ground 
of  moral  obligation.  Grotius,  Balguy,  and  Dr.  S 
C'larke,  place  it  in  the  eternal  and  necessary Jitness  nf 
things.  To  this  there  are  two  objections.  Thejirst  is, 
that  it  leaves  the  distinction  between  virtue  and  vice 
in  a  great  measure  arbitrary  and  indefinite,  dependent 
upon  our  perception  of  fitness  and  unfitness,  which,  in 
different  individuals  will  greatly  difler.  The  second  is, 
that  when  a  fitness  or  unfitness  is  proved,  it  is  no  more 
than  the  discovery  of  a  natural  essential  difference  or 
congruity,  which  alone  cannot  constitute  a  moral  obli- 
gation to  choose  what  is  fit,  and  to  reject  what  is  unfit. 
When  we  have  proved  a  fitness  in  a  certain  course  of 
action,  we  have  not  proved  that  it  is  obligatory.  A 
second  step  is  necessary  before  we  can  reach  this  con- 
clusion. Cudworth,  Butler,  Price,  and  others,  main- 
tain that  virtue  carries  its  own  obligation  in  itself; 
that  the  understand! ng  at  once  perceives  a  certain  ac- 
tion to  be  right,  and  therefore  it  o^ight  to  he  performed. 
Several  objections  lie  to  this  notion.  1.  It  supposes  the 
understandings  of  men  to  determine  precisely  in  the 
same  manner  concerning  all  virtuous  and  vicious  ac- 
tions, which  is  contrary  to  fact.  2.  It  supposes  a  pre- 
vious rule,  by  which  the  action  is  determined  to  be 
right ;  but  if  the  revealed  will  of  God  is  not  to  be  taken 
into  consideration,  what  common  rule  exists  among 
men  ?  There  is  evidently  no  such  rule,  and  therefore 
no  means  of  certainly  determining  what  is  right.  3.  If 
a  common  standard  were  known  among  men,  and  if 
the  understandings  of  men  determined  in  the  same 
manner  as  to  the  conformity,  or  otherwise,  of  an  action 
to  that  standard ;  what  renders  it  a  matter  of obligation 
that  any  one  should  perform  it  ?  The  rule  must  be  proved 
to  be  binding,  or  no  ground  of  obligation  is  established. 

An  action  is  obligatory,  say  others,  because  it  is 
agreeable  to  the  moral  sense.  This  is  the  theory  of 
Lord  Shaftesbury  and  Dr.  Hutchinson.  By  moral 
sense  appears  to  be  meant  an  instinctive  approbation 
of  right,  and  abhorrence  of  wrong,  prior  to  all  reflection 
on  their  nature  or  their  consequences.  If  any  thing 
else  were  understood  by  it,  then  the  moral  sense  must 
be  the  same  with  conscience,  which  we  know  to  vary 
with  the  judgment,  and  cannot  therefore  be  the  basis  of 
moral  obligation.  If  conscience  be  not  meant,  then  the 
moral  sense  must  be  considered  as  instinctive,  a  notion, 
certainly,  which  is  disproved  by  the  whole  moral  history 
of  man.  It  may,  indeed,  be  conceded,  that  such  is  the  con- 
stitution of  the  human  soul,  that  when  triose  distinctions 
between  actions,  which  have  been  taui;lil  by  nli^'ious  tra- 
dition or  direct  revelation,  are  known  in  llieir  nature,  re- 
lations, and  con.sequences,  the  calm  and  sober  judgments 
of  men  will  approve  of  them  ;  and  that  especially  when 
they  are  considered  abstractedly,  that  is,  as  not  afli-cting 
and  controlling  their  own  interests  and  passions  imme- 
diately, virtue  may  command  complacency,  and  vice 
provoke  abhorrence  ;  but  that,  independeiU  of  reflection 
on  their  nature  or  their  consequences,  there  is  an  in- 
stinctive principle  in  man  which  abhors  evil,  and  loves 
good,  is  contradicted  by  that  variety  of  opinion  and 
feeling  on  the  vices  and  virtues,  which  obtains  among 
all  uninstructed  nations.  We  applaud  the  forgiveness 
of  an  injury  as  magnanimous;  a  savage  despises  it  as 
mean.  We  think  it  a  duty  to  support  and  cherish  aged 
parents  ;  many  nations,  on  the  contrary,  abandon  them 
as  u.seless,  and  throw  l\\vm  to  the  beasts  of  the  field. 
Innumerable  instances  of  this  contrariety  might  be  ad- 
duced, wliich  are  all  contrary  to  the  notion  of  instinctive 


32 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Pakt  I. 


sentiment.  Instincts  operate  uniformly,  but  this  as- 
sumed moral  sense  does  not.  lii'sidcs,  if  it  be  mnre 
matter  of  feeling,  indcjiendciit  of  |ui|i;iiicMt,  to  love 
virtue  and  ablior  vice,  the  /m/rnliti/  of  the  e.xercise  of 
this  principle  is  questionable;  lor  it  would  be  difficult 
to  show,  that  there  is  any  more  morality,  jiroperly 
speaking,  in  the  afleciions  and  distrusts  ofiiisiiiict  Ihan 
in  those  of  the  palate.  If  .iMdiiiiitnt,  the  kiii)\vl(.-df;e 
and  comparison  of  things,  be  iiiiludcd,  llicii  this  prin- 
ciple supposes  a  uniform  and  universal  individual  reve- 
lation as  to  the  nature  of  things  to  every  man,  or  an 
intuitive  faculty  of  determining  their  moral  quality; 
both  of  which  are  too  absurd  to  be  maintained. 

The  only  satisfactory  conclusion  on  this  subject  is, 
that  which  refers  moral  obligation  to  the  irill  (if'  God. 
"Obligation,"  says  Warhurton,  "necessarily  implies 
an  obliger,  and  the  obliger  must  be  dilferent  from,  and 
not  one  and  the  same  with,  the  obliged.  Moral  obli- 
gation, that  is,  the  obligation  of  a  free  agent,  farther 
implies  a  law,  which  enjoins  and  forbids;  but  a  law  is 
the  imposition  of  an  intelligent  superior,  who  hath 
power  to  e.\act  conformity  thereto."  This  lawgiver  is 
God  :  and  whatever  may  be  the  reasons  which  have  led 
him  to  enjoin  this,  and  to  prohibit  that,  it  is  plain  that 
the  obligation  to  obey  lies  not  merely  in  the  iitness  and 
propriety  of  a  creature  obeying  an  infinitely  wise  and 
good  Creator,  though  such  a  fitness  e.xists;  but  in  that 
obedience  being  enjoined. 

Some,  allowing  this,  would  push  the  matter  farther, 
in  search  of  a  more  remote  ground  of  obi  igat  ion.  They 
ptlt  the  question,  "Why  am  I  obliged  to  obey  the  will 
of  God?"  and  give  us  the  answer,  "  Because  obedience 
to  the  commands  of  a  benevolent  God  must  be  produc- 
tive of  the  agent's  happiness  on  the  whole."  Hut  this 
is  putting  out  to  sea  again  ;  for — 1.  It  cannot  be  proved 
that  the  consideration  of  our  own  happiness  is  a  ground 
of  moral  obligation  at  all,  except  in  some  such  vague 
sense  as  we  use  the  term  obligation  when  we  say,  "  We 
are  obliged  to  take  exercise,  if  we  would  preserve  our 
health."  2.  We  should  be  in  danger  of  setting  uj)  a 
standard,  by  which  to  judge  of  the  propriety  of  obeying 
God,  when,  indeed,  we  are  but  inadequate  judges  of 
what  is  for  our  happiness,  on  the  whole  :  or,  3.  It  would 
make  moral  obligation  to  rest  upon  our  faith,  that  God 
can  will  only  our  happiness,  which  is  a  singular  prin- 
ciple on  which  to  build  our  obedience.  On  the  contrary, 
the  eimple  principle  that  moral  obligation  rests  upon  the 
will  of  God,  by  whatever  means  that  will  may  be 
known,  is  unclogged  with  any  of  these  difliiulties. 
For — 1.  It  is  founded  on  a  clear  jirinciple  of  justice.  He 
who  made  has  an  absolute  property  in  us,  and  may 
therefore  command  us ;  and  having  actually  com- 
manded us,  we  carmot.  set  up  any  claim  of  exemption — 
we  are  his.  2.  He  has  connected  reward  with  obe- 
dience, and  punishment  with  disobedience,  and  therefore 
made  it  nece.i.iary  for  us  to  obey,  if  we  would  secure 
our  own  happiness.  Thus  we  are  obligeii,  both  by  the 
force  of  the  abstract  principle,  and  by  the  motive 
resulting  from  a  sanctioned  command ;  or,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  schools,  we  are  i)bli!;cil  in  reason,  and 
obliged  in  interest,  but  each  obligation  evidently 
emanates  from  (he  wiH  of  God.  Other  considerations, 
such  as  the  excellence  aiid  beauty  of  virtue,  its  tendency 
to  individual  hajipiness  and  universal  order,  Ac,  may 
smooth  the  path  of  obedience,  and  render  "  his  com- 
mandments joyous  ;"  but  the  obliffatioii,  strictly  speak- 
ing, can  only  rest  in  the  will  of  the  superior  and  com- 
manding power. 

Note  B.—Page  31. 

Though  some  will  allow  the  ignorance  of  former 
times,  they  think  that  the  improved  reason  of  man  is 
now  more  adequate  to  the  discovery  of  moral  truth. 

"  They  contend,  that  the  world  was  then  in  the 
infancy  of  knowledge  ;  and  argue,  as  if  the  illustrious 
sages  of  old  (whom  they  nevertheless  sometimes 
extol,  in  terms  of  extravagant  panegyric)  were  very 
babes  in  philosophy,  such  as  the  wise()Mes  of  later  ages 
regard  with  a  sort  of  conieiniiiucius  coiiiniiseialion. 

"  Uut,  may  we  not  be  lUTiiiitted  tu  ask,  whence  Ibis 
jasumed  superiority  of  modern  overaiiciciii  pliilosopbers 
has  arisen?  and  whence  the  exiraonhiKiry  iiilliix  of 
light  upon  these  latter  times  has  been  derived  ?  Is  there 
any  one  so  infatuated  by  his  adiniraiiiin  of  the  present 
age,  as  seriouuly  to  think  thai  the  intellectual  powers 
of  man  are  stronger  and  more  perleci  now  than  they 
were  wont  to  be ;  or  that  the  particular  talents  of  liini- 


aelf,  or  any  of  his  contemporaries,  are  superior  to  those 
which  shone  forthintht  luminaries  of  the  (lentile  world  ? 
IJo  th(!  names  even  of  l.ocke,  (.'udwortli,  Cumberland, 
('larke,  Wilkins,  or  Wollaston  (men  so  justly  eminent 
ill  modern  times,  and  who  laboured  so  iiidcfatigably  to 
perfect  the  theory  of  Natural  Religion)  convey  to  us  an 
idea  of  greater  intellecuial  abihty  than  those  of  the 
consummate  nuvsters  of  the  Portico,  the  Grove,  or  the 
Lyceum  !  How  is  it,  then,  that  the  advocates  for  the 
natural  perfection,  or  perlectil)ility,  of  human  reason 
do  not  perceive,  that,  for  all  the  su]ieriority  of  the  present 
over  former  times,  with  respect  to  religious  knowledge, 
we  must  be  indebted  to  some  inta-vening  cause,  and 
not  to  any  actual  enlargement  of  the  human  faculties  1 
Is  it  to  be  believed,  that  any  man  of  the  iiresent  age,  of 
whatever  natural  talents  he  may  be  possessed,  could 
have  advanced  one  step  beyond  th(?  heathen  philoso- 
phers in  his  pursuit  of  divine  truth,  had  he  lived  in  their 
times,  and  enjoyed  only  the  light  that  was  bestowed 
upon  them  ?  Or  can  it  be  fairly  proved,  that  merely  by 
the  light  of  nature,  or  by  reasoning  upon  such  data  only 
as  men  possess  who  never  heard  of  revealed  religion, 
any  moral  or  religious  truth  has  been  discovered  since 
the  days  when  Athens  and  Rome  affected  to  give  laws 
to  the  intellectual,  as  well  as  to  the  political  world  ■? 
That  great  improvements  have  since  been  made,  in 
framing  system.s  of  ethics,  of  metaphysics,  and  of  what 
is  called  natural  theology,  need  not  be  denied.  But 
the.se  improvements  may  easily  be  traced  to  one  obvious 
cause,  the  widely  diffused  light  of  the  Go.spel,  which, 
having  shone  with  more  or  less  lustre,  on  all  nations, 
has  imparted,  even  to  the  most  simple  and  illiterate  of 
the  sons  of  men,  such  a  degree  of  knowledge  on  these 
subjects,  as,  without  it,  would  be  unattainable  even  by 
the  most  learned  and  profound." — Van  Mildeki's 
Boyle's  Led. 


CHAPTER  rX. 

The  Evidences  necessary  to  authenticatk  a 

Revklation. — External  Evidence. 
The  evidence  usually  ofTeredin  proof  of  the  Divine 
authority  of  the  Scriptures,  may  be  divided  into  Extkr- 
NAL,  Inti:rnai.,  and  Coi.i.atekai..  The  External  Evi- 
dence consists  of  miracles  and  prophecy  ;  i\\c  Internal 
Evidence  is  drawn  from  the  ioiisid<ratiiin  of  the  doc- 
trines taught,  as  being  coiisislent  with  the  character  of 
(;od,  and  tending  to  |iroiiiote  tlie  virtue  and  happiness 
of  man  ;  and  the  Collate  ral  Evidence  arises  from  a  va- 
riety of  circumstances  which,  less  directly  than  the 
former,  prove  the  revelation  tobeol  I )i vine  authority,  but 
are  yet  supposed  to  be  of  great  wciL'ht  in  the  argument. 
On  each  of  these  kinds  of  evidence  we  shall  otfer.some 
general  remarks,  tending  to  prepare  the  way  lor  a  demon- 
.stration  of  the  Divine  authority  of  the  Holy  ."Scriptures. 
The  principal  and  most  appropriate  evidences  of  a 
revelation  from  God,  must  heirlernal  to  the  revelation 
itself  This  has  been  before  stated ;  but  it  may  require 
a  larger  consideration. 

A  Divine  revelation  has  been  well  defined  to  be  "  a 
discovery  of  some  projiosition  to  the  mind,  which  came 
not  in  by  the  usual  exercise  of  its  faculties,  but  by  some 
miraculous  Divine  interiiosition  and  attestation,  cither 
mediate  or  imnicdiate. "(H)  It  is  not  thought  necessary 
to  attein|it  to  prove  such  a  revelation  po.?sible;  for,  a« 
our  arL'uinent  is  supposed  to  be  with  a  person  who  an- 
kiiowleclg.s,  not  only  that  there  is  a  God,  but  that  he  is 
the  (  rcator  of  men  ;  it  would  be  absurd  in  such  a  one 
to  deny,  that  he  who  gave  us  minds  capable  of  know- 
ledge is  not  able,  instantly  and  immediately,  to  convey 
knowledge  to  us ;  and  tliat  he  who  has  given  us  the 
power  of  communicating  ideas  to  each  other,  should 
have  no  means  of  communicating  with  us  immediately 
from  him.self  . 

We  neeii  not  inquire  whether  external  evidence  of  a 
revelation  is  in  all  lases  nniuisite  to  him  who  imme- 
diately and  at  first  receives  it  ;  for  the  (jueslion  is  not, 
whetlier  private  revelations  have  ever  been  made  by 
(;od  to  individuals,  and  what  evidence  is  required  to 
authenticate  them  ;  but  what  is  the  kind  of  evidence 
which  we  ought  to  require  of  one  who  profe.sses  to  have 
received  a  revelation  of  the  \vill  of  God,  with  a  command 
to  communicate  it  to  us,  and  to  enjoin  it  upon  our 


(8)  DoDDRiDQii's  Lectures,  Part  5,  Definition  (is. 


Chap.  IX.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


33 


acoeptanco  and  submission  as  the  rule  of  our  opinions 
and  manners. 

He  may  believe  that  a  Divine  comnumii-ation  has 
been  made  to  himseU';  but  his  belief  Iuih  no  aulliority 
to  command  ours.  He  may  have  actnally  reeeiveil  it ; 
but  we  have  not  the  means  of  knowinir  it  without  proof. 

That  proof  is  not  the  high  and  excellent  nature  of  the 
truths  he  teaches  ;  in  other  words,  that  which  is  called 
the  Inter/Ml  Evidence  cannot  be  that  proof.  For  we 
cannot  tell  whether  the  doctrines  he  teaches,  tliou!;h 
they  should  be  capable  of  a  higher  degree  of  rational 
demonstration  than  any  delivered  to  the  world  before, 
may  not  be  the  fruits  of  his  own  mental  labour.  Ht 
may  be  conscious  that  they  are  not ;  but  lue  have  no 
means  of  knowing  that  of  which  he  is  conscious,  except 
by  his  own  testimony.  To  us  therefore  they  would 
have  no  authority  but  as  the  opinions  of  a  man,  whose 
ititeUeclual  attainments  we  might  admire,  but  to  whom 
we  could  not  submit  as  to  an  infallible  guide;  and  the 
less  so,  if  any  part  of  the  doctrine  tausht  by  him  were 
either  mysterious  and  above  our  reason,  or  contrary  to 
our  interests,  prejudices,  and  passions. 

If,  therefore,  any  ])erson  should  profess  to  have  re- 
ceived a  revelation  of  truth  from  God  to  teach  to  mankind, 
and  that  he  was  directed  to  command  their  obedience 
to  it  on  pain  of  the  Divine  displeasure,  he  would  be 
asked  for  some  external  authentication  of  his  mission  ; 
nor  would  the  reasonableness  and  excellence  of  his 
doctrines  be  accepted  in  place  of  this.  The  latter  might 
entitle  him  to  attention  ;  but  nothing  short  of  the  former 
would  be  thought  a  ground  sufficiently  strong  for 
yielding  to  him  an  absolute  obedience.  Without  it  he 
might  reason,  and  be  heard  with  respect ;  but  he  could 
not  command.  On  this  very  reasonable  ground,  the 
Jews  on  one  occasion  asked  our  Lord,  "  hy  ivliaf.  au- 
thority doest  thou  these  things?"  and  on  another, 
"  What  sign  shmvest  thou  mito  2(s?" 

Agreeably  to  this,  the  authors  both  of  the  .Tewishand 
the  Christian  revelations  profess  to  have  authenticated 
their  mission  by  thetwo  gr^-at  external  proofs,  Muiaclks 
and  1'kophkcv  ;  and  it  remains  to  be  considered  whether 
this  kind  of  authentication  be  reasonably  sufficient  to 
command  our  faith  and  obedience. 

The  ijuestion  is  not.  Whether  we  may  not  conceive 
of  external  proofs  of  the  mission  of  Moses,  and  of  (Jhri.st 
and  his  Apostles,  ditTeringfroin  those  which  are  assumed 
to  have  been  given,  and  more  convincing.  In  whatever 
way  the  authentication  had  been  made,  we  might  have 
conceived  of  modes  of  proof  (hflering  in  kind  or  more 
ample  in  circumstance  ;  so  that  to  ground  an  objection 
upon  the  absence  of  a  particular  kind  of  proof  for 
which  we  have  a  preference,  would  be  trilling. (t))  ilut 
this  is  the  cjuestion.  Is  a  mission  to  teach  the  will  of 
f!od  to  man.  under  his  immediate  authority,  sufficiently 
authenticated  when  miracles  are  really  performed,  and 
prophecies  actually  and  unequivocally  accomplished  ? 
To  this  point  only  the  inquiry  need  now  go;  for  whether 
real  miracles  were  performed  by  Moses  and  Christ,  and 
whether  iirophecics  were  actually  uttered  by  them,  and 
received  uiiecjuivocal  accomplishment,  will  be  reserved 
for  a  farther  stage  of  the  inquiry. 


(9)  "  We  know  not  beforehand  what  degree  or  kind 
of  natural  information  it  were  to  be  expected  Cod 
would  afford  men,  each  by  his  own  reason  and  expe- 
rience, nor  how  far  he  would  enable  and  effectually 
dispose  them  to  communicate  it,  whatever  it  should  be, 
to  eai'h  other ;  nor  whether  the  evidence  of  it  would  be 
certain,  highly  probable,  or  doubtful;  nor  whether  it 
would  be  given  with  equal  clearness  and  conviction  to 
all.  Nor  could  we  guess,  upon  any  good  ground  I 
mean,  whether  natural  knowledge,  or  even  the  faculty 
it.self,  by  which  we  are  capable  of  attaining  it,  reason, 
would  be  given  us  at  once,  or  gradually.  In  like  man- 
ner we  are  wholly  ignorant  what  degree  of  new  know- 
ledge it  were  to  be  expected  God  would  give  mankind 
by  revelation,  upon  supposition  of  his  aflbrding  one ;  or 
how  far,  or  in  what  way,  he  would  interpose  miracu- 
lously to  qualify  them,  to  whom  he  should  originally 
kiaake  the  revelation,  for  communicating  the  knowledge 
given  by  it,  and  to  secure  their  doing  it  to  the  age  in 
which  they  should  live,  and  to  secure  its  being  trans- 
mitted to  posterity.  W'e  are  equally  ignorant,  whether 
the  evidence  of  it  would  be  certain,  or  highly  probable, 
or  doubtful ;  or  whether  all  who  should  have  any  de- 
gree of  instruction  tYom  it,  and  any  degree  of  evidence 
of  its  truth,  would  have  the  same ;  or  whether  the 


Tliere  is  a  popular,  a  philosophic,  and  a  theological 
sense  of  the  term  miracle. 

A  miracle,  in  the  popular  sense,  is  a  prodigy,  or  nn 
extraordinary  event,  which  surprises  us  by  its  novelty. 
In  a  more  accurate  and  philosophic  sense,  a  miracle  is 
an  effect  which  does  not  follow  from  any  of  the  regu- 
lar laws  of  nature,  or  wliich  is  inconsistent  with  some 
known  law  of  it,  or  contrary  to  the  settled  constitution 
and  course  of  things.  Accordingly,  all  miracles  pre- 
siijipnse  an  established  system  of  nature,  within  the 
liniits  of  which  they  operate,  and  with  the  order  of 
which  they  disagree. 

Of  a  miracle  in  the  theological  sense,  many  defini- 
tions have  been  given,(l)  That  of  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke 
IS :  •'  A  miracle  is  a  work  effected  in  a  manner  unusual, 
or  different  from  the  common  and  regular  method  of 
providence,  by  the  interposition  of  (;od  himself,  or  of 
some  intelligent  agent  superior  toman,  for  the  proof  or 
evidence  of  some  particular  doctrine,  or  in  attestation  of 
the  authority  of  .some  particular  person." 

Mr.  Home  defines  a  miracle  to  be  "  an  effect  or  event, 
contrary  to  the  established  constitution  or  course  of 
things,  or  a  sensible  suspension  or  controlment  of, 
or  deviation  fi"om,  the  known  laws  of  nature,  wrought 
either  by  the  immediate  act,  or  by  the  assistance,  or 
by  the  permission  of  God."(2)  This  definition  would 
be  more  complete  in  the  theological  sense,  if  the  last 
clause  in  Dr.  S.  Clarke's  definition  were  added  to  it, 
"  for  the  proof  or  evidence  of  .some  jiarticular  doctrine, 
or  in  attestation  of  the  authority  of  some  particular  per- 
son." With  tliis  addition,  the  definition  will  be  suffi- 
ciently satisfactory,  as  it  explains  the  nature  of  the  phe- 
nomenon, and  gives  the  reason  or  end  of  its  occurrence. 

Farmer,  in  his  "  Dissertation  on  Miracles,  "  denies 
to  any  created  intelligences,  however  high,  the  power 
of  working  miracles,  when  acting  from  themselves 
alone.  This  dispute  is  only  to  be  settled  by  a  strict 
definition  of  terms  ;  but  whatever  power  may  be  al- 
lowed to  superior  beings  to  produce  miraculous  effects, 
or  effects  apparently  so,  by  the  control  they  may  be 
supposed  to  exert  over  natural  objects ;  yet,  as  they  arc 
all  under  the  government  of  God,  they  have  certainly 
no  power  to  interfere  with  his  work,  and  the  order  of 
his  providence,  at  pleasure.  Whatever  they  do,  there- 
fore, whether  by  virtue  of  natural  power,  or  power 
s)x,cially  communicated,  they  must  do  it  by  coimnia- 
sion,  or  at  least  by  license. 


scheme  would  be  revealed  at  once,  or  unfolded  gra- 
dually. Nay,  we  are  not,  in  any  sort,  able  to  judge 
whether  it  were  to  have  been  expected,  that  the  reve- 
lation should  have  been  committed  to  writing,  or  left 
to  be  handed  down,  and  consequently  corrupted,  by  ver- 
bal tradition,  and  at  length  sunk  under  it,  if  mankind 
so  pleased,  and  during  such  time  as  they  are  permitted, 
in  the  degree  they  evidently  are,  to  act  as  they  will. 

"  Now,  since  it  has  been  shown,  that  we  have  no 
principles  of  reason  upon  which  to  judge  beforehand, 
how  it  were  to  be  expected  revelation  should  have 
been  left,  or  what  was  most  suitable  to  the  Divine  plan 
of  government,  in  any  of  the  afore-mentioned  respects; 
it  must  be  quite  frivolous  to  object  afterward  as  to  any 
of  them,  against  its  being  left  one  way  rather  than  an- 
other; for  this  would  be  to  object  against  things,  upon 
account  of  their  being  different  from  our  expectations, 
which  has  been  shown  to  be  without  reason.  And 
thus  we  sec,  that  the  only  question  concerning  the 
truth  of  Christianity  is,  whether  it  be  a  real  revelation  ; 
not  whether  it  be  attended  with  every  circumstance 
which  we  should  have  looked  for;  and  concerning  the 
authority  of  Scripture,  whether  it  be  what  it  claims  to 
be  ;  not  whether  it  be  a  book  of  such  sort,  and  so  pro- 
mulgcd  as  weak  men  are  apt  to  fancy  a  book  con- 
taining a  divine  revelation  should  be.  And,  therefore, 
neither  obscurity,  nor  seeming  inaccuracy  of  style,  nor 
various  readings,  nor  early  disputes  about  the  authors 
of  particular  parts,  norany  otherlliiiigsof  the  like  kind, 
though  they  had  been  nnich  more  considerable  in  de- 
gree than  "they  are,  could  overthrow  tlie  authority  of 
the  Scripture,  unless  the  Prophets,  Apostles,  or  our 
Lord  had  promised  that  the  book,  containing  the  divme 
revelation,  should  be  secui>lrora  those  things."— -Bot- 
IjER's  Analogy. 

(1)  The  reader  may  see  several  of  them  enumerated 
and  examined  in  Doddridge's  Lectures,  Part  5. 

(2)  Introduction  to  the  critical  study  of  the  Scriptures, 
vol.  i.  c.  4,  sect.  2. 


34 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  I. 


The  miracles  under  consiileration  are  such  effects 
as  iitfrce  wuh  the  dflinitiuii  just  K'ven,  and  which  are 
v.roui4hteithir  ininiediatt^ljbyGodluMisplt',  to  attest  tlie 
Divine  rnis«R)n  of  particular  persons,  and  to  authenti- 
cate their  doctrines;  or  by  superior  bciiifis  coniinis- 
sioned  by  him  for  the  same  purpose  ;  or  by  the  persons 
themselves  who  profess  this  Divine  authority,  in  order 
to  prove  that  they  have  been  invested  with  it  by  God. 

The  i)0ssibility  of  miracles  wrouglit  by  the  power  of 
God,  can  be  denied  by  none  but  Atheists,  or  those 
whose  system  is  substantially  Atheistic,  ispinosa  de- 
nies, that  any  power  can  supersede  that  of  nature ;  or 
that  any  thing  can  disturb  or  interrupt  the  order  of 
things:  and  accordingly  he  defines  a  miracle  to  be  "  a 
rare  event,  happening  in  consequence  of  some  laws  that 
are  unknown  to  us."  This  is  a  detinition  of  a  prodigy, 
not  of  a  miracle ;  but  if  miracles  in  the  proper  sense 
be  allowed,  that  is,  if  the  facts  themselves  which  have 
been  commonly  called  miraculous  be  not  disputed,  this 
method  of  accounting  for  them  ispbviously  most  absurd ; 
inasmuch  as  it  is  supposed  that  the.se  unknown  laws 
chanced  to  come  into  operation,  just  when  men  pro- 
fessing to  be  endued  wnth  miraculous  powers  wished 
them,  while  yet  such  laws  were  to  tlieni  unknown. 
For  instance,  when  Moses  contended  with  the  Egyp- 
tian magicians,  though  these  laws  were  unknown  to 
liim,  he  ventured  to  depend  upon  their  operation,  and 
by  chance  they  served  his  jmrpose. 

To  one  who  believes  in  a  Supreme  Creator  of  all 
things,  and  the  dependence  of  all  things  upon  his  power 
and  will,  miraculous  interpositions  must  be  allowed 
possible,  nor  is  ttiere  any  thing  in  thein  rcjiugiiant  to 
our  ideas  of  his  wisdom  and  unmutabilily,  and  the  i)er- 
fection  of  his  works.  Tliey  are  dejiartures  from  the 
ordinary  course  of  God's  oi)eration,  but  this  does  not 
arise  from  any  natural  necessity,  to  remedy  an  unlbre- 
seen  evil,  or  to  repair  imperfections  in  his  work  ;  the 
reasons  for  them  are  mural  and  not  natural  reasons, 
and  the  ends  they  are  intended  to  accomplish  arc  moral 
ends.  They  remind  us  when  th(>y  occur,  that  there  is  a 
power  sujierior  to  nature,  and  that  all  nature,  even  to 
its  first  and  most  uniform  laws,  dcixnds  upon  Him. 
They  are  among  the  chief  means  by  which  lie  who  is 
by  nature  invisible,  makes  liimsell  as  it  were  visible 
to  tiis  creatures,  who  are  so  prone  to  forget  him  en- 
tirely or  to  lose  sight  of  him  by  reason  of  the  interpo- 
sition of  the  veil  of  material  objects.(3) 

I  (3)  Bistiop  Butler  has  satisfactorily  shown,  in  his 
Analogy  (part  ii.  c.  11),  that  there  can  be  no  such  pre- 
sumption against  miracles  as  to  render  them,  in  any 
•wise,  incredible,  but  whatwould  conclude  against  such 
tincommou  appearances  as  comets,  and  against  there 
being  any  such  powers  in  nature  as  magnetism  and 
electricity,  so  contrary  to  the  properties  of  other  bodies 
not  endued  with  these  powers,  liut  he  observes,  "  take 
in  the  consKlcriUiiin  of  religion,  or  the  mural  sijstnn  of 
the  world,  and  tlien  we  see  distinct  partictUar  reasons 
for  miracles,  to  aflt>rd  mankind  instruction,  additional 
to  that  of  nature,  and  to  attest  the  truth  of  it ;  and  our 
being  able  to  discern  reasons  for  them,  gives  a  positive 
credibiUtti  to  the  liistory  of  them,  in  ca.ses  where  those 
reasons  hold." 

"  It  is  impossible,"  says  an  oracle  among  modern 
unbclicviTs  (Viiliaire),  "  that  a  Being,  infinitely  wise, 
should  iiiiikc  laws  in  order  to  violate  tlicm.  He  would 
not  derange  the  machine  of  his  own  construction,  un- 
less It  were  lor  its  improvement.  But  as  a  God,  he 
hath,  without  doubt,  made  it  as  perfect  as  possible ;  or, 
if  he  had  foresee!!!  a!iy  imperfection  likely  to  result 
from  it, he  would  surely  liave  piovidcd  against  it  from 
the  beginning,  and  not  he  under  a  nii  issiiy  ofcliaiiging 
it  allerward.  He  is  both  unchangeable  and  oninipo- 
ii!it,  and  therefore  can  neither  have  any  desire  to  alter 
lUe  idurse  of  nature,  nor  have  any  iicikI  to  do  so." 

••  This  argument  (says  Dr.  Van  Miblert)  is  grounded 
on  a  misconception  or  a  misn^presentation  of  the  drsig-ii 
of  miracles,  which  is  not  the  remedy  of  any  physical 
defect,  not  to  rectify  any  original  or  iiccidcntal  iinpcr- 
leclions  in  the  laws  of  nature,  but  to  manifest  to  the 
world  the  iulerposilion  ol  the  Almighty,  for  especial 
purjioseK  of  a  inimil  kind.  It  is  smiiily  in  make  known 
III  inankind,  that  it  is  He  who  aildri:sse8  them,  and 
that  whatever  i:j  accompanied  with  this  species  of  evi- 
dence, comes  from  Uini,  and  claims  (In  ir  imjilicit  be- 
lief and  obnrhence.  The  perfection,  llierelbre,  or  ini- 
perfection  of  the  laws  of  nature  has  iioilun^  to  do  wilU 


Granting,  then,  the  possibility  of  mirnculous  interpo- 
sition on  the  part  of  the  Cireat  Author  of  Nature,  on  spe- 
cial occasions,  and  for  great  ends,  in  what  way  and 
under  what  circuiustances  does  such  interjiosition  au- 
thenticate the  Divine  mission  of  those  who  proless  to 
be  sent  by  hmi  to  teach  his  will  to  mankiud  .' 

The  argument  is,  that  as  the  knowni  anil  ostablisheil 
course  of  nature  has  been  fixed  by  him  who  is  the  Crea- 
tor and  I'rfcser\'er  of  all  things,  it  can  never  be  violated, 
departed  from,  or  controlled,  but  either  immediately  by 
himself,  or  mediately  by  oilier  beings  at  his  command, 
and  by  Ids  assistance  or  jieniiission ;  lor  if  this  be  not 
allowed,  we  must  deny  either  the  Divine  omnipotence, 
or  his  natural  government ;  and,  if  these  be  allowed, 
the  other  follows.  Every  real  miracle  is  a  work  of 
(;od,  done  siiecially  by  him,  by  his  permission,  or  with 
Ids  concurrence. 

In  order  to  distinguish  a  real  miracle,  it  is  neces- 
sary that  the  common  cour.se  of  nature  should  be  un- 
derstood ;  lor  without  some  antecedent  knowledge  of 
the  operation  of  physical  causes,  an  event  might  be 
deemed  miraculous  which  was  merely  strange,  and 
thiough  our  ignorance  inexplicable.  Hhouid  an  earth- 
quake hajiiien  in  a  country  never  belbre  visited  by 
such  a  ciilamity  withui  the  memory  of  man,  by  the  ig- 
norant it  might  be  considered  miracnlous  ;  whereas  an 
eurllKiuakc  is  a  regular  efl'ect  of  the  present  estabhshed 
laws  of  nature. 

But  as  the  course  of  nature  and  the  operation  of 
physical  causes  are  but  partially  understooil,  and  will 
perhaps  never  be  fully  comprehended  by  the  most  in- 
iiuiring  minds,  it  seems  necessary  that  such  miracles 
as  are  intended  to  authenticate  any  religious  system, 
promulged  for  the  common  benefit  of  mankind,  should 
be  eflfects  produced  upon  objects  whose  propeitieis  havo 
been  the  subject  of  common  and  long  observalion  :  that 
it  should  be  contrary  to  some  known  laws  by  which 
the  objects  in  ijuestioii  have  been  uniformly  and  long 
observed  to  be  governed  ;  or  that  the  proximate  cause 
of  the  effect  should  be  known  to  have  no  adequate 
power  or  adaptation  to  jiroduce  it.  When  these  cir- 
cumstances occur  separately,  and  more  especially 
when  combined,  a  suflicieiit  antecedent  acquaintanrt) 
with  the  course  of  nature  exists  to  warrant  the  con- 
clusion, thiit  l/i)  ijfirt  IS  tiiirarvlimx,  or,  in  other  words, 
that  It  is  ]iroiluced  by  the  sjiecial  interi«)sitii)i!  of  God. 

Whelher  the  works  ascnlieil  to  M(i>es  and  tii  Christ, 
and  recorded  in  Siriiuure,  were  aetuall\  pcrluniied  by 
them,  will  be  considered  in  another  place ;  hut  here  it 
is  proper  to  observe,  that,  assuming  their  actual  occur- 
rence, they  are  of  such  a  nature  as  to  leave  no  rea- 
sonable doubt  of  their  miraculous  character;  and  from 
them  we  may  borrow  a  few  instances  for  the  sake  of 
illustrating  the  preceding  obbervalions,  without  pre- 
judging the  argument. 

The  rod  east  from  Ihe  hand  of  Moses  became  a  ser- 
pent. Here  Ihe  sulijcrt  was  well  known  ;  it  was  a  rod, 
a  branch  separated  from  a  tree,  and  it  was  obviously 
contrary  to  tUe  known  andestalilished  course  of  nature, 
that  it  should  undergo  so  signal  atranslornialion.  lithe 
fact  can  be  proved,  the  mii-acle  must  therclbre  follow. 
The  sea  is  iiarted  at  the  stretching  out  of  the  rod  of 
Moses.  Here  is  no  adaiitation  of  the  proximate  cause 
to  produce  the  effect,  which  was  obviously  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  known  <iualities  of  water.  A  recession 
of  the  sea  fVom  the  shores  w  ould  have  taken  down  the 
whole  mass  of  water  from  Ihe  head  of  the  gulf;  but  here 
the  waters  divide,  and,  contrary  to  their  iialure,  stand 
upon  eachsidc.  Iea\  ing  a  passage  lor  the  host  of  Israel. 
It  is  in  thc'  nature  of  clouds  to  be  carrieil  about  by 
the  wind;  hut  the  cloud  which  went  before  the  1k- 
raeliles  in  the  wilderness,  rested  nn  their  taberna- 
cle, moved  when  they  were  comnianded  lo  march, 
and  directed  their  couise;  rested  when  they  were  to 


the  question.  All  nature  is  subservient  to  the  will  of 
God ;  and  as  his  cxisUnce  and  attribiiles  are  manifested 
in  the  oi-diiiary  course  of  nature,  so  in  the  txtraordi- 
iiary  work  of  miracles  his  tvill  is  manifested,  by  the 
d!s|iiay  of  his  absolute  sovereimity  over  the  course  of 
nature.  Thus  in  both  inslanees,  the  Creator  is  glori- 
fied in  Ins  works;  and  it  is  maile  to  appear,  that  '  by 
Him  all  tilings  consist,'  and  that  '  lor  his  plea.sure  they 
are  and  were  created."  This  seems  a  sullicicnt  an- 
swer to  any  rea.soning  a  prion  against  miracles,  from 
(heir  suppiisoU  mconsistem  y  willi  the  Divuie  perfet- 
liuim." 


Chap.  IX.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


35 


iHtcli  tliBir  tents,  and  was  a  pillar  of  direction  by  day ; 
and  by  iiijjlit,  when  it  is  the  nature  of  clouds  to  be- 
come diirk,  the  rays  of  the  sun  no  longer  jxTnieating 
them,  this  cloud  shone  with  the  brightness  of  lire. 

Ill  all  these  cases,  if  the  facts  be  established,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  as  to  their  miraculous  character. 

"  Were  a  physician  instantly  to  give  sight  to  a  blind 
man,  by  anointing  his  eyes  with  a  chemical  i)repara- 
tion,  to'the  nature  and  qualities  of  which  we  were  ab- 
solute strangers,  the  cure  would  to  us,  undoubtedly, 
be  wonderful ;  but  we  could  not  pronounce  it  mira- 
culous, because  it  might  be  the  physical  effect  of  the 
r)peration  of  the  unguent  upon  the  eye.  But  were  he 
to  give  sight  to  his  patient,  merely  by  commanding  him 
to  receive  it,  or  by  anointing  his  eyes  with  spittle,  we 
sh<iiilil,  with  the  utmost  confidence,  pronounce  the  cure 
to  111'  a  miracle  ;  because  we  know  perfectly,  that  neither 
Uie  human  voice  nor  human  spittle  has,  by  the  establish- 
ed coiistiiution  of  things,  any  such  power  over  the  dis- 
eases of  the  eye.  No  one  is  ignorant,  that  persons  ap- 
parently dead  are  often  restored  to  their  families  and 
friends,  by  being  treated,  during  suspended  animation, 
in  the  manner  recommended  by  the  Humane  Society. 
To  the  vulgar,  and  sometimes  even  to  men  of  science, 
these  resuscitations  appear  very  ivonderfid;  but  as 
they  are  known  to  be  effected  by  physical  agency,  they 
cannot  be  considered  as  miraculous  deviations  from  the 
laws  of  nature.  On  the  other  hand,  no  one  could  doubt 
of  his  having  witnessed  a  real  miracle,  who  had  seen  a 
person,  that  had  been  lour  days  dead,  coino  alive  out 
of  the  grave  at  the  call  of  another,  or  who  had  even 
beheld  a  person  exhibiting  all  the  common  evidences 
of  death,  instantly  resuscitated  merely  by  being  desired 
to  live."(4) 

In  all  such  instances,  the  common  course  of  nature 
is  sufficiently  known  to  support  the  conclusion,  that 
the  power  which  thus  interferes  wth,  and  controls  it, 
and  jiroduces  effects  to  which  the  visible  natural  causes 
are  known  not  to  be  adequate,  is  God.{b) 

But  it  is  also  necessary,  in  order  to  prove  that  even 
these  miraculous  events  are  authentications  of  a  divine 
mission,  that  a  direct  connexion  between  the  power  of 
God,  exerted  in  a  miraculous  act,  and  the  messenger 
and  his  message,  should  be  established. 

The  following  circumstances  would  appear  suffi- 
ciently to  establish  such  a  connexion  : — 1.  When  the 
miracles  occur  at  the  time  when  he,  who  professes  to 
have  a  divine  mission  from  God,  is  engaged  in  making 
known  the  \vill  of  God  to  mankind,  by  communicating 
the  revelation  he  has  received,  and  performing  other 
acts  connected  with  his  office. — 2.  When,  though  they 
are  works  above  human  power,  they  are  wrought  by 
the  messenger  liimself,  or  follow  his  vohtions.  The 
force  of  this  argument  may  be  thus  exhibited  : — 

When  such  unequivocal  miracles  as  those  we  have 
pointed  out  occur  only  in  connexion  with  an  actual 
profession  by  certain  persons,  that  they  have  a  Divine  au- 
thority to  teach  and  command  mankind,  this  is  a  strong 
presumption,  that  the  works  are  wrought  by  God  in 
order  to  authenticate  this  pretension ;  but  when  they 
are  performed  mediately  by  these  persons  themselves, 
by  their  own  will,  and  for  the  express  purpose  of  esta- 
blishing their  mission,  inasmuch  as  they  are  allowed 
to  be  real  miracles,  which  no  power  but  that  of  God 
ran  eflect,  it  is  then  clear  that  God  is  with  them,  and 
that  his  co-operation  is  an  authenticating  and  visible 
seal  upon  their  commission. 

It  is  not  necessary,  in  this  stage,  to  specify  the  rules  by 
which  real  and  pretended  miracles  areto  be  distinguish- 
ed; nor  to  inquire,  whether  the  Scriptures  allow,  that,  in 
some  cases,  miracles  have  been  WTOught  in  supjiort  of 
falsehood.  Both  these  subjects  will  be  examined  when 
we  come  to  speak  of  the  miracles  of  Scripture.  The 
ground  established  is,  that  miracles  are  possible  ;  and 
that  when  real    miracles   occur    under    the  circuni- 

(4)  Gleig's  edition  of  Stackhoase's  History  of  the 
Bible,  vol.  iii.  p.  241. 

(5)  It  is  observable,  that  no  miracles  appear  to  have 
been  wrought  by  human  agency  before  the  time  of 
Moses  and  Aaron,  in  whose  days  not  only  had  the 
world  long  existed,  but  consciiuently  the  course  of  na- 
ture had  been  observed  for  a  long  period ;  and  farther, 
tlie.se  lirst  miracles  were  wrought  among  a  refined  and 
observant  people,  who  had  their  pliilosojihcrs,  lo  whom 
the  course  of  nature,  and  the  operation  of  physical 
causes,  were  subjects  of  keen  investigation. 

C2    - 


stances  wc  have  mentioned,  they  are  satisfUctory  evi- 
dences of  a  Divine  mission. 

But  though  this  should  be  allowed,  and  also  that  the 
eje -witnesses  of  such  miracles  would  be  bound  to  ad- 
mit the  proof,  it  has  been  made  a  question,  whether 
their  testimony  affords  sufficient  reason  to  others  to 
admit  the  fact  that  such  events  actually  took  place,  and 
consequently  whether  we  are  bound  to  acknuwleilgc 
the  authority  of  that  mission,  in  attestation  of  which 
the  miracles  are  said  to  have  been  wrought. 

If  this  be  admitted,  the  benefits  of  a  revelation  must 
be  confined  to  those  who  witnessed  it.s  attestation  by 
miracle,  or  similar  attestations  must  be  afforded  to 
every  individual ;  for,  as  no  revelation  can  be  a  benefit 
unless  it  po.ssess  Divine  authority,  which  alone  can  iii- 
falhbly  mark  the  distinction  between  truth  and  error, 
should  the  authentication  be  partial,  the  benefit  of  the 
communication  of  an  infallible  doctrine  must  ahso  be 
partial.  We  are  all  so  much  interested  in  this,  because 
no  religious  system  can  plead  the  authentication  of 
perpetual  miracle,  that  it  deserves  special  consideration. 
Either  this  principle  is  unsound,  or  we  rnu.st  abandon 
all  hope  of  discovering  a  religion  of  Divine  authority. 

As  miracles  are  facts,  they,  like  other  fiicts,  may  be 
reported  to  others ;  and,  as  in  the  case  of  the  miracles 
in  question,  bearing  the  characters  which  have  been, 
described,  the  competency  of  any  man  of  ordinary  un- 
derstanding to  determine  whether  they  were  actually 
wrought  cannot  be  doubted ;  if  the  witnesses  are  cre- 
dible, it  is  reasonable  that  their  testimony  should  be 
admitted  :  for  if  the  testimony  be  such  as,  in  matters' 
of  the  greatest  moment  to  us  in  the  affairs  of  common 
life,  we  should  not  hesitate  to  act  upon ;  if  it  be  such, 
that  in  the  most  important  aflairs  men  do  uniformly 
act  upon  similar  or  even  weaker  testimony ;  it  would  be 
mere  perverseness  to  reject  it  in  the  case  in  question  ; 
and  would  argue  rather  a  disinclination  to  the  doctrine 
which  is  thus  proved,  than  any  rational  doubt  of  the' 
sufficiency  of  the  proof  itself. 

The  olijection  is  put  in  its  strongest  form  by  Mr. 
Hume,  in  his  Essays,  and  the  substance  of  it  is  :  Expe- 
rience is  the  ground  of  the  credit  we  give  to  human  tes- 
timony ;  but  this  experience  is  by  no  means  constant, 
for  we  often  find  men  prevaricate  and  deceive.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  experience,  in  like  manner,  which  as- 
sures us  of  those  laws  of  nature,  in  the  violation  of 
which  the  notion  of  a  miracle  consists ;  but  this  expe- 
rience is  constant  and  uniform.  A  miracle  is  an  event 
which,  fVom  its  nature,  is  inconsistent  with  our  exjie- 
rience ;  but  the  faLsehood  of  testimony  is  not  incon- 
sistent with  experience ;  it  is  contrary  to  experience 
that  miracles  should  be  true,  but  not  contrary  to  expe- 
rience that  testimony  should  be  false,  and,  therefore, 
no  human  testimony  can,  in  any  case,  render  them 
credible. 

This  argument  has  been  met  at  large  by  many  au- 
thors,(6)  but  the  following  extracts  afford  ample  refu- 
tation : — 

"  The  principle  of  this  objection  is,  that  it  is  contrary 
to  experience  that  a  miracle  should  be  true  ;  but  not 
contrary  to  experience  that  testimony  should  be  false. 

"  Now  there  appears  a  small  ambiguity  in  the  term 
'  experience,' and  in  the  phrases  'contrary  to  experience,' 
or  'contradicting  experience,'  which  it  may  be  neces- 
sary to  remove  in  the  first  place.  Strictly  speaking, 
the  narrative  of  a  fact  is  then  only  contrary  to  expe- 
rience, when  the  fact  is  related  to  have  existed  at  a 
time  and  place;  at  wliich  time  and  place,  we,  being 
present,  did  not  perceive  it  to  exist;  as  if  it  should  be 
asserted  that  in  a  jiarticular  room,  and  at  a  jiarticular 
hour  of  a  certain  day,  a  man  was  raised  from  the  dead  ; 
in  wliich  room,  and  at  the  time  specified,  we,  being  pre- 
sent, and  looking  on,  perceived  no  such  event  to  have 
taken  place. 

"Here  the  assertion  is  contrary  to  experience,  pro-' 
perly  so  called  ;  and  this  is  a  contrariety  which  no  evi- 
dence can  surmount.  It  matters  nothing  whether  the 
fact  be  of  a  miraculous  nature  or  not.  But  although 
this  be  the  experience  and  the  contiariety  which  Arch- 
bishop Tillotson  alleged  in  llie  quotation  with  which 

(fi)  See  Campbell's  Dissertation  oi.  Miracles; 
Prick's  Four  Dissertations,  Diss.  4;  Palkv's  Evi- 
dences; Adams'  Essay  on  Miracles;  Bishop  Doug- 
las's Griterion;  PvviciiiT's  Theology,  vol.  li.;  Dr. 
Key's  Norrisian  Leciures,  vol.  i. ;  Van  Milukkt's 
Boyle's  Lectures,  vol.  i. 


36 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  I, 


Mr.  Ilurne  oprns  his  Essay,  it  is  certainly  not  that  cx- 
litri<Mii-  ucir  iliiit  toiilrariety  which  Mr.  Hiiinc  Minself 
intoiideil  to  ohjict.  And  short  of  this,  1  know  no  intel- 
ligible sigiiiliciilion  which  can  be  afllxcd  to  the  term 
'contrary  to  ex]iericnce,'  but  one,  viz.  that  of  not  having 
ourselves  e.vperienced  any  thing  similar  to  the  thing 
related,  or  such  things  not  being  generally  cxi)erienoed 
by  others.  I  say 'not  generally;'  tor  to  state,  con- 
cerning the  fact  in  (juestion,  that  no  such  thing  was 
ever  experienced,  or  that  vntrersnl  experience  is  against 
it,  is  to  assume  the  subject  of  the  controversy. 

"Now  the  im])robabiiity  which  arises  Irorn  the  want 
(for  this  properly  is  a  want,  not  a  contradiition)  of  ex- 
perience, is  only  equal  to  the  probability  llicre  is,  that, 
if  the  tiling  were  true,  we  should  expi  rience  things 
similar  to  it,  nr  that  such  things  would  be  generally 
fcxi)erienced.  Suppose  it  then  to  be  true,  that  miracles 
were  wrought  upon  the  first  promulgation  of  Chris- 
tianity, when  nothing  but  miracles  could  decide  its 
authority,  is  it  certaLu  that  such  miracles  would  be  re- 
peated so  often,  and  in  so  many  places,  as  to  become 
objects  of  genital  experience  1  Is  it  a  probability  ap- 
proaciiing  to  (xTtainty  ?  Is  it  a  probability  of  any  great 
strength  or  force?  Is  it  sucli  as  no  evidence  can  en- 
counter.' And  yet  tliis  probability  is  the  exact  co/i- 
verse,  and  therelbre  the  exact  measure  of  the  irnjiroba- 
bility  which  arises  from  the  want  of  experience,  and 
which  Mr.  lliuae  re])resents  as  invincible  by  hiunan 
testimony. 

"  It  is  not  like  alleging  a  new  law  of  nature,  or  anew 
experiment  in  natural  philosophy ;  because,  when  these 
are  related,  it  is  expected  that,  under  tile  .same  circiun- 
stances,  the  same  ell'ect  will  follow  universally ;  and 
in  proportion  as  this  expectation  is  justly  entertained, 
the  want  of  a  corresponding  experience  negatives  the 
history.  Hut  to  expect,  concerning  a  miracle,  that  it 
should  succeed  upon  a  repetition,  is  to  expect  that  which 
would  make  it  cease  to  be  a  miracle  ;  wlii(^h  is  contrary 
to  its  nature  as  such,  and  would  totally  destroy  the  use 
and  jmrpose  for  which  it  was  wrought. 

"  The  force  of  experience,  as  an  objection  to  mira- 
cles, is  founded  in  ttie  presumption,  either  that  the 
course  of  nature  is  invariable,  or  that,  if  it  be  ever  va- 
ried, variations  will  be  freijuent  and  general.  Has  the 
necessity  of  this  alternative  been  demonstrated  ?  Per- 
mit us  to  call  the  course  of  nature  the  agency  of  an 
intelligent  IJeing;  and  is  tliere  any  good  reason  fi)r 
judging  this  state  of  the  case  to  be  probable?  Ought 
we  not  rathe)  to  expect,  that  such  a  Ueiiig,  on  occasions 
of  peculiar  importance,  may  interrupt  the  unlcr  wliidi 
he  had  appoinled,  yet  that  such  occasions  should  rcMirn 
seldom ;  that  these  interruptions,  conseiiueiilly,  sliould 
be  confined  to  the  experience  of  a  few;  that  the  want 
of  it,  therefore,  in  many,  should  be  matter  neither  of 
surprise  nor  objection  ? 

"  But  as  a  continuation  of  the  argument  from  expe- 
rience, it  is  said,  that  when  we  advance  accounts  of 
miracles,  we  assign  effects  without  causes, or  we  attri- 
bute effects  to  causes  inade(|uatc  to  the  purpose,  or 
to  causes,  of  the  operation  of  wlilch  we  have  no  expe- 
rience. Of  what  causes,  we  may  ask,  and  of  wluit 
effects  does  tiie  objt'ction  speak  ?  If  it  be  answered, 
that  when  we  a.seribe  the  cure  of  the  palsy  to  a  touch, 
of  blindiie.ss  to  the  anointing  of  the  eyes  with  clay,  or 
the  raising  of  the  dead  to  a  word,  we  lay  uursilvesoijeii 
to  this  imputation;  we  reply,  that  we  ascribe  no  such 
effects  to  such  causes.  We  perceive  no  virtue  or  energy 
in  these  things  nion^  than  in  other  things  of  the  same 
kind.  Tlicy  arc  imrrly  signs  to  connect  tlie miracle 
with  its  enii.  The  ellcct  we  ascribe  simply  to  the  voli- 
tion of  tlie  Deity  ;  of  whose  existence  and  power,  not 
to  say  of  whose  iiresence  and  agency,  we  have  previ- 
ous and  indepciiiilent  jiroof.  We  liave,  therefore,  all  we 
seek  lor  in  the  works  of  rational  agents— a  sufllcient 
power  and  an  adequate  motive.  In  a  woril,  once 
believe  that  there  is  a  Uod,  and  miracles  are  not  incre- 
dible : 

"Mr.  Hume  states  the  case  of  miracles  to  be  a  con- 
test of  ojjposite  improbabilities;  that  is  to  say,  a  ques- 
tion wliether  it  be  more  imi)robabl<.'  that  the  miracle 
should  l)e  true,  or  tlio  testimony  fiilse  ;  and  this  1  think 
a  (air  account  of  the  controversy.  Hut  herein  I  remark 
a  want  of  argumentative  justice,  that,  in  describing 
the  improbability  of  miracles,  he  suppresses  all  those 
eircumslan<es  of  exienualion  which  result  from  our 
Vnowledce  of  the  existence,  power,  and  disposition  of 
the  Dciiy;  his  concern  in  the  crcuiiun ;  the  end  uu- 


swered  by  the  miracle ;  the  importance  of  that  end, 
and  its  subserviency  to  the  plan  pursoeil  in  the  works 
of  nature.  As  Mr.  Jlume  lias  represented  the  ques- 
tion, miracles  arc  alike  incredible  to  him,  who  is  pre- 
viously assured  of  the  conslanl  agency  of  a  Divine 
IJeiiig,  and  to  him  who  f)elieves  that  no  such  Being 
exists  in  the  universe.  They  are  equally  incredible, 
wliether  related  to  have  been  wrought  upon  occasions 
the  most  deserving,  and  for  purjioses  the  most  benefi- 
cial, or  for  no  assignable  end  whatever,  or  for  an  end 
confessedly  trilling  or  pernicious.  This  surely  cannot 
be  a  correct  statement.  In  adjusting  also  the  other  side 
of  the  balance,  the  strength  and  weight  of  testimony, 
this  author  has  provided  an  answer  to  every  possible 
accumulation  of  historical  proof,  by  telling  us  that  we 
are  not  obliged  to  explain  how  the  .story  or  the  evidence 
arose.  Now  I  think  that  we  nre  ol)ligcd ;  not,  perhaps, 
to  show  by  positive  accounts  how  it  did,  but  by  a  pro- 
bable hJ^)otllesis  how  it  might  so  hapiicn.  The  exist- 
ence of  the  testimony  is  a  phenomenon:  the  truth  of 
the  fact  solves  the  jihenomenon.  If  we  reject  this  so- 
lution, we  ought  to  have  some  other  to  rest  in ;  and 
none,  even  by  our  adversaries,  can  be  admitted,  which 
is  not  consistent  with  the  principles  that  regulate 
human  alliiirs  and  liuiuan  conduct  at  present,  or  which 
makes  men  I  Ik  ii.  to  have  been  a  dilll-rent  kind  of  beings 
from  wli-it  llicy  are  naw. 

"  But  the  short  consideration,  which,  independently 
of  every  other,  convinces  me  that  there  is  )io  solid 
foundation  for  Mr.  Hume's  conclusion,  is  the  follow- 
ing :  When  a  theorem  is  proposed  to  a  mathematician, 
the  first  thing  he  does  with  it  is  to  try  it  ujion  a  simple 
case  ;  and  if  it  produce  a  false  result,  he  is  sure  that 
there  is  some  mistake  in  the  demonstration.  Now  to 
proceed  in  this  way  with  what  may  Ije  called  Mr. 
Hume's  theorem — If  twelve  men,  who.se  probity  and 
good  sense  I  had  long  known,  should  seriously  and 
circumstantially  relate  to  me  an  account  of  a  miracle 
wrought  before  their  eyes,  and  in  which  it  was  impos- 
sible that  they  should  be  deceived ;  if  the  governor  of 
the  country,  hearing  a  rumour  of  this  account,  shonld 
call  these  men  into  his  iiresence,  and  ofler  them  a  short 
Iiroposal,  eillier  to  confess  the  iiii)iosliire,  or  submit  to 
be  tied  up  to  a  gibbet ;  if  they  should  rdiise  with  one 
voice  to  acknowledge  that  there  existed  any  falsehood 
or  imposture  in  the  case  ;  if  this  threat  were  commii- 
nicated  to  them  sejiarately,  yet  with  no  difl'erent  cflijct ; 
if  it  v<ere  at  last  executed  ;  if  I  my.self  saw  them,  one 
allernnother,  consenting  to  be  racked, burned, or strau- 
gliil,  ratlicr  than  give  up  the  truth  of  their  account; — 
siiil,  if  Mr.  Hume's  rule  be  my  guide,  I  am  not  to  be- 
lieve them.  Now  I  undertake  to  say,  that  there  exists 
not  a  skeptic  in  the  world  who  would  not  believe  them, 
or  who  would  defend  such  iMcreiliility."(7) 

"The  Essayist,"  says  the  Bishoii  of  Llandaff,  "who 
has  most  elaborately  drawn  out  this  argument,  per- 
plexes the  subject,  by  attempting  to  adjust,  in  a  sort  of 
metaphysical  balance  of  his  own  invention,  the  degrees 
of  probability  resulting  from  what  he  is  pleased  to  call 
opposite  exjtirii  iicis ;  vi/.,  the  experience  of  men's  ve- 
racity on  the  one  hand,  and  the  experience  of  the  firm 
and  unalterable  constitution  of  the  laws  of  nature  on 
the  other.  But  the  lidlacy  in  this  mode  of  reasoning 
is  obvious.  For,  in  the  first  place,  miracles  can,  at 
most,  only  be  contrary  to  the  exi>erience  of  those  who 
never  saw  them  perlbrmed.  To  say,  therelbre,  that 
they  are  contrary  to  gcniral  experience  (Including,  as 
it  should  seem,  the  experience  even  of  those  who  pro- 
fess to  have  seen  and  to  have  examined  them),  is  to 
assume  the  very  point  in  question.  And  in  the  next 
place,  it  is  equally  fallacious  to  allege  against  them  llie 
experience  of  the  unalterable  constitution  of  the  lawu 
of  nature ;  because,  unless  the  fact  be  previously  in- 
vestigated, whether  those  laws  have  ever  been  altered 
or  suspended,  this  is  likewise- a  gratuitous  assump- 
tion. 

"  In  tnith,  this  boa.sted  balance  of  probabilities  could 
only  be  employed  with  effect  in  llie  cau.se  of  iiifidelily, 
by  counteriioising  against  the  testimony  of  those  who 
professed  to  have  seen  miracles,  the  testimony  of  those 
(if  any  such  were  lobe  found)  who,  under  the  circum- 
stances, and  with  the  same  opportunities  of  Ibrming  a 
judgment,  professed  to  have  been  convinced,  that  the 
thitigs  which  they  saw  were  Nur  miracles,  but  mere 
iiiq)oslurcs  and  delusions.    Here  would  be  indeed  ex- 


(~)  Talb^'s  lividcuccs,  rrcparatory  Consideratioiiu. 


Chap.  IX.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


37 


periencc  against  exporioncc ;  and  a  skeptic.  iniKlit  be 
wi'll  employed  in  estiiniUin^'  llie  comparative  weiniitol' 
the  testimony  on  eillitr  ^slli<!,  in  order  to  jud^c  ol  the 
/.-rediliility  or  increililiililyol'tlie  things  proposed  to  his 
beUeC.  lUit  when  he  weifjlis  only  tlie  experience  of 
lliose,  to  wliom  tlic  opportunity  of  judging  of  a  miracle 
by  personal  obser%-ation  has  never  been  afforded,  against 
the  experience  of  those  who  declare  themselves  to  be 
eye-witnesses  of  the  fact;  instead  of  opposite  experi- 
ences, properly  so  called,  he  is  only  balancing  total 
inexperience  on  the  one  hand,  against  positive  experi- 
ence on  the  other. 

"  Nor  will  it  avail  any  thing  to  say,  that  this  parti- 
cular inexperience  of  those  who  have  never  seen  mira- 
cles is  compensated  by  their  general  experience  of  the 
unallerablo  course  of  jiature.  For,  as  we  have  already 
observed,  this  is  altogether  a  mere  petitio  principii. 
It  is  arguing,  upon  a  supposition  wholly  incapable  of 
proof,  that  the  course  of  nature  is  indeed  so  zinaUerably 
fixed,  that  even  God  himself,  by  whom  its  laws  were 
ordained,  cannot,  when  he  sees  fit,  suspend  their  ope- 
ration. 

"  There  is  therefore  a  palpable  fallacy  (however  a 
subtle  metaphysician  may  attempt  to  disguise  it  by 
ingenious  sophistry)  in  representing  the  experience  of 
mankind  as  being  opposite  to  the  testimony  on  which 
our  belief  of  miracles  is  founded.  For  the  opposite 
experiences,  as  tliey  are  called,  are  not  coiitrailirtory 
to  each  other;  since  'there  is,'  as  has  been  justly  ob- 
served,'  no  inconsistency  in  beUeving  themfto^A.'  A 
miracle  necessarily  supposes  an  established  and  geyie- 
TtiUy  unaltered  (though  not  unalterable)  course  of 
things  ;  for  in  its  interception  of  such  a  course,  lies  the 
very  essence  of  a  miracle,  as  here  understood.  Our 
experience,  therefore,  of  the  course  of  nature  leads  us 
to  expect  its  continuance,  and  to  act  accordingly  ;  but 
it  does  not  set  aside  any  proofs,  from  valid  testimony, 
of  a  deviation  from  it :  neither  can  our  being  personally 
unacquainted  with  a  matter  of  fact,  which  took  place  a 
thousand  years  ago,  or  in  a  distant  part  of  the  world, 
warrant  us  in  disbelieving  the  testimony  of  personal 
Avitnesses  of  the  (act.  Common  sense  revolts  at  the 
absurdity  of  considering  one  man's  ignorance  or  inex- 
perience as  a  counterpoise  to  another  man's  knowledge 
and  experience  of  a  matter  of  fact  Yet  on  no  better 
foundation  does  this  favourite  argmnent  of  infidels 
ajipear  to  rest." 

The  substance  of  Dr.  Campbell's  answer  to  Mr. 
Hume's  argument  has  been  thus  given: 

"The  eviilence  arising  from  human  testimony  is  not 
solely  derived  from  experience ;  on  the  contrary,  testi- 
mony lias  a  natural  influence  on  belief,  antecedent  to 
experience.  The  early  and  unlimited  assent  given  to 
testimony  by  children,  gradually  contracts  as  they  ad- 
vance in  life ;  it  is  therefore  more  consonant  to  truth 
to  say,  that  our  dillidence  in  testimony  is  the  result  of 
experience,  than  that  our  faith  in  it  has  this  foundation. 
Besides,  the  uniformity  of  experience  in  favour  of  any 
fact  is  not  a  proof  against  its  being  reversed  in  a  parti- 
cular instance.  The  evidence  arising  from  the  single 
testimony  of  a  man  of  known  veracity  will  go  farther 
to  establish  a  belief  of  its  being  actually  reversed.  If 
his  testimony  be  confirmed  by  a  few  others  of  the  same 
character,  we  cannot  withhold  our  assent  to  the  truth  of 
it.  Now,  though  the  operations  of  nature  are  governed 
by  unilbrm  laws,  and  though  we  have  not  the  testimony 
of  our  senses  in  favour  of  any  violation  of  tiiem;  still, 
if  in  particular  instances  we  have  the  testimony  of 
thousands  of  our  fellow-creatures,  and  those,  too,  men 
of  strict  integrity,  swayed  by  no  motives  of  ambition 
or  interest,  and  governed  by  the  principles  of  common 
sense,  that  they  were  actually  witnesses  of  these  vio- 
lations, the  constitution  of  our  nature  obliges  us  to  be- 
lieve them. 

"  Mr.  Hume's  reasoning  is  ounded  upon  too  limited 
&  view  of  the  laws  and  course  of  nature.  If  we  con- 
sider things  duly,  we  shall  lind  that  lifeless  matter  is 
utterly  incapable  of  obeying  any  laws  or  of  being  en- 
dued with  any  powers ;  and  therefore,  what  is  usually 
called  the  course  of  nature  can  be  nothing  else  than  the 
arbitrary  will  and  pleasure  of  Ood,  acting  continually 
upon  matter  according  to  certain  rules  of  uniformity, 
still  bearing  a  relation  to  contingencies.  So  that  it  is 
as  easy  for  the  Supreme  Being  to  alter  what  men  think 
the  course  of  nature,  as  to  preserve  it.  Those  efTects 
which  are  produced  on  the  world  regularly  and  indesi- 
iiently,  and  wluch  are  utiually  termed  the  works  of  na- 


ture, prove  the  constant  providence  of  the  Deity  ;  those, 
on  the  contrary,  which  upon  anyextiaordinary  occasion 
are  produced  in  such  a  manner  as  it  is  manifest  could 
not  iiave  been  either  by  human  ])ower,  or  by  what  is 
called  chance,  jirove  undeniably  the  immediate  inter- 
position of  the  Deity  on  that  especial  occasion.  God, 
it  must  be  recollected,  is  the  (iovernor  of  the  moral  as 
well  as  of  the  physical  world ;  and  since  the  moral  well- 
being  of  the  universe  is  of  more  consi'ipience  than  its 
physical  order  and  regularity,  it  follows  obviously,  that 
the  laws,  conformabrj'  with  which  the  material  world 
seems  generally  to  be  regulated,  are  subservient  and  may 
occasionally  yield  to  the  laws  by  which  the  moral  world 
is  governed.  Although,  therelbre,  a  miracle  is  contrary 
to  the  usual  course  of  nature  (and  would  indeed  lose 
its  beneficial  effect  if  it  were  not  so),  it  cannot  thence 
be  inferred  that  it  is  '  a  violation  of  the  laws  of  nature,' 
allowing  the  term  to  include  a  regard  to  moral  tenden- 
cies. The  laws  by  which  a  wise  and  holy  God  governs 
the  world  cannot  (unless  he  is  pleased  to  reveal  them) 
be  learned  in  any  other  way  than  from  testimony  ;  since 
on  this  supposition,  nothing  but  testimony  can  bring  us 
accjuainted  with  the  whole  series  of  his  dispensations ; 
and  this  kind  of  knowledge  is  absolutely  necessary  pre- 
viously to  our  correctly  inferring  those  laws.  "Testi- 
mony, therefore,  must  be  admitted  as  constituting  the 
principal  means  of  discovering  the  real  laws  by  which 
the  universe  has  been  regulated  ;  that  testimony  as- 
sures us,  that  the  api)arent  course  of  nature  has  often 
been  interrupted  to  produce  important  moral  effects ; 
and  we  mast  not  at  random  disregard  such  testimony, 
because  in  estimating  its  credibility,  we  ought  to  look 
almost  infinitely  more  at  the  moral  than  at  the  physical 
circumstances  connected  wnhany  particular  event."(8) 
Such  evidence  as  that  of  miracles,  transmitted  to 
distant  times  by  satisfactory  testimoivy,  a  revelation 
may  then  receive.  "XXxe  fitness  of  \Ms  kind  of  evidence 
to  render  that  revelation  an  instant  and  universal  bene- 
fit, wherever  it  comes,  is  equally  apparent ;  for  as  Mr. 
Locke  observes,(9)  "  The  bulk  of  mankind  have  not 
leisure  nor  capacity  for  demonstration,  nor  can  they 
carry  a  train  of  proofs  ;  but  as  to  the  worker  of  mira- 

(8)  It  would  be  singular,  did  we  not  know  the  incon- 
sistencies of  error,  that  Mr.  Hume  himself,  as  Dr.Camp- 
bell  shows,  gives  up  his  own  argument. 

"  I  owTi"  (these  are  his  words)  ''  there  may  possibly 
be  miracles,  or  violations  of  the  usual  course  of^  nature, 
of  such  a  kind  as  to  admit  a  proof  from  human  testi- 
mony, though  perhaps  [in  this  he  is  modest  enough,  he 
avers  nothing ;  perhaps]  it  win  be  impossible  to  find 
any  such  in  all  the  records  of  history."  To  this  decla- 
ration he  subjoins  the  following  supposition  :  "  Suppose 
all  authors,  in  all  languages,  agree  that  from  the  1st 
of  .Tanuary,  1600,  there  was  a  total  darkness  over  the 
whole  earth  for  eight  days ;  suppose  that  the  tradition  of 
this  extraordinary  event  is  still  strong  and  lively  among 
the  people ;  that  all  travellers,  who  return  from  foreign 
countries,  bring  us  accounts  of  the  same  traditions,  with- 
out the  least  variation  or  contracUction  ;  it  is  evident  that 
our  present  philosophers,  instead  of  doubting  of  that 
fact,  ought  to  receive  it  for  certain,  and  ought  to  search 
for  the  causes  whence  it  might  be  derived."  Could  one 
imagine  that  the  person  who  had  made  the  above  ac- 
knowledgment, a  person,  too,  who  is  justly  allowed  by 
all  who  are  acciuainted  with  his  writings  to  possess 
uncommon  penetration  and  philosophical  abilities,  that 
this  were  the  same  individual,  who  had  so  short  a 
while  before  affirmed,  that  '•  a  miracle,"  or  a  violation 
of  the  course  of  nature,  "  supported  by  any  human 
testimony,  is  more  properly  a  subject  of  derision  than 
of  argument." 

The  objection  "  that  successive  testimony  diminishes, 
and  that  so  rapidly  as  to  command  no  assent  after  a 
few  centuries  at  most,"  deserves  not  so  full  a  refuta- 
tion;  since  it  is  evident,  that  testimony  continues  cre- 
dible so  long  as  it  is  transmiibil  with  all  those  circum- 
stances and  conditions  which  first  procured  it  a  certain 
degree  of  merit  among  men.  Who.  complains  of  a 
decay  of  evidence  in  relation  to  the  actions  of  Alexan- 
der, Hannibal,  I'ompev,  or  Caesar?  We  never  hear 
|)ersons  wishing  they  liad  lived  ages  earlier,  that  they 
might  have  had  hett'ci-  ))roof  that  Cyrus  was  the  con- 
queror of  Babylon  ;  that  llarius  was  beaten  in  several 
battles  by  Al<'.\aii.lcr,  Ac— Sec  Dr.  O.  Grkcjorv's 
Letters  on  the  ('hristiau  Revelation,  vol.  i.  p.  190. 

(9)  Reasonableness  of  Christianity. 


38 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  i. 


cles,  all  his  rommands  become  principles,  there  needs 
no  other  prool  of  what  He  says,  but  that  He  said  it ;  and 
there  needs  no  more  than  to  niid  the  inspired  books 
to  be  instructed." 

IIavin<i  thus  shown  that  miracles  are  possible;  that 
under  certain  circumstances  their  reality  may  be  as- 
certained;  that  when  accomiiauiid  by  other  circum- 
stances, which  we  have  also  mentioned,  they  are  con- 
nected with  a  delinite  end,  and  connect  themselves 
with  the  Divine  mission  of  those  who  perform  them, 
and  with  the  truth  of  their  doctrine ;  that  as  facts  they 
are  the  subjects  of  human  testimony,  and  that  credible 
testimony  res)M-ctin;,' tlu-ni  lays  a  competent  foundation 
for  our  belief  m  tliem,  and  in  those  revelations  which 
they  are  clearly  designed  to  attest,— the  way  is  pre- 
pared for  the  consideration  of  the  miracles  recorded  in 
Scripture. 

PKopiiEfY  is  the  other  fjreat  branch  of  the  external 
evidence  of  a  revelation;  and  the  nature  and  force  of 
that  kind  of  evidence  may  fitly  be  pointed  out,  before 
cither  the  miracles  or  prophecies  of  the  liible  are  exa- 
mined ;  for  by  ascertaining  the  general  principles  on 
which  this  kind  of  evidence  rests,  the  consideration  of 
particular  cases  will  be  rendered  more  easy  and  satis- 
factory. 

No  argument  a  priori  against  the  possibility  of  pro- 
phecy can  be  attempted  by  any  one  who  believes  in  the 
e.\istence  and  infinitely  perfect  nature  of  God. 

The  infidel  author  of  "  The  Moral  Philosopher,"  in- 
deed, rather  insinuates  than  attempts  fully  to  esta- 
blish a  dilemma  with  which  to  perplex  tlio»e  who  re- 
gard projjhecy  as  one  of  the  proofs  r~f  a  Divine  Reve- 
lation. He  tliinks,  that  either  prophecy  must  respect 
"events  necessary,  a.«  ilepending  upon  necessary 
causes,  wliich  might  be  certainly  foreknown  and  pre- 
dicted ;"  or  that,  if  human  actions  are  free,  and  effects 
contingent,  the  |iossihiluy  of  jirophecy  must  be  given 
up,  as  it  implies  foreknowledge,  which,  if  granted, 
would  render  them  necessary. 

The  first  i)art  ol  this  olijection  would  be  allowed, 
were  there  no  predictions  to  be  adduced  in  favour  of  a 
professed  revelation,  excejil  such  as  related  to  events 
which  human  experience  has  taught  to  be  dependent 
u])on  some  cause,  the  existence  and  necessary  opera- 
tion of  whicli  are  within  tlie  compass  of  human  know- 
ledge. But  to  foretel  such  events  would  not  be  to  pro- 
phesy, any  more  than  to  say  that  it  will  be  light 
to-morrow  at  noon,  or  that  on  a  certain  day  and  hour 
next  year  tliere  will  occur  an  eclipse  of  the  sun  or  moon, 
when  that  event  has  been  previously  ascertained  by 
astronomical  calculation. 

If,  however,  it  were  allowed,  that  all  events  depended 
upon  a  chain  of  necissary  causes,  yet,  in  a  variety  of 
instances,  the  argument  from  prophecy  woidd  not  be 
at  all  ert'ected ;  for  the  loretelling  of  necessary  results 
in  certain  circumstances  is  beyond  human  intelligence, 
because  they  can  only  be  known  to  him  by  whose 
power  lhos(r  necessary  causes  on  which  they  depend 
have  been  arraiiized,  and  who  has  prescribed  the  times 
of  thiMr  o|>(raliori.  To  borrow  a  case,  for  the  sake  of 
illuslralioii,  from  the  Scriptures,  though  the  claims  of 
th(;ir  preiliciioiis  are  not  now  in  question  ;  let  us  allow 
that  sudi  a  propliecy  as  that  of  Isaiah  respecting  the 
taking  of  IJabylon  by  Cyrus  was  uttered,  as  it  ])urports 
to  be,  inore  than  a  century  before  ('yrus  was  born,  and 
that  all  the  actions  of  Cyrus  and  his  army,  and  those 
of  the  H.il)ylonian  monarch  and  his  people  were  neces- 
sitated ;  is" It  to  be  maintained,  that  tlie  chain  of  neces- 
Bitating  causes,  running  through  more  than  a  century, 
could  be  traced  by  a  hiiinun  mmd,  so  as  to  describe  the 
prei'ise  manner  in  which  that  fatality  would  unfold 
itself,  even  to  the  turning  of  the  river,  the  drunken 
carou.sal  of  the  inhabitants,  and  the  neglect  of  shutting 
tlic;  gates  of  the  city?  This,  bein^  by  uniform  and  uni- 
versal experience  known  to  be  above  all  liiinian  apjire- 
liension,  would  therelore  jirove  tli;it  tin-  pmliction  was 
made  III  coiiscipiciice  ol  a  (■(iiiiMiiiniialioii  from  a  supe- 
rior and  Divine  Intelll^iiiic.  \V.ti>  events,  tin  reU)re, 
subjected  to  iiivincihle  fate  and  necessity,  there  might 
nevertheless  be  prophecy. 

The  other  branch  of  the  dilemma  is  founded  on  the 
notion,  thai  if  we  allow  the  moral  freedom  of  human 
actions,  jirophei-y  is  impossible ;  because  certain  fore- 
knowledge is  contrary  to  that  freedom,  and  fi.ves  and 
renders  the  event  necessary. 

To  this  Ihi^  reply  is,  that  the  objection  is  founded  on 
:i  false  assiunptioii,  the  Divine  foreknowledge  having 


no  more  influence  in  cfTectuating,  or  making  certain 
any  event,  than  human  foreknowledge  in  the  degree  in 
which  it  may  exist ;  there  being  no  moiitl  causality  at 
all  in  knowledge.  'I'liis  lies  in  the  viU,  wliicli  is  the 
<leterniining  acting  iirinciple  in  every  agent;  or,  as  Dr. 
Samuel  Clarke  has  expn-ssed  it  in  answer  to  another 
kind  of  olijector,  "Cod's  infallible  judgment  concerning 
cmitins'xt  truths  does  no  more  alter  the  nature  of 
things  and  cause  tliein  to  he  nen-ssary,  than  our  ji^rfi.'- 
i/iir  riaht  ai  any  lime  concerning  a  contingent  truth 
makes  it  cease  to  be  cuiitiiintiif,  or  than  our  science  of 
a.  present  truth  is  any  nui.si-  of  its  being  either  true  or 
present.  Here,  therelore,  lies  the  fallacy  of  our  au- 
thor's argument.  Hecause  from  (Jod's  forekninoin^  the 
existence  of  things  depending  upon  a  chain  of  necessary 
causes,  it  follows  that  the  e\istence  of  the  tilings  must 
needs  be  necessary;  llierelbre  from  tiod's  juilii'mf; 
infalUbly  concerning  things  which  depend  not  on 
neces.sary  but  frei  causes,  he  concludes  that  these 
things  also  depend  not  n\Hi\\  free  but  necessary  causes. 
Contrary,  I  say,  to  the  supposition  in  the  argument ; 
for  It  must  not  he  first  siijiposid  that  tilings  are  m  their 
ov'n  till/ lire  iiirissiiri/  ;  hut  from  the  power  of  7i"'""'g 
i7ifallibly  concerning  free  events,  it  must  be  (iroved  that 
things,  otherwise  supposed/rcc,  will  thereby  unavoid- 
ably become  necessary.''  The  whole  question  lies  in 
(his  :  Is  the  simple  knowledge  of  an  action  a  necessi- 
tathig  cause  of  the  action?  And  the  answer  must  be 
in  the  negative,  as  every  man's  consciousness  will 
assure  him.  If  the  causality  of  influence,  either  imme- 
diate or  by  the  arrangement  of  compelling  events,  be 
mi.xed  up  with  this,  the  ground  is  shifted ;  and  it  is  no 
longer  a  question  which  respects  simple  prescience. 

This  metaphysical  objection  having  no  fcmndation  in 
truth,  the  liirce  of  the  evidence,  arising  from  predictions 
of  events,  distant,  and  out  of  the  power  of  human  sa- 
gacity to  anticipate,  and  uttered  as  authentications  of  a 
Divine  commission,  is  ajiparent.  "Such  predictions, 
whether  m  the  form  of  a  declaration,  description,  or 
representation  of  tin ngs  future,"  as  Mr.  Uoyle  justly 
observes,  "are  supernatural  tlungs,  and  may  properly 
be  ranked  among  miracles. "(1)  For  when,  for  instance, 
the  events  are  distant  many  years  or  ages  from  the 
uttering  of  the  prediction  itself,  depending  on  causes 
not  so  much  as  existing  when  the  prophecy  was  sjioken 
and  recorded,  and  likewise  upon  various  circumstances 
and  a  long  arbitrary  series  of  things,  and  the  fluctuat- 
ing uniertainlies  of  human  volitions,  and  esjiecially 
when  they  de]icnd  not  at  all  u)ion  any  external  circum- 
stances, nor  upon  any  created  being,  lint  arise  merely 
from  tile  counsels  and  appointnieiil  ollJod  himself, — 
such  events  can  be  Ibreknown  only  by  that  Itemg,  one 
of  whose  attributes  is  omniscience,  and  can  be  foretold 
by  liim  only  to  whom  the  "Father  of  Lights"  shall 
reveal  them.  So  that  whoever  is  mainfestly  endued 
with  that  predictive  power  must,  in  that  instance, 
speak  and  act  by  Divine  inspiration,  and  what  he  pro- 
nounces of  that  kind  must  be  received  as  the  word  of 
Cod;  nothing  more  being  necessary  to  assure  us  of 
this,  than  credible  testimony  that  such  predictions 
were  uttered  beliire  the  event,  or  conclusive  evidence 
that  the  records  which  contain  them  are  of  the  anti- 
quity to  which  they  pretend. (2) 


CnAPTER  X. 

The  EviDKNrics  niccessarv  to  AUTHKNTieATic  A  Re- 
velation.  Internal  Evidence. — Collateral  Evi- 
dence 

The  second  kind  of  evidence,  usually  consiilcred  a» 
necessar)-  lor  the  attestation  of  a  Divine  revelation,  is 
called  Inl.rnal  Kriilrnre. 

Tins  kind  olividcnce  has  been  already  described  to 
be  that  which  arises  Irom  the  consiilerailon  of  the  doc- 
trines tanghl.  as  being  consistent  with  the  character  of 
Coil,  and  tending  to  promote  the  virtue  and  lia|ipines.'! 
01  man,  the  ends  for  which  a  revelation  ol'tlie  will  of 
(Jod  w.is  needed,  and  for  which  it  must  have  been 
given,  if  it  be  considered  as  an  act  of  grace  and  mercy. 
This  subject,  like  the  two  branches  of  the  External 
Evidence,  miracles  and  prophecy,  involves  important 


(1)  Boyi.k's  Christian  Virtuoso. 

(2)  Vide  Chapman's  lOusebius,  ]y.  I5S  ;  Ci'Dworth'h 
Intellect.  Syet.  p-  8()(>;  Vitiiinca  in  Isa.  cap.  41. 


Chap.  X.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


39 


Roneral  [ivini'iplpt!,  and  it  may  rrqiiire  to  be  tlie  more 
<-arfluU\  corisuleieil,  as  (i|iiiii()Msli;ivc  run  into  extremes. 
Uy  sinw  il  li:is  lii-i'n  diiMhlcil,  wliotlier  what  is  ealletl 
'■  tlie  Internal  Kvidcnce,"  that  is,  the  excellence  of  the 
doctrines  anil  temlcncy  of  a  revelation,  ought  to  bo 
ranked  with  the  Ifwlins;  evidence  of  miracles  ami  pro- 
phecy, seeing  that  the  iiroof  from  miracles  and  from 
proph(;cy  is  decisivi:  and  al)«olntc.  For  tlie  same  rea- 
son, however,  pruplun-y  might  he  cxi-luded  from  the 
rank  of  Ivaduig  evidence,  inasmuch  as  miracles  of 
themselves  are,  in  their  evidence,  decisive  and  abso- 
lute. If,  however,  it  were  contended,  that  proofs  from 
miracles,  prophecy,  and  internal  evidence  are  jointly 
necessary  to  constitute  .yii/H'/int  jiroot' of  the  truth  of 
a  revelation,  there  would  be  reason  to  dispute  the  posi- 
tion, understanding  by  "  sufficient  evidence"  that  de- 
gree of  proof  wliich  would  render  it  highly  unreason- 
able, perverse,  and  culpable  in  any  one  to  reject  the 
authority  of  the  revelation.  This  evidence  is  alfbrded 
by  miracles  alone ;  for  if  there  be  any  force  at  all  in 
the  argument  from  miracles,  it  goes  to  the  full  length 
of  rational  proof  ot  a  lUviiie  attestation,  and  that  both  to 
him  who  personally  witnesses  the  performance  of  a 
real  miracle,  and  to  hiin  to  whom  it  is  credibly  testified; 
and  nothing  more  is  absolutely  necessary  to  enforce  a 
rational  conviction.  Hut  if  it  shoidd  please  the  Divine 
Authorofa  revelation  to  superadd  the  farther  evidence 
of  prophecy,  and  also  that  of  the  obvious  truth,  and  be- 
neficial tendency  of  many  parts  of  this  revelation,  cir- 
cumstances which  must  necessarily  be  often  ajiparent, 
it  ought  not  to  be  disregarded  in  the  argument  in  its 
Uivour,  nor  thought  of  trifling  import;  since,  though  it 
may  not  be  necessary  to  establish  a  rational  and  suffi- 
cient [iroof,  it  may  have  a  secondary  necessity,  to 
arouse  attention,  to  leave  objectors  more  obviously 
without  excuse,  and  also  to  accommodate  the  revela- 
tion to  that  variety  which  exists  in  the  mental  constitu- 
tions of  men,  one  mind  being  excited  to  aiieniiun,  and 
disposed  to  conviction,  more  forcibly  by  one  species  of 
proof  than  by  another. 

In  strict  propriety,  therefore,  miracles  may  be  con- 
sidered as  the  primary  evidence  of  the  truth  of  a  reve- 
lation, and  every  other  species  of  proof  as  conjirmaiory. 
I'rophecy  and  the  Internal  Evidence  are  leading  evi- 
dences, but  neither  of  them  stand  in  the  foremost  place. 
The  same  abiiiidati.ee  of  proof  we  perceive  in  nature, 
for  the  demonstration  of  the  being  and  attributes  of  God. 
Proofs  of  the  existence  of  a  First  Cause,  almighty  and 
infinitely  wise,  more  than  what  is  logically  sutficient, 
surround  us  every  where ;  but  who  can  doubt,  that  if 
lialf  the  instances  of  infinite  power  and  wisdom  which 
are  seen  in  the  material  universe  were  annihilated, 
there  would  not  be  sufficient  evidence  to  demonstrate 
both  these,  as  perfections  of  the  Maker  of  the  universe? 

On  the  other  hand,  the  proof  drawn  from  the  Inter- 
pal  Evidence  by  others  has  been  placed  first  in  order, 
and  the  force  of  the  evidence  from  miracles  and  pro- 
phecy is  by  them  made  to  depend  ujxjn  the  excellence 
of  the  doctrine  which  they  are  brought  forward  to  con- 
firm, and  which  ought  first  to  be  ascertained.  Nothing, 
say  they,  is  to  be  received  as  a  revelation  from  God 
which  does  not  contain  doctrines  worthy  of  the  divine 
character,  and  tending  to  promote  the  good  of  mankind. 
— "  A  necessary  mark  of  a  religion  coming  from  God 
is,  that  the  duties  it  enjoins  are  all  such  as  are  agree- 
able to  our  natural  notions  of  God,  and  perfective  of  the 
nature  and  conducive  to  the  happiness  of  man."(3) 

Now,  though  it  must  be  instantly  granted,  that  in  a 
revelation  from  God,  there  will  be  nothing  contrary  to 
Ins  own  character;  and  that,  when  it  is  made  in  the 
way  of  a  merciful  dispensation,  it  will  contain  nothing 
but  what  tends  to  perfect  the  nature  and  promote  the 
happiness  of  his  creatures ;  it  is  clear,  that  to  try  a 
professed  revelation  by  our  own  notions,  as  to  what  is 
\vorthy  of  God  and  beneficial  to  mankind,  is  to  assume, 
that,  independent  of  a  revelation,  we  know  what  God 
is,  or  we  cannot  say  what  is  worthy  or  unworthy  of 
him;  and  that  we  know,  too,  the  character  and  rela- 
tions and  wants  of  man  so  perfecaly  as  to  determine 
what  is  beneficial  to  him;  in  other  words  tliis  sup- 
poses that  we  are  in  circumstances  not  greatly  to  need 
supernatural  instruction.  Another  objection  to  the  In- 
ternal Evidence  being  made  the  primary  test  of  a  reve- 
lation is,  that  it  renders  the  external  testimony  nuga- 
tory,   or  comparatively  unimportant.    "  Surely,"  ob- 


(3)  Dr.  S.  Clarke. 


serves  a  late  ingenious  writer,  "  in  a  system  ■which 
purports  to  be  a  revelation  from  heaven,  and  to  con- 
tain a  history  of  (Jod's  dealings  with  men,  and  to  de- 
velope  truths  with  regard  to  tlie  moral  goverument  of 
I  he  universe,  the  knowledge  and  belief  of  which  will 
lead  to  happiness  here  and  hereafter,  we  may  expect  to 
find  (if  its  pretensions  are  well  founded)  an  evidence 
for  its  truth,  which  shall  be  indeiiendent  of  all  exter- 
nal testimony."(4)  If  this  be  true,  the  utility  of  the 
evidence  of  miracles  is  rendered  very  questionable.  It 
is  either  unnecessary,  or  il  is  subordinate  and  depend- 
ent; neither  of  which,  by  Christian  divines  at  least, 
can  be  consistently  maintained.  The  non-necessity  of 
miracles  cannot  be  asserted  by  them,  because  they  be- 
lieve them  to  have  been  actually  performed ;  and  that 
they  are  subordinate  proofs,  and  dependent  upon  the 
sufficiency  of  the  Internal  Evidence,  is  contradicti'd  by 
the  whole  tenor  of  the  Scriptures,  which  represent 
them  as  being  in  themselves  an  absolute  demonstration 
of  the  mission  and  doctrine  of  the  prophets,  at  whose 
instance  they  were  performed,  and  never  dinjct  us  to 
regard  their  doctrines  as  a  test  of  the  miracles.  The 
miracles  of  Christ,  in  particular,  were  a  demonstration, 
not  a  partial  and  conditional,  but  a  complete  and  abso- 
lute demonstration  of  his  mission  from  God  ;  and  "  it 
may  be  observed,  with  respect  to  all  the  miracles  of 
the  New  Testament,  that  their  divinity,  considered  in 
theiuselves,  is  always  either  expressly  asserted  or 
manifestly  implied  ;  and  they  are  accordingly  urged  as 
a  decisive  and  absolute  proof  of  the  divinity  of  the  doc- 
trine and  testimony  of  those  who  perform  them,  with- 
out ever  taking  into  consideration  the  nature  of  the 
doctrine  or  of  the  testimony  to  be  confirmed." 

Against  this  mode  of  stating  the  Internal  Evidence, 
there  lies  also  this  logical  objection,  that  it  is  arguing 
in  a  circle; — the  miracles  are  proved  by  the  doctrine, 
and  then  the  doctrine  by  the  miracles ;  an  objectitm, 
from  which  those  who  have  adopted  the  notion  either 
of  (lie  superior  or  the  co-ordinate  rank  of  the  internal 
evidence  liave  not,  with  all  their  ingenuity  and  effort, 
fairly  escaped. 

Miracles  must,  therefore,  be  considered  as  the  lead- 
ing and  absolute  evidence  of  a  revelation  from  God ;  and 
"  what  to  me,"  says  a  sensible  writer,  "  is,  a  priori,  a 
strong  argument  of  their  being  so,  is  the  manifest  in- 
consistency of  the  other  hypothesis  with  the  very  con- 
dition of  that  people  for  whose  sake  God  should  raise 
up  at  any  time  his  extraordinary  imessengers,  endued 
with  such  miraculous  ])owers.  For  if  God  ever  flavours 
mankind  with  such  a  sjiecial  revelation  of  his  will,  and 
instructions  from  heaven,  in  a  way  sui)ematural,  it  is 
certainly  in  that  unhappy  juncture  when  the  prin- 
ciples and  practices  of  mankind  are  so  iriiserably  de- 
praved and  corrupted,  as  to  want  the  light  and  assist- 
ance of  revelation  extremely,  and  are  (humanly  speak- 
ing) utterly  incorrigible  without  it.  Now,  to  say  that, 
in  these  particular  circumstances,  men  are  not  to  de- 
pend on  any  real  miracles,  but,  before  they  admit  them 
as  evidence  of  the  prophet's  divine  mission,  they  must 
carefully  examine  his  doctrine,  to  see  if  it  be  perfectly 
good  and  true,  is  either  to  suppose  these  people  fur- 
nished with  principles  and  knowledge  requisite  lor  that 
purpose,  contrary,  point  blank,  to  the  real  truth  of  their 
case ;  or  else  it  is  to  assert,  that  they  who  are  utterly 
destitute  of  principles  and  knowledge  requisite  for  that 
work  must,  nevertheless,  undertake  it  without  them, 
and  judge  of  the  truth  of  the  prophet's  doctrine  and  au- 
thority by  their  false  jiriiiciples  of  religion  and  mo- 
rality; which,  in  short,  is  to  fix  them  immoveably 
where  they  arc  already,  in  old  erroneous  principles, 
against  any  new  and  true  ones  that  should  be  offered. 
Especially  with  the  bulk  of  mankind,  full  of  darkness 
and  prejudice,  this  must  unavoidably  be  the  conse- 
quence; and  the  more  they  wanted  a  reformation  in 
principle,  the  less  capable  would  they  be  of  receiving 
it  in  this  method.  Thus,  for  instance:  were  a  teacher 
sent  from  heaven,  with  signs  and  wonders,  to  a  nation 
of  idolaters,  and  they  previously  instructed  to  regard 
no  miracles  of  his  whatsoever,  till  thcj'^-ere  fully  sa- 
tisfied of  the  goodness  of  his  rioctrin<  it  is  easy  to 
foresee  by  what  rule  they  would  jirove  his  doctrine, 
and  what  success  he  would  meet  with  among  them 
Add  to  this,  what  is  likewise  exceedingly  material,  the 
great  delays  and  perplexities  attending  this  way  of  pro- 
ceeding.    For  if  every  article  of  doctrine  must  be  dis- 

(4)  Erskine  on  the  Internal  Evidence,  &c. 


40 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  I. 


cussed  and  scanned  by  every  person  to  whom  it  is  oi- 
fored,  what  slow  advances  would  be  made  by  a  divine 
revelation  among  such  a  people !  Iluiidrcds  would  pro- 
bably be  cut  off  before  they  came  to  the  end  of  their 
queries,  and  the  proi)hct  might  grow  decrepid  with 
age  before  he  gained  twenty  proselytes  in  a  nation. ''(5) 

It  is  easy  to  discover  the  causes  which  have  led  to 
these  mistakes,  as  to  the  true  olfice  of  the  Internal  Evi- 
dence of  a  divine  revelation. 

In  the  first  place,  a  hypothetic  case  lias  t)een  as.sumed, 
and  it  has  been  asked,  "  If  a  doctrine,  absurd  and 
wicked,  should  be  aUcslcd  by  miracles,  is  it  to  be  ad- 
mitted as  divine,  upon  llicir  anlhnnty '.'"  The  answer 
is,  that  this  is  a  case  which  cannot  in  the  nature  of 
things  occur,  and  cannot,  ihcrcforo,  be  made  the  basis 
of  an  argument.  We  have  seen  already,  that  a  real 
miracle  can  be  wrought  by  none  but  God,  or  by  his 
commission,  because  the  contrary  supposition  would 
exclude  liini  from  the  government  of  the  world  which 
he  has  made  and  preserves.  Whenever  a  real  mi- 
racle takes  place,  therefore,  in  attestation  of  any  doc- 
trine, that  doctrine  cannot  be  either  luireasonable  or 
impious ;  and  if  it  should  appear  so  to  us,  alter  the 
reality  of  the  miracle  is  ascertained,  which  is  not  pro- 
bable ordinarily,  our  judgment  must  be  erroneous. 
The  miracle  proves  the  doctrine,  or  the  ground  on 
which  miracles  are  allowed  to  have  any  force  of  evi- 
dence at  all,  either  sui)retue  or  subordinate,  absolute  or 
dependent,  must  be  given  up;  lor  their  evidence  con- 
sists in  tlus — that  they  are  the  works  of  God. 

The  second  cause  of  the  error  has  been,  that  the  ra- 
tional evidence  of  the  truths  contained  in  a  revelation 
has  been  confounded  with  the  aiUhcnlicating  evidence. 
When  once  an  exhibition  of  the  character,  plans,  and 
laws  of  God  is  made,  though  in  tlicir  nature  totally 
undiscoverable  by  human  faculties,  they  carry  to  the 
reason  of  man,  so  far  as  they  are  of  a  nature  to  be 
comprehended  by  it,  the  demonstration  which  accom- 
panies truth  of  any  other  kind.  For,  as  the  eye  is 
(brmed  to  receive  light,  the  rational  powers  of  man  are 
formed  to  receive  conviction  when  the  congruity  of  pro- 
positions is  made  evident.  Tliisis  ralional,bul  it  is  not 
authenticating  evidence.  Let  us  siijipose  that  there  is 
no  external  testimony  of  miracles  or  prophecy  vouch- 
safed to  attest  that  the  teacher  through  whom  we  re- 
ceive those  doctrines  which  apjiear  to  us  so  sublime, 
so  important,  so  true,  received  them  from  God,  with  a 
mission  to  impart  them  to  us.  lie  himself  has  no 
means  of  knowing  them  to  be  from  God,  or  of  distin- 
guishing them  from  some  happy  train  of  thought  into 
which  his  nund  has  been  <:arri(;d  by  its  own  (brce  ;  nor 
if  he  Iiad,  have  we  any  means  of  concluding  that  they 
are  more  than  the  opinions  of  a  mind  superior  in  vigour 
and  grasp  to  our  own.  They  may  bo  true,  but  they 
are  not  attested  to  be  Divine.  We  have  no  guarantee 
of  their  infallible  truth,  becattsc  our  own  rational  pow- 
ers are  not  infallible,  nor  those  of  the  most  gifted  hu- 
man mind.  Add  then  the  external  testimony,  and  we 
have  the  attestation  required.  The  rational  evidence 
of  the  doctrine  is  the  same  in  both  cases;  but  the  ra- 
tional evidence,  tliough  to  us  it  is  as  far,  and  only  as 
far,  as  we  can  claim  infallibility  for  our  judgment,  the 
proof  of  the  truth  of  the  doctrine,  is  no  proof  at  all 
that  <!od  has  revealed  it.  In  the  external  testimony 
alone  that  proof  is  (bund:  the  degree  of  rational  evi- 
dence we  have  of  the  truth  and  excellency  of  the  doc- 
trine may  be  a  farther  connnendation  of  it  to  us,  but  it 
is  no  part  of  its  authority. 

From  this  disiiiution,  the  relative  importance  of  the 
external  and  the  internal  evidence  of  a  revelation  may 
be  farther  illustrated.  Ilational  evidence  of  the  doc- 
trines i)roiiosed  to  us,  when  it  can  be  had,  goes  to 
estabhsh  their  truth,  so  far  as  we  can  depend  ujion  our 
judgment;  but  the  external  testimony,  if  satisfactory, 
tstablishes  their  Divine  aii'thnriti/,  and  therefore  their 
absolute  truth,  and  leaves  us  no  ajipeal.  Still  farther, 
a  revelation,  (lependent  upon  internal  evidence  only, 
could  conlain  no  doi^trims.aiul  enjoin  no  duties,  but  of 
which  the  cvidiMice  to  our  reason  should  be  complete. 
The  least  objection  grounded  on  a  plausible  contrary 
reason,  woulil  weaken  I  heir  Ibrce,  and  the  absence  of 
a  clear  perception  of  their  congruity  with  some  pre- 
vious principles  adinilted  as  true,  would  be  (he  absence 
of  all  evidence  of  their  truth  whalc^ver.  On  the  other 
hand,  a  revelation,  with  a  rational  proof  of  Divine  attest- 

(!>)  CiuruAH'a  Eusebius. 


ation,  renders  otir  instruction  in  many  doctrines  and 
duties  possible,  the  rational  evidence  of  whose  truth  is 
wanting;  and  as  some  doctrines  may  be  true,  and 
higldy  importanl  to  us,  which  are  not  capable  of  this 
kind  of  proof,  that  is,  which  are  not  so  fully  known  as 
10  be  compared  with  any  received  pro|iositions,  and  de- 
termined by  them,  our  knowledge  is,  in  this  way, 
greatly  enlarged:  the  benefits  of  revelation  are  ex- 
tended ;  and  the  whole  becomes  obligatory,  and  there- 
fore etlicieiit  to  moral  iiurposes,  Iwcause  it  bears  upon 
it  the  seal  of  an  inlallilile  antbonly. 

The  firmer  ground  on  whiili  a  revelation,  founded 
upon  reasonable  external  proof  of  authority,  rests,  is 
also  obvious.  The  doctrines  in  which  we  need  tube 
instructed  are,  the  nature  of  God  ;  our  own  relations 
to  that  invisible  Ueing;  his  will  concerning  us;  the 
means  of  obtaining  or  securing  his  favour ;  the  prin- 
ciples of  his  government ;  and  a  future  lile.  These  and 
others  of  a  similar  kind  involve  great  difliculties,  as 
the  history  of  mora]  knowledge  among  mankind  sufli- 
cieiitly  )uoves ;  and  that  not  only  among  those  who 
never  had  the  benefits  of  the  Biblical  revelation  on 
these  subjects,  but  among  those  who,  not  considering 
it  as  an  uatliontii,  have  indulged  the  jibilosophizing 
spirit,  and  judged  of  these  doctrines  merely  by  their 
rational  evidence.  This,  from  the  nalure  of  things, 
a])pearing  under  different  view's  todifiirent  minds,  has 
produced  .almost  as  much  contrariety  ol  opinion  among 
them,  as  we  find  among  the  sages  cf  pagan  antiquity. 
The  mere  rational  proof  of  the  truth  of  such  doiUrines 
being,  therefore,  from  its  nature,  in  many  important 
respects,  obscure,  and  liable  to  diversiiy  ol  ophiion, 
would  lay  but  a  very  precarious  and  shilling  louudation 
for  faith  in  any  revelation  from  God  suited  to  remove  the 
ignorance  of  man  on  points  so  important  in  <loctrine, 
and  so  essential  to  an  elflcient  religion  and  morality. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  process  of  obtaining  a  rational 
proof  of  the  Divine  attestation  of  a  doctrine,  by  mira- 
cles for  instance,  is  of  the  most  simple  and  decisive  kind, 
and  gives  to  unbelief  the  character  of  obvious  per- 
verseness  and  inconsistency.  Pervcrseness,  because 
there  is  a  clear  op]iosition  of  the  will  rather  than  of 
the  judgment  in  the  case;  incomsistcnc.y  because  a 
much  lower  degree  of  evidence  is,  by  the  very  object- 
ors, acted  ui)on  in  their  most  important  concerns  in 
life.  For  who  that  saw  the  dead  raised  to  life,  in  an 
appeal  to  the  Lord  of  life,  in  confirmation  of  a  doc- 
trine professing  to  be  taught  by  his  authority,  but 
must,  unless  wilful  jierversetuss  interposed,  acknow- 
ledge a  Divine  testimony;  and  who  that  heard  ihe 
fact  reported  on  the  testimony  of  honest  men  and  com- 
petent observers,  under  circumstances  in  which  no 
illusion  can  take  jilace,  but  must  be  cliarL^ed  with  ?n- 
cort4-t4<p«ci/,  should  he  treat  the  report  wiili  skepticism, 
when  upon  tlio  same  kind  and  quantum  of  evidence 
he  would  so  credit  any  report  as  to  his  own  aflkirs,  as 
to  risk  the  greatest  interests  upon  it  ?  In  dillicult  doc- 
trines,  of  a  kind  to  give  rise  to  a  variety  of  opinions, 
the  rational  evidence  is  acconipanied  with  dimbt  ;  in 
such  a  case  as  that  of  the  miracle  we  have  sujiposi^d, 
it  rests  on  jirinciples  supported  by  Ihe  universal  and 
constant  eoipcriencc  of  mankind  : — 1.  That  the  raising 
of  the  dead  is  above  human  power:  2.  That  men,  un- 
questionably virtuous  in  every  other  respect,  are  not 
likely  10  pro]ia^ate  a  deliberate  falsehood:  and,  3.  That  ■ 
itcontrailiclsall  the  known  motives  to  action  in  human 
nature  that  they  should  do  so,  not  only  without  advan- 
tage, but  at  the  ha/,ard  of  reproach,  persecution,  and 
deatli.  The  evidence  of  such  an  attestation  is  there- 
fore as  iiidubil.abln  as  these  jirinciples  themselves. 

The  fourth  kind  of  evidence  by  which  a  revelation 
from  (!od  may  be  confirmed,  is  the  rnltatirat ;  on  whicli 
at  iiresent  we  need  not  say  more  than  adduce  some  in- 
stances, merely  to  illustrate  this  kind  of  testimony. 

The  collateral  evidence  of  a  revelation  from  God  may 
be  its  agrrernent  in  principle  with  every  former  reve- 
lation, should  previous  revelations  have  been  vouch- 
safed— tiiat  It  was  obviously  suited  to  thecircum.stances 
of  Ihe  world  at  the  time  of  its  communication — that  it 
is  adapleil  to  ellect  the  great  moral  ends  which  it  pur- 
poses, and  has  aclually  ellided  them— that  if  it  con- 
tain a  record  ol'  facts  as  well  as  of  doctrines,  those  his- 
torical facts  agree  with  Ihe  credilile  traditions  and  llis- 
loriet;  of  flit^  same  times— that  moiiiimenls.  eilher  na- 
tiiial  or  insiilnieil,  remain  lo  alicsi  the  iniih  of  its  his- 
tory—that  adversaries  have  made  concessions  ill  itM 
favour'-anj  tliai ,  sliotUd  it  profess  to  be  a  luiiversal  aud 


Chap.  XI.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


41 


sitimate  revelation  of  the  will  and  mercy  of  God  to 
man,  ic  niainlains  its  ailaptation  to  the  case  of  the 
human  race,  and  its  elliciency,  to  tlie  present  day. 
These  and  many  otiicr  circumstances  may  be  ranlied 
under  llie  liead  of  collateral  evidence,  and  some  of  them 
will  ill  tlieir  proj)er  plaice  be  ajiplied  to  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

THE    rsi£    AND    LIMITATION    OF   REASON    IN    RELIGION. 

Havinc  pointeil  out  the  kind  of  evidence  by  which 
a  revehilion  from  God  may  be  authenticated,  and  the 
circumstances  under  which  it  ought  to  produce  convic- 
tion and  enforce  obedience,  it  ajipears  to  be  a  natural 
order  of  proceeding  to  consider  the  subject  of  the  title 
of  this  chajuer,  inasmuch  as  evidence  of  tliis  kind,  and 
for  this  end,  must  be  addressed  to  our  reason,  the  only 
laculty  which  is  capable  of  receiving  it.  But  as  to  tliis 
office  of  our  reason  important  limitations  and  rules 
must  be  assigned,  it  will  be  requisite  to  adduce  and 
explain  them. 

The  present  argument  being  supposed  to  be  with  one 
who  believes  in  a  God,  the  Lord  and  Governor  of  man, 
and  that  He  is  a  Being  of  intinite  perfections,  our  ob- 
servations will  have  the  advantage  of  certain  first  prin- 
ciples which  that  belief  concedes. 

We  liave  already  adduced  much  presumptive  evi- 
dence, that  a  revelation  of  the  will  of  (iod  is  essential 
to  his  moral  government,  and  that  such  a  revelation  has 
actually  been  made.  We  have  also  farther  considered 
the  kind  and  degree  of  evidence  whicii  is  necessary  to 
ratify  it.  The  means  by  which  a  conviction  of  its 
truth  is  produced,  is  the  ]ioint  before  us. 

The  subject  to  be  e.vamined  is  the  truth  of  a  religious 
and  moral  system  professing  to  be  from  God,  though 
communicated  by  men,  wiio  plead  his  authority  tor  its 
promulgation.  If  there  be  any  force  in  the  preceding 
observations,  we  are  nor,  in  the  first  instance,  to  exa- 
mine the  doctrine  in  order  to  determine  from  our  own 
opinion  of  its  excellence  whether  it  be  from  God  {for 
to  this,  if  we  need  a  revelation,  we  are  incompetent), 
but  we  are  to  inquire  into  the  credentials  of  the  mes- 
sengers, in  quest  of  sufficient  proof  that  God  hath 
spoken  to  mankind  by  them.  Should  a  slight  consi- 
deration of  the  doctrine,  either  by  its  apparent  excel- 
lence or  the  contrary,  attract  us  strongly  to  this  exami- 
nation, it  is  well :  but  whatever  prejudices  for  or  against 
the  doctrine  a  report  or  hasty  ojiinion  of  its  nature 
and  tendenoy  may  inspire,  our  final  judgment  can  only 
safely  rest  upon  the  proof  which  may  be  afforded  of  its 
divine  authority.  If  that  be  satisfactory,  the  case  is 
determined,  whether  the  doctrine  be  pleasing  or  dis- 
pleasing to  us.  If  sufficient  evidence  be  not  afforded, 
we  are  at  liberty  to  receive  or  reject  the  whole  or  any 
part  of  it,  as  it  may  appear  to  us  to  be  worthy  of  our 
regard;  for  it  then  stands  on  the  same  ground  as  any 
other  merely  human  oi)inion.  We  are,  however,  lo 
beware  that  this  is  done  upon  a  very  solemn  responsi- 
iiility. 

The  proof  of  the  Divine  auljiority  of  a  system  of  doc- 
trine communicated  under  such  circumstances,  is  ad- 
dressed to  our  reason,  or,  in  other  words,  it  nmst  be 
Ttasitiiable  proc^'  that  in  this  revelation  there  has  been 
a  direct  and  special  interposition  of  God. 

On  the  principles,  therefore,  already  laid  down,  that, 
though  the  rational  evidence  of  a  doctrine  lies  in  the 
doctrine  itself,  the  rational  proof  of  the  Divine  author- 
ity of  a  doctrine  must  be  external  to  that  doctrine; 
and  that  miracles  and  pro]ihecy  are  appropriate  and 
satisfactory  attestations  of  such  an  authority  whenever 
they  occur,  the  use  of  human  reason  in  this  inquiry  is 
apparent.  The  alleged  miracles  themselves  are  to"  be 
examined,  to  determine  whether  they  are  real  or  pre- 
tended, allowing  them  to  have  been  perfbnined ;  the 
testimony  of  witnesses  is  to  be  investigated,  to  deter- 
mine wliether  they  actually  occurred  ;  and  if  this  tes- 
timony has  been  put  on  record,  we  have  also  to  deter- 
mine whether  the  record  was  at  first  faithfully  made, 
and  whether  it  has  been  carefully  and  uncorruptedly 
preserved.  With  respect  to  proplticy,  we  are  also  to 
examine  whether  the  professed  projiliecy  l)c  a  real  pre- 
diction of  futtire  events,  or  only  an  ambiguous  and 
equivocal  saying,  capable  of  being  undtrsiood  in  vari- 
ous wa\s;  whether  it  relates  to  events  which  lie  be- 
yond the  guess  of  wise  and  observing  men ;  whether 


it  was  uttered  so  long  before  the  events  predicted,  that 
they  could  not  be  anticipated  in  the  usual  order  of 
tilings  ;  whether  it  was  publicly  or  privately  uttered; 
and  whetlier,  if  put  on  record,  that  record  has  been 
faithfully  kept.  To  these  points  must  our  considera- 
tion be  directed,  and  to  ascertain  the  strength  of  the 
proof  is  the  important  province  of  our  reason  or  judg- 
ment. 

The  second  use  of  reason  respects  the  intrrpretation 
uf  the  revelation  thus  authenticated  ;  and  bi-re  th(t  same 
rules  are  to  be  applied,  as  in  the  intcrjiietatioii  of  any 
other  statement  on  record;  for  as  our  only  (.lijeci,  after 
the  authenticity  of  the  revelation  is  established,  is  to 
discover  its  sense,  or,  in  other  words,  to  ascertain  uhat 
is  declared  unto  us  therein  by  God,  our  reason  or  judg- 
ment is  called  to  precisely  the  same  ofHce  as  when  the 
meaning  of  any  other  document  is  in  question.  The 
tirms  of  the  record  are  to  be  taken  in  their  plain  and 
ci»n,iiiii(hi  n  CI  III  i1  Kinse ;  figures  of  speech  are  to  be 
inti  I  j'l-iliil  uiUi  rijcrence  to  the  local  peculiarities  of 
till  ciiiiiilnj.  Ill  iiiiicli  the  agents  who  wrote  the  record 
resided ;  idioms  arc  to  be  understood  according  to  the 
genius  of  the  language  employed ;  if  any  allegorical 
or  mystical  discourses  occur,  the  key  to  tiiini  must  be 
sought  in  the  book  itself,  and  not  in  our  own  fancies  ; 
what  is  obscure  must  be  i7iterpreted  by  that  which  is 
plain;  the  scope  and  tenor  of  a  disco7irse  must  be  re- 
garded, and  no  conclusion  formed  on  passages  detached 
from  their  context,  except  they  are  complete  in  their 
sense,  or  evidently  intended  as  axioms  and  apoph- 
thegms. These  and  other  rules,  which  respect  the 
time  and  place  when  the  record  was  written;  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  writer,  and  of  those  to  whom  he 
immediately  addressed  himself;  local  cuatoms,  &e.., 
appear  in  this  and  all  other  cases  so  just  and  reason- 
able, as  to  commend  themselves  to  every  sober  man; 
and  we  rightly  use  our  rea.son  m  the  interpretation  of 
a  received  revelation,  when  we  conduct  our  inquiries 
into  its  meaning,  by  those  plain,  common-sense  rules, 
wluch  are  adopted  by  all  mankind  when  the  meaning 
of  other  writings  is  to  be  ascertained. 

It  has  been  added  as  a  rule  of  interpretation,  that 
when  a  revelation  is  siillini'iitly  attested,  and  in  conse- 
quence of  thai  uihniiird,  noiliiiig  is  to  be  deduced  from 
itwhichiii  coiitiiii  II  t'l  riiisnii.  As  this  rule  is  liable 
to  be  greatly  misunderstood,  and  has  sometimes  bee.7, 
pushed  to  injurious  consequences,  we  shall  consider  U 
at  some  length,  and  point  out  the  sense  in  which  i( 
may  be  safely  admitted. 

Some  persons  who  advocate  this  principle  of  inter- 
pretation appear  to  confound  the  reason  of  man  with 
the  reason  or  nature  of  things,  and  the  relations  which 
subsist  among  them.  These,  however,  can  be  known 
fully  to  God  alone ;  and  to  use  the  term  reason  in  this 
sense  is  the  same  as  to  use  it  in  the  sense  of  the  reason 
of  God — to  an  equality  with  which  human  reasoK  can- 
not aspire.  It  may  be  the  reverse  of  Divine  reason,  or 
a  faint  rachation  from  it,  but  never  can  it  be  fuU  and  per- 
fect as  the  reason  of  a  mind  of  perfect  knowledge.  It 
is  admitted,  that  nothing  can  be  revealed  hy  God  as 
truth  contradictory  of  Ins  knowledge,  and  nf  the  nature 
of  things  themselves  ;  but  it  (bllows  not  from  this,  that 
nothing  should  be  contained  in  that  revelation  contra- 
dictory of  the  limited  and  often  erring  reason  of 
man. ((3) 

Another  distinction  necessary  tp  be  made  in  order  to 
the  right  application  of  this  rui'e  is,  that  u  doctrine 


(6)  "  It  is  the  error  of  those  who  contend  that  all  ne- 
cessary truth  is  discoverable  or  demonslrable  by  reason, 
that  they  affirm  of  A?«/!fOT  reason  in  particular,  what 
is  only  true  of  reason  Hi  g^CTiera/,  or  of  reason  in  the  ab- 
stract. To  say  that  whatever  is  true  must  be  either 
discoverable  or  demonstrable  by  reason,  can  only  be 
affirmed  of  an  all-perfect  reason,  and  is  therefore  predi- 
cated of  none  but  the  Divine  Intellect.  So  that  unless 
it  can  be  shown  that  human  reason  is  the  same,  in 
degree,  as  well  as  in  kind,  with  Divine  reason  ;  i,  e. 
commensurate  with  it  as  to  its  jiowers,  and  equally  in- 
capable of  error;  the  inference  from  reason  in  the  ab- 
stract to  human  reason  is  manifestly  niconclusive. 
Nothimj  more  is  necessary  to  show  the  fallacy  of  this 
mode  of  arguing,  than  to  urge  the  indisputable  truth, 
that  God  is  wiser  than  man,  and  has  emhied  man  with 
only  a  portion,  of  lliat  faculty,  which  He  himself  and 
none  other  besides  him  jiossessesin  absolute  perfection," 
—Van  Milcert's  Scrinons  at  Boyle's  Lectuure. 


42 


THEOLOGICAL  LXSTITUTES. 


[Part  L 


■which  cannot  be  proved  by  our  reason  is  not,  on  that 
account,  (-onirary  cither  ro  the  nature  of  things,  or  even 
to  reason  itself.  This  is  sonietnries  lost  sight  of,  and 
that  whicli  has  no  evidence  from  our  reason  is  liaslily 
presumed  to  be  against  it.  Now  rational  investigation 
is  a  process  by  which  we  inquire  into  the  truth  or 
falsehood  of  any  thing,  by  comparing  it  with  what  we 
intuitively,  or  by  e.\|)erience,  know  to  be  true,  or  with 
that  which  we  have  formerly  demonstrated  to  be  so. 
"  By  reason,"  says  Cicero,  '•  we  are  led  from  things 
apprehended  and  understood  to  things  not  apprehended." 
Rational  proof,  therctbre,  consists  in  the  agreement  or 
disagreement  of  that  which  is  compared  with  truths 
already  supposed  to  he  established,  lint  there  may  be 
truths,  the  evidence  of  which  can  only  bo  fully  known 
to  the  Divine  Mind,  and  on  which  the  reasoning  or  com- 
paring faculty  of  an  inferior  nature  cannot,  from  their 
vastness  or  ob.scurity,  be  employed ;  and  such  truths 
there  must  bo  in  any  revelation  which  treats  of  the  na- 
ture and  perfections  of  (iod ;  his  will  as  to  us, — and  the 
relations  we  stand  in  to  him,  and  to  another  state  of 
being.  As  facts  and  doctrines,  they  are  as  much  capa- 
ble of  revelation  as  if  the  whole  reason  of  things  on 
which  they  are  grounded  were  put  into  the  revelation 
also;  but  they  may  be  revealed  as  authoritative  decla- 
rations, of  whiith  the  process  of  proof  is  hidden,  either 
because  it  transcends  our  faculties,  or  for  other  reasons, 
and  we  have  therefore  no  rational  evidence  of  their  truth 
farther  than  we  have  rational  evidence  that  they  come 
from  God,  which  is  in  fact  a  more  powerful  demon- 
stration. That  a  revelation  may  contain  trutlis  of  this 
transcendent  nature  nmst  be  allowed  by  all  who  have 
admitted  its  necessity,  if  they  would  be  consistent  with 
themselves ;  for  its  necessity  rests,  in  great  part,  upon 
the  weakness  of  human  rea.son.  Jf  our  natural  facul- 
ties could  have  reached  the  truths  thus  exhibited  to  us, 
there  had  been  no  need  of  supernatural  instruction  ; 
and  if  it  has  been  vouchsafed,  the  degree  depends  upon 
the  Divine  will,  and  he  may  give  a  doctrine  with  its 
reasons  or  without  Ihem ;  for  surely,  the  ground  of  our 
obligation  to  believe  his  word  docs  n.ot  rest  upon  our 
perception  of  the  rational  evidence  of  the  truths  he  re- 
quires us  to  believe.  If  doctrines,  then,  be  given  with- 
out the  reasons  on  which  they  rest,  that  is,  without 
any  apparent  agrccmeut  with  what  is  already  known  ; 
because  the  process  of  proof  must,  in  many  cases,  be 
a  comparison  of  that  which  is  too  vast  to  be  fully  ap- 
prehended by  us  with  something  else,  which,  because 
kiiown  by  us,  must  be  comparatively  little,  or  perhaps 
in  Rome  of  its  qualities  or  relations  of  a  dilferent  nature, 
so  ;hat  no  fit  comparison  of  things  so  dissimilar  can  be 
instituted  ;  this  circumstance  proves  the  absence  of 
rational  evidence  to  us;  but  it  by  no  means  follows, 
that  the  doctrine  is  incapable  of  rational  itroof,  though 
prohally  no  reason  but  that  of  God,  or  of  a  more  ex- 
alted b:ing  than  man  in  his  present  state,  may  be  ade- 
quate t(,  unfohi  it. 

It  has  indeed  been  maintained,  llial,  though  our  rea- 
son may  be  iitadeijuate  to  the  ilisrovory  of  such  truths 

as  the  kind  ci'revelalion  we  have  snp(icisecl  to  be cs- 

sary  must  contain,  yet,  when  aided  by  this  revelation, 
it  is  raised  into  so  perfect  a  condition,  that  what  ajipears 
incongruous  to  it  ought  to  be  concluded  contrary  to  the 
revelation  itself.  This,  to  a  certain  extent,  is  true. 
When  a  doctrine  is  dearly  revealed  to  us,  standing  as 
it  does  uj)on  an  infal'iihle  authority,  no  contrary  doc- 
trine can  be  true,  whether  found  without  the  record  of 
the  revelation,  or  deduced  from  it ;  for  this  is,  in  fact, 
no  more  than  saying  that  lii.nian  opinions  must  be  tried 
by  Divine  authority,  and  thai  revelation  must  be  con- 
sistent with  itself.  The  test  lo  which  in  this  ca.se, 
however,  we  subject  a  contradictory  doctrine,  so  long 
as  we  adhere  to  the  revelation,  is  I'ormed  of  principles 
which  our  reason  did  not  furnish,  but  such  as  wen; 
communicated  tons  by  supernatural  interposition  ;  and 
the  juilge  to  which  we  refer  is  not,  properly  speaking, 
reason,  hut  revelation. 

liut  if  by  this  is  meant,  that  our  reason,  once  enlight- 
ened by  the  annunciation  of  the  gn-at  truths  of  revela- 
tion, can  discover  or  complete,  in  all  cases,  the  process 
of  iheir  rational  i)roof,  that  is,  their  conformity  to  the 
nature  and  truth  of  things,  and  is  ihnt  authorized  to 
reject  whatever  cannot  be  thus  harn.onized  with  our 
own  deductions  from  the  leading  truths  thus  revealed, 
80  great  a  concession  cannot  bo  made  to  human  ability. 
Ill  many  of  the  rulcaof  morals,  and  the  doctrines  of  re- 
ligion loo,  it  may  be  allowed,  liiat  a  course  (A'  thought 


is  opened,  which  may  be  pursued  to  the  enlargement  of 
the  rational  evidence  of  the  doctrines  taught,  but  not  as 
to  what  concerns  many  of  the  attributes  of  (iod;  his 
purpcjses  concerning  the  human  race;  some  of  his  most 
iiiijiortant  procedures  towards  us ;  and  the  future  destiny 
of  man.  VVlieii  once  it  is  revealed  that  man  is  a  crea- 
ture, we  cannot  but  perceive  the  reasonableness  of  our 
being  governed  by  the  law  of  our  Creator ;  that  this  is 
(bunded  in  his  right  and  our  duty ;  and  that,  when  we 
are  concerned  with  a  wise  and  gracious  and  just  Go- 
vernor, what  is  our  duty  must  of  necessity  be  iiromolive 
of  our  happiness,  liut  if  the  revelation  shonlil  contain 
any  declarations  as  to  the  nature  of  I  lie  Creator  himself, 
as  that  he  is  eternal  and  self-existent  and  in  every  i>lace  ; 
and  that  he  knows  all  things;  the  thoughts  thus  sug- 
gested, the  doctrines  thus  stated,  nakedly  and  authorita- 
tively, are  too  mysterious  to  be  distinctly  apiireliended 
by  us,  and  we  arc  unable,  by  comparing  them  with  any 
thing  else  (for  we  know  notliing  with  which  we  can 
compare  them),  to  acijuire  any  clear  views  of  the  7;in»)i«T 
in  which  such  a  being  exists,  or  vliy  such  perfections 
necessarily  flow  from  his  peculiar  nature.  If,  therefore, 
the  revelation  itself  does  not  slate  in  addition  to  the 
mere  facts  that  he  is  self-existent,  omnipresent,  omnis- 
cient, &c.,  the  manner  in  which  the  existence  of  such 
attriiiutes  harmonizes  with  the  nature  and  reason  of 
tilings,  we  cannot  supply  the  chasm ;  and  should  we 
even  catch  some  view  of  the  rational  evidence,  which 
is  not  denied,  we  are  unable  to  complete  it ;  our  reason 
is  not  enlightened  up  to  the  full  measure  of  these  truths, 
nor  on  such  subjects  are  we  ([uite  certain  that  some  of 
our  most  rational  deductions  are  perfectly  sound,  and 
we  cannot,  therefore,  make  use  of  them  as  standards 
by  whichto  try  any  doctrine,  beyond  the  degree  in  xvhich 
they  are  clearly  revealed,  and  authoritatively  stated  lo 
us.  Other  examples  might  be  given,  but  these  are  suf- 
ficient for  illustration. 

These  observatioiis  being  made,  it  will  be  easy  to 
assign  definite  limits  to  the  rule,  "  that  no  doctrine  in 
an  admitted  revelation  is  to  be  understood  in  a  sense 
contrary  to  reason."  The  only  way  in  wliich  such  a 
rule  can  be  safely  received  is,  that  nothing  is  lo  be  taken 
as  a  true  interpretation,  when,  as  to  the  subject  in 
question,  we  have  sulTicient  knowledge  lo  alHnii,  that 
the  interpretation  is  contrary  to  the  nature  of  things, 
which,  in  this  ca.se,  it  is  also  necessary  to  be  assured 
that  we  have  been  able  to  ascertain.  Of  some  things 
we  know  the  nature  without  a  revelation,  inasmuch  as 
they  lie  within  the  range  of  our  own  observation  and 
experience,  as  that  a  human  body  cannot  be  in  two  places 
at  the  same  time.  Of  other  things  we  know  the  nature 
by  revelation,  and  by  that  our  knowledge  is  enlarged. 
If,  therefore,  from  some  figurative  passages  of  a  reve- 
lation, any  p(!rson,  as  the  Papists,  should  affirm,  that 
wine  is  human  blood,  or  that  a  human  body  can  be  in 
two  places  at  tin:  same  lime,  it  is  contrary  to  our  reason, 
that  is,  not  to  mere  ojiinion,  but  lo  the  nature  of^  some- 
thing which  we  know  so  well,  that  we  are  bound  to 
rejei-l  the  interpretation  as  an  absurdity.  If,  again,  any 
were  to  interpret  passaics  which  speak  of  God  as  having 
the  form  of  man  to  mean,  that  he  has  merely  a  local 
jiresence,  our  reason  has  been  taught  by  revehation,  that 
(Jod  is  a  spirit,  and  exists  every  where,  that  is,  so  far 
we  have  been  taught  the  nature  of  things  as  to  God, 
that  we  reject  the  interpretation,  as  contrary  lo  what 
has  beiMi  so  clearly  revealed,  and  resolve  every  anthro- 
pomorphitc  expression  we  may  find  in  the  revelation 
into  figurative  and  accommodated  language.  In  theap- 
lilication  of  tills  rule,  when  even  lliiis  liiriilcd,  care  is, 
however,  to  be  taken,  that  we  distinguish  what  is  ca- 
pable of  being  tried  by  it.  If  we  compare  one  IhinK 
with  another,  in  order  to  determine  whether  it  agrees 
with,  or  difl'ers  from  it,  it  is  not  enough  that  we  have 
siilliiieiit  knowledge  of  that  wilh  which  we  conijiare  it, 
and  which  \\v,  have  made  the  standard  of  judgment.  It 
•is  also  necessary,  that  the  things  compared  should  be 
o/'  thr  xnmi'  nat'vrr,  and  that  the  comparison  should 
be  made  in  t/ir  xmne  respects,  ^\■e  take  lOr  illnstration 
the  ca.sc  just  given.  Of  two  bodies  we  can  allirm,  that 
•they  cannot  be  in  the  same  place  at  the  same  lime;  but 
we  cannot  affirm  that  of  a  body  and  a  spirit  for  we 
know  what  relation  bodies  have  lo  place  and  to  each 
other,  but  we  do  not  know  what  relation  spirits  have 
to  each  other,  or  to  space.  This  may  il  lustrale  the  first 
rule.  The  second  demands,  that  the  comparison  bo 
made  in  the  same  respect.  If  we  atfirm  of  two  boilies, 
one  of  3  ryuiid,  and  the  other  of  a  biiuarc  figure,  that 


CHAr.  XI.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


43 


their  ligure  is  the  samn,  the  comparison  dctenninos  the 
case,  an  J  at  oucu  detects  tlie  error  ;  but  of  these  hodies, 
so  diircreiit  in  figure,  it  may  be  aliirmcd  without  contra- 
diction, tliut  tliey  are  of  the  same  specilie  gravity,  for 
the  dilference  of  figure  is  not  tliat  in  respect  of  whicli  the 
comparison  is  made.  We  apply  this  to  the  interpretation 
of  a  revelation  of  God  and  his  will.  The  rule  which  re- 
quires us  to  reject  as  a  true  interpretation  of  that  revela- 
tion, whatever  is  contrary  to  reason,  may  be  admitted  in 
all  cases  where  we  know  the  real  nature  of  things,  and 
conduct  the  comparison  with  the  cautions  just  given  ; 
but  it  would  be  most  delusive,  and  would  counteract  the 
intention  of  the  revelation  itself,  by  unsettUng  its  autho- 
rity, if  it  were  applied  in  any  other  way.     For, 

1.  In  all  cases  where  the  nature  of  things  is  not 
clearly  and  satisfactorily  known,  it  cannot  be  affirmed 
that  a  doctrine  contradicts  them,  and  is  therefore  con- 
trary to  reason. 

2.  When  that  of  which  we  would  form  a  rational 
jud;.jment  is  not  itself  distinctly  apprehended,  it  cannot 
he  satisfactorily  compared  with  those  things,  the  nature 
of  which  we  adequately  know,  and  therefore  caiuiot  be 
said  to  be  contrary  to  reason. 

Now  in  such  a  revelation  as  we  have  supposed  neces- 
sary for  man,  there  are  many  facts  and  doctrines  which 
are  not  cajiable  of  being  compared  with  any  thing  we  ade- 
quately know,  and  they  therelbre  lie  wholly  without  the 
range  of  the  rule  in  question.  We  suppose  it  to  declare 
what  God,  the  infinite  first  cause,  is.  But  it  is  of  the  nature 
of  such  a  being  to  he,  in  many  respects,  ?)ecu/Mrto  himself, 
and,  as  in  those  respects  he  cannot  admit  of  comparison 
with  any  other,  what  may  be  false,  if  atiirmed  of  our- 
selves, because  contradictory  to  what  we  know  of 
human  nature,  may  be  true  of^  him,  to  whom  the  nature 
of  things  is  his  own  nature,  and  his  own  nature  alone. 
The  same  observation  may  be  made  as  to  many  of  lus 
natural  attributes ;  they  are  the  attributes  of  a  peculiar 
nature,  and  are  therelbre  peculiar  to  themselves,  either 
in  kind  or  in  degree ;  they  admit  of  no  comparison,  each 
being  like  himself,  sui  generis:  and  the  nature  of 
things,  as  to  them  respectively,  is  their  own  nature. 
The  same  reasoning  may,  in  part,  be  applied  to  the 
(jeneral  purposes  of  God,  in  making  and  governing  his 
creatures.  They  are  not,  in  every  respect,  capable  of 
being  compared  to  any  thing  we  adequately  know,  in 
order  to  determine  their  reasonableness.  Creatures  do 
not  stand  to  each  other  in  all  the  relations  in  which  they 
stand  to  him,  and  no  reasoning  from  their  mutual  rela- 
tions can  assist  us  in  judging  of  the  plans  he  has 
formed  with  respect  to  the  wliole,  wth  the  extent  of 
which,  indeed,  we  are  unacquainted,  or  often  of  a  part, 
whose  relations  to  the  whole  we  know  not.  Were  we 
to  subject  what  he  has  commanded  us  to  do,  or  to  leave 
undone,  to  the  test  of  reasonableness,  we  should  often 
be  at  a  loss  how  to  commence  the  inquiry,  for  it  may 
have  a  reason  arising  out  of  his  own  nature,  which  we 
either  know  not  at  all,  or  only  in  the  partial  and  authori- 
tative revelations  he  has  made  of  himself;  or  out  of'his 
general  plans,  ofwhich  we  are  not  judges,  for  the  reasons 
just  given ;  or  its  reason  may  lie  in  ourown  nature,  which 
■we  know  but  partially,  because  we  find  it  differently  ope- 
rated upon  by  circumstances,  and  cannot  know  in  what 
circumstances  we  may  at  any  future  time  be  placed. 

Witti  respect  to  the  moral  perlectious  of  God,  as  they 
are  more  capable  of  a  complete  comparison  with  what 
we  find  in  intelligent  creatures,  the  notion  of  iiifimty 
being  applicable  to  them  in  a  difll'rent  sense  to  tiiat  in 
which  it  IS  applied  to  his  natural  attributes,  and  adequate 
ideas  of  justice  and  mercy  and  goodness  being  within 
our  reach,  this  rule  is  much  more  applicable  in  all  cases 
which  would  involve  interpretations  consistent  with  or 
opposed  to  these  ideas;  and  any  deduction  clearly  con- 
trary to  them  is  to  be  rejected,  as  grounded  not"  upon 
the  revelation  but  a  false  interpretation.  This  will  be 
the  more  confirmed,  if  we  find  any  thing  in  the  revelation 
itself  in  the  form  of  an  appeal  to  our  own  ideas  of  moral 
subjects,  as  for  instance  of  justice  and  equity,  in  justifi- 
cation of  the  Divine  proceedings;  for  then  we  have  the 
authority  of  the  giver  of  the  revelation  himself  for 
altacliing  such  ideas  to  his  justice  and  equity  as  are 
implied  in  the  same  terms  in  the  language  of  men.(7) 

(1)  Thus  in  the  Scripttrres  we  find  numerous  appeals 
of  this  kind.  "  Judge  between  me  and  my  vineyard." 
"  Are  not  my  ways  equal  V^  "  Shall  not  the  Judge  of 
the  whole  earth  do  r\ght  ?"  All  of  which  passages  sup- 
pose that  rquily  and  jvxtice  in  God  accord  witli  the 
ideas  attached  to  the  same  teniis  ainonf  inuu- 


A  doctrine  which  would  impugn  these  attribntes  is  not 
therefore  to  be  deduced  from  such  a  revelation  ;  Imt 
here  the  rule  can  only  be  applied  to  such  cases  as  we 
fully  comprehend.  Tliere  may  be  an  apparent  injustice 
in  a  case,  vvhich,  if  we  knew  the  whole  of  it,  would  be 
found  to  harmonize  with  the  strictest  equity  ;  and  what 
evidetice  of  conformity  to  the  moral  attributes  of  God  it 
now  wants  may  be  manifested  in  a  future  state,  either 
by  superior  infoniiation  then  vouchsafed  to  us,  or,  when 
the  subject  of  the  proceeding  is  an  immortal  being,  by 
the  different  circumstances  of  compensation  in  which 
he  may  be  placed. 

Upon  the  whole,  then,  it  will  appear  that  this  rule  of 
interpreting  a  revelation  is  necessarily  but  of  hmited 
application,  and  chiefly  resjiects  those  parts  of  the  record 
in  which  obscure  passages  and  figurative  language  may 
occur.  In  most  others,  a  revelation,  if  comprehensive, 
will  be  found  its  own  intenireter  by  bringing  every 
doubtful  ease  to  be  determined  by  its  own  unquestionable 
general  principles  and  explicit  declarations.  The  ise 
of  reason,  therelbre,  in  matters  of  revelation,  is  lo  inves- 
tigate the  evidences  on  which  it  is  founded,  and  fairly 
and  impartially  to  interpret  it  according  to  the  ordinary 
rules  of  interpretation  in  other  cases.  Its  limit  is  the 
authority  of  God.  When  he  has  explicitly  laid  down  a 
doctrine,  that  doctrine  is  to  he  humbly  received,  what- 
ever degree  of  rational  evidence  may  be  afforded  of  its 
truth,  or  withheld  ;  and  no  torturing  or  perverting  criti- 
cisms can  be  mnocently  resorted  to,  to  bring  a  doctrine 
into  a  better  accordance  with  our  favourite  views  and 
systems,  any  more  than  to  make  a  precept  bend  to  the 
love  and  practice  of  our  vicious  indulgences.  A  larger 
scope  than  this  cannot  certahily  be  assigned  to  human 
reason  in  matters  of  revelation,  when  it  is  elevated  to 
the  office  of  a.  judge — a  judge  of  the  evidences  on  which 
a  professed  revelation  rests,  and  a  judge  of  its  meaning 
after  the  application  of  the  established  rules  of  inter- 
pretation in  other  cases.'8)  But  if  reason  be  con.sidered 
as  a  learner,  it  may  have  a  much  wider  range  in  those 
fields  of  intelligence  which  a  genuine  revelation  from 
God  will  open  to  our  view.  All  truth,  even  that  which 
to  us  is  most  abstruse  and  mysterious,  is  capable  of  ra- 
tional demonstration,  though  not  to  the  reason  of  man, 
in  the  present  state,  and  in  some  cases  probably  to  no 
reason  below  that  of  the  Divine  Nature.  Truth  is 
founded  in  reality,  and  for  that  reason  is  truth.  Some 
truths,  therefore,  which  a  revelation  only  could  make 
known,  wUl  often  appear  to  us  rational,  because  con- 
sistent with  what  we  already  know.  Meditation  upon 
them,  or  experience  of  their  reality  in  new  circum- 
stances in  which  we  may  be  placed,  may  enlarge  that 
evidence;  and  tliusourviewsof  the  conformity  of  many 
of  the  doctrines  revealed,  with  the  nature  and  reality 
of  things,  may  accjuire  a  growing  clearness  and  dis- 
tinctness. The  observations  of  others  also  may,  by 
reading  and  converse,  be  added  to  our  own,  and  often 
serve  to  carry  out  our  minds  into  some  new  and  richer 
vein  of  thought.  Thus  it  is  that  reason,  instead  of  being 
fettered,  as  some  pretend,  by  being  regulated,  is  enlight- 
ened by  revelation,  and  enabled  from  the  first  principles, 
and  by  the  grand  landmarks  which  it  furnishes,  lo 
pursue  its  inquiries  into  many  subjects  to  an  extent 
which  enriches  and  ennobles  the  human  intellect,  and 
administers  continual  food  to  the  strength  of  religions 
principle.  This  however  is  not  the  case  with  all  subjects. 
Many,  as  we  have  already  seen,  are  from  their  very  na- 
ture wholly  incapable  of  investigalion.  At  the  first  step 
we  launch  into  darkness,  and  find  in  religion  as  well  as 
in  natural  philosophy,  beyond  certain  limits,  insur- 
mountable barriers,  which  bid  defiance  to  human  pene- 
tration ;  and  even  where  the  rational  evidence  of  a  truth 
but  nakedly  stated  in  revelation,  or  very  partially  de- 
veloped, can  by  human  powers  be  extended,  that  cir- 
cumstance gives  us  no  qualification  to  judge  of  the  truth 
of  another  doctrine  which  is  stated  on  the  mere  authority 
of  the  dispenser  of  the  revelation,  and  of  which  there 
is  no  evidence  at  all  to  our  reason.  It  may  belong  to 
the  subjects  of  another  and  a  higher  class;  and  if  it  he 
found  in  tile  record,  is  not  to  he  explained  away  by 
principles  which  we  may  have  drawn  from  other  truths 
though  revealed,  for  those  inferences  have  no  higher  an 
authority  than  the  strength  of  our  own  falhble  powers, 
and  consequently  cannot  be  put  in  competition  with  the 
declarations  of  an  infallible  teacher,  ascertained  by  just 
rules  of  grammatical  and  literary  interpretation. 


(8)  See  note  A,  at  the  end  of  this  chapter,  in  vvhich 
two  common  objections  are  answered 


44 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  I. 


Note  A.— Page  13. 
"  In  ■whatever  point  of  view,"  says  an  able  living  au- 
thor, "  ttie  subj(;cr,  be  pluccd,  (lie  same  arguments  which 
show  the  iiii;i|)aliilitj  of  man,  by  the  light  of  Nature,  to 
discover  rcilginus  truth,  will  serve  likewise  to  show, 
that,  when  it  is  ri:vi;(diii  to  him,  he  is  not  warranted  in 
judging  of  it  merely  by  the  iiolions  which  he  had  pre- 
viously formed.  Tor  is  it  not  a  scili  cisin  to  affirm,  that 
mail's  natural  reason  is  a  fit  slandanl  for  measuring  the 
wisdom  or  truth  of  those  tluiigs  with  which  it  is  wholly 
unac.iiuainted,  except  so  lar  as  they  have  been  euper- 
naiurally  revealed?" 

'•  Hut  what,  then,"  an  objector  will  say  "  is  the  pro- 
vince of  Reason  !  Is  it  altogether  useless  1  Or  are  we 
to  be  precluded  from  using  it  in  this  most  important  of 
all  concerns,  for  our  security  against  error  7" 

Our  answer  is,  that  we  do  not  lessen  cither  the  utility 
or  the  dignity  of  human  reason,  by  thus  confining  the 
exercise  of  it  within  those  natural  boundaries  which 
the  Creator  himself  hath  assigned  to  it.  We  admit, 
■with  the  Deist,  that  "  Reason  is  the  foundation  of  all 
certitude ;"  and  we  admit,  therefore,  that  it  is  fully 
competent  to  judge  of  the  rredihUit.ij  of  any  thing  which 
is  proposed  to  it  as  a  J)ivine  revelation.  Hut  we  deny 
that  it  has  a  right  to  dispute  (because  we  maintain  that 
it  has  not  the  aliiliiy  to  disprove)  the  wisdnni  or  the  truth 
of  those  things  which  revelation  proposes  to  its  accept- 
ance. Reason  is  to  judge  whether  those  things  be 
indeed  so  revealed :  and  this  judgment  it  is  to  form, 
from  the  evidence  to  that  effect.  In  this  respect  it  is 
"  the  foundation  of  certitude,"  because  it  enables  us  to 
ascertain  the  fact,  that  God  hath  spoken  to  us.  But  this 
fact  once  established,  the  credibility,  nay,  the  certainty 
of  the  things  revcalml,  follows  as  of  necessary  conse- 
ijuencte;  since  no  deduction  of  Reason  can  be  more 
indubilablit  than  this,  that  whatever  God  reveals  mu.st 
he  true.  Here,  then,  the  authority  of  Reason  ceases. 
Its  juilgment  is  finally  determined  by  the  fact  of  the 
revelation  itself:  and  it  has  thenceforth  nothing  to  do, 
but  to  believe  and  to  obey. 

"  But  are  we  to  believe  every  doctrine,  however  in- 
comprehensible, liov/ever  mysterious,  nay,  however 
seemingly  contradictory  to  sense  and  reason  '." 

We  answer,  that  Revelation  is  supposed  to  treat  of 
subjects  with  which  man's  natural  reason  is  not  con- 
versant. It  is  therefore  to  be  expected,  that  it  should 
communicate  some  truths  not  to  be  fully  comprehended 
by  human  understandings.  But  these  we  may  safely 
receive,  upon  the  authority  wliich  declares  them,  with- 
out danger  of  violating  truth.  Real  and  tvidnit  con- 
tradictions, no  man  can,  indeed,  believe,  whose  intel- 
lects are  sound  and  clear.  But  such  contradictions  are 
no  more  proposed  for  our  belief,  than  impossibilities  are 
enjoined  upon  our  practice  :  though  things  dithcult  to 
understand,  as  well  as  things  hard  to  perform,  may 
perhaps  be  reijuired  of  us  for  the  trial  of  our  faith  and 
resolution.  Seimiiig  contradictions  may  also  occur: 
but  these  may  seem  to  be  such  because  they  are 
slightly  or  superficially  considered,  or  because  they 
are  judged  of  by  principles  inaiiplicable  to  the  subject, 
and  without  so  clear  a  knowledge  of  the  nature  of  the 
things  revealed,  as  may  lead  us  to  form  an  adequate 
coucepllon  of  them.  These,  however,  afford  no  solid 
argument  against  the  truth  of  what  is  proposed  to  our 
belief:  since,  unless  we  had  really  such  an  insight 
into  the  mysterious  parts  of  Revelation  as  might  ena- 
ble UK  to  prove  ttiein  to  be  conlra<lictory  and  false,  we 
tiave  no  gooil  ground  for  re|ei'ting  them;  and  we  only 
betray  our  own  iL'noniuce  and  jM-rver.seness  in  refusing 
10  take  (;od's  word  for  the  truth  of  things  which  pass 
man's  understanding. 

The  simple  (lucsiion,  indeed,  to  he  considered,  is, 
whether  it  be  reasonable  to  believe,  upon  competent 
ui/tliorUy,  things  which  we  can  neither  discover  our- 
selves, nor,  when  discovered,  fully  and  clearly  comprc- 
liend !  Now  every  person  of  common  observation 
mu.st  be  aware,  tliat  unless  he  be  content  to  receive 
solely  upon  the  testimony  of  others  a  great  variety  of 
information,  much  of  which  he  may  be  wholly  unable 
to  account  for  or  exjilain,  he  could  sciircely  obtain  a  com- 
petency of  knowledge  to  carry  hnn  safely  through  the 
common  concerns  of  life.  And  with  respect  to  scien- 
tific truths,  the  greatest  masters  in  philosoiihy  know 
full  well  thai  many  things  are  reasonably  to  be  be- 
lieved, nay,  must  be  believed,  on  sure  and  certain 
grounds  of  conviction,  Ihongh  they  me  absolutely  in- 
compreliensible  by  our  undorsluuduijjs,  and  even  bo 


difficult  to  be  reconciled  with  other  tilths  of  equal 
certainty,  as  to  carry  tlie  npyeurance  of  lieing  contra- 
dictory and  imjiossible.  This  will  serve  to  .sliow,  that 
it  is  not  contniry  to  rettsoii  to  believe,  on  suthcient 
authority,  some  things  which  cannot  be  comprehended, 
and  sonic  things  which,  from  the  narrow  and  circum- 
scribed views  wc  are  able  to  take  of  lliem,  apiiear 
to  be  repugnant  to  our  notions  of  truth.  The  ground 
on  which  we  believe  such  things,  is  the  strength  and 
certainty  of  the  nidence  with  which  Ihey  are  accom- 
panied. And  this  is  precisely  the  ground  on  which  we 
are  required  to  believe  the  truths  of  revealed  religion. 
The  evidence  that  they  come  from  ilud  is,  to  reason 
itself,  as  incontrovertible  a  proof  that  they  are  true,  as 
in  matters  of  human  science  would  be  the  evidence  of 
sense  or  of  mathematical  demonstration. 


CIIArXER  XII. 
Antiquity  of  the  Scriptcres. 

From  the  preparatory  course  of  argument  and  ob- 
servation which  has  been  hitherto  pursued,  we  proceed 
to  the  investigation  of  the  question,  whether  there  are 
sufficient  reasons  to  conclude  that  such  a  revelation 
of  truth  as  we  have  seen  to  be  so  necessary  for  the  hi- 
struction  and  moral  correction  of  mankind,  is  to  bo 
found  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments;  a  question  of  the  utmost  importance,  inasmuch 
as,  if  not  found  there,  there  are  the  most  cogent  rea- 
sons for  concluding  that  a  Revelation  was  never  vouch- 
safed to  man,  or  that  it  is  irretrievably  lo.st. 

No  person  living  in  an  enlightened  country  will  for  a 
moment  contend,  that  the  Koran  of  M;ili(iiii(  t.oranyof 
the  reputed  sacred  writings  of  the  Cliiiirsit,  |luiiloos,or 
liudhists,  can  be  i>ut  into  competition  witJi  the  Bible  ;  so 
that  it  is  univer.sally  acknowledged  among  us  that  there 
is  but  one  book  in  the  world  which  tias  claims  to  Divine 
authority  so  presumptively  substantial  as  to  be  worthy 
of  serious  examination.— and  thireli>reif  the  advantage 
of  suiiernatural  and  int'allililc  instruction  has  been  af- 
forded toman  it  may  be  concluded  to  be  found  in  that 
alone.  This  consideration  indicates  the  jiroper  temper 
of  mind  with  wluch  such  an  inquiry  ought  to  be  ap- 
proached. 

Instead  of  wishing  to  discover  that  the  claims  of  the 
Scriptures  to  Divine  authority  are  unfoundeil  (the  case, 
it  is  to  be  feared,  with  too  many),  every  humble  and 
sincere  man,  who,  conscious  of  his  own  mental  infirm- 
ity, and  recollecting  the  i)crplexilles  with  which  the 
wisest  of  men  have  been  involved  o:i  religious  and  mo- 
ral subjects,  will  wish  to  find  at  length  an  infiillible 
guide,  and  will  examlnetheevidencesof  the  Bible  with 
an  anxious  desire  that  he  may  find  su/Iicienl  reason  to 
ackniiwledL'e  their  Divine  authority;  and  he  will  feel 
that,  should  he  l)e  disappointed,  he  has  met  with  a 
l)aiiilul  inisl'iirluiie,  an<l  not  a  matter  for  triumph.  If 
Ibis  lenii)er  of  mind,  which  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
full,  and  even  severe  examination  of  the  claims  of 
Scriiiliire,  does  not  exist,  the  person  destitute  of  it  is 
neither  a  sinore  nor  an  earliest  inquirer  alter  truth. 

We  may  go  farther  and  say,  though  we  have  no  wish 
to  prejudge  the  argument,  that  if  the  person  e.Yamitiing 
the  Holy  Scriptures  in  order  to  ascertaui  the  truth  of 
their  jipieiisions  to  Divine  authority,  has  had  the 
means  of  only  a  general  aciiuaintance  with  tlieir  con- 
tents, he  oiiL'ht,  if  a  lover  of  virtue  as  well  as  tnith,  to 
he  predisiiDsed  in  their  favour:  and  thai,  if  he  is  not, 
the  moral  state  of  his  heart  is  liable  to  great  suspicion. 
For  that  the  theological  sy.stcm  of  the  Scriptures  is  in 
favour  of  tin!  highest  virtues,  cannot  be  iliiiii  d.  It 
both  prescribes  them  and  afifords  the  strongest  possible 
motives  to  their  cultivation.  Love  to  t;od  and  to  all 
mankind;  meekness,  courtesy,  charily;  the  goveni- 
miMit  of  the  aiqietiles  and  afTections  within  the  rules 
of  temperance;  the  renunciation  of  evil  imaginations 
and  sins  of  the  heart  ;  exact  justice  in  all  our  deal- 
inss;— these,  and  indeed  every  other  virtue,  civil,  so- 
cial, domestic,  and  personal,  are  clearly  taught,  and 
solemnlv  commanded  :  and  it  might  be  confiileiitly  put 
to  every  candid  person,  however  skeptical,  whiiher  the 
tnhver.sal  observance  of  the  morality  of  the  Scri|ilures, 
bv  all  ranks  and  nations,  would  not  produce  the  most 
beneficial  changes  in  society,  and  secure  universal 
peace,  friendship,  and  liappiness.  This  he  would  not 
deny;  tlua  Las  been  acknowledged  by  eomc  inlidel 


Chap.  XII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


45 


writers  themselves ;  and  if  so,— if  after  all  the  bewil- 
dering speculations  of  thi:  wisest  men  on  relifrious  and 
moral  subjects,  and  whidi,  as  we  have  seen,  led  to  no- 
thing definite  and  influential,  a  book  is  presented  to  us 
■which  shows  wliat  virliie  is,  and  the  means  of  attain- 
ing it;  wliich  enforces  it  by  sufficient  sanctions,  and 
points  every  individual  and  every  conununity  to  a  cer- 
tain remedy  for  all  their  vices,  disorders,  and  miseries ; 
— we  must  renounce  all  title  to  be  considered  lovers 
of  virtue  and  lovers  of  our  species,  if  we  do  not  feel 
ourselves  interested  in  the  eslablishment  of  Us  claims 
to  Divine  authority ;  and  because  we  love  virtue,  we 
shall  wish  that  the  proof  of  this  important  point  may 
be  found  satisfactory.  This  surely  is  the  temper  of 
mind  we  ought  to  bring  to  ;BUch  an  inquiry;  and  the 
rejection  of  the  Scriptures  by  those  who  are  not  under 
its  influence,  is  rather  a  presumption  in  their  favour 
than  a  consideration  wtiich  throws  upon  them  the  least 
discredit. 

In  addition  to  the  proofs  which  have  been  given  of 
the  necessity  of  a  Revelation,  both  from  the  reason  of 
things,  and  the  actual  circumstances  of  the  world,  it 
has  been  established,  that  miracles  actually  pcrlbrrned, 
and  prophecies  really  uttered  and  clearly  accomplished, 
are  satisfactory  proofs  of  the  authority  of  a  communi- 
cation of  the  will  of  God  tlirough  the  agency  of  men. 
We  have,  however,  stated,  that  in  cases  where  we  are 
not  witnesses  of  the  miracles,  and  auditors  of  the  pre- 
ilictions,  but  obtain  inlbrmation  respecting  them  I'rom 
some  record,  we  must,  before  we  can  admit  the  force 
of  the  argument  drawn  from  them,  be  assured  that  the 
record  w'as  early  and  faithfully  made,  and  has  been 
uncorruptly  kept,  with  respect  to  the  miracles ;  and, 
with  respect  to  the  prophecies,  that  they  were  also  ut- 
tered and  recorded  previously  to  those  events  occurring 
which  are  alleged  to  be  accomplishments  of  them. 
These  are  points  necessary  to  be  ascertained  before  it 
is  wortli  the  trouble  to  inquire,  whether  the  alleged 
miracles  have  any  claim  to  be  considered  as  miracu- 
lous in  a  proper  sense,  and  the  predictions  as  revela- 
tions from  an  omniscient  and,  consequently,  a  Divine 
Being. 

The  first  step  in  this  inquiry  is,  to  ascertain  the  exist- 
ence, age,  and  actions  of  the  leading  persons  mentioned 
in  Scripture  as  the  instruments  by  whom,  it  is  pro- 
fessed, the  revelations  they  contain  were  made 
known. 

With  respect  to  these  persons  it  is  not  necessary 
that  our  attention  .should  be  directed  to  more  than  two, 
MnsEs  and  Christ,— one  the  reputed  agent  of  the 
Mosaic,  the  other  the  author  of  the  Christian  Revela- 
tion ;  because  the  evidence  which  establishes  their  ex- 
istence and  actions,  and  the  period  of  both,  will  also 
establish  all  that  is  slated  in  the  same  records  as  to 
the  subordinate  and  succeeding  agents. 

The  Biblical  record  states,  that  Moses  was  the  leader 
and  legislator  of  the  nation  of  the  Jews  near  sixteen 
hundred  years  before  the  Christian  era,  according  to  the 
common  chronology.  This  is  grounded  upon  the  tra- 
dition and  national  history  of  the  .Jews;  and  it  is  cer- 
tain, that  so  far  from  there  being  any  reason  to  doubt 
the  fact,  much  less  to  suppose,  with  an  extravagant 
fancy  of  some  modern  infidels,  that  Moses  was  a  my- 
thological personage,  the  very  same  princijjles  of  his- 
torical evidence  which  assure  us  of  the  truth  of  any 
umiuestioned  fact  of  profane  history,  assure  us  of  the 
truth  of  this.  It  cannot  be  doubted  but  that  the  Jews 
existed  very  anciently  as  a  nation.  It  is  equally  cer- 
tain, that  it  has  been  an  uninterrupted  and  universally 
received  tradition  among  them  in  all  ages,  that  Moses 
led  them  out  of  Egypt,  and  first  gave  them  their  sys- 
tem of  laws  and  religion.  The  history  of  that  event 
they  have  in  WTiting.  and  also  the  laws  attributed  to 
hurl.  There  is  nothing  in  the  leading  events  of  their 
history  contradicted  by  remaining  authentic  historical 
records  of  those  nations  with  whom  they  were  geogra- 
phically and  politically  related,  to  support  any  suspi- 
cion of  its  accuracy ;  and  as  their  institutions  must 
have  been  established  and  enjoined  by  some  political 
authority,  and  bear  the  marks  of  a  systematic  arrange- 
ment, established  at  once,  and  not  growing  up  under 
the  operation  of  circumstances  at  distant  periods,  to 
one  superior  and  commanding  mind  they  are  most  rea- 
sonably to  be  attributed.  The  Jews  refer  them  to 
Moses,  and  if  this  be  denied,  no  proof  can  be  offered 
in  favour  of  any  other  person  hnws.  entitled  in  that 
bonour.    Ttie  liistory  is  therefore  uiiconiradjciod  by 


any  opposing  evidence,  and  can  only  be  denied  on  some 
])rinciple  of  skepticism  which  would  equally  shake  the 
foundations  of  all  history  whatever. 

The  same  observations  may  be  made  as  to  the  exist- 
ence of  the  Fomider  of  the  (;hristian  religion.  In  the 
records  of  the  New  Testament  he  is  called  Jesus 
Christ,  because  he  professed  to  be  the  Messias  pre- 
dicted in  the  .Jewish  Scrijitures,  and  was  acknowledged 
as  such  by  his  followers;  and  Ills  birth  is  fixed  up- 
wards of  eighteen  centuries  ago.  This  also  is  at  least 
uncontradicted  testimony.  Tiie  Christian  religion  ex- 
ists, and  must  have  had  an  author.  Like  the  institu- 
tions of  Moses,  it  bears  the  evidence  of  being  the  work 
of  one  mind;  and, as  a  theological  system,  presents  no 
indications  of  a  gradual  and  successive  elaboration. 
There  was  a  time  when  there  was  no  such  religion  a.s 
that  of  Christianity,  and  when  pagan  idolatry  and  Ju- 
daism universally  prevailed ;  it  follows  that  there  once 
flourished  a  teacher  to  whom  it  owed  its  origin,  and  all 
tradition  and  history  unite  in  their  testimony  that  that 
lawgiver  was  Jesns  Christ.  No  other  person  has  ever 
been  adduced,  living  at  a  later  period,  as  the  foupdcr  of 
this  form  of  religion. 

To  the  existence  and  the  respective  antiquity  ascribed 
in  the  Scriptures  to  the  founders  of  the  Jewish  and  ChrLs- 
tian  religion,  many  ancient  writers  give  ample  testi- 
mony ;  who,  being  themselves  neither  of  the  Jewish 
nor  Christian  religion,  cannot  be  suspected  of  having 
any  design  to  furni.sh  evidence  of  the  truth  of  either. 
Manktho,  CnEREMoN,Ai>oLi.ONit;s,  and  Ly SIMM  hus, 
besides  some  other  ancient  Egyptians  whose  histories 
are  now  lost,  are  quoted  by  Josephus,  as  e.xtant  in  his 
days ;  and  passages  arc  collected  from  them,  in  wluch 
they  agree  that  Moses  was  the  leader  of  the  Jews  when 
they  departed  from  Egypt,  and  the  founder  of  their 
laws.  Strabo,  who  flourished  in  the  century  before 
Christ  (Geog.  I.  16),  gives  an  account  of  the  law  of 
Moses,  as  forbidding  images,  and  limiting  Divine  wor- 
ship to  one  Invisible  and  Universal  Being.  Justin,  a 
Roman  historian,  in  his  36th  Book,  devotes  a  chapter 
to  an  account  of  the  origin  of  the  Jews ;  represents 
them  as  sprung  from  ten  sons  of  Lsrael,  and  speaks  of 
Moses  as  the  commander  of  the  Jews  who  went  out  of 
Egypt,  of  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath,  and  the  Priest- 
hood of  Aaron.  Pliny  speaks  of  Moses,  as  giving  rise 
to  a  sect  of  magicians,  probably  with  reference  to  his 
contest  with  the  magicians  of  Egypt.  Tacitits  says, 
"  Moses  gave  a  new  form  of  worship  to  the  Jews,  and 
a  system  of  religious  ceremonies,  the  reverse  of  every 
thing  known  to  any  other  age  or  country."  Ji  venal, 
in  his  14th  Satire,  mentions  Moses  as  the  author  of  a 
volume,  which  was  preserved  with  great  care  among 
the  Jews,  by  which  the  worship  of  images  and  eating 
swine's  fiesh  were  forbidden ;  and  circumcision  and 
the  observation  of  the  Sabbath  strictly  enjoined.  Lhn- 
aiNus  cites  Moses  as  the  lawgiver  of  the  Jews,  and 
praises  the  sublimity  of  his  style  in  the  account  he 
gives  of  the  creation.  The  Orphic  verses,  which  ara 
very  ancient,  inculcate  the  worship  of  one  God  as  re- 
commended by  that  law  "  which  was  given  by  hina 
who  was  drawn  out  of  the  water,  and  received  two 
tables  of  stone  from  the  hand  of  God. "(9)  Diodorus 
Si(  i'LU.<,  in  his  first  book,  when  he  treats  of  those  who 
consider  the  gods  to  be  the  authors  of  their  laws,  adds, 
"Among  the  Jews  was  Moses,  who  called  God  by  tho 
name  of  Tkoi, /no,"meaning  Jehovah.  Jistin  Martyr 
expressly  says,  that  most  of  the  historians,  poets,  law- 
givers, and  philosophers  of  the  Greeks  mention  Mose's 
as  the  leader  and  prince  of  the  .Jewish  nation.  From 
all  these  testimonies,  and  many  more,  were  it  neces- 
sary, might  be  adduced,  it  is  clear  that  it  was  as  com- 
monly received  among  ancient  nations,  as  among  the 
.Jews  themselves,  that  Moses  was  the  founder  and  lav/- 
giver  of  the  Jewish  state. 

As  to  Christ,  it  is  only  necessary  to  give  the  testi- 
mony of  two  historians,  whose  antiiiuity  no  one  ever 
thought  of  disputing.  Suetonii's  mentions  him  by 
name,  and  says,  that  Claudius  exjielled  from  Rome 
those  who  adhered  to  his  cause. (1)  Tacitis  records 
the  i)rogress  wliich  the  Christian  religion  had  made : 
the  violent  death  its  founder  had  suflT?rcd :  that  he 
flourished  under  the  reign  of  Tiberius  ;  that  Pilate  was 
then  procurator  of  Judea ;  and  that  the  original  author 

(0)  Ens.  Prsp.  Ev.  i.  13,  c.  12. 

(1)  JudiTos  impulsore  ("hristo  assidue  tuinultuantea 
Roma  cxpuUt.— Suet.  Edit.  Var.  y.  044. 


46 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  I. 


of  this  profession  was  Chrisl.(2)  Thus  not  only  the 
teal  e\isU:iii:e  of  the  fimnder  of  Christianity,  but  tho 
period  ill  which  ho  lived  is  exactly  ascertained  from 
writiiigs,  tlie  genuineness  of  which  has  never  been 
doubted. 

The  ANTiQt'iTV  OP  THE  BOOKS  Which  Contain  the 
history,  the  doctrines,  and  the  laws  of  the  Jewish  and 
I  lie  Christian  lawgivers,  is  next  to  be  considered,  and 
the  evidence  is  not  less  satisfactory.  The  importance 
of  this  fact  in  the  ar;.;uiiiont  is  obvious.  If  the  writings 
111  (luestion  were  made  at,  or  very  near,  the  time  in 
which  the  miraculous  acts  recorded  in  them  were  per- 
formed, then  the  evidence  of  those  events  having  oc- 
curred is  rendered  the  stronger,  lor  tliey  were  written 
at  the  time  when  many  were  still  living  who  might 
have  contradicted  the  narration  if  false ;  and  the  im- 
probability is  also  greater,  that  in  the  very  age  and 
jilace  when  and  where  those  events  are  said  to  have 
been  perfornied,  any  writer  would  have  dared  to  run 
the  haz-ard  of  prompt,  certain,  and  disgraceful  detection. 
It  is  equally  im])ortaiit  in  the  evidence  of  prophecy ; 
for  if  the  iircdK-iions  were  recorded  long  before  the 
events  which  accoiiiplisheil  them  look  place,  then  the 
only  queslioii  whicli  reiiiaiiis  is,  whether  the  accom- 
lilishment  is  satisfactory ;  lijr  then  the  evidence  becomes 
irresistible. 

With  respect  to  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Te.stament, 
the  language  in  which  they  are  written  is  a  strong 
proof  oi'  their  antiiiuity.  The  Hebrew  ceased  to  be 
Hliokcn  as  a  living  language  soon  alter  the  Babylonish 
captivity,  and  the  learned  agree  that  there  was  no 
grammar  made  for  the  Hebrew  till  many  ages  after. 
The  diinculty  of  a  forgery,  at  any  period  after  the  time 
of  that  captivity,  is  therefore  apparent.  Of  these  books 
too,  there  was  a  (Jreek  translation  made  about  two 
hundred  and  eighty-seven  years  before  the  Christian 
era,  and  laid  up  in  the  Alexandrian  library. 

.iosephus  gives  a  catalogue  of  the  sacred  books  among 
the  Jews,  in  which  he  expressly  mentions  the  live 
books  of  Moses,  thirteen  of  the  Prophets,  four  of  Hymns 
and  Moral  Precepts  ;  and  if,  as  many  critics  maintain, 
l{utli  was  added  to  Judges,  and  the  Lamentations  of 
Jeremiah  to  his  Pro|)hecies,  the  number  agrees  with 
those  of  the  Old  Testament  as  it  is  received  at  the  pre- 
sent day. 

The  Samaritans,  who  separated  from  the  Jews  many 
luindred  years  before  the  birth  of  Christ,  have  in  their 
language  a  Pentateuch,  in  tho  main  exactly  agreeing 
with  the  Hebrew;  and  the  pagan  writers  before  cited, 
with  many  others,  speak  of  Moses  not  only  as  a  law- 
giver and  a  prince,  but  as  the  author  of  books  esteemed 
sacred  by  the  Jews. (3) 

If  the  writings  of  Moses  then  are  not  genuine,  the 
forgery  must  have  taken  place  at  a  very  early  period ; 
but  a  few  considerations  will  show,  that  at  any  time 
this  was  imjiossible. 

These  books  could  never  have  been  surreptitiously 
put  forth  in  the  name  of  Moses,  as  the  argument  of 
I.Ksi.iK  mostfully  iiroves:  "  It  is  impossible  that  those 
hooks  should  have  been  received  as  his,  if  not  written 
by  him,  because  they  sjieak  of  themselves  as  delivered 
by  Moses,  and  kept  in  tho  ark  from  his  time.  '  And  it 
came  fo  pass  when  Mo.ses  had  made  an  end  of  writing 
the  wrirds  of  this  law  in  a  book  until  they  were  finished, 
that  Moses  commanded  the  Levites  who  bore  the  ark 
of  tlie  covenant  of  the  Lord,  saying.  Take  the  Ixiok  of 
the  law,  and  put  it  in  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  cove- 
nant of  the  Lord  your  (Jod,  that  it  may  be  there  for  a 
witness  against  thee.'— Dent.  xxxi.  24—26.  A  copy  of 
this  book  was  also  to  be  left  with  the  king :  '  And  it 
shall  be,  when  he  sitteth  upon  the  throne  of  his  king- 
dom that  he  shall  write  him  a  copy  of  this  law  in  a 
hook  out  of  that  which  is  before  the  imests  the  Levites; 
and  it  shall  be  with  him,  and  he  shall  read  therein  all 
the  days  of  his  life,'  ikc— Deut.  xviii.  18.  This  book 
of  the  law  thus  speaks  of  itself,  not  only  as  a  history 
or  relation  of  what  things  were  done,  but  as  the  stand- 
ing and  municipal  law  and  staliiles  of  the  nation  of 
the  Jews,  binding  the  king  as  well  asthepeojde.  Now 
in  whatever  age  after  Mosi^s  this  book  may  be  sup- 
posed to  have  been  forged,  it  was  impossible  that  it 


(2)  Auctor  nominis  ejus  Christns,  nui  Tibcrio  impe- 
ritaiilo,  per  (irocuratorem  Pontinm  Pilaiurn  supplicio 
aflecliis  v\M.'-Aiiii(U.  1.  5. 

(3)  See  nole  A,  at  the  end  of  this  chapter,  for  a  larger 
proof  of  the  above  parliculars. 


could  be  received  as  truth,  because  it  was  not  then  to 
be  found  (as  it  professed  to  be)  either  in  the  ark  or  wilh 
the  king,  or  any  where  else;  for,  when  first  invented, 
every  body  must  know  that  they  had  never  heard  of  it 
before. 

"  Could  any  man,  now  at  this  day,  invent  a  book  of 
statutes  or  acts  of  parliament  for  England,  and  make 
it  pass  ujioii  the  nation  as  the  only  book  of  statutes 
that  ever  they  had  known?  As  impossible  was  it  for 
the  books  of  Moses  (if  they  were  invented  in  any  age 
after  Moses)  to  have  been  received  lor  what  they  de- 
clare themselves  to  be,  viz.  ttie  statutes  and  muni- 
cipal law  of  the  nation  of  the  Jews:  and  to  have  per- 
suaded the  Jews,  that  th<y  had  owned  and  acknow- 
ledged these  books,  all  along  from  the  days  of  Moses, 
to  that  day  in  which  they  were  first  invented ;  that  is, 
that  they  had  owned  them  before  they  had  ever  so 
much  as  heard  of  them.  Nay,  more,  the  whole  nation 
must,  in  an  inslant,  forget  their  former  laws  and  go- 
veniment,  if  they  could  receive  the.se  books  as  being 
their  fiirmer  laws.  And  they  could  not  otherwise  re- 
ceive them,  because  they  vouched  themselves  so  to  be. 
Let  me  ask  the  Deists  but  one  short  nuestion ;  was 
there  ever  a  book  of  sham  laws,  which  were  not  the 
laws  of  the  nation,  palmed  ujion  any  people,  since  the 
world  began  ?  If  not,  with  what  face  can  they  say  this 
of  the  book  of  the  laws  of  the  JcTvs?  Why  wll  they 
say  that  of  them  which  they  confess  impossible  in  any 
nation,  or  among  any  people! 

"  liut  they  must  be  yet  more  unreasonable.  For 
the  books  of  Moses  have  a  farther  demonstration  of 
their  truth  than  even  other  law  books  have ;  for  they 
not  only  conlain  the  laws,  but  give  an  historical  ac- 
count of  their  institution,  and  the  jiracticeofthem  from 
that  time:  as  of  the  passover,  in  memory  of  the  death 
of  the  first-born  in  Egypt  :(4)  and  that  the  same  day,  all 
the  first-born  of  Israel,  both  of  man  and  beast,  were, 
by  a  perjietual  law,  dedicated  to  (;od:  and  tile  Le- 
vites taken  for  all  the  first-born  of  the  children  of  Is- 
rael. That  Aaron's  rod  which  bndded,  was  kept  in  the 
ark,  in  memory  of  the  rebellion  and  wondiTful  destruc- 
tion of  Korali,  Uathan,  and  Abiram ;  and  for  the  con- 
firmation of  the  prieslhootJ  to  the  tribe  of  Levi.  As 
likewise  the  pot  of  manna,  in  memory  of  their  having 
been  fed  with  it  forty  years  in  the  wilderness.  That 
the  brazen  serpenl  was  kept  (which  remained  to  the 
days  (il  Hezckiah,  2  Kings  xviii.  4),  in  memory  of  that 
Wdiidcrlul  deliverance,  by  only  looking  upon  it,  from 
the  biliiigiil  the  fiery  serpents.  Num.  xxi.  9.  The  feast 
of  Peiiteiiist.  ill  memory  of  the  dreadful  appearance  of 
God  upon  iMouMl  iloreb,  &c. 

"  And  besides  these  remembrances  of  particular  ac- 
tions and  occorrences,  there  were  other  solemn  institti- 
tioiis  in  memory  of  tlieir  deliverance  out  of  Egypt,  in 
the  general,  which  included  all  the  particulars.  As  of 
the  .Sabbath,  Heut.  v.  15.  Their  daily  sacrifices  and 
yearly  expiation  ;  their  new  moons,  and  several  feasts 
and  fasts.  So  that  there  were  yearly,  monthly,  weekly, 
daily  remembrances  and  recognitions  of  these  things 

"And  not  only  so,  but  the  books  of  the  same  Moses 
tell  us,  that  a  particular  tribe  (of  Levi)  was  appointed 
and  ciiiise(  rated  by  Cod  as  his  priests  ;  by  whose  hands, 
and  iiDiie  uthcT,  the  saciilices  of  the  people  were  to  be 
olfi  red,  and  \\\i-sr.  sulemii  iiistiliilions  to  be  celebrated. 
That  It  was  death  liir  any  other  to  approach  the  altar. 
'I'hat  their  high  prie.st  wore  a  glorious  mitre,  and  mag- 
nificent rob(^s  of  <;od'8  own  contrivance,  with  the  mi- 
raculous Crim  and  Thuinmiin  in  his  breastplate, 
whence  the  Divine  responses  were  given.(5)  That  at 
his  word,  the  king  and  all  tho  jieople  were  lo  go  out  and 
to  come  in.  That  these  Levites  were  likewise  the  chief 
judges  even  in  all  <  ivil  causes,  iind  that  it  was  death  to 
resist  their  senteiiic.(b)  Now,  whenever  it  can  be  sup- 
posed that  these  books  of  Mo.«es  were  forged  in  some 
ages  after  Moses,  it  is  imiiossible  they  could  have  been 
received  as  true,  unless  the  forgers  could  have  made 
the  whole  nation  believe  that  they  bad  received  these 
books  from  their  linhers,  had  been  instructed  in  them 
wlieii  they  were  children,  ami  bad  laiighl  them  lo  their 
children  ;  moreover,  that  they  had  all  been  circumcised, 
and  did  circumcise  their  children,  m  pursuance  to  what 
was  commanded  in  these  books:  that  Ihi'y  had  ob- 
served the  yearly  passover,  the  weekly  Sabbath,  tho 


(4)  Numbers  viii.  17,  18. 

(.'))  Niiiiibcrs  xxvii.  21. 

(t>)  Deut.  xxvii.  8—13.    1  Chroii.  xxiii.  4. 


Chap.  XIL] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


47 


new  moons,  and  all  these  several  feasts,  fasts,  and  cere- 
monies commanded  in  these  books:  that  the>  liail  never 
catea  any  swine's  flesh,  or  other  meats  proliiliitcul  in 
these  books:  that  they  had  a  magiiitictiit  tabernacle, 
■with  a  visible  priesthood  to  administer  in  it,  wliuh  was 
confuied  to  the  tribe  of  Levi ;  over  whom  was  placed  a 
glorious  high  priest,  clothed  wth  great  and  ini,i;lity  pre- 
rogatives, whose  death  only  could  deliver  those  that 
were  fled  to  the  cities  of  refuge.(7)  And  that  thi^se 
priests  were  their  ordinary  judges  even  in  civil  matters : 
1  say,  was  it  possible  to  have  persuaded  a  whole  nation 
of  itien,  that  they  had  known  and  practised  all  tliese 
things,  if  thev  had  not  done  it?  or,  secondly,  to  have 
rcccivcil  a  boiik  tor  truth,  which  said  they  had  practised 
thctn,  and  appealed  to  that  practice? 

"  Itul  now  let  us  descend  to  the  utmost  degree  of  sup- 
jiosliKin,  viz.  that  these  things  were  practised  bel'ore 
these  books  of  Moses  were  forged  ;  and  that  those  books 
ilid  only  impose  upon  the  nation,  in  making  them  be- 
lieve that  they  had  kept  these  ob.servaiiccs  m  memory 
of  such  and  such  things  as  were  inserted  in  thcise  books. 

'•Well  then,  let  us  proceed  upon  this  sujiposition 
(however  groundless),  and  now,  will  not  the  .same  im- 
possibilities occur,  as  in  the  former  case?  I'or,  first, 
this  must  suppose  that  the  Jews  kept  all  these  ob- 
s(  rvances  in  memory  of  nothing,  or  without  knowing 
any  thing  of  their  original,  or  the  reason  why  they  kept 
them.  Whereas  these  very  observances  did  express 
the  ground  and  reason  of  their  being  kept,  as  the  Pass- 
over, in  nieniory  of  God's  passing  over  the  children  of 
the  Isr.aeliies,  in  that  night  wherein  he  slew  all  the  first- 
born of  Egypt,  and  so  of  the  rest. 

"  Hut,  secondly,  let  us  suppose,  contrary  both  to  rea- 
son and  matter  of  fact,  that  the  Jews  did  not  know  any 
reason  at  all  why  they  kept  these  observances  ;  yet  was 
It  possible  to  put  it  upon  them — that  they  had  kept  these 
observances  in  memory  of  what  they  had  never  heard 
of  before  that  day,  whensoever  you  will  suppose  that 
these  books  of  Moses  were  fir.st  forged?  For  example, 
suppose  I  should  now  forge  some  romantic  story  of 
strange  things  done  a  thousand  years  ago;  and,  in  con- 
firmation of  this,  should  endeavour  to  persuade  the 
Christian  world  that  they  had  all  along,  from  that  day 
to  this,  kept  the  first  day  of  the  week  in  memory  of  such 
a  hero,  an  .Vpollonius,  a  Barcosbas,  or  a  Mahomet ;  and 
had  all  been  baptized  in  his  name ;  and  swore  by  his 
name,  and  upon  that  very  book  (which  I  had  then 
Ibrged.  and  which  they  never  saw  before),  in  their  pub- 
lic judicatures ;  that  this  book  was  their  gospel  and  law, 
which  they  had  ever  since  that  time,  these  thousand 
years  past,  universally  received  and  owned,  and  none 
other.  I  would  ask  any  Deist,  whether  he  thinks  it  pos- 
sible that  such  a  cheat  could  pass,  or  such  a  legend  be 
received  as  the  gosjiel  of  Christians :  and  that  they  could 
he  made  believe  that  they  never  had  any  other  gospel  ? 

"  Let  me  give  one  very  familiar  example  more  in  this 
case.  There  is  the  Stonehenge  in  Salisbury  Plain, 
every  body  knows  it ;  and  yet  none  knows  the  reason 
why  those  great  stones  were  set  there,  or  by  whom,  or 
in  memory  of  what. 

"  Now,  sup])ose  I  should  vniie  a  book  to-morrow, 
and  tell  their,  that  these  .stones  were  set  up  by  Hercules, 
Polyphemus,  or  (iaragantua,  in  memory  of  such  and 
such  of  their  actions.  And  for  a  farther  confirmation 
of  this,  should  say  in  this  book,  that  it  was  written  at 
the  time  when  such  actions  were  done,  and  by  the  very 
actors  themselves,  or  eye-witnesses.  And  that  this 
book  had  hvcn  received  as  truth,  and  quoted  by  authors 
of  the  greatest  reputation  in  all  ages  since.  Moreover, 
that  this  book  was  well  known  in  England,  and  en- 
joined by  act  of  parliament  to  be  taught  our  chil- 
dren, and  that  we  did  teach  it  to  our  children,  and  had 
been  taught  it  ourselves  when  we  were  children.  I  ask 
any  Deist,  wtuther  h<^  thinks  this  could  pass  upon  Eng- 
land ?  and  whether,  if  1  or  any  other  should  insist  ujion 
it,  we  should  not,  instead  of  being  believed,  be  sent  to 
Bedlam? 

"  Now,  let  us  compare  this  with  the  Stonehenge,  as 
I  may  call  it,  or  twelve  great  stones  set  up  at  Gilgal, 
which  is  told  in  the  fourth  iha[)ter  of  .loshua.  There 
It  is  said,  verse  6,  that  the  reason  why  they  were  set  up 
was,  that  when  their  children,  in  aller-ages,  should  ask 
the  meaning  of  it,  it  should  be  told  them. 

"  And  the  thing  in  memory  of  wlucli  they  were  set 
up  wa.s  such  as  could  not  possibly  be  imposed  upon 


(7)  Numb.  XXAV.  25.  2S. 


that  nation,  at  that  time  when  it  was  said  to  he  done;  it 
was  as  wonderful  and  miraculous  as  their  passage 
through  the  Red  Sea. 

"  For  notice  was  given  to  the  Israelites  the  day  be- 
fore, of  this  great  miracle  to  be  done,  .losh.  iii.  5.  It 
was  done  at  noon-day  before  the  whole  nation.  And 
when  the  waters  of  .lordan  were  divided,  it  was  not  at 
any  low  ebb,  but  at  the  time  when  that  river  overflowed 
all  his  banks,  verse  15.  And  it  was  done,  not  by  winds, 
or  in  length  of  time,  which  winds  must  take  to  do  it : 
but  all  on  a  .sudden,  as  soon  as  the  'feet  of  the  priests 
that  bare  the  ark  were  dipped  in  the  brim  of  the  water, 
then  the  waters  which  came  down  from  above,  stood 
and  rose  up  upon  a  heap,  very  far  from  the  city  Adam, 
that  is  beside  Zaretan ;  and  those  that  came  down 
toward  the  sea  of  the  plain,  even  the  salt  sea,  failed, 
and  were  cut  off:  and  the  jieople  passed  over,  right 
against  Jericho.  The  priests  slued  in  the  midst  of  Jor- 
dan till  all  the  armies  of  Israel  had  i)assed  over.  And 
it  came  to  pass,  when  the  priests  that  bare  the  ark  of 
the  covenant  of  the  Lord  were  come  U])  out  of  the  midst 
of  Jordan,  and  the  soles  of  the  priests'  feet  were  lift 
up  upon  the  dry  land,  that  the  waters  of  .lordan  re- 
turned unto  their  place,  and  flowed  over  all  his  banks 
as  they  did  before.  And  the  [teoiile  came  out  of  Jordan 
on  the  tenth  day  of  the  first  month,  and  encamped  in 
Gilgal  on  the  east  border  of  Jericliu,  .-uid  llinse  twelve 
stones  wliich  they  took  out  of  Jordan  did  .loshua  pitch 
in  Gilgal.  And  he  spake  unto  the  ctiihlren  of  Israel, 
saying.  When  your  children  shall  ask  their  lathers  in 
time  to  come,  saying,  Wliat  mean  these  stones  ?  then 
shall  ye  let  your  children  know,  saying,  Israel  came 
over  this  Jordan  on  dry  land.  For  the  Lord  your  God 
dried  up  the  waters  of  Jordan  from  before  you,  until  ye 
were  passed  over  ;  as  the  Lord  your  God  did  to  the  Red 
Sea,  which  he  dried  up  from  betbre  us,  until  we  were 
gone  over,  that  all  the  people  of  the  earth  might  know 
the  hand  of  the  Lord  that  it  is  mighty :  that  ye  might 
fear  the  Lord  your  God  for  ever.'— Chap.  iv.  from 
verse  18. 

"  Now,  to  form  otir  argument,  let  us  supjiose  that 
there  never  was  any  such  thing  as  that  passage  over 
Jordan ;  that  these  stones  at  Gilgal  were  set  up  ii]ioa 
some  other  occasion  in  some  after-age ;  and  then,  that 
some  designing  man  invented  this  book  of  Joshua,  and 
said  that  it  was  written  by  .loshua  at  that  time,  and  gave 
this  stonage  at  Gilgal  for  a  testimony  of  the  iruih  of  it : 
would  not  every  body  say  to  him,  we  know  i  be  .sidUiigc 
at  Gilgal,  but  we  never  heard  before  of  this  reason  liir 
it,  nor  of  tliis  book  of  Jo.shua.  Where  has  it  been  all 
this  while  ?  And  where  and  how  came  yon,  after  so 
many  ages,  to  find  it  ?  Besides,  this  book  tells  us,  that 
this  passage  over  .lordan  was  ordained  to  be  taught  our 
children  from  age  to  age;  aiid,lberelore.  that  lliey  v  ere 
always  to  be  instructed  in  the  meaning  of  that  sioiiago 
at  Gilgal,  as  a  memorial  of  it.  Hut  we  were  never 
taught  it  when  we  were  children  ;  nor  did  ever  teach 
our  children  any  such  thing.  And  it  is  not  likely  that 
it  could  have  been  forgotten,  while  so  remarkable  a 
stonage  did  continue,  which  was  set  up  for  that  and  no 
other  end  I 

"  And  if,  for  the  reasons  before  given,  no  such  im- 
position could  be  put  upon  us  as  to  the  stonage  in  Salis- 
bury Plain,  how  much  less  could  it  he  to  the  stonage 
at  Gilgal? 

"  And  if,  where  we  know  not  the  reason  of  a  bare 
naked  monument,  such  a  sham  reason  cannot  be  im- 
posed, how  much  more  is  it  impossible  to  impose  upon 
us  in  actions  and  observances,  which  we  celebrate  in 
memory  of  particular  passages?  How  imjiossible  to 
make  us  forget  those  passages  winch  we  daily  corii- 
memorate ;  and  persuade  us  that  we  had  always  kept 
such  institutions  in  memory  of  what  we  never  heard 
of  before ;  that  is,  that  we  knew  it  before  we  knew  it '." 

This  able  reasoning  has  never  been  refuted,  nor  can 
be;  and  if  the  books  of  the  Law  must  have  been  writ- 
ten by  Moses,  it  is  as  easy  to  prove,  that  Moses  hhii- 
self  could  not  in  the  nature  of  the  thing  have  deceived 
the  people  by  an  imposture,  anil  a  pn^tence  of  miracu- 
lous a( testations,  in  order,  liki;  some  later  lawgivers 
among  llie  lie.iilieiis,  to  bring  the  peojile  more  willingly 
to  submit  to  Ins  institutions.  The  very  instances  of 
miracle  he  gives  rendered  this  impo.ssible.  "  Suppose," 
says  lh<!  same  writer,  "  any  man  should  jireteiid,  that 
yesterday  he  divided  the  Thames,  in  presence  of  all 
the  peop'le  of  London,  and  carried  the  whole  city,  men, 
women,  and  cluldrcn,  over  to  Soulliwark,  on  dry  land. 


48 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  I. 


the  wnlora  starifling  like  walls  on  both  sides :  I  say,  it 
is  morally  jioiiossible  that  he  could  persuade  the  people 
of  I.ondori  I  li.it  tliis  was  true,  when  every  man,  woman, 
and  child  tunld  contradict  him,  and  say,  ttial  this  was 
a  notoriijus  I'alseliood,  liir  that  ttiey  had  not  seen  the 
Thames  so  divided,  nor  had  gone  over  on  dry  land. 

"  As  to  Moses,  I  siipjiose  it  will  lie  allowed  me,  that 
he  could  not  have  persuaded  ()l)(l,()()l}  men  that  he  had 
brongtit  them  out  of  R^'vpt,  llironch  the  Red  Sea;  fed 
them  forty  years,  without  bread,  by  miraculous  manna, 
and  the  other  matters  of  fact,  recorded  in  his  books,  if 
they  had  not  been  true.  Because  every  man's  senses  that 
was  then  alive,  must  have  contradicted  it.  And  there- 
fore he  must  have  imposed  upon  all  their  senses,  if  he 
could  have  made  them  believe  it  when  it  was  false  and 
no  such  things  done. 

"  From  the  same  reason,  it  was  equally  impo.ssible 
for  him  to  h-ive  made  them  receive  his  five  books,  as 
truth,  and  not  to  have  rejected  them  as  a  manifest  im- 
posture, which  told  of  all  these  things  as  done  before 
their  eyes,  if  they  had  not  huc.n  so  done.  See  how  posi- 
tively he  si)eaks'to  them,  Dent.  xi.  2,  to  verse  8:  'And 
know  you  this  day,  for  I  speak  not  with  your  children, 
which  have  not  known,  and  which  have  not  seen  the 
chastisement  of  the  Lord  your  (iod,  his  greatness,  his 
mighty  hand,  and  his  stretched-out  arm,  and  his  mira- 
cles, and  his  acts,  which  he  did  m  the  midst  of  Egypt, 
unto  Pharaoh  the  King  of  Egypt,  and  unto  all  his  land, 
and  what  he  did  unto  the  army  of  Egypt,  unto  their 
horses,  and  to  their  chariots  ;  how  he  made  the  water 
of  the  Ited  Sea  to  overflow  them  as  they  pursued  after 
you;  and  how  the  Lord  hath  destroyed  them  unto  this 
day :  And  what  he  did  uiifo  you  in  the  wilderness,  until 
ye  came  into  this  place  ;  and  what  he  did  unto  Dathan 
and  Abiram,  the  sons  of  Eliah,  the  son  of  Reuben,  how 
the  earth  oi)ened  her  mouth,  and  swallowed  them  up, 
and  their  households,  and  their  tents,  and  all  the  sub- 
stance that  was  in  their  possession,  in  the  midst  of  all 
Israel.  Hut  your  eyes  have  seen  all  the  great  acts  of 
the  Lord,  whi(!h  he  did,'  &c. 

"  From  hence  we  must  suppose  it  impossible  that  these 
books  of  Moses  (if  an  imposture)  could  have  been  in- 
vented and  put  ujion  the  iieople  who  were  then  alive, 
when  all  ttiese  things  were  said  to  be  done." 

By  these  arguments,(.S)  the  genuineness  and  authen- 
ticity of  the  books  of  Moses  are  established  ;  and  as  to 
those  of  the  [irophets,  which,  with  some  predictions  in 
the  writings  of  Moses,  comprise  the  prophetic  branch 
of  the  evidence  of  the  Divine  authority  of  the  revelations 
they  contain,  it  can  be  proved,  both  from  Jewish  tradi- 
tion ;  the  list  of  .losephus  ;  the  Greek  translation  ;  and 
from  their  being  quoted  by  ancient  writers,  that  they 
existed  many  ages  before  several  of  those  events  occur- 
red, to  which  we  shall  refer  in  the  proper  place  as  emi- 
nent and  unequivocal  instances  of  prophetic  accom- 
plishment. This  part  of  the  argument  will  therefore 
be  also  sufficiently  establisiied  : -the  pro|)hecy  will  be 
Shown  to  have  been  delivered  long  before  the  event,  and 
the  event  will  be  proved  to  be  a  fulfilment  of  the  pro- 
phecy. A  more  minute  examination  of  the  date  of  the 
prophetic  books  rather  belongs  to  tliose  who  write  ex- 
pressly on  the  canon  of  Scrijiture. 

The  sanie  author  from  whom  we  have  alreadylargely 
quoted,(9)  applies  his  celebrated  four  rules  for  deter- 
mining the  truth  of  matic^rs  of  fact  in  general,  with 
equal  force  to  the  facts  of  tlie  (;ospel  History  as  to  those 
contained  in  the  Mosaic  writings.  The  rules  are,  "  1. 
That  the  matter  of  fact  be  suchi  as  that  men's  outward 
senses,  their  eyes  and  ears,  may  be  judges  of  it— 2. 
'I'hat  it  be  done  publicly  in  the  face  of  the  world.— 3. 
That  not  only  public  monuments  be  kept  up  in  memory 

(8)  The  reasoning  of  Leslie,  so  incontrovertible  as  to 
the  last  four  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  does  not  so  fully 
api)ly  to  the  Hook  of  Genesis.  Few,  however,  will  dis- 
pute the  genuineness  of  this,  if  that  of  the  other  books 
of  Moses  be  conceded.  That  the  Hook  of  Genesis  must 
have  been  written  ])rior  to  the  other  books  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch is,  however,  certain,  for  E.xodus  constantly  re- 
fers to  events  nowhere  recorded  but  in  the  Book  of 
Genesis;  and  without  the  Book  of  (ienesis  the  abrupt 
commencement  of  E.xodus  would  have  been  as  unin- 
telligible to  the  .lews  as  it  would  he  to  us.  The  Penta- 
teuch must  therefore  be  considered  as  one  book,  under 
five  divLsions,  having  a  mutual  coherence  and  depend- 
ence. 

(9)  Leslic. 


of  it,  but  some  outward  actions  be  performed. — 1.  That 
sucli  monuments  and  such  actions  and  observances  be 
instituted,  and  do  commence  from  the  time  that  the  mat- 
ter of  fact  was  done." 

We  have  seen  the  manner  in  which  these  rules  are 
applied  to  the  books  of  Moses.  The  author  thus  applies 
them  to  the  (Jospel : 

"  I  come  now  to  show,  that  as  in  the  matters  of  fact 
of  Moses,  .so  likewise  all  these  four  marks  do  meet  in 
the  matters  of  fact  which  are  recorded  in  the  (iospel  of 
our  blessed  Saviour.  And  my  work  herein  will  be  the 
shorter,  because  all  that  is  said  before  of  Moses  and  his 
books  is  every  way  as  applicable  to  Christ  and  his 
(Jospel.  His  works  and  his  miracles  are  there  said  to 
be  done  publicly  in  the  face  of  the  world,  as  he  argued 
to  his  accusers,  '  I  spake  openly  to  the  world,  and  in 
secret  have  I  said  nothing.'— John  xviu.  20.  It  is  told, 
Acts,  ii.  41,  that  three  thousand  at  one  time,  and  Acts, 
iv.  4,  that  above  live  thousand  at  another  time,  were 
converted,  upon  conviction  of  what  themselves  had 
seen,  what  had  been  done  publicly  beliire  their  eyes, 
wherein  it  was  impossible  to  have  imposed  upon  them. 
Therefore  here  were  the  first  two  rules  before  men- 
tioned. 

"  Then  for  the  two  second :  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Su])i)er  were  instituted  as  perpetual  memorials  of  these 
things;  and  they  were  not  instituted  in  after-ages,  but 
at  the  very  time  when  these  things  were  said  to  be 
done;  and  have  been  observed  without  interruption,  in 
all  ages  through  the  whole  Christian  world,  down  all 
the  way  from  that  time  to  this.  And  Christ  himself 
did  ordain  Apostles  and  other  ministers  of  his  Gospel, 
to  preach  and  admiiuster  the  sacraments;  and  to  govern 
his  church:  and  that  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world. (1)  Accordingly,  they  have  continued  by  regu- 
lar succession,  to  this  day;  and  no  doubt,  ever  shall, 
while  the  earth  shall  last,  i^o  that  the  Christian  clergy- 
are  as  notorious  a  matter  of  fact,  as  the  tribe  of  Levi 
among  the  Jews.  And  the  (iospel  is  as  much  a  law  to 
the  (Christians,  as  the  Book  of  Moses  to  the  Jews  :  and 
it  being  part  of  the  matters  of  fact  related  in  the  Gos- 
pel, that  such  an  order  of  men  were  appointed  by 
Christ,  and  to  continue  to  the  end  of  the  world  ;  conse- 
quently, if  the  Gospel  was  a  fiction,  and  invented  (as  it 
must  be)  in  some  ages  after  (Jhrist;  then,  at  that  time 
W'henit  was  first  invented,  there  could  be  no  such  order 
of  clergy,  as  derived  themselves  from  the  institution  of 
Christ;  which  must  give  the  lie  to  the  (iospel,  and  de- 
monstrate the  wholly  to  be  false.  And  the  matters  of 
fact  of  (Jhrist  biding  pressed  to  be  true,  no  otherwise 
than  as  there  was  at  that  time  (whenever  the  Deists 
will  suppose  the  Gospel  to  be  forged),  not  only  public 
sacraments  of  Christ's  institution,  but  an  order  of  clergy, 
likewise  of  his  appointment  to  administer  them ;  and 
it  being  impossible  there  could  be  any  such  things  be- 
fore they  were  invented,  it  is  as  impossible  that  they 
should  be  received  when  invented.  And  therefore,  by 
what  was  said  above,  it  was  as  impossible  to  have  irn- 
])0.sed  upon  mankind  in  this  matter,  by  inventing  of  it 
in  afli!r-ages,  as  at  the  time  when  those  tilings  were 
said  to  be  done. 

"The  matters  of  fact  of  Mahomet,  or  what  is  fabled 
of  the  hcallien  deilies,  do  all  want  some  of  the  afore- 
s.-iid  four  rules,  wlierih)  llie  certainty  of  matters  of  fact 
is  diMiionsiralcMl.  First,  for  Mahomet,  he  pretended  to 
no  minuies,  as  he  tells  us  inhis  Alcoran,  c.(»,  &c.;  and 
those  whuh  are  commonly  told  of  him  pass  among  the 
Mahometans  themselves  but  as  legendary  fables ;  and, 
as  such,  are  re|.ci<il  by  the  wise  and  learned  among 
tlieni ;  as  the  legenils  of  their  saints  are  in  the  Church 
of  Rome.— See  Dr.  Prideaux's  Life  of  Mahomet,  pagt^  34. 

"  But,  in  the  ne.xt  place,  those  which  are  told  of  him, 
do  all  want  the  first  two  rules  before  meiitionecL  For 
his  pretended  converse  with  the  moon  ;  his  Mersa,  or 
night  journey  from  Mecca  to  Jerusalem,  and  thence  to 
heaven,  &.C.,  were  not  performed  before  any  body. 
We  have  only  his  own  word  lor  ihcm.  And  they  arc 
asgroundli'ss  as  the  delusions  of  the  Fox  or  Muui-'leion 
among  ourselves.  The  same  is  to  be  said  (in  the, 
second  pla.e)  of  the  fables  of  the  heathen  gods,  of  Mer- 
cury's  siriillng  slieep,  .lupiler's  turning  himself  into  a 
bull,  and  the  like;  besides  the  lolly  and  un  worthiness  of 
sinh  senseless  pretended  miracles. 

"  It  is  true,  the  heathen  deities  had  ItieiT  priests :  they 
had  likewise  feasts,  games,  and  other  public  institutions 


'!)  Matt.  xvhi.  20. 


Chap.  XII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


49 


in  memory  of  them.  But  all  these  want  the  Courth 
mark,  vii.  that  such  priesthood  and  institutions  sliould 
commence  from  the  time  that  such  things  as  they  com- 
memorate were  said  to  be  done ;  otherwise  tliey  cannot 
secure  arter-ages  from  tlie  imposture,  by  detecting  it,  at 
the  time  whun^  lirst  invented,  as  hath  been  argued  be- 
fore. But  tlie  Bacchanalia,  and  other  heatlien  feasts, 
were  nisiituted  many  ages  after  what  was  reported  of 
these  gods  was  said  to  be  done,  and  therefore  can  be  no 
proof.  And  tlie  priests  of  Bacchus,  Apollo,  ikc.  were 
not  ordained  by  these  supposed  gods;  but  were  ap- 
pointed by  others,  in  after-ages,  only  in  honour  to 
them.  And  therefore  these  orders  of  priests  are  no 
evidence  to  the  matters  of  fact  which  are  rejiorted  of 
their  gods. 

'•  Now  to  apply  what  has  been  said.  You  inay  chal- 
lenge all  the  IJeists  in  the  world  to  show  any  action  that 
is  fabvdous,  which  has  all  the  lour  rules  or  marks  be- 
fore mentioned.  No,  it  is  impossible.  And  (to  resume 
a  little  what  is  spoken  to  belbre)  the  histories  of  Exodus 
and  the  Gospel  never  could  have  been  received,  if  they 
had  not  been  true  ;  because  the  institution  of  the  priest- 
hood of  Levi  and  of  Christ,  of  the  Sabbath,  the  I'ass- 
over,  of  Circumcision,  of  Baptism,  and  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, &c.,  are  there  related,  as  descending  all  the  way 
down  from  those  times,  without  interruption.  And  it 
is  full  as  impossible  to  persuade  men  that  they  had  been 
circumcised  or  baptized,  had  circumcised  or  baptized 
their  cliildren,  celebrated  passovers,  sabbaths,  sacra- 
ments, <kc.,  under  the  government  and  administration 
of  a  certain  order  of  priests,  if  they  had  done  none  of 
these  things,  as  to  make  them  believe  that  they  had 
gone  through  seas  upon  dry  land,  seen  the  dead  raised, 
&c.  And  wilhout  believing  these,  it  was  impossible 
that  either  the  Law  or  the  Gospel  could  have  been  re- 
ceived. 

''  And  the  truth  of  the  matters  of  fact  of  Exodus  and 
the  Gospel  being  no  otherwise  pressed  upon  men  than 
as  they  have  practised  such  public  institutions,  it  is 
appealing  to  the  senses  of  mankind  lor  the  truth  of 
them,  and  makes  it  impossible  tor  any  to  have  invented 
such  stories  in  after-ages,  without  a  palpable  detection 
of  the  cheat  when  first  invented ;  as  impossible  as  to 
have  imposed  upon  the  senses  of  mankind  at  the  time 
when  such  public  matters  of  fact  were  said  to  be 
done."(2) 

But  other  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  liistory, 
besides  that  which  arises  from  tliis  convincing  reason- 
ing, may  be  adduced. 

In  the  first  place,  the  narrative  of  the  Evangelists, 
as  to  the  actionn,  &c.  of  Clirist,  cannot  be  rejected 
without  renouncing  all  faith  in  liistory,  any  more  than 
to  deny  that  he  really  existed. 

"  We  have  the  same  reason  to  believe  that  the  Evan- 
gelists have  given  us  a  true  history  of  the  life  and 
transactions  of  Jusig,  as  we  have  that  Xenophon  and 
Plato  have  given  us  a  faithful  and  just  narrative  of  the 
character  and  doctrines  of  the  excellent  Socratks. 
The  sacred  writers  were,  in  every  respect,  qualilied 
for  giving  a  real  circumstantial  detail  of  the  lile  and 
religion  of  the  person  whose  memoirs  they  have  trans- 
mitted down  to  us.  They  were  the  select  companions 
and  familiar  friends  of  the  hero  of  their  story.  They 
had  free  and  liberal  access  to  him  at  all  times.  They 
attended  his  public  discourses,  and  in  his  ninnients  of 
retirement  he  unbosomed  his  whole  soul  to  them  with- 
out disguise.  They  were  daily  witnesses  of  his  since- 
rity and  goodness  of  heart.  They  were  spectators  of 
the  amazing  operations  he  perfonnedj  and  of  the  silent, 
unostentatious  manner  in  which  he  perlbrmed  them. 
In  private  he  explained  to  them  the  doctrines  of  his  re- 
ligion in  the  most  familiar,  endearing  converse,  and 
gradually  initiated  them  into  the  principles  of  his  Gos- 
pel, as  their  Jewish  prejudices  admitted.  Some  of  these 
writers  were  his  inseparable  attendants,  from  the  com- 
mencement of  his  pubhc  ministry  to  his  death,  and 
could  give  the  world  as  true  and  failliful  a  narrative  of 
his  character  and  instructions,  as  Xenophon  was  ena- 
bled to  publish  of  the  life  and  philosojihy  of  Socrates. 
If  Plato  hath  been  in  every  respect  (jualified  to  com- 
pose an  historical  account  of  the  behaviour  of  his 
meister  in  his  imprisonment,  of  the  philosophic  dis- 
courses he  addressed  to  his  friends  before  he  drank  the 

(2)  See  note  B,  at  the  end  of  this  chapter,  in  which 
the  same  kind  of  argument  is  illustrated  by  the  miracu- 
lous gift  of  tongues. 
D 


poisonous  howl,  as  he  constantly  attended  him  in  those 
unhappy  scenes,  was  present  at  those  mournful  inter- 
views ;(3) — in  like  manner  was  the  Ajiostle  John  fitted 
for  compiling  a  just  and  genuine  narration  of  the  last 
consolatory  discourses  our  Lord  delivered  to  his  de- 
jected followers  a  little  before  his  last  suflTerings,  and 
of  the  unhappy  exit  he  made,  with  its  attendant  cir- 
cumstances, of  which  he  was  a  personal  spectator.  The 
foundation  of  these  things  cannot  be  invalidated,  with- 
out invalidating  the  faith  of  history.  No  writers  have 
enjoyed  more  pro])itious, /tw  have  ever  enjoyed  such. 
favourable  opportunities  for  publisliing  just  accounts 
of  persons  and  tlling;s  as  the  Evangelists.  Most  of  the 
Greek  and  Roman  historians  lived  lung  after  the  per- 
sons they  immortalize  and  the  events  they  record.  The 
sacred  writers  commemorate  actions  they  saw,  dis- 
courses they  heard,  persecutions  they  supported, 
describe  characters  with  which  they  were  familiarly 
conversant,  and  transactions  and  scenes  m  which  they 
themselves  were  intimately  interested.  The  pages  of 
their  history  are  impressed  with  every  feature  of  cre- 
dibility ;  an  artless  simplicity  characterizes  all  their 
writings.  Nothing  can  be  farther  from  vain  ostenta- 
tion and  popular  applause.  No  studied  arts  to  dress 
up  a  cunningly  devised  fable.  No  vain  declamation 
after  any  miracle  of  our  Saviouh  they  relate.  They 
record  these  astonisliing  operations  with  the  same  dis- 
passionate coolness,  as  if  they  had  been  common  trans- 
actions, without  that  ostentatious  rhodomontade  which 
enthusiasts  and  impostors  universally  employ.  They 
give  us  a  plain,  unadorned  narration  of  these  amazing 
feats  of  supernatural  power,  saying  nothing  previously 
to  raise  our  expectation,  or  after  their  performance 
breaking  forth  into  any  exclamation,  but  leaving  the 
reader  to  draw  the  conclusion.  The  writers  of  these 
books  are  distinguished  above  all  the  authors  who  ever 
wrote  accounts  of  persons  and  things  for  their  since- 
rity and  integrity.  Enthiisiasts  and  impostors  never 
proclaim  to  the  world  the  weakness  of  their  under- 
standing and  the  defects  of  their  character.  The  Evan- 
gelists honestly  aciiuaint  the  reader  with  the  lowness 
of  their  station,  the  indigence  of  their  circumstances, 
the  inveteracy  odheit  national  prejudices,  their  dulness 
of  apprehension,  their  weakiiess  of  failh,  their  ambi- 
tious views,  and  the  warm  contentions  they  agitated 
among  themselves.  They  even  tell  us  how  they 
basely  deserted  their  master  by  a  sliuineful,  precipitate 
flight,  wlien  he  was  seized  by  his  enemies  ;  and  that 
after  his  crucifixion,  they  had  all  again  returned  to  their 
former  Mtcular  employments,  for  ever  resigning  all  the 
hopes  (hey  had  once  fondly  cherished,  and  abandoning 
the  cause  in  which  they  had  so  long  been  engaged,  not- 
withstanding all  the  proofs  which  had  been  exhibited, 
and  the  conviction  they  had  before  entertained,  that 
.Jksus  was  the  Messiah,  and  that  his  religion  was  from 
God.  A  faithful  picture  this,  held  up  to  the  reader  for 
him  to  contemplate  the  true  features  of  the  writer's 
iniiid.  Such  men  as  these  were  a.s  far  from  being  de- 
ceived theiMselves,  as  they  were  incapable  of  imposing 
a  falsehood  upon  others.  The  sacred  regard  they  had 
for  trntk  appears  in  every  thing  they  relate.  They 
mention,  with  many  afl'ecting  circumstances,  the  obsti- 
nate, unreasonable  incredulity  of  one  of  their  asso- 
ciates, not  convinced  but  by  ocular  and  sensible  demon- 
stration. They  might  have  conctaled  from  the  world 
their  own  faults  and  tollies ;  or  if  they  had  chosen  to 
mention  them,  might  have  alleged  plausible  reasons  to 
siften  and  ejctenuate  them.  But  they  related,  without 
disguise,  events  and  facts  just  as  they  happened,  and 
left  them  to  speak  their  own  language.  So  that,  to  re- 
ject a  history  thus  circumstanced,  and  impeach  ihe 
veracity  of  writers  furnished  with  these  qualifications 
for  giving  the  justest  accounts  of  personal  characters 
and  transactions,  which  they  enjoyed  the  best  opportu- 
nity for  accurately  observing  and  knowing,  is  an  affront 
ollered  to  the  reason  and  understanding  of  mankind ;  a 
solecism  against  the  laws  of  truth  and  history,  would, 
with  equal  reason,  lead  men  to  disbelieve  everything 
related  in  Herodotus,  Thucvpiuks,  Diodorus  Si- 
ti'i.i  s,  Livv,  and  TAciTits,  to  confound  all  history 
with  fable  and  fiction,  truth  with  liilsehood,  and  vera- 


(3)  Quid  dicam  de  Socrate  (says  Cicero)  cujus  mortt 
illachrymari  soleo,  Platonnn  legens.— i»(?  Natura  De- 
ornm,  p.  329,  edit.  J)avies-.  1723.— See  also  P/.aio's 
P/(a?rfo,  passim,  particularly  pages  311,312,  edit.  For- 
sler,  Uxon.  1741. 


50 


THEOLOGICAL  L\STITUTES. 


[Part  L 


city  with  imposture,  and  not  to  credit  any  thing  how 
well  Monvcr  attested  ;  that  there  were  such  kings  as  ttie 
i>tuart.i,  or  sucli  places  as  Paris  and  lininr,  because  we 
are  not  indulged  with  ocular  conviction  of  them.  The 
truth  of  the  Gospel  Instory  (indeiiendent  of  the  question 
of  the  inspiration  of  the  sacred  writers)  rests  upon  the 
same  basis  with  the  truth  of  olher  ancient  books,  and 
its  pretensions  arc  to  be  impartially  examined  by  the 
same  rules  by  which  we  judge  of  the  credibility  of  all 
other  historical  inonuments.  And  if  we  compare  the 
merit  of  the  sacred  writers,  as  historians,  with  that  of 
other  writers,  we  shall  be  convinced  that  they  are  infe- 
rior to  none  who  ever  wrote,  either  with  regard  to 
knowledge  of  persons,  acquaintance  with/acts,  candour 
of  mind,  and  reverence  for  truth.'\i) 

A  second  source  ol'  evidence  to  the  truth  of  the  his- 
tory of  the  Evangelists  may  be  brought  from  the  testi- 
monies of  adversaries  and  heathens  to  the  leading  (acts 
which  they  record. 

No  public  contradiction  of  this  history  was  ever  put 
forth  by  the  Jewish  rulers  to  stop  the  progress  of  a 
hateful  religion,  though  they  had  every  motive  to  con- 
tradict it,  both  in  justitication  of  themselves,  who  were 
publicly  charged  as  "  murderers"  of  the  "  Just  One," 
and  to  preserve  the  people  from  the  infection  of  the 
spreading  delusion.  i\o  such  contradiction  has  been 
handed  down,  and  none  is  adverted  to  or  (juoted  by  any 
ancient  writer.  This  silence  is  not  unimportant  evi- 
dence ;  but  the  direct  testimonies  to  the  facts  are  nu- 
merous and  important. 

We  have  already  quoted  the  testimonies  of  Tacilus 
and  Suetonius  to  the  existence  of  Jesus  Christ,  the 
founder  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  of  his  crucifixion 
in  the  reign  of  Tiberius,  and  during  the  procuratorship 
of  Pontius  Pilate,  the  time  in  which  the  Evangelists 
place  that  event.  Other  references  to  heathen  authors, 
who  incidentally  allude  to  Christ,  his  religion,  and  fol- 
lowers, might  be  given;  such  as  Martial,  Juvenal, 
Epictetus,  Trajan,  the  younger  lliny,  Adrian,  .\pu- 
leius,  I.ucian  olSamosata,  and  others,  some  of  whom 
also  afford  testimonies  to  the  di^struciioii  of  Jerusalem, 
at  the  time  and  in  the  circumstances  predicted  by  our 
Saviour,  and  to  the  antiqiuty  and  genuineness  of  the 
hooks  of  the  New  Ti-slanirnt.  But,  as  it  is  well  ob- 
served by  the  learned  J.itrdner,  in  his  "  Collection  of 
Jewish  and  Heathen  'I'estiinoiiies.'XS)  "  Among  all  the 
testimonies  to  Christianity  which  we  have  met  with  in 
the  first  ages,  none  an;  more  valuable  and  important 
Itian  the  testimonies  of  those  learned  philosophers  who 
wrote  against  us;  Celsus,  in  the  second  century, 
I'oRi'iivkv  and  IIierocles  in  the  third,  and  Julian  in 
the  fourth."  Referring  to  L\rdnkr  for  full  informa- 
tion on  this  point,  a  brief  exhibition  of  the  admis-sions 
of  these  adversaries  will  be  satisfactory. 

Cklsus  wrote  against  Christianity  not  much  above 
130  years  after  our  Lord's  a.scension,  and  Ids  books 
were  answered  by  the  celebrated  Orkjkn.  The  follow- 
ing is  a  summary  of  the  references  of  this  writer  to  the 
Gospel  History,  by  l,eland.(0)  The  passages  at  large 
may  be  seen  in  J-ardner's  Testimonies. 

"(/'elsus,  a  most  bitter  enemy  of  Christianity,  who 
began  in  the  second  century,  priidiices  many  pa.ssages 
out  of  the  Gospels.  \\r  re|ircserits  .Icsus  to  have  lived 
hut  a  few  years  ago.  He  iikiiihims  his  being  horn  of  a 
virgin,  the  angel's  appearing  to  Joseph  on  occasion  of 
Marj's  being  with  child,  the  star  that  appeared  at  his 
birlh,  the  wise  men  that  came  to  worship  him  when  an 
infant,  and  Heroil's  inassiicniig  the  cliildren,  Jose]>h's 
fleeing  Willi  III'-  cliild  into  I'.gN  pi  by  the  admonition  of 
an  angel,  the  Holy  (ihosl's  descending  on  Jesus  like  a 
dove,  when  he  was  liapir/.i-d  by  John,  and  the  voice 
from  heaven  declmiim  linn  to  be  the  ,Son.  of  God,  his 
going  about  with  bis  disriplcH,  his  healing  the  sick  and 
lame,  and  raising  the  dead,  his  I'oretelliiig  his  own  suf- 
ferings and  resurrect  ion.  Ins  being  betrayed  and  for- 
saken by  his  own  disilples,  Ins  snIVeriiig  both  of  his 
own  accord  and  in  obedience  id  Ins  heavenly  I'ather,  his 
grief  and  trouble,  and  his  jiraying,  Fulliir,  if  it  he  pus- 
sihle,  let  this  cup  pass  from  me  '.  llie  igiiniiiiinoiis  treat- 
ment he  inet  with,  the  robe  that  was  put  upon  him,  the 
crown  of  thorns,  the  reed  put  into  his  hand,  his  drink- 


(4)  Harwood's  Introdui^tion  to  the  New  Testament. 

(5)  Vol.  iv.  ji.  .f3(i. 

(6)  Answer  to  Christianity  as  old  as  the  Creation, 
vol.  ii.  c.  5. 


ing  vinegar  and  gall,  and  his  being  scourged  and  cruci- 
fied ;  his  being  seen  after  his  resurrection  by  a  lanati- 
cal  woman  (as  he  calls  her,  meaning  Mary  Magdalen), 
and  by  his  own  companions  and  disciples,  his  showing 
them  his  hands  that  were  pierced,  the  marks  of  his 
punishment.  He  also  mentions  the  angel's  being  seen 
at  his  sepulchre,  and  that  some  said  it  was  one  angel, 
others  that  it  was  two;  by  which  he  hints  at  the 
seeming  variation  in  the  accounts  given  of  it  by  the 
Evangelists. 

"  It  is  true,  he  mentions  all  these  things  only  with  a 
design  to  ridicule  and  expose  them.  But  they  furnish 
us  with  an  uncontested  proof,  that  the  Gospel  was  then 
extant.  Accordingly,  he  expressly  tells  the  Christians : 
These  things  ive  have  produced  out  of  your  own  writ- 
ings, p.  106.  And  he  all  along  supposeth  them  to  have 
been  written  by  Christ's  own  discijiles,  that  lived  and 
conversed  with  him;  though  he  jiretends  they  feigned 
many  things  for  the  honour  of  their  master,  p.  69,  70. 
And  he  pretends,  that  he  could  tell  many  other  things 
Tflalive  to  Jesus,  besides  those  things  that  were  vritten 
of  him  by  his  ovmi  disciples ;  but  that  he  willingly 
passed  by  them,  p.  67.  We  may  conclude  from  his 
expressions,  both  that  he  was  sensible  that  these  ac- 
counts were  written  by  Christ's  own  disciples  (and  in- 
deed he  never  pretends  to  contest  this),  and  that  he  was 
not  able  to  jiroduce  any  contrary  accounts  to  invalidate 
them,  as  he  certainly  would  have  done,  if  it  had  been 
in  his  power:  since  no  man  ever  wrote  with  greater 
virulence  against  ('hristianity  than  he.  And  indeed, 
how  was  it  [lossible  for  ten  or  ele^'en  publicans  and 
boatmen,  as  he  calls  Christ's  disciples  by  way  of  con- 
tempt (p.  47),  to  have  imposed  such  things  on  the 
world,  if  they  had  not  been  true,  so  as  to  persuade  such 
vast  multitudes  to  embracea  new  and  despised  religion, 
contrary  to  all  their  prejudices  and  interests,  and  to  be- 
lieve in  one  that  had  been  crucified  I 

"There  are  several  other  things,  which  show,  that 
Celsus  was  acquainted  with  the  (;ospel.  He  produces 
several  of  our  Saviour's  sayings,  there  recorded,  as 
that  it  iseasierfora  camel  to  pass  through  the  eye  of  a 
needle,  than  for  a  rich  man  to  e7iter  into  the  kingdom 
of  God;  that  to  him  who  smites  vs  on  one  cheek,  ue 
must  turn  the  other  ;  that  it  is  not  possible  to  serve  two 
masters ;  his  precept  against  though tfulness  for  to- 
morrow, by  a  comparison  drawn  from  crotrs  and  lilies; 
his  foretelling  that  (alse  pro|)hets  should  arise  and  work 
wonders.  He  mentions  also  some  passages  of  the 
apostle  Paul,  such  as  these :  The  world  is  crucified 
unto  me,  and  I  unto  the  world  ; — the  wisdom  of  man 
IS  foolishness  7cith  God; — an  idol  isiiothing. 

"  The  use  1  would  make  of  all  this  is,  that  it  appears 
here  with  an  uncontested  evidence  by  the  testimony  of 
one  of  the  most  malicious  and  virulent  adversaries  the 
Christian  religion  ever  had,  and  who  was  also  a  man 
of  considerable  parts  and  learning,  that  the  writings  of 
the  Evangelists  were  extant  in  his  time,  which  was  the 
ne.xt  century  to  that  in  which  the  Apostles  lived ;  and 
that  those  accounts  were  written  by  Christ's  own  dis- 
ciples, and  consequently  that  they  were  written  in  the 
very  age  in  which  the  facts  related  were  done,  and  when- 
therelbre  it  would  have  been  the  easiest  thing  in  the 
world  to  liave  convicted  them  of  falsehood,  if  they  had 
not  been  true." 

Porphyry  flourished  about  the  year  270,  a  man  of 
great  abilities;  and  tiis  work  against  the  Christians,  in 
15  books,  was  long  esteemed  by  the  (Jentiles,  and 
thought  worthy  of  being  answered  by  Eusebius,  and 
others  in  great  repute  for  learning.  He  was  well  ac- 
(luainted  with  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
miMils  ;  and  in  his  writings  are  plain  relerenccs  to  the 
(Josiiels  of  Matthew,  Mark,  John,  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, and  the  Ejiistle  to  the  Galatiana,  and  probable 
references  to  the  other  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  About  the 
year  303,  IIierocles,  a  man  of  learning  and  a  magis- 
trate, wrote  against  the  Christians  in  two  books.  He 
was  well  acquainted  with  onr  Scriptures,  and  made 
many  objections  to  them,  tbcreby  bearing  testimony  to 
their  antiijuily,  and  to  the  great  respect  whi<h  was 
shown  tbein  by  the  Christians  ;  for  lie  has  referred  both 
ici  tlie  (kispcls  and  to  the  Epistles.  He  mentions  Peter 
and  Paul  b\  name,  and  did  not  deny  the  truth  of  our 
Saviiiiir's  iiiiraclcs;  but  m  order  to  overthrow  the  argu- 
iiHiil  wliiili  the  Christians  built  U|)on  them,  he  set  up 
the  re  imlrd  miracles  of  Apollnnius  Tyain-eus  to  rival 
tUcin.    'I'he  Emperor  Julian,  who  succeeded  Coiisiai> 


Chap.  XII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


51 


tius  in  the  year  361,  wrote  also  against  the  Christians, 
and  in  his  work  hasundcsifrnedly  borne  a  valuable  tes- 
timony to  tiie  lustory  and  books  of  the  New  Testament. 
He  allows  that  Jesus  was  born  in  the  reign  of  Av,i;uj>- 
tKS,  at  the  time  of  a  taxing  made  in  .ludea  by  Cyrauiis. 
That  the  Christian  religion  had  its  rise,  and  began  to 
be  propagated,  in  the  times  of  the  Uoman  emperors 
Tiberius  "and  Clawliiis.  He  bears  witness  to  the  genu- 
ineness and  authenticity  of  tkefour  Gonpelx  of  Mat- 
thew, Mar/,;  Luke,  and  John,  ami  the  Acts  nf  the  Ajws- 
tlex.  And  he  so  quotes  them  as  to  intimate  that  these 
were  the  only  historical  books  received  by  Christians, 
as  of  authority ;  and  the  only  authentic  memoirs  of 
Jesus  Christ,  "and  his  Apostles,  and  the  doctrines 
preactied  by  them.  He  allows  the  early  date  of  the 
Gospels,  and  even  argues  for  them.  He  quotes,  or 
plainly  refers,  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  as  already 
said;  lo  St.  Paul's  Epistles  to  the  Romans,  to  the  Co- 
rinthians, and  to  the  Galatians.  He  does  not  deny  the 
miracles  of  Jesus  Christ,  but  allows  him  to  have  healed 
the  blind,  and  the  lame,  and  demoniacs,  and  to  have 
rebuked  the  winds,  and  to  have  walked  upon  the  waves 
of  the  sea.  He  endeavours,  indeed,  to  diminish  those 
works,  but  in  vain.  He  endeavours  also  to  lessen  the 
number  of  the  early  believers  in  Jesus,  but  acknow- 
ledges that  there  u-ere  multitudes  of  such  m.en  in 
Greece  ovm  Italy  before  St.  John  wrote  his  Gospel.  He 
likewise  affects  to  diminish  the  quality  of  the  early  be- 
lievers ;  and  yet  acknowledges,  that  besides  men-ser- 
vants and  maid-servants,  Cornelius,  a  Roman  centurion 
at  Cesarea,  and  Sergiiis  Paulus,  Proconsul  ^f  Cyprus, 
were  converted  to  the  faith  of  Jesus  belbre  the  end  of 
the  reign  of  Claudius.  And  he  often  speaks  with  great 
indignation  of  Piter  and  Paul,  those  two  great  Apos- 
tles of  Jesus,  and  successful  preachers  of  his  Gospel ; 
so  that,  upon  the  whole,  he  has  undesignedly  borne 
witness  to  the  truth  of  many  things  recorded  m  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament.  He  aimed  to  overthrow 
the  Christian  religion,  but  has  confirmed  it.  His  argu- 
ments against  it  are  perfectly  harndess,  and  insulUcient 
to  unsettle  the  weakest  Christian. 

The  quotations  from  Porphyry,  Hierocles,  and  .lulian 
may  be  consulted  in  Lardner,  who  thus  sums  up  his 
observations  on  their  testimony : — 

"  They  bear  a  fuller  and  more  valuable  testimony  to 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  and  to  the  facts  of 
the  Evangelical  history,  and  to  the  affairs  of  Christians, 
than  all  our  other  witnesses  besides.  They  pro;)osed 
to  overthrow  the  arguments  for  Christianity.  They 
aimed  to  bring  back  to  Geiitilism  those  who  had  for- 
saken it,  and  to  put  a  stop  to  the  progress  of  Christian- 
ity, by  the  farther  addition  of  new  converts.  But  In 
those  designs  they  had  very  little  success  in  their  own 
times  ;  and  their  works,  compcsed  and  published  in  the 
early  days  of  Christianity,  are  now  a  testimony  in  our 
favour,  and  will  be  of  use  in  the  defence  of  Christianity 
to  the  latest  ages. 

"  One  thing  more  which  may  be  taken  notice  of  is 
this  ;  that  the  remains  of  our  ancient  adversaries  con- 
firm the  present  prevailing  sentiments  of  Christians, 
concerning  those  books  of  the  New  Testament  which 
we  call  canonical,  and  are  in  the  greatest  authority  with 
us.  For  their  writings  show,  that  those  very  books, 
and  not  any  others  now  generally  called  Apocryphal, 
are  the  books  which  always  were  in  the  highest  repute 
with  Christians,  and  were  then  the  rule  of  their  faith, 
as  they  are  now  of  ours." 

To  the  same  effect  are  the  observations  of  Paley. 
These  testimonies  "  prove  that  neither  Celsus  in  the 
second.  Porphyry  in  the  third,  nor  Julian  in  the  fourth 
century,  suspected  the  authenticity  of  these  books,  or 
even  insinuated  that  Christians  were  mistaken  in  the 
authors  to  whom  they  ascribed  them.  Not  one  of  them 
expressed  an  opinion  upon  this  subject  different  from 
that  which  is  holden  by  Christians.  And  when  we 
consider  how  much  it  would  have  availed  them  to  cast 
a  doubt  upon  this  point  if  they  could,  and  how  ready 
they  showed  themselves  to  take  every  advantage  in 
their  power,  and  that  they  were  men  of  learning  and 
inquiry,  their  concession,  or  rather  their  suffrage  upon 
the  subject,  is  extremely  valuable." 

That  the  facts  and  statements  recorded  in  the  Evan- 
gelic History  were  not  forgeries  of  a  subsequent  period, 
is  made  also  still  more  indubitable  from  the  fact,  that 
the  four  Gospels  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  are  quoted 
or  alluded  to  by  a  series  of  Christians  beginning  with 
those  who  were  contemporary  with  the  Apostles,  or  who 


immediately  followed,  and  proceeding  in  close'and  re- 
gular succession  from  their  time  to  the  present.  ■'  The 
medium  of  jiroof  stated  in  this  pro|iosiiion,"  observes 
Ur.  Paley,  "  is  of  all  others  the  most  unquestionable,  and 
is  not  diminished  by  the  lapse  of  ages.  Bishop  Bur- 
net, in  the  History  of  his  Own  Times,  inserts  various 
extracts  from  Lord  Clarendon's  History.  One  such 
insertion  is  a  proof  that  Lord  (  lareiulou's  History  was 
extant  when  Bishop  Burnet  wrote,  that  it  had  been 
read  and  received  by  him  as  a  work  of  Lord  Claren- 
don's, and  regarded  by  him  as  an  authentic  account  of 
the  transactions  which  it  relates  ;  and  it  will  be  a  proof 
of  these  points  a  thousand  years  hence.  The  applica- 
cation  of  this  argument  to  the  Gospel  history  is  obvi- 
ous. If  the  different  books  which  are  received  by 
Christians  as  containing  this  history  are  quoted  by  a 
series  of  wTiters,  as  genuine  in  respect  of  their  au- 
thors, and  as  authentic  in  re.spect  of  their  narrative, 
up  to  the  age  in  wliich  the  writers  of  them  lived,  then 
it  is  clear  that  these  books  must  have  had  an  existence 
previous  to  the  earliest  of  those  writings  in  which 
they  are  quoted,  and  that  they  were  then  admitted  as 
authentic. '  "  Their  genuineness  is  made  out,  as  well 
by  the  general  arguments  which  evince  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  most  indisputed  remains  of  antiquity,  as 
also  by  peculiar  and  specific  proofs,  by  citations  from 
them  in  writings  belonging  to  a  period  immediately 
contiguous  to  that  in  which  they  were  published :  by 
the  distinguished  regard  paid  by  early  Christians  to 
the  authority  of  these  books  (which  regard  was  mani- 
fested by  their  collecting  of  them  into  a  volume,  appro- 
priating to  that  volume  titles  of  peculiar  respect, 
translating  thern  into  various  languages,  disposing 
them  into  harmonies,  writing  commentaries  upon  them, 
and  still  more  conspicuously  by  the  reading  of  them 
in  their  public  assemblies  in  all  parts  of  the  world) ; 
by  a  universal  agreement  with  respect  to  these  hooks, 
while  doubts  were  entertained  concerning  some  others ; 
by  contending  sects  appealing  to  iMeni ;  by  many  for- 
mal catalogues  of  these,  as  of  certain  and  authorita- 
tive writings  published  in  different  and  distant  ])arts 
of  the  world  ;  lastly,  by  the  absence  or  defect  of  the 
above-cited  topics  of  evidence,  when  applied  to  any 
other  histories  of  the  same  subject."(7) 

All  the  i)arts  of  this  argument  may  be  seen  clearly 
made  out  by  passages  quoted  from  the  writers  of  the 
primitive  ages  of  the  Christian  Church  in  Ur.  Lard- 
ner's  "  Credibility,"  Dr.  Paley's  "  Evidences,"  and  many 
other  writers  in  defence  of  Christianity.  It  is  exhi- 
bited in  great  force  also  in  the  first  volume  of  Home's 
"  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Scriptures." 


(7)  Paley's  Evidences,  cap.  10. 

Note  A.— Page  46. 

"  The  documents  which  claim  to  have  been  thus 
handed  down  to  posterity  are  the  five  books  attributed 
to  Moses  himself,  and  usually  denominated  the  Pen- 
tateuch. Now,  the  question  before  us  is,  whether  they 
were,  indeed,  written  synchronically  with  the  exodus, 
or  whether  they  were  comiiosed  in  the  name  of  Moses 
at  a  much  later  period. 

"  Tliat  the  Jews  have  acknowledged  the  authenticity 
of  the  Pentateuch,  from  the  present  day  to  the  era  of 
our  Lord's  nativity,  a  period  of  more  than  eighteen 
centuries,  admits  not  of  a  possibility  of  a  doubt.  But 
this  era  is  long  posterior  to  that  of  Moses  him-'^elf :  it 
will  be  necessary,  therefore,  in  order  to  establish  the 
point  under  discussion,  to  travel  backwards,  step  by 
step,  so  far  as  we  can  safely  penetrate,  according  to 
the  established  rules  of  moral  evidence. 

"  About  277  years  before  the  Christian  era,  in  the 
reign  of  Ptolemy  Phjladelplius,  King  of  Egypt,  the  Pen- 
tateuch, w^th  the  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
was  translated  into  Greek  for  the  use  of  the  Alexan- 
drian Jews;  and  from  the  almost  universal  prevalence 
of  that  language,  it  henceforth  became  very  widely 
disseminated,  and  was  thus  rendered  accessible  to  the 
learned  and  inquisitive  of  every  country. 

"  Now,  that  Greek  translation,  which  is  still  extant^ 
and  which  is  in  the  hands  of  almost  every  person,  de- 
monstrates, that  the  Hebrew  Pentateuch  must  have 
existed  277  years  before  Christ ;  because  there  is  that 
correspondence  between  the  two,  which  amply  proves 
that  the  fonner  must  have  been  a  vprsioii  of  the  latter. 
But,  if  it  certainly  existed  277  years  before  Clirist,  it 


52 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


must  have  existed  in  the  days  of  E/.ra,  at  the  time  of 
iho  return  from  Babylon,  in  the  year  before  Christ  536 ; 
because  there  is  no  ponit  between  those  two  epochs  to 
which,  with  a  shadow  of  probability,  we  can  ascribe 
its  composition.  It  existed,  therefore,  in  Uie  year  51)6 
before  llie  Christian  era. 

"  Thus  we  have  gained  one  retrogressive  step :  let  us 
next  see  whether,  with  equal  certainty,  we  can  gain 
another. 

"  As  it  cannot  be  rationally  denied,  that  the  Penta- 
teuch has  been  in  existence  ever  since  the  return  of 
the  Jews  from  Babylon,  in  the  year  563  before  the 
Christian  era,  some  have  thence  been  pleased  to  con- 
tend, that  it  was  the  work  of  Ezra;  being  a  digested 
compilation  of  the  indistinct  and  fabulous  traditions  of 
that  people,  which,  like  most  nations  of  antiquity,  they 
possessed  in  great  abundance. 

"To  such  an  opinion,  when  thoroughly  sifted,  there 
are  insuperable  objections,  however  specious  it  rnay 
appear  to  a  hasty  observer. 

"  In  the  book  of  i;/,rn,  the  law  of  Moses,  the  man  of 
God,  is  specilically  referred  to,  as  a  well-known  wnitm 
document  tbeii  aclually  existing ;  and,  in  the  succeed- 
ing book  of  Neheiniah,  we  have  an  ample  account  of 
the  mode  in  which  that  identical  imZ^e/i  document  was 
openly  read  to  the  people,  under  the  precise  name  of 
the  Book  of  the  Law  of  Moses,  which  the  Lord  had  com- 
manded to  Israel.  Nor  is  this  all :  it  was  not  that 
Ezra  produced  a  new  volume,  and  called  upon  the 
Jews  to  receive  it  as  the  authentic  Law  of  Moses  ;  but 
the  peniiti' thi  i/iselves  c-dWftl  ui>on  E/.ra  to  l]niig  turib 
and  reaii  tliat  book,  as  a  work  with  whirli  tliis  liad  liPiig 
been  familiarly  acquainted.  Thelawot Moses,  theivloie, 
must  have  been  well  known  to  exist  in  writing  jire- 
vious  to  the  return  from  Babylon  ;  and,  as  Ezra  could 
not  have  produced  under  that  name  a  mere  compila- 
tion of  oral  traditions,  so  neither  could  he  have  sup- 
pressed the  ancient  volume  of  the  Law,  nor  have  set 
forth,  instead  of  it,  that  volume  wliich  the  Jews  have 
ever  since  received  as  the  authentic  Pentateuch.  His 
own  book  affords  proof  positive,  that  some  written  law 
of  Moses  was  known  previously  to  have  existed  :  and 
the  call  of  the  people  that  it  should  be  read  to  them, 
demonstrates  that  it  could  not  long  have  perished  ;  for 
if  the  work  had  been  confessedly  iost  for  many  years, 
the  people  could  not  have  called  for  that  which  neither 
they  nor  their  falliers  had  ever  beheld.  If,  then,  it 
were  suppressed  by  Ezra,  in  favour  of  his  own  spuri- 
ous composition,  he  must  both  have  contrived  to  make 
himself  master  of  eiier;/ extant  copy  of  the  gcMiuine  work, 
and  he  must  have  persuaded  a  whole  jieople  to  receive 
as  genuine  what  almost  every  man  among  them  must 
immediately  have  perceived  to  be  spurious.  For  if  the 
genuine  work  were  in  exi.stence  down  to  the  very  time 
of  Ezra,  a  point  clearly  involved  in  the  demand  of  the 
people  to  have  it  read  to  them  ;  and  if  the  pt^ople  had 
long  been  accustomed  to  hear  it  read  to  them,  a  point 
equally  implied  in  their  recorded  demand  upon  Ezra, 
they  must  all  liave  been  ade(iuately  acciuaiiiled  with  its 
contents  ;  and  the  hi!fhiT  ranks  among  them  must 
have  rejieatedly  perused,  and  must  tlienfbre  have 
known  the  whole  of  it,  just  as  intimately  as  Ezra  could 
do  himself.  But  what  was  thus  universally  familiar 
could  be  no  more  set  aside  by  the  fiat  of  an  individual 
in  favour  of  his  own  sptiridiis  comiiosiiion,  tlian  the 
Pentateuch  could  now  be  set  iisi(lftlir(iii;:li(iut  Clinsten- 
dom,  in  favour  of  some  newly  pnnliiccd  volume,  winch 
claimed  to  be  the  genuine  Law  of  Moses.  Add  to  this, 
that  when  the  foundittions  of  tlie  sei-ond  temple  were 
laid,  many  persons  were  alive  who  well  remembered 
the  first.  These  conseciuently  must  have  known  whe- 
ther there  was  or  was  not  a  written  Law  of  Moses  an- 
terior to  the  captivity  ;  nor  could  they  be  deceived  by 
the  production  of  any  nov(d  comjiosition  by  Ezra. 

"  Such  is  the  evidence  alTorded  by  the  very  books  of 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  to  the  existence  of  a  urittpn  Law 
of  Moses  prior  to  the  return  from  Babylon,  of  a  Law 
familiarly  known  to  the  whole  body  of  tlie  jieople. 
But  there  is  yet  another  evidence  to  ilie  same  purpose, 
analogous  to  that  furnished  by  the  Greek  translation  of 
the  Seventy 

"  We  have  now  extant  two  Hebrew  copies  of  the 
l,aw  of  Moses ;  the  one  received  by  the  Jews,  the 
other  acknowledged  by  tlie  Samaritans ;  each  main- 
taining that  tbeir  own  is  the  gc^riuine  record.  Now,  if 
we  examine  these  two  copies,  we  shall  (iiid  their  coin- 
cidence throughout  to  be  such,  that  we  cannot  doubt 


[Part  L 

a  moment  as  to  their  original  identity  in  every  word, 
and  in  every  sentence. 

"  We  read,  that  aller  the  King  of  Assyria  had  de- 
ported the  ten  tribes,  and  had  colonized  their  territories 
with  a  mixed  multitude  from  various  jiarts  of  his  da- 
minions,  the  new  settlers  were  infested  by  the  incur- 
sions of  wild  beasts.  This  calamity,  agreeably  to  the 
prevalent  notion  of  local  tutelary  gods,  they  attributed 
to  their  not  worshipping  the  god  of  the  land  aAer  his 
own  prescribed  manner.  To  remedy  the  defect,  there- 
fore, one  of  the  deported  Levilical  priests  was  sent  to 
them,  that  he  miglit  liarh  thrm,  as  the  Assyrian  mo- 
narch expressed  Imiisclf,  Ihi  manner  of  the  god  of  the 
land.  The  jiriest  acronliiigly  came  among  them,  and 
dwelt  in  Bethel,  and  taught  them  how  they  should  fear 
Jehovah;  but  W'hile  they  duly  received  his  instruc- 
tions, they  mixed  the  service  of  the  true  God  with  tlie 
service  of  their  native  idols.  Hence,  so  far  as  that  par- 
ticular was  cDiiccriKil.  we  are  informed  that  they  nei- 
ther dill  afti  r  till  ir  statutes,  nor  ajlir  their  ordinances, 
7i<ir  iijlir  till  lull-  mill  commandment  which  Jehovah 
coriiiiiiitiihil  ihi'  children  of  Jacob. 

'■  \n\\.  u  IS  iiljvious,  that  the  whole  of  this  account 
su;  iiiiscsiliiin  toliavea  copy  of  the  Pentateuch  ;  for,  if 
the  priest  were  to  instruct  them  in  the  Law  of  the  Lord, 
he  would,  of  course,  communicate  to  them  a  copy  of  that 
Law  ;  and  though  their  ancient  superstitions  led  them 
to  disregard  its  prohibitions,  still  it  could  not  have  been 
projierly  be  said  of  them,  that  theij  neithi-r  did  after 
tlieir  statutes,  nor  after  their  ordinnii'-es,  nor  after  tlie 
lair  and  ciniiniandiiiint  which  Jehm-ak  commanded 
till-  chitilren  if  .A(cf)/Mf  all  the  while  they  were  wholly 
uiiaicinaiiileil  Willi  those  statutes  and  those  ordinances, 
and  \\  nil  ilKit  Law,  and  with  that  commandment.  It  is 
niaiHlcsi,  ihireliire,  that  they  must  at  that  time  have 
reccivcil  ihe  r(i|iy  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  they  al- 
ways afterward  religiously  preserved.  But  this  copy 
is  Ihe  very  same  as  that  which  the  Jews  and  ourselves 
still  receive.  Consequently,  as  the  Samaritans  received 
it  some  years  prior  even  to  the  Babylonic  captivity  of 
Judah,  and  as  it  is  the  very  same  code  as  that  which 
some  would  fain  attribute  to  Ezra,  we  may  be  sure,  that 
that  learned  scribe  could  not  possibly  have  been  its 
author,  but  that  he  has  handed  down  to  us  the  genuine 
Law  of  Moses,  with  the  utmost  good  faith  and  in- 
tegrity. 

"  Here  we  cannot  but  observe  the  providence  of  God 
in  raising  up  so  unobjectionable  a  testimony  as  that  of 
the  Sainarilans.  They  and  the  Jews  cordially  hated 
each  other,  and  they  both  possessed  a  copy  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch Hence,  had  there  been  any  disposition  to 
tainjier  with  the  text,  they  acted  as  a  mutual  check; 
and  the  result  has  been,  that  perhaps  not  a  wilful  alter- 
ation can  be  shown,  except  the  text  relative  to  Cerizim 
and  Ebal. 

"The  universal  admission  of  the  Pentalcnch,  as  the 
inspired  Law  of  Moses,  throughout  the  whole  com- 
monwealth of  Israel,  prior  to  its  disruption  into  two 
hostile  kingdoms,  the  magnificent  tem()le  of  Solomon, 
and  the  whole  ritual  attached  to  it,  plainly  depends 
altoirether  upon  the  previonshj  e.ri-.-ting  I'entateuch; 
and  thai  code  so  strictly  prohibits  more  than  one  prac- 
tice of  Solomon,  that  even  to  say  nothing  of  the  gene- 
ral objeclion  from  novelty,  it  is  incredible  either  that 
he  should  have  been  its  author,  or  that  it  sliould  have 
been  written  under  his  sanction  .and  authority. 

"  As  little  can  we,  with  any  degree  ol'  [irobability 
ascribe  it  to  David.  His  life  was  occupied  with  almost 
incessant  troubles  and  warfare :  and  it  is  difficult  to 
conceive,  how  a  hook  written  by  that  prince  could,  in 
the  space  of  a  very  few  years,  he  niiiversiiliy  received 
as  the  inspired  composilion  of  Moses,  \\  Inn  no  person 
had  ever  previously  heard  that  Moses  leA  any  legisla- 
tive code  behind  him. 

"  The  Pentateuch  might  be  more  plausibly  given  to 
Samuel  than  to  either  of  tho.se  two  princes ;  but  this 
supiiosition  w  ill  not  stand  for  a  moment  the  lest  of 
rational  iiiipiiry.  We  shall  slill  have  the  same  difll- 
cully  to  contend  with  as  before  :  we  shall  still  have  to 
point  out  how  it  was  possible  that  Samuel  should 
persuade  all  Israel  to  adopt,  as  the  inspired  and  author- 
itative Law  of  Moses,  a  mere  modern  comiiosition  of 
his  owni,  which  no  person  had  ever  previously  heard  of. 

"  We  have  now  ascended  to  within  le.ss  than  four 
centuries  afler  the  exodus  from  Egypt,  and  the  alleged 
promulgation  of  the  law  from  Mount  Sinai :  and,  from 
Ezra  to  Samuel,  we  have  found  no  jiersoii  to  wlion» 


Chap,  XII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


53 


the  composition  of  the  Pontateucli  can,  with  any  show 
<)('  reason  or  probability,  be  assigned.  Tlie  only  re- 
nrialnin^  qne.stion  is,  wliilher  it  can  be  thouf^ht  to  have 
been  written  during  llie  three  hundred  and  lii'ty-sl.'L 
years  which  elapsed  between  the  entrance  of  the  Ls- 
raelites  into  Palestine,  an<l  he  appointment  of  Saul  to 
be  king  of  Israel. 

"  Now,  the  whole  history  which  we  have  of  that  pe- 
riod utterly  forbids  such  a  supposition.  The  Israelites, 
though  perpetually  lapsing  into  idolatry,  are  uniformly 
described  as  acknowledging  the  authority  of  a  written 
Law  of  Moses  ;  and  this  Law,  from  generation  to  ge- 
neration, is  .stated  to  be  the  directory,  by  which  the 
Judges  governed  the  people.  Thus,  Samuel  e.xpressly 
refers  to  a  well-known  commandment  of  .h^hovah,  and 
to  the  divine  legation  of  Moses  and  Aaron,  in  a  speech 
which  he  inade  to  the  as.sembled  Israelites.  Thus,  the 
man  of  God,  in  his  prophetic  threat  to  Eli,  similarly 
refers  to  the  familiar  circumstance  recorded  in  the 
Pentateuch,  that  the  house  of  his  ancestor  had  been 
chosen  to  the  Pontificate  out  of  all  the  tribes  of  Israel. 
Thus,  when  the  nations  are  enumerated  which  were 
letl  to  prove  the  people,  it  is  said  that  they  were  left  for 
this  purpose,  that  it  might  be  known  whether  the  Israel- 
ites would  hearken  unto  the  commandments  of  Jeho- 
vah, which  he  commanded  their  fathers  by  the  hand  of 
Moses.  Thus,  Joshua  is  declared  to  have  written  the 
book  which  bears  his  name,  as  a  supplement  to  a  prior 
book  which  is  denominated  the  book  (ifthc  Law  of  God. 
Thus,  likewise,  he  especially  asserts," that  thisfioo/c  of 
the  Lnir  of  God  is  the  book  of  the  Law  ifMoxes ;  speak- 
ing familiarly  of  precepts  which  are  written  in  that 
book;  re|)resents  himself  as  reading  its  contents  to  all 
the  assembled  people,  .so  that  none  of  them  could  be 
ignorant  of  its  purport;  and  mentions  his  writing  a 
copy  of  it  in  the  presence  of  the  children  of  Israel.  And 
thus,  linally,  we  hear  of  the  original,  whence  that  copy 
is  professed  to  have  been  taken,  in  the  volume  of  the 
Pentateuch  itself;  for  we  are  there  told,  that  Moses 
v/ith  his  own  hand  wri'te  the  words  of  iiiis  Law  in  a 
BOOK  ;  and  that  he  then  commanded  the  J.evites  to  lake 
THIS  BOOK  of  the  Law,  and  put  it  in  the  side  of  the 
ark  of  the  covenant,  that  it  might  be  there  for  a  witness 
in  all  succeeding  ages  against  the  Israelites,  in  case  they 
should  violate  its  precepts.'' — Abridged  from  Fabek's 
Horae  Mosaiccs. 

Note  B.—Page  49. 

"In  events  so  public  and  so  signal,  there  was  no 
room  for  mistake  or  deception.  Of  all  the  miracles  re- 
corded in  the  Scriptures  ofthe  Old  and  New  Testaments 
there  is  not  one  of  which  the  evidence  is  so  multiplied 
as  that  of  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost;  for  it  rests  not  on  the  testimony  of  those, 
whether  many  or  few,  who  were  all  with  one  accord 
in  one  place.  It  Is  testified  by  all  Jerusalem,  and  by  the 
natives  of  regions  far  distant  from  Jerusalem ;  for  there 
■were  then,  says  the  hi.storian,  'dwelling  at  Jerusalem, 
Jews,  devout  men,  out  of  every  nation  under  heaven  ; 
and  when  the  inspiration  of  the  disciples  was  noised 
abroad,  the  multitmle  came  together  and  were  all  con- 
founded, because  that  every  man  heard  them  speak  in 
his  own  language.  And  they  were  all  amazed  and 
marvelled,  .saying,  one  to  another.  Behold,  are  not  all 
these  who  speak  Galileans  :  and  how  hear  we  every 
man  in  our  own  tongue,  wherein  we  were  born  ?  Par- 
thians,  and  Medes,  and  Elamites,  and  the  dwellers  in 
Mesopotamia,  and  in  Juda;a,  and  Cappadocia,  and  Pam- 
phylia,  in  Egypt,  and  the  parts  of  Lybia  about  Cyrene, 
and  strangers  of  Rome,  Jews  and  Proselytes,  Cretes 
and  Arabians,  we  do  hear  them  speak  in  our  tongues 
the  wonderful  works  of  God.' 

"  It  hath  been  objected  by  infidelity  to  the  resurrection 
of  Christ,  that  he  ought  to  have  appeared  publicly, 
wherever  he  had  appeared  before  his  crucifixion  ;  but 
here  is  a  miracle  displayed  much  farther  than  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ  could  have  been  by  his  preaching 
openly,  and  working  miracles  for  forty  days  in  the 
temple  and  synagogues  of  .lerusalem,  as  he  had  done 
formerly ;  and  this  miracle  is  so  connected  with  the 
resurrection,  that  if  the  Apostles  sjieaking  a  variety  of 
tongues  be  admitted,  the  resurrect iorr  of  .lesus  cannot 
be  denied.  In  reply  to  those  (probably  the  natives  of 
Jerusalem),  who,  imagining  that  the  .\postles  uttered 
gibberish,  charged  them  with  being  full  of  new  wine, 
St.  Peter  said,  '  Ye  men  of  Judaui,  and  all  ye  that  dwell 
at  Jerusalem,  be  this  known  unto  you,  and  hearken 


to  my  words;  for  these  men  are  not  drunken,  as  ye 
suppose,  seeing  it  is  but  the  third  hour  of  the  day. 
.lesus  of  Nazareth,  a  man  approved  of  God  among  you, 
by  miracles,  and  signs,  and  wonders,  which  God  did 
by  him  in  the  midst  of  you,  as  ye  yourselves  also  know; 
Him,  being  delivered  by  the  detenninate  counsel  and 
foreknowledge  of  God,  ye  have  taken,  and  by  wicked 
hands  have  crucified  and  slain.  This  Jesus  hath  God 
raised  vp, -where.nt' \we  arc  all  witnesses.  Therefore, 
being  /;//  Ih'  ri^hl.  htnid  of  God  exalted,  and  having  re- 
ceived of  ttie  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  (ihost,  he 
liathshed  forth  this  wliii-li  ye  now  see  and  hear.' 

"  Thus,  by  the  miraculous  efTusion  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  were  the  resurrection 
and  ascension  of  Christ  proved  to  a  variety  of  nailons 
of  Asia,  Africa,  and  Europe,  all  the  quarters  ofthe 
globe  which  were  then  known,  as  completely  as  if  he 
had  actually  appeared  among  that  mixed  multitude  in 
Jerusalem,  reproved  the  high  priest  and  council  of  the 
Jews  tor  their  unbelief  and  hardness  of  heart,  and  then 
as(-ended  in  their  presence  to  heaven.  They  had  .such 
evi{!ence  as  was  incontrovertible,  that  St.  Peter  and  the 
other  Apostles  were  inspired  by  the  Spirit  of  (Jod  ;  they 
could  not  but  know,  as  every  Theist  admits,  that  the 
Spirit  of  God  never  was,  nor  ever  will  be,  shed  abroad 
to  enable  any  order  of  men  to  propagate  falsehood  with 
success ;  one  of  those,  who  by  this  inspiration  were 
speaking  correctly  a  variety  of  tongues,  assured  them, 
that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  whom  they  had  slain  was  raised 
from  the  de.^d,  and  exalted  to  the  right  hand  of  God; 
and  that  the  same  Jesus  had,  according  to  his  promise, 
shed  abroad  on  the  Apostles  that  which  they  both  saw 
and  heard.  The  consequence  of  all  this,  we  are  told, 
was,  that  three  thousand  of  his  audience  were  instantly 
converted  to  the  faith,  and  the  same  day  incorporated 
into  the  church  by  baptism. 

"  Would  any  in  his  senses  have  written  a  narrative 
of  such  events  as  these,  at  the  very  time  when  they 
are  said  to  have  happened,  and  in  any  one  of  those  coun- 
tries, to  the  inhabitants  of  which  he  appeals  as  wit- 
nesses of  their  truth,  if  he  had  not  been  aware  that  their 
truth  could  not  be  called  in  question  ?  Would  any  forger 
of  such  a  book  as  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  at  a  i]erlod 
near  to  that  in  which  he  relates  that  .such  astonish- 
ing events  had  happened,  have  needlessly  appealed  for 
the  truth  of  his  narrative  to  the  people  of  all  nations, 
and  thus  gone  out  of  his  way  to  furnish  his  readers 
with  innumerable  means  of  detecting  his  imposture  ? 
At  no  period,  indeed,  could  forged  books,  such  as  the 
four  Gospels  and  the  Aets  of  the  Apostles,  have  been 
received  as  authentic,  unless  all  the  events  which  they 
record,  whether  natural  or  supernatural,  had  been  be- 
lieved, all  the  principal  doctrines  received,  and  all  the 
rites  of  religion  which  they  prescribe  practised,  from 
the  very  period  at  which  they  represent  the  Son  of  God 
as  sojourning  on  earth,  laying  the  foundation  of  his 
church,  dying'  on  a  cross,  rising  from  the  dead,  and 
ascending  into  heaven.  The  argument  cannot,  per- 
haps, be  employed  to  prove  the  authenticity  of  all  the 
Epistles  which  make  so  great  a  part  ofthe  New  Testa- 
ment ;  but  it  is  certainly  as  applicable  to  some  of  them 
as  it  is  to  the  Gospels  and  the  book  called  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles. 

"The  Apostles,  as  Michaelis  justly  observes,*  'fre- 
quently allude,  in  their  Epistles,  to  the  gift  of  miracles, 
which  they  had  communicated  to  the  Christian  con- 
verts by  the  imposition  of  hands,  in  confirmation  ofthe 
doctrine  delivered  in  their  speeches  and  writings,  and 
sometimes  to  miracles  which  they  tliemselves  had  per- 
formed.' Now,  if  these  Epistles  are  really  genuine,  the 
miracles  referred  to  must  certainly  have  been  wrought, 
and  the  doctrines  preached  must  have  been  divine ;  for 
no  man  in  his  senses  would  have  written  to  large  com- 
munities that  he  had  not  only  performed  nilrai'les  in 
their  presence,  in  confirmation  of  the  divine  origin  of 
certain  doctrines,  but  that  he  had  likewise  communi- 
cated to  them  the  same  extraordinary  endowments. 
Or  if  we  can  suppose  any  hiiman  being  to  have  pos- 
sessed sufficient  eflVontery  to  write  in  this  manner  to 
any  community,  it  is  obvious,  that,  so  far  from  gaining 
credit  to  his  doctrine  by  such  assertions,  if  not  known 
to  be  true,  he  would  have  exposed  himself  to  the  utmost 
ridicule  and  contempt,  and  have  ruined  the  cause 
which  he  attempted  to  support  by  such  absurd  con- 
duct. 


Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  chap.  2,  sec.  J, 


54 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


"St.  Paul's  First  Epistle  to  the  Thcssalonians  is  ad-  ] 
dressed  to  a  Christian  church  which  lie  had  lately  i 
founded,  and  to  whicli  he  had  i)reaclied  the  Gospel  ' 
only  three  Sabbath-days.  A  sudden  persecution  obliged 
him  to  quit  this  community  before  he  had  given  to  it 
its  proper  degree  of  consistence ;  and  what  is  of  conse- 
quence in  the  present  instance,  he  was  protected  nei- 
ther by  the  power  of  Ilie  magistrate  nor  the  favour  of 
the  vulgar  A  pretended  wonder-worker,  who  has 
once  drawn  the  populace  to  Ins  jiarty,  may  easily  per- 
form his  exploits  and  safely  proclaim  ihein.  But  this 
very  populace,  at  the  instigation  of  the  .lews,  had  ex 
cited  the  insurrection  whicji  obliged  St.  Paul  to  quit  the 
town  He  sends  therefore  to  the  Thcssalonians,  who 
had  received  the  Oospel,  but  whose  faith,  he  appre- 
hended, might  waver  through  persecution,  authorities 
and  proofs  of  his  divine  mission,  of  which  authorities 
the  first  and  the  chief  are  miracles  and  the  gills  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.*  Is  it  possible,  now,  that  St.  Paul,  with- 
out forfeiting  all  pretensions  to  common  sense,  could, 
when  writing  to  a  church  which  he  had  lately  esta- 
blished, have  spoken  of  miracles  performed  and  gills 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  communicated,  if  no  member  of  that 
churcli  had  seen  the  one  or  received  the  other;  nay,  if 
many  members  had  not  witnessed  both  the  performance 
and  the  effusions  of  the  Holy  Ghost .'  Hut  it  is  equally 
impossible  that  the  Epistle  making  this  appeal  to  mi- 
racles and  spiritual  gills  could  have  been  received  as 
authentic,  if  forged  in  the  name  of  St.  Paul,  at  any 
future  period,  during  the  e.\istence  of  a  Christian  church 
at  Thessalonica.  In  the  first  two  chapters  it  represents 
its  author  and  two  of  his  companions  as  having  been 
lately  in  that  city,  and  appeals  to  the  church  for  the 
manner  in  which  they  had  conducted  themselves  while 
there,  and  for  the  zeal  and  success  with  whicli  they 
had  preached  the  Gospel,  and  it  concludes  with  these 
awful  words  :  '  I  adjure  you  (ooki^u  viiai)  by  the  Lord, 
that  this  Epistle  be  read  unto  all  the  holy  brethren  ;'  i.e. 
all  the  Christians  of  the  community.  Had  St.  Paul 
and  Timotheus  and  Sylvanus  never  been  in  Thessalo- 
nica, or  had  they  conducted  themselves  in  any  respect 
differently  from  wliat  they  are  said  to  have  done  in  the 
first  two  chapters, these  chapters  would  have  convicted 
the  author  of  this  Epistle  of  forgery,  at  whatever  time 
it  had  made  its  first  appearance.  Had  they  been  actu- 
ally there,  and  preached,  and  wrought  miracles  just  as 
they  are  said  to  have  done ;  and  had  some  impostor, 
knowing  this,  forged  the  Epistle  before  us  at  a  consi- 
derable distance  of  time,  the  adjuration  at  the  end  of 
it  must  instantly  have  detected  the  forgery.  Every 
Thessalonian  Clirislian  of  common  sense  would  have 
said,  '  How  came  we  never  to  hear  of  this  Epistle  be- 
fore? Its  author  represents  himself  and  two  of  his 
friends  as  having  converted  us  to  the  faith  a  very  short 
time  before  it  was  written  and  sent  to  us,  and  he 
charges  those  to  whom  it  was  immediately  sent  in  the 
most  solemn  manner  jiossible,  that  they  should  cause 
it  to  be  read  to  every  one  of  us  ;  no  Christian  in  Thes- 
Balonica  would,  in  a  matter  of  this  kind,  have  dared  to 
disobey  the  authority  of  an  Apostle,  especially  when 
enforced  by  so  awful  an  adjuration  ;  and  yet  neither 
we  nor  our  fathers  ever  heard  of  this  Epistle  till  now 
that  Paul  and  Sylvanus  and  Timotheus  are  all  dead, 
and  therefore  incapable  of  either  confirming  or  refuting 
its  authenticity  I'  Such  an  Epistle,  if  not  genuine, 
could  never  have  been  received  by  any  community. 

"The  same  Apostle,  in  his  fir.st  Epistle  to  the  Co- 
rinthians, corrects  the  abuse  of  certain  spiritual  gifts, 
particularly  that  of  speaking  divers  kinds  of  tongues, 
and  prescribes  rules  for  the  employment  of  these  super- 
natural talents;  he  enters  into  a  jiarticular  detail  of 
them,  as  they  e.tisted  in  the  Corinthian  church ;  reasons 
on  their  respective  worth  and  excellence ;  says  that 
they  were  limited  in  their  duration,  that  they  were 
no  distinguishing  mark  of  Itivine  favour,  nor  of  so 
great  imfwrtance  as  failh  uud  virtue,  the  love  of  God, 
and  charity  to  our  neighbours.  Now,  if  this  Epistle 
was  really  written  by  St.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  and 
they  had  actually  received  no  spiritual  gifts,  no  power, 
imparted  by  extraordinary  means,  of  speaking  foreign 
languages,  the  proper  place  to  be  assigned  him  were 
not  among  impostors,  but  among  those  who  had  lost 
their  understanding.     A  juggler  may  deceive  by  the 


[Part  L 

dexterity  of  his  hands,  and  persuade  the  ignorant  and 
the  credulous  that  more  than  human  means  are  requi- 
site for  the  performance  of  his  extraordinary  teats  ;  but 
he  will  hardly  persuade  those  whose  un<lerstandings 
remain  uiiiin|iair<d,  that  he  has  likewise  communi- 
cated to  Ins  spectators  the  power  of  working  miracles, 
and  of  speaking  languages  which  they  had  never 
learned,  were  tliey  conscious  of  their  inability  to  per- 
form the  one  or  to  speak  the  other.  If  the  Epistle, 
therefore,  was  written  during  the  lile  of  St.  Paul,  and 
r»;ceived  by  the  Corinthian  church,  it  is  impossible  to 
doubt  but  that  St.  Paul  was  its  auilior,  and  that  among 
the  Corinthians  were  prevalent  those  spiritual  gills  of 
which  he  labours  to  correct  the  abuse.  If  those  gills 
were  never  prevalent  among  the  Corinthian  Christians, 
and  this  E])i.stle  was  not  seen  by  them  until  the  next 
age,  it  could  not  have  been  received  by  the  Corinthian 
church  as  the  genuine  writing  of  the  Apostle,  because 
the  members  of  that  church  must  have  been  aware, 
that,  if  those  gitls  of  which  it  speaks  had  been  really 
possessed  and  so  generally  displayed  by  their  fathers, 
as  it  represents  them  to  have  been,  somcoftlieiriselves 
would  surely  have  heard  their  fathers  mention  them; 
and  a.s  the  Epistle  treats  of  some  of  the  most  inijiortant 
subjects  that  ever  occupie<l  the  niiiid  of  man,  the  intro- 
duction of  death  into  the  world  thruu'ih  Adam,  and  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead  through  <  lirist,  they  must  have 
inferred  that  their  fathers  w  ould  not  have  secreted  from 
them,  their  children,  a  treatise  on  topics  so  interesting 
to  the  whole  human  race." — Gleig's  Edittoii  of  Slack- 
house's  History  of  the  Bible,  vol.  3,  Intrud.  p.  11,  He. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

THK   UKCORRtJPTED     PrESERV-^TION    OF    THE    BoOKS 
OF   SCRIPTI  RK. 

The  historical  evidence  of  the  antiiiuity  and  genuine- 
ness of  the  books  ascribed  to  Moses,  and  those  which 
contain  the  History  of  Christ  and  the  establishment  of 
his  religion,  being  thus  complete,  the  integrity  of  the 
copies  at  present  received  is  the  point  next  in  question. 

With  respect  to  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Test;inient, 
the  list  of  Josephus,  the  Septuagint  traiishilion,  and  the 
Samaritan  Pentateuch,  are  sufficient  prools  that  the 
books  which  are  received  by  us  as  sacred  are  the  .same 
as  those  r<MeiV(Ml  by  the  Jews  and  Samaritans  long  be- 
fore the  Christian  era.  For  the  New  Te-stament,  be- 
sides the  quotations  from  almost  all  the  books  now 
included  in  that  volume  and  references  to  them  by  name 
in  the  earliest  (,'hristian  writers,  catalogues  of  authen- 
tic scrijilures  were  published  at  very  early  periods, 
which,  says  Ur.  Paley,  •'  though  numerous,  and  made 
in  countries  at  a  wide  distance  from  one  another,  differ 
very  little,  differ  in  nothing  material,  and  all  contain 
the  four  (Jospels. 

"  In  the  writings  of  Origen  which  remain,  and  in 
some  extracts  [ireserved  by  Eusebius,  from  works  of 
his  wliich  are  now  lost,  there  are  enumerations  of  the 
books  of  Scripture,  in  which  the  four  (Jospels  and  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  are  distinctly  and  honourably  speci- 
fied, and  in  winch  no  books  appear  besides  what  are  now 
received. (M)    The  date  of  Origen's  works  is  A.  D.  230. 

"  Alhanasius,  about  a  century  afterward,  delivered  a 
catalogue  of  the  books  ol'  the  New  Testament  in  form, 
contiuiiing  our  Scriptures  and  no  others ;  of  which  he 
says,  '  In  these  alone  the  doctrine  of  religion  is  taught ; 
let  no  man  add  to  them,  or  lake  any  thing  from  them. "(9) 

"About  twenty  years  after  Athanasius,  Cyril,  bishop 
of  Jerusalem,  set  forth  a  catalogue  of  the  books  of  Scrip- 
ture publicly  Triii\  at  that  time  in  Ihe  church  of  .Jeru- 
salem, exactly  the  same  as  ours,  except  that  the  'Reve- 
lation' is  omitted. (1) 

"  And,  filleeii  years  after  C)Til,  the  council  of  Lao- 
dicea  delivered  an  authoritative  catalogue  of  canonical 
Scripture,  like  Cyril's,  the  same  as  ours,  with  the  omis- 
sion of  the  '  Revelation.' 

"Catalogues  now  become  frequent.  Within  thirty 
years  after  the  last  dal<!,  that  is,  irom  the  year  3(i3  to 
near  Ihe  conclusion  of  the  loiirtli  n  runry,  we  havccala- 
logues  by  Epi|ilianius.(2)  by  (Iregory  Nazian7.en,(3)  by 
Philasler  bishop  of  IJrescia  in  llaly,(4)  by  Amphilochius 


*  1  Thess.  i.  5—10. — See  Hardy's  (Ireck  Testament, 
Whitby  on  the  Place,  with  Schleusiicr  and  Parkliursl's 
Lexicons  on  the  word  ivvanii- 


(H)  Lard.  (;red.  vol.  iii.  p.  2.1'1  et  se(|.,  vol.  viii.  p.  196. 
(9)  lb.  vol.  viii.  p. '2'23.  ( 1 )  lb.  p.  270.  (2)  lb.  p. 368 
(3)  lb.  vol,  ix.  p.  132.     (1)  lb.  p.  373. 


Chap.  XIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


55 


bishop  of  Iconium,  all,  as  they  aro  sometimes  called, 
clean  catalogues  (that  is,  they  admit  no  liooks  into  tlu; 
number  besides  wliat  we  now  receive),  and  all,  for  every 
purpose  of  historic  evidence,  the  same  as  ours.(5) 

'■  Witliin  the  same  period,  .lerorne,  the  most  learned 
Christian  writer  of  his  age,  delivered  a  catalogue  of  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  recogiusirij;  every  book 
now  received,  with  the  intimation  of  a  doubt  concerning 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  alone,  and  taking  not  the 
least  notice  of  any  book  which  is  not  now  received. (II) 

"  Contemporary  with  Jerome,  who  lived  in  Palestine, 
was  Saint  Augustine,  in  Africa,  who  published  likewise 
a  catalogue,  without  joining  to  the  Scriptures,  as  books 
of  authority,  any  other  ecclesiastical  writing  whatever, 
and  without  omitting  one  which  we  at  this  day  ac- 
knowledge.(7) 

"  And  with  these  concurs  another  contemporary 
writer,  Rufen,  presbyter  of  Aquileia,  whose  catalogue, 
like  theirs,  is  perfect  and  unmixed,  and  concludes  with 
these  remarkable  words:  'These  are  the  volumes 
which  the  fathers  have  included  in  the  canon,  and  out 
of  which  they  would  have  us  prove  the  doctrine  of  our 
faith.'  "(8) 

This,  it  is  true,  only  proves  that  the  books  are  S7ib- 
stantially  the  same;  but  the  evidence  is  abundant,  that 
they  have  descended  to  us  without  any  material  altera- 
tion whatever. 

"  1.  Before  that  event  [the  time  of  Christ],  the  regard 
which  was  paid  to  them  by  the  Jews,  especially  to  the 
law,  would  render  any  forgery  or  material  change  in 
their  contents  impossible.  The  law  having  been  the 
deed  by  which  the  land  of  Canaan  was  divided  among 
the  Israelites,  it  is  improbable  that  this  people,  who  pos- 
sessed that  land,  would  suffer  it  to  be  altered  or  falsified. 
The  distinction  of  the  twelve  tribes,  and  their  separate 
interests,  made  it  more  difficult  to  alter  their  law  than 
that  of  other  nations  less  jealous  than  the  Jews.  Far- 
ther, at  certain  stated  seasons,  the  law  was  publicly 
read  before  all  the  people  of  Israel  ;('J)  and  it  was  ap- 
pointed to  be  kept  in  the  ark,  for  a  constant  memorial 
against  those  who  transgressed  it.(l)  Their  king  was 
reijuired  to  write  him  acnpy  of  this  law  in  a  book,  out 
of  that  which  is  be/ore  the  priests  the  Levites,  and  to 
read  therein  all  the  days  of  his  life  ;(2)  their  priests  also 
were  commanded  to  teach  the  children  of  Israel  all  the 
statutes,  which  the  Lord  had  spoken  to  themhy  the  hand 
of  Moses  ;{3)  and  jiarents  were  charged,  not  only  to 
make  it  familiar  to  themselves,  but  also  to  teacli  it  dili- 
gently to  their  children  ;(4)  besides  which,  a  .severe 
prohibition  was  anne.xed,  against  either  making  any 
addition  to,  or  diminution  from,  the  law.(5)  Now,  such 
precepts  as  these  could  not  have  been  given  by  an  im- 
postor who  was  adding  to  it,  and  who  would  wish  men 
to  forget  rather  than  enjoin  them  to  remember  it :  for, 
as  all  the  people  were  obliged  to  know  and  observe  the 
law  under  severe  penalties,  they  were,  in  a  manner,  the 
trustees  and  guardians  of  the  law,  as  well  as  the  priests 
and  Levites.  The  people,  who  were  to  teach  their 
children,  must  have  h.ad  copies  of  it;  the  priests  and 
Levites  must  have  had  copies  of  it ;  and  the  magistrates 
must  have  had  copies  of  it,  as  being  the  law  of  the  land. 
Farther,  after  the  people  were  divided  into  two  king- 
doms, both  the  people  of  Israel  and  those  of  Judah  still 
retained  the  same  book  of  the  law  :  and  the  rivalry  or 
enmity  that  subsisted  between  the  two  kingdoms,  pre- 
vented either  of  them  from  altering  or  adding  lo  the 
law.  After  the  Israelites  were  carried  captive  into 
Assyria,  other  nations  were  placed  in  the  cities  of  Sa- 
maria in  their  stead  ;  and  the  Samaritans  received  the 
Pentateuch,  either  from  the  priest  who  was  sent  by 
order  of  the  king  of  A.ssyria,  to  instruct  them  in  the 
manner  of  the  God  of  the  land,(&)  or  several  years  after- 
ward from  the  hands  of  Manasseh,  the  son  of  Joiada 
the  high  priest,  who  was  expelled  from  Jerusalem  by 
Nehemiah,  for  marrying  the  daughter  of  Sanballat  the 
governor  of  Samaria ;  and  who  was  constituted,  by 


(5)  Epiphanius  omits  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  This 
must  have  been  an  accidental  mistake,  either  in  him  or 
in  some  copyist  of  his  work ;  for  he  elsewhere  ex- 
pressly refers  to  this  book,  and  ascribes  it  to  Luke. 

((5)  Lard.  Cred.  vol.  x.  p.  "7. 

(7)  lb.  p.  213.  (8)  lb.  p.  187. 

(9)  Deut.  xxxi.  9—13.  Josh.  vui.  34, 35.  Neh.  yiu.  1—5. 

(1)  Deut.  xxxi.  26.        (2)  Deut.  xvii.  18,  19. 

(3)  Levit.  X.  11.  (4)  Deut.  xvU.  IS,  19. 

(5)  Deut.iv.2,xu.32.   (6)  2  Kings  xvii-  26. 


Sanballat,  the  first  high  priest  of  the  temple  at  Sama- 
ria.(7)  Now,  by  one  or  both  of  these  means,  the  Sama- 
ritans had  the  Ptntateuch  as  well  as  the  Jews ;  but 
with  this  difference,  that  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  was 
in  the  old  Hebrew  or  Phtenician  characters,  in  which 
it  remains  to  this  day;  whereas  the  Jewish  copy  was 
changed  into  Chaldec  characters  (in  which  it  al.so 
remains  lo  this  day),  which  were  fairer  and  clearef 
than  the  Hebrew,  the  Jews  having  learned  the 
(,'haldee  languag:e  during  their  seventy  years'  abode  in 
Babylon.  The  jealousy  and  hatred  which  subsisted 
between  the  .lews  and  Samaritans  made  it  impracticable 
lor  either  nation  to  corrupt  or  alter  the  te.xt  in  any  thing 
of  consequence  without  certain  discovery;  and  the 
general  agreement  between  the  Hebrew  and  Samaritan 
copies  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  are  now  extant,  is 
such  as  plainly  demonstrates  that  the  copies  were  ori- 
ginally the  same.  Nor  can  any  better  evidence  be 
desired  that  the  .lewish  Bibles  have  not  been  corrupted 
or  interpolated,  than  this  very  book  of  the  Samaritans  ; 
which,  after  more  than  two  thousand  years'  discord 
between  the  two  nations,  varies  as  little  from  the  other 
as  any  classic  author  in  less  tract  of  time  has  disagreed 
from  itself  by  the  unavoidable  slips  and  mistakes  of  so 
many  transcribers. (8) 

"  After  the  return  of  the  Jews  from  the  Babylonish 
captivity,  the  book  of  the  law  and  the  prophets  were 
publ  icly  read  in  their  synagogues  every  Sabbath-day  ;(9) 
which  was  an  excellent  method  of  securing  their 
purity,  as  well  as  of  enforcing  the  observation  of  the 
law.  The  Chaldee  paraphrases,  and  the  translation  of 
the  Old  Testament  into  Greek,  which  were  afterward 
made,  were  so  many  additional  securities.  To  these 
facts  we  may  add,  that  the  reverence  of  the  Jews  for 
their  sacred  writings  is  another  guarantee  for  their 
integrity :  so  great,  indeed,  was  that  reverence,  that, 
according  to  the  statements  of  Philo  and  Josephus,(l) 
they  would  suffer  any  torments,  and  even  death  itself, 
rather  than  change  a  single  point  or  iota  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. A  law  was  also  enacted  by  them,  which  de- 
nounced him  to  be  guilty  of  inexpiable  sin,  who  should 
presume  to  make  the  slightest  possible  alteration  in 
their  sacred  books.  The  Jewish  doctors,  fearing  lo 
add  any  thing  to  the  law,  passed  their  own  notions  as 
traditions  or  explanations  of  it;  and  both  Jesus  Christ 
and  his  apostles  accused  the  Jews  of  entertaining  a 
prejudiced  regard  for  those  traditions,  but  they  never 
charged  them  with  falsifying  or  corrupting  the  Scrip- 
tures themselves. 

"2.  After  the  birth  of  Christ.  For,  since  that  event, 
the  Old  Testament  has  been  held  in  high  esteem  both 
by  Jews  and  Christians.  The  Jews  also  frequently 
suffered  martyrdom  for  their  Scriptures,  which  they 
would  not  have  done  had  they  suspected  them  to  have 
been  corrupted  or  altered.  Besides,  the  .lews  and 
Christians  were  a  mutual  guard  upon  each  other,  which 
must  have  rendered  any  material  corruption  impossible, 
if  it  had  been  attempted :  for  if  such  an  attempt  had 
been  made  by  the  Jems,  they  would  have  been  detected 
by  the  Christians.  The,accornip|ishment  of  such  a  de- 
sign, indeed,  would  have  been  impracticable,  from  the 
moral  impossibility  of  the  Jews  (who  were  dispersed 
in  every  country  of  the  then  known  world)  being  able 
to  collect  all  the  then  exi.sting  copies,  with  the  intention 
of  corrupting  or  falsifying  them.  On  the  other  hand,  if 
any  such  attempt  had  been  made  by  the  Christians,  it 
would  assuredly  have  been  delected  by  the  Jews  :  nor 
could  any  such  attempt  have  been  made  by  any  other 
man  or  body  of  men,  without  exposure  both  by  Jews 
and  Christians.  To  these  considerations,  it  may  be 
added,  that  the  admirable  agreement  of  all  the  ancient 
paraphrases  and  versions,  and  the  writings  of  Josephus, 
with  the  Old  Testament  as  it  is  now  extant,  together 
with  the  quotations  which  are  made  from  it  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  in  the  writings  of  all  ages  lo  the  jtresent 
time,  forbid  us  to  indulge  any  suspicion  of  any  material 
corruption  in  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and 
give  us  every  possible  evidence  of  which  a  subject  of 


(7)  Neh.  viii.  28.  Josephus,  Ant.  Jud.  lib.  xi.  c.  8. 
Bishop   Newton's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  23. 

(8)  Dr.  Bentlky's  Remarks  on  Freethinking,  part  i. 
remark  27  (vol.  v.  p.  l44,ofBp.  Randolph's  Enchiridion 
Theologicum,  8vo.  Oxford,  1792). 

(9)  Acts  xiu.  14,  15.  27.     Luke  iv.  17—20. 

(1)  Philo,  apud.  Euseb.  de  Pra-p.  Evang.  lib.  viii.  c.  2. 
Josephus  contra  Apion.  lib.  i.  ^  8. 


56 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  I. 


this  kind  is  capable,  tliat  tliese  books  are  now  in  our 
hands  genuine  and  unadulterated. 

"  3.  Lastly,  the  ns^rni-incnt  of  all  the  manuscripts  of 
the  Old  Testament  (amounting  to  nearly  eleven  hundred 
and  filVy)  wliicli  are  known  to  be  extant,  is  a  clear 
proof  of  its  uncorrupted  preservation.  These  inann- 
script.s,  indeed,  are  not  all  (^Kirc;  some  contain  (me 
part,  and  some  another.  Hut  it  is  :il)solnlely  imiiossihle 
that  every  manuscript,  wlntlier  m  lUeongiiial  ilibrew. 
or  in  any  ancient  version  or  paraphrase,  should  or  could 
be  designedly  ahexei  or  falsHi'd  mi  llie  same  passages, 
without  detection  either  by  .lews  or  Christ jaiis.  Tlie 
manuscripts  now  exi ant  nnM-onlessedly,  li;ible  to  errors 
and  mistakes  from  the  oarelessni'ss,  ne<,'liir<'nce,  or  inac- 
curacy of  copyists;  but  they  are  not  all  uniforndy 
incorrect  throughout,  nor  in  the  same  words  or  pas- 
sages ;  but  what  is  incorrect  in  one  place  is  correct  in 
another.  Although  the  various  readings,  which  liave 
been  discovered  by  learned  men,  who  have  applied 
themselves  to  the  collection  of  every  known  manuscript 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  amount  to  many  thousands, 
yet  the.se  differences  are  of  so  little  real  moment,  that 
their  laborious  collations  afford  us  scarcely  any  oppor- 
tunities of  correcting  the  sacred  text  in  important  pas- 
sages. So  far,  however,  are  these  e.\tensive  and  pro- 
found researches  from  being  either  trivial  or  nugatory, 
that  we  have,  in  fact,  derived  from  them  the  greatest 
advantage  which  could  have  been  wished  for  by  any 
real  friend  of  revealed  religion  ;  namely,  the  certain 
knowledge  of  the  agreement  of  the  copi(;s  of  the  ancient 
Scriptures,  now  extant  in  their  original  language,  with 
each  other,  and  with  our  Bibles.(2) 

"  Equally  satisfactory  is  the  evidence  for  the  inte- 
grity and  uncorruptness  of  tlie  New  Testament  in  any 
thing  material.  The  testimonies  adduced  in  the  pre- 
ceding section  in  behalf  of  the  genuineness  and  authen- 
ticity of  the  New  Te.stament  are,  in  a  great  measure, 
applicable  to  show  that  it  lias  been  transmitted  to  us 
entire  and  uiicorrujited.  But,  to  be  more  particidar, 
we  remark,  that  the  nncorrupted  preservation  of  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament  is  manifest, 

"  1.  Frniri  their  contents ;  for,  so  early  as  the  two 
first  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  we  find  tlie  very 
same  facts,  and  the  very  same  doctrines  universally 
received  by  Christians,  which  we  of  the  present  day 
believe  on  the  credit  of  the  New  Testament. 

"  2.  Because  a  universal  corruption  of  those  writinss 
was  impossible,  nor  can  the  least  vestige  of  such  a  cor- 
ruption be  found  in  history.  They  could  not  be  cor- 
rupted during  the  life  of  their  authors;  and  before  ilieir 
death,  copies  were  dispersed  among  ihe  dilll-reiit  com- 
munities of  Christians,  who  were  sialtend  Ihroughout 
the  then  known  world.  Within  twenty  years  alter 
the  ascension,  churches  were  formed  in  the  principal 
cities  of  the  Roman  empire ;  and  in  all  these  churches, 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  es|iecially  the  four 
Gospels,  were  read  as  a  |iart  of  tlinr  public  worship, 
just  as  the  writings  of  Mosi^s  and  Ihe  Prophets  were 
read  in  the  Jewish  syiiagogues.Ci)  Nor  would  the  use 
of  them  be  conlined  lo  |iiililic  wurship  ;  lor  tlir-;r  liooks 
were  not,  like  the  Sybillim^  Onclcs,  huked  up  li-nni  the 
perusal  of  the  public,  lint  were  evposeil  to  pulilic  inves- 
tigation. When  the  bonks  ol  the  New  'I'estanirnt  were 
first  ptiblisheil  to  the  world,  the  (  hnstians  would  natu- 
rally entertain  the  highest  esteem  and  reviTi'iice  for 
writings  that  delivered  an  authentic  and  inspired  his- 
tory of  the  life  and  doctrines  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  would 
be  desirous  of  possessing  such  an  invaluable  treasure. 
Hence,  as  we  learn  from  umiuestionable  authority, 
copies  were  multiplied  and  disseminated  as  rapidly 
as  the  boundaries  of  the  church  increased  ;  and  trans- 
lations were  made  into  as  many  languages  as  were 
spoken  by  its  professors,  some  of  which  remain  to  this 
day  ;  so  that  it  would  very  soon  be  rendered  absolutely 
impossible  to  corrupt  these  books  in  any  one  imiiortant 
word  or  phrase.  Now,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  (with- 
out violating  all  probability),  that  all  (.'hnstians  should 
agree  in  a  design  of  changing  or  corruiiting  the  origi- 

(2)  Bp.  Tomi.ink's  Elements  of  Christ.  Theol.  vol.  i. 
p.  31. 

(3)  Dr.  L\RnNKR  has  collected  numerous  instances 
in  the  second  part  of  his  Credibility  of  the  Gospel  His- 
tory ;  references  to  which  may  be  seen  in  the  general 
index  to  his  works,  article  Scriptures.  See  particu- 
larly the  lestiniomeB  of  Justin  Martyr,  Teriullian,  Ori- 
gen,  and  Augustine. 


nal  books  ;  and  if  some  only  should  make  the  attempt, 
the  uncorrnpted  copies  would  stdl  remain  to  detect 
them.  And  sujiiiusing  there  was  some  error  in  one 
translation  or  copy,  or  something  changed,  added,  or 
taken  away ;  yet  there  were  many  other  copies  and 
other  translations,  by  Ihe  help  of  which  the  neglect  or 
fraud  might  be  or  would  be  corrected. 

"  I'artlier,  as  these  books  could  not  be  corrupted 
during  the  life  of  their  respective  authors,  and  while  a 
great  number  of  witnesses  were  a!ive  lo  attest  Ihe  facta 
which  they  reconl  ;  so  leit  tier  could  any  material  altera- 
tion take  place  alter  their  derea.se,  without  being  de- 
tected while  the  original  m.-uiuscripts  were  preserved  in 
the  churches.  The  Christians  who  were  instructed  by 
the  Apostles,  or  by  their  immediate  successors,  tra- 
velled into  all  parts  of  the  world,  carrying  with  them 
co])ies  of  their  writings  ;  from  which  other  cojiics  were 
multiplied  and  preserved.  Now,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  we  have  an  unbroken  series  of  testimonies  for 
the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, which  can  be  traced  backwards,  from  the  fourth 
century  of  the  ('hristian  era  to  the  very  time  of  the 
Apostles  :  and  tliese  very  testimonies  are  equally  appli- 
cable to  prove  its  nncorrupted  preservation.  Moreover, 
harmonies  of  the  li)ur  C;osi)els  were  anciently  con- 
structed ;  commentaries  were  written  upon  them,  as 
well  as  upon  the  other  books,  of  the  New  Testament 
(many  of  which  are  still  extant),  manuscripts  were 
collated,  and  editions  of  the  New  Testament  were  put 
forth.  These  sacred  records,  being  universally  re- 
garded as  the  supreme  standard  of  triuh,  were  received 
by  every  class  of  Christians  with  peculiar  respect,  as 
being  divine  compositions,  and  possessing  an  authority 
belonging  lo  no  other  books.  Whatever  controversies, 
therefore,  arose  among  different  sects  (and  the  church 
was  very  early  rent  with  fierce  contentions  on  doctri- 
nal jioints),  the  Scriptures  of  Ihe  New  'J'estament  were 
received  and  appealed  to  by  every  one  of  them,  as  being 
conclusive  in  all  matters  of  controversy  :  consequently 
it  was  morally  imiiossiblo,  that  any  man  or  body  of  men 
should  corrupt  or  falsify  them  in  any  fundamental  arti- 
i-le,  should  liiist  mtotlnnn  a  single  expression  to  favour 
their  peculiar  tenets,  or  erase  a  single  sentence,  with- 
out liriiig  iletected  by  thousands. 

"  ll'riny  material  alteration  had  been  attempted  by  the 
orthodox.  It  would  have  been  delected  by  the  heretics; 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  if  a  heretic  had  inserted,  altered, 
or  falsified  any  thing,  he  woidd  have  been  exjioscd  by 
the  orthodox,  or  by  other  heretics.  It  is  well  known 
that  a  division  commenced  in  the  fourth  century,  be- 
tween the  eastern  and  western  churches,  which,  about 
the  middle  of  the  ninth  century,  became  irreconcilable, 
and  subsists  to  the  )ireseiit  day.  Now,  it  would  have 
been  impossible  to  alter  all  the  copies  in  the  eastern  em- 
pire ;  and  if  it  had  lic'cii  possible  in  the  east,  the  copies 
in  the  we.st  would  have  detected  the  alteration.  But, 
in  fact,  both  the  eastern  and  western  copies  agree,  which 
could  not  be  ex|]e<-ted  if  either  of  them  was  altered  or 
falsified.  The  uncorruiiteil  preservation  of  the  New 
Testament  is  fariher  I'videiil, 

"  3.  From  the  im  n  run  n  t  «/'  all  the  manuscripts.  The 
manuscri]its  of  the  IVew  Testament  which  are  extant  are 
far  more  nniiK^roiis  than  those  of  any  .\(»ir/c  classic  au- 
thor whomsoever  ;  upwards  of  throe  hundred  and  fitly 
were  ccdiected  by  (;riesbach.  for  his  celebrated  critical 
edition.  Thesemaiiuscriiits.il  is  true,  are  not  all  entire: 
most  of  them  contain  oiilv  the  (;os|i»:ls  ;  others,  the  Gos- 
pels, Acts  of  the  .\p()stles.  and  the  l',)iistles  ;  and  a  few 
contain  the  Apociih  pse  or  Uevclnlion  ol  John.  But  they 
wsreall  wrilleii  m  verv  dillirent  and  distant  parts  of  Iho 
world ;  several  ot  Iheiii  are  upw  ards  ol  twelve  hundred 
years  old,  and  give  us  the  books  of  ihe  New  Testament, 
in  all  essential  points,  perfectly  accordant  with  each 
oIlK'r,  as  aiiv  person  may  readily  ascertain  by  examining 
Ihe  critical  editions  imblished  by  Mill,  Kustcr.  Bengel, 
Witstiiii,  and  Cnesbacli.  The  thirty  llwvsaml  various 
readings  which  lire  said  to  be  found  in  the  manuscripts 
collated  by  Dr.  Mill,  and  the  hundred  and/ij'ty  thousand 
which  (Iriesbach's  edition  is  said  to  contain,  in  no  de- 
gree whatever  alfect  the  general  credit  and  integrilyof 
Ihe  text.  In  fact,  the  more  copies  are  multiplied,  and 
the  more  numerous  the  transcnpis  and  translations 
from  the  original,  the  more  likely  is  it,  thai  Ihe  genuine 
text  and  the  true  original  reading  will  be  investigated 
and  ascerlaiiied.  The  most  correct  and  accurate  an- 
cient classics  now  exi ml  are  ihosi'  of  which  we  have 
the  greatest  number  of  maiiuscnjitt^ ;   and   the  most 


Chkv.  XIV.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


57 


depraved,  mutilated,  and  inaccurate  editions  of  the  old 
writers  arc  those  of  wliicli  we  have  the  fewest  manu- 
scripts, and  perhaps  only  a  single  manuscript,  extant. 
Such  are  Athcnaeus,  Clemens  Romanus,  Hesychius, 
and  Photius.  Dut  of  this  tbrmidable  mass  of  various 
readings,  wliich  have  been  collected  by  the  diligence 
of  collators,  not  one-tenth,— nay,  not  one-hundredth 
part,  either  makes  or  can  make  any  perceptible,  or  at 
least  any  inaicrial  alteration  in  the  sense  in  any  modern 
version.  They  consist  almost  wholly  of  palpable  errors 
in  transcription,  grammatical  and  verbal  differences, 
such  as  the  insertion  or  omi-ssion  of  an  article,  the  sub- 
stitution of  a  word  for  its  equivalent,  and  the  transposi- 
tion of  a  word  or  two  in  a  sentence.  Even  the  few  that 
do  change  the  sense,  affect  it  only  in  passages  relating 
to  unimportant  historical  and  geographical  circum- 
stances, or  other  collateral  matters ;  and  the  still  smaller 
number  that  make  any  altenition  in  things  of  conse- 
quence, do  not  on  that  account  place  us  in  any  absolute 
uncertainty.  For,  either  the  true  reading  may  be  dis- 
covered by  collating  the  other  manuscripts,  versions, 
and  quotations  found  in  the  works  of  the  ancients;  or, 
should  these  fail  to  give  us  the  requisite  information, 
we  are  enabled  to  e.xphiin  the  doctriue  in  question  from 
other  «?trfi»7mZed passages  of  holy  writ. 

"  4.  The  last  testimony,  to  be  adduced  for  the  inte- 
grity and  uncorruptness  of  the  New  Testament,  is 
furnished  by  the  agreement  of  the  ancient  versiotis 
and  quotations  from  it,  which  are  made  in  the  writings 
nf  the  Christians  of  the  Jirst  three  centuries,  and  in 
those  of  the  succeeding  fathers  of  the  Church. 

"  Tlie  testimony  of  versions,  and  the  evidence  of  the 
ecclesiastical  fathers,  have  already  been  noticed  as  a 
proof  of  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  quotations  from  the  New  Testament 
in  the  writings  of  the  fathers  are  so  numerous,  that  (as 
it  has  frequently  been  observed)  the  whole  body  of  the 
Gospels  and  Epistles  might  be  compiled  from  the  va- 
rious passages  dispersed  in  their  commentaries  and 
other  writings.  And  thnugti  these  citations  were,  in 
many  instances,  made  Irom  memory,  yet,  being  always 
made  with  due  attention  to  the  sense  and  meaning,  and 
most  commonly  with  a  regard  to  the  words  as  well  as 
to  the  order  of  the  words,  they  correspond  with  the 
original  records  from  which  they  were  e.xtracted  : — an 
irrefragable  argument  this,  of  the  purity  and  integrity 
with  which  the  New  Testament  has  been  preserved." 
(Hoknk's  Introduction  to  the  Critical  Utady  and 
Knowledge  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  vol.  i.  chap.  2, 
sect.  3.) 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

The  Credibilitv  of  the  Tksti.mony  of  the  Sacred 
Writeus. 

The  proofs  of  the  existence  and  actions  of  Moses 
and  Christ,  the  tbunders  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
religions,  having  been  adduced,  with  those  of  the  an- 
tiquity and  uncorrupted  preservation  of  the  Records 
which  profess  to  contain  the  facts  of  their  history,  and 
the  doctrines  they  taught,  the  only  question  to  be  de- 
termined before  we  examine  those  miracles  and  pro- 
phecies on  which  the  claim  of  the  Divine  authority  of 
their  mission  rests,  is,  whether  these  records  faithfully 
record  the  transactions  of  which  they  give  us  informa- 
tion, and  on  which  the  divinity  of  both  systems,  the 
Jewish  and  the  Christian,  is  built.  To  deny  this  because 
we  object  to  the  doctrines  taught,  is  equally  illogical 
and  perverse,  as  it  is  assuming  the  doctrine  to  be  false 
before  we  have  considered  all  the  evidence  which  may 
be  adduced  in  its  favour ;  to  deny  it  because  we  have 
already  determined  to  reject  the  miracles,  is  equally  ab- 
surd and  impious.  It  has  already  been  proved,  that 
miracles  are  possible  ;  and  whether  the  transactions  re- 
lated as  such  in  the  Scriptures  be  really  miraculous  or 
not,  is  a  subsequent  inquiry  to  that  which  respects  the 
faithfiil  recording  of  them.  If  the  evidence  of  this  is  in- 
sufficient, the  examination  of  the  miracles  is  unneces- 
sary ;  if  it  is  strong  and  convincing,  that  examination 
is  a  subject  of  very  seriou.s  import. 

We  might  safely  rest  the  faithfulness  of  the  Scriptu- 
ral Record  upon  tlie  argument  of  Leslie,  before  adduced ; 
but,  from  the  superabundance  of  evidence  which  the 
case  furnishes,  some  amplifications  may  be  added, 
which  we  shall  confine  principally  to  the  authors  of  the 
New  Testament. 


There  are  four  circumstances  which  never  fail  to  give 
credibility  to  a  witness,  whether  he  ilepose  to  any  tiling 
orally  or  in  writing. 

1 .  That  he  is  a  person  of  virtuous  and  sober  character. 

2.  That  he  was  in  circumstances  certainly  to  know 
the  truth  of  what  he  relates. 

3.  That  he  has  no  interest  in  making  good  the  story. 

4.  That  his  account  is  circumstantial. 

In  the  highest  degree  these  guarantees  of  faithful  and 
exact  testimony  meet  in  the  Evangelists  and  Apostles. 

That  they  were  persons  of  strict  and  exemjilary  vir- 
tue, must  by  all  candid  persons  be  acknowledged  ;  so 
much  so,  that  nothing  to  the  contrary  was  ever  urged 
against  the  integrity  of  their  conduct  by  the  most  ma- 
licious enemies  of  Christianity.  Avarice  and  interest 
could  not  sway  them,  for  they  voluntarily  abandoned 
all  their  temporal  connexions,  and  emharked  in  a  cause 
whii-h  the  world  regarded,  to  the  last  degree,  as  wretched 
and  deplorable.  Of  their  sincerity  they  gave  the  utmost 
proof  in  the  openness  of  their  testimony,  never  affect- 
ing reserve,  or  shunning  inquiry.  They  delivered  their 
testimony  belbre  kings  and  princes,  priests  and  magis- 
trates, in  Jerusalem  and  Judea  where  their  master 
lived  and  died,  and  in  the  most  populous,  inquisitive, 
and  learned  parts  of  the  world,  submitting  its  evidences 
to  a  fair  and  impartial  examination. 

"Their  minds  were  so  penetrated  with  a  conviction 
of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel,  that  they  esteemed  it  their 
distinguished  honour  and  privilege  to  seal  their  atte.sta- 
tion  to  it  by  their  sufferings,  and  blessed  God  that  they 
were  accounted  worthy  to  suffer  reproach  and  shame 
for  their  profession.  Passiyig  thrcntgh  honour  and  dis- 
honour, through  evil  report  and  good  report,  as  deceiv- 
ers, and  yet  true.  Never  dejected,  never  intimidated  by 
any  .sorrows  and  sufferings  they  supported ;  but  when 
stoned,  imprisoned,  and  persecuted  in  one  city.  Hying 
to  another,  and  there  preaching  the  Gosjiel  with  intrepid 
boldness  and  heaven-inspired  zeal.  Patient  in  tribula- 
tion, fervent  in  spirit,  rejoicing  under  persecution,  calm 
and  composed  under  calumny  and  rejiroach,  praying 
for  their  enemies,  when  in  dungeons  cheering  the  silent 
hours  of  night  with  hymns  of  praise  to  God.  Meeting 
death  itself  in  the  most  dreadful  forms  with  which  per- 
secuting rage  could  dress  it,  with  a  serenity  and  exult- 
ation the  iitoic  philosoi)hy  never  knew.  In  all  these 
jmblic  scenes  showing  to  the  world  a  heart  infinitely 
above  what  men  vulgarly  .style  great  and  happy,  infi- 
nitely remote  from  ambition,  the  lust  of  gold,  and  a 
passion  for  popular  applause,  working  with  their  own 
hands  to  raise  a  scanty  subsistence  for  themselves,  that 
they  might  not  be  burdensome  to  the  societies  they  had 
formed,  holding  up  to  all  with  whom  they  conversed, 
in  the  bright  faithful  mirror  of  their  own  behaviour,  the 
amiableness  and  excellence  of  the  religion  they  taught, 
and  in  every  scene  and  circumstance  of  life  distin- 
guished for  their  devotion  to  (iod,  their  unconquered 
love  for  mankind,  their  sacred  regard  for  truth,  their 
self-government,  moderation,  humanity,  sincerity,  and 
every  divine,  social,  and  moral  virtue  that  can  adorn 
and  exalt  a  character.  Nor  are  there  any  features  of 
enthusiasm  in  the  writings  they  have  left  us.  We 
meet  with  no  frantic  fisrvours  indulged,  no  monkish 
abstraction  from  the  world  recommended,  no  macera- 
tion of  the  body  countenanced,  no  unnatural  institu- 
tions established,  no  vain  flights  of  fancy  cherished,  no 
absurd  and  irrational  doctrines  taught,  no  disobedience 
to  any  forms  of  human  government  encouraged,  but  all 
civil  establishments  and  social  connexions  suffered  to 
remain  in  the  same  state  they  were  before  (Christianity. 
So  far  were  the  Apostles  from  being  enthusiasts,  and 
instigated  by  a  wild  undiscerning  religious  phrensy  to 
rush  into  the  jaws  of  death,  when  they  might  have 
honourably  and  lawfully  e.scaped  it,  that  we  find  them, 
when  they  could,  without  wounding  their  consciences, 
legally  extricate  themselves  from  persecution  and  death, 
pleading  their  privileges  as  Roman  citizens,  and  appeal- 
ing to  Caesar's  supreme  jurisdiction."(4) 

As  it  was  contrary  to  their  character  to  attempt  to 
deceive  others,  so  they  could  not  be  deceived  them- 
selves. They  could  not  mistake  in  the  case  of  feeding 
of  the  five  thousand,  and  the  sudden  healing  of  lepers, 
and  lame  and  blind  pensons ;  they  could  not  but  know, 
whether  he  with  whom  they  conversed  for  forty  days 
was  the  same  Jesus,  as  he  with  whom  they  had  daily 
and  familiar  intercourse  long  before  his  crucifixion. 


(4)  Har wood's  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament 


58 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


Tliey  could  not  mistake  as  to  his  ascension  into  hoaven ; 
as  to  the  (act  wtiether  tliey  tliemselves  were  suddenly 
endowed  with  the  power  of  speaiiing  in  languages 
which  they  had  never  acquired;  and  whether  they 
were  able  to  worli  miracles,  and  to  impart  the  same 
power  to  others. 

They  were  not  only  disinterested  in  their  testimony ; 
but  their  interests  were  on  the  side  of  concealment. 
One  of  the  Evangelists,  Matthew,  occupied  a  lucrative 
situation  when  called  by  Jesus,  and  was  evidently  an 
opulent  man  ;  the  (ishernien  of  Galilee  were  at  least 
in  circumstances  of  comfort,  and  never  had  any  worldly 
inducement  held  out  to  ihem  by  their  master  ;  Nicode- 
mus  was  a  ruler  among  the  Jews;  Jo.seph  ofArima- 
thea  "  a  rich  man  ;"  and  St.  Paul,  both  from  his  edu- 
cation, connoxions,  and  talents,  had  encouraging  pros- 
pects in  life-,  but  of  himself  and  of  his  fellow-labourers 
he  speaks,  and  describes  all  I  he  earthly  rewards  they 
obtained  for  testifying  both  to  Jews  and  Greeks  that 
Jesus  was  the  Christ, — "  Even  unto  this  present  hour 
we  both  hunger  and  thirst,  and  are  naked,  and  are 
by/fitted,  and  have,  nn  certain  dwelling  place;  U'e  are 
made  as  thejilth  of  the  world,  and  are  the  offscouring 
of  all  things  unto  this  day."  Finally,  they  sealed 
their  testimony  in  many  instances  with  tlieir  blood,  a 
circumstance  of  which  they  had  been  forewarned  by 
their  master,  and  in  the  daily  expectation  of  which  they 
lived.  From  this  the  conclusion  of  Dr.  Paley  is  irre- 
sistible, "  These  men  could  not  be  deceivers.  By  only 
not  bearing  testimony  they  might  have  avoided  all 
their  sufferings,  and  have  lived  quietly.  Would  men 
in  such  circumstances  pretend  to  have  seen  what  they 
never  saw  ;  assert  facts  of  which  they  had  no  know- 
ledge ;  go  about  lying,  to  teach  virtue  ;  and  though  not 
(Only  convinced  of  (jhrist's  being  an  impostor,  but 
having  seen  the  success  of  his  irnjiosture  in  his  cruci- 
fixion, yet  persist  in  carrying  it  on,  and  so  persist,  as 
to  bring  upon  themselves,  for  nothing,and  with  a  full 
knowledge  of  the  consequence,  enmity  and  hatred, 
jdanger  and  death  !" 

To  com|)lete  the  character  of  their  testimony,  it  is  in 
the  highest  degree  circuvistantial.  We  never  find  that 
forged  or  false  accounts  of  things  abound  in  partieu- 
Jarities ;  and  wliere  many  particulars  are  related  of 
time,  place,  persons,  &c,.,  there  is  always  a  strong 
presumption  of  truth,  and  on  the  contrary.  Here  the 
evidence  is  more  than  presumptive.  The  history  of 
the  Evangelists  and  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  so 
full  of  reference  to  persons  then  living,  and  often  persons 
■of  consequence,  to  places  in  which  miracles  and  other 
transactions  took  place  publicly  and  not  in  secret;  and 
the  application  of  all  these  facts  by  the  first  propaga- 
tors of  the  Christian  religion  to  give  credit  to  its  Di- 
vine authority  was  so  frecjuent  and  explicit,  and  often 
so  reproving  to  their  opposers,  that  if  they  had  not  been 
•true,  they  must  have  been  contradicted ;  and,  if  con- 
tradicted on  good  evidence,  the  authors  must  have  been 
overwhelmed  with  confusion.  This  argument  is  ren- 
<iered  the  stronger  when  it  is  considered,  that  "  these 
things  were  not  done  in  a  corner,"  nor  was  the  age 
dark  and  illiterate  and  prone  to  admit  fables.  The 
Augustine  Age  was  the  most  learned  the  world  ever 
saw.  The  love  of  arts,  sciences,  and  literature  was 
the  universal  passion  in  almost  every  part  of  the  Ro- 
man empire,  where  ('hristianity  was  first  taught  in  its 
doctrinis  hikI  proiliiimed  in  its  facts;  and  in  this  in- 
quisitivft  anri  discirningera,  it  rose,  flourished,  and  es- 
tablisbcil  Itself,  with  much  resistance  to  its  doctrines, 
but  without  being  once  questioned  as  to  the  truth  of  its 
historical  facts. 

Yet  how  easily  might  they  have  been  disproved  had 
they  been  fal.se — that  Herod  the  Great  was  not  the  so- 
vereign of  Judea  when  our  Lord  was  born — that  wise 
men  from  the  East  did  not  come  lo  he  informed  of  the 
jilace  of  his  birth— and  thiil  Herod  rlid  not  convene  (he 
.Sanhedrim,  to  inquire  where  their  expected  Messiah 
■was  to  be  bom— th:it  the  infanls  in  Hellilehcm  were 
not  iTiassacreil— that  in  the  time  of  Augustus  all  Judea 
•was  not  enrolled  by  an  imperial  edict — that  Simeon 
did  not  take  the  infant  in  his  arms  and  proclaim  him 
to  be  the  experlid  salvalion  of  Israel,  which  is  stated 
to  have  been  done  publicly  in  the  temple,  before  all  the 
people— that  the  numerous  persons,  many  of  whose 
nairies  are  mention<Ml,  and  some,  tlii^  relatives  of 
rulers  and  centurions,  were  not  miraculously  healed 
nor  raised  from  the  dead— that  the  resurrection  of  La- 
zarus, slated  to  have  been  done  publicly,  near  to  Jeru- 


[Part  L 

salem,  and  himself  a  respectable  person,  well  known, 
did  not  occur — that  the  circumstances  of  the  trial,  con- 
demnation, and  crucifixion  of  Christ  did  not  take  place 
as  stateil  by  his  disciples  ;  in  particular,  that  I'ilate  did 
not  wash  his  hands  belbrc  them  and  give  his  testimony 
to  the  character  of  our  Lord  ;  that  there  was  no  i>re- 
ternalural  darkness  from  twelve  to  three  in  the  after- 
noon on  the  day  of  the  crucifixion;  and  that  there  was 
no  earthquake  ;  facts  wliicli  if  they  did  not  occur  could 
have  been  contradicted  by  thousands ;  finally,  that  these 
well  known  unlettered  men,  the  Ajiostles,  were  not 
heard  to  speak  witli  tongues  by  many  who  were  pre- 
sent in  the  assembly  in  which  this  was  said  to  take 
place.  But  we  might  select  almost  all  the  circum- 
stances out  of  the  four  Gospels  and  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  and  show,  that  tor  the  most  part  they  were 
capable  of  being  contradicted  at  the  time  when  they 
were  first  published,  and  that  the  immense  number  of 
circumstances  mentioned  would  in  after-times  have 
furnished  acute  investigators  of  the  history  with  the 
means  of  detecting  its  falsehood  had  it  not  been  indu- 
bitable, either  by  comparing  the  different  relations  with 
each  other,  or  with  some  well  authenticated  facts  of 
accredited  collateral  liistory.  On  tlie  contrary,  the 
small  variations  in  the  story  of  the  Evangelists  are 
confirmations  of  their  te.stimony,  being  in  proof  that 
there  was  no  concert  among  them  to  impose  upon  the 
world,  and  they  do  not  affect  in  the  least  the  facts  of 
the  history  itself;  while  as  far  as  collateral,  or  imme- 
diately subsequent  history  has  given  its  evidence,  we 
have  already  seen,  that  it' is  confirmatory  of  the  exact- 
ness and  accuracy  of  the  sacred  penmen. 

For  all  these  reasons,  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
iVew  Testaments  are  to  be  taken  as  a  faithful  and  un- 
corrupted  record  of  the  transactions  tluiy  exhibit; 
and  nothing  now  appears  to  be  necessary,  but  that 
this  record  be  examined  in  order  to  determine  its  claims 
to  be  admitted  as  the  deposile  of  the  standing  revela- 
tions of  the  will  of  God  to  mankind.  The  evidence  of 
the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the  books  of  which 
it  is  composed,  at  least  such  of  them  as  is  necessary  to 
the  argument,  is  full  and  complete;  and  if  certain  of 
the  facts  which  they  detail  are  proved  to  be  really  mi- 
raculous, and  the  prophecies  they  record  are  in  the 
proper  sense  predictive,  then,  according  to  the  prin- 
ciples before  established,  the  conclusion  must  be,  th.vT 

THE    D()<TKINKS     WHICH    THEY     Al  1  h  S  f    .4  K  E    UIVINE. 

This  shall  be  the  next  subject  examined  ;  minor  objec- 
tions being  postponed  to  be  answered  in  a  subsequent 
chapter. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

The  Miracles  or  Scripture. 

It  has  been  already  proved,  that  miracles  are  pos- 
sible, that  they  are  appropriate,  neces.sary,  and  satis- 
factory evidences  of  a  Revelation  ti-om  (iod,  and  that, 
like  other  facts,  they  are  capable  of  being  authenticated 
by  credible  testimony.  These  points  having  been  es- 
tablished, the  main  questions  before  us  are,  whether 
the  facts  alleged  as  miraculous  in  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  have  a  sutlicient  claim  to  that  character, 
and  whether  they  were  wrought  in  confirmation  of  the 
doctrine  and  mission  of  the  founders  of  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  religions. 

That  definition  of  a  true  miracle  which  we  have 
adopted  may  be  here  conveniently  repeated: 

A  miracle  is  an  effect  ur  event  contrary  to  the  esta- 
blished ronxtitulion  or  course  of  things,  or  a  sensible 
suspension  or  conlroiment  of,  or  deviation  from,  the 
known  laws  of  nature  wrought  either  by  the  immediate 
act  or  bii  the  'concurrence  or  by  the  permission  of  God, 
for  the  proof  or  evidence  of  some  particular  doctrine, 
or  in  attestation  of  the  authority  of  some  particular 
person. 

The  force  of  the  argument  ft-om  miracles  lies  in  this 
—that  as  such  works  are  manilcstly  above  human 
power,  and  us  no  created  being  can  efiiMt  them,  unless 
enipowcn'd  by  the  Author  of  nature,  when  they  are 
wrought  for  such  an  end  as  that  miiition.il  in  the  defi- 
nition, they  arc  to  be  consiilcred  as  aiiiliciiln-alions  of 
a  Divine  mission  by  asjjecial  and  sensible  intcriHisition 
ofGofl  himself 

To  adiluce  all  the  extraordinary  works  wrought  by 
Moses  and  by  Christ,  would  be  unnecessary.    In  those 


Chap.  XV.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


59 


we  select  for  examination,  the  miraculous  character 
will  eulficieutly  ai)i)car  to  bring  them  within  our  dcli- 
nition,  and  it  will  be  recollected  that  it  has  been  already 
established,  that  the  books  which  contain  the  account 
of  these  facts  must  have  been  written  by  their  reputed 
authors,  and  that  had  not  the  facts  themselves  occurred 
as  there  related,  it  is  impossible  that  the  people  of  ihe 
age  in  which  the  accounts  of  them  were  publislu;d 
could  have  been  brought  to  believe  them.  On  the  basis 
then  of  the  arguments  already  adduced  to  prove  these 
great  points,  it  is  concluded  that  we  have  in  the  Scrip- 
tures a  true  relation  of  the  fitcts  themselves.  Nothing 
therefore  remains  but  to  establish  their  claims  as  mi- 
racles. 

Out  of  the  numerous  miracles  wrought  by  the  agency 
of  Moses  we  select,  in  addition  to  those  before  men- 
tioned in  chapter  ix.,  the  plague  o/"  darkness.  Two 
circumstances  are  to  be  noted  in  the  relation  given  of 
this  event,  Exodus  x.  It  continued  three  days,  and  it 
afflicted  the  Egyptians  only,  for  "  all  the  children  nf 
Israel  had  light  in  their  dwellings."  The  fact  here 
mentioned  was  of  the  most  public  kind :  and  had  it 
not  taken  place,  every  Egyptian  and  every  Israelite 
could  have  contradicted  the  account.  The  pheuome- 
non  was  not  produced  by  an  eclipse  of  the  sun,  for  no 
eclipse  of  tliat  luminary  can  endure  so  long.  Some  of 
the  Roman  writers  mention  a  darkness  by  day  so 
great  that  persons  were  unable  to  know  each  oiher; 
but  we  have  no  historical  account  of  any  other  darkness 
so  long  continued  as  tliis,  and  so  intense  Ihat  the 
Egyptians  "  rose  not  up  from  their  places  for  three 
days."  But  if  any  such  circumstance  had  again  oc- 
curred, and  a  natural  cause  could  have  been  assigned 
for  it,  yet  even  then  the  miraculous  character  of  this 
event  would  remain  unshaken  ;  for  to  what  but  to  a 
supernatural  cause  could  the  distinction  made  between 
the  Israelites  and  the  Egyptians  be  attributed,  when 
they  inhabited  a  portion  of  the  same  country,  and  when 
their  neighbourhoods  were  immediately  adjoining. 
Here  then  are  the  characters  of  a  true  miracle.  The 
established  course  of  natural  causes  and  effects  is  in- 
terrupted by  an  operation  upon  that  mighty  element, 
the  atmosphere.  That  it  was  not  a  chance  irregularity 
in  nature,  is  made  apparent  from  the  effect  following 
the  volition  of  a  man  acting  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  of 
nature,  and  from  its  being  restrained  by  that  to  a  cer- 
tain part  of  the  same  country^"  3/Oi'es  stretched  out 
his  hand"  and  the  darkness  prevailed,  every  where 
but  in  the  dwelling.s  of  his  own  people.  TXic  fact  has 
been  established  by  former  arguments;  and  the  fact 
being  allowed,  the  miracle  of  necessity  follows. 

The  destruction  of  the  first-born  of  the  Egyptians 
may  be  next  considered.  Here,  too  are  several  circum- 
stances to  be  carefully  noted.  This  judgment  was 
threatened  in  the  presence  of  Pharaoh,  before  any  of  the 
other  plagues  were  brought  upon  him  and  his  people. 
The  Israelites  also  were  forewarned  of  it.  They  were 
directed  to  slay  a  lamb,  sprinkle  the  blood  upon  their 
door-posts,  and  prepare  for  their  departure  that  .same 
night.  The  stroke  was  inflicted  upon  the  first-born  of 
the  Egyptians  only,  and  not  upon  any  other  part  of  the 
family — it  occurred  in  the  same  hour — the  first-born  of 
the  Israelites  escaped  without  exception — and  the  fes- 
tival of  "  the  jiassover"  was  from  that  night  instituted 
in  remembrance  of  the  event.  Such  a  festival  could 
not  in  the  nature  of  the  thing  be  established  in  any  sub- 
sequent age,  in  commemoration  of  an  event  which 
never  occurred  ;  and  if  instituted  at  the  time,  the  event 
must  have  taken  place,  for  by  no  means  could  this  large 
body  of  men  have  been  persuaded  that  their  first-born 
had  been  saved  and  those  of  the  Egyptians  destroyed, 
if  the  facts  had  not  been  before  their  eyes.  The  history 
therefore  being  established,  the  miracle  follows ;  for 
the  order  of  nature  is  sufficiently  known  to  warrant  the 
conclusion,  that  if  a  pestilence  were  to  be  assumed  as 
the  agent  of  this  calamity,  an  epidemic  disease,  how- 
ever rapid  and  destructive,  comes  not  upon  the  threat 
of  a  mortal,  and  makes  no  such  selection  as  the  first- 
born of  every  family. 

The  miracle  of  dividing  the  waters  of  the  Red  Sea 
has  already  been  mentioned,  but  tnerits  more  particu- 
lar consideration.  In  this  event  we  observe,  as  in  the 
others,  circumstances  which  exclude  all  possibility  of 
mistake  or  collusion.  The  subject  of  the  miracle  is  the 
sea ;  the  witnesses  of  it  the  host  of  Israel,  who  passed 
through  on  foot,  and  the  Egyptian  nation,  who  lost  the 
king  and  his  whole  army.    The  miraculous  characters 


of  the  event  are:— The  waters  arc  divided,  and  stand 
up  on  each  side  ; — the  instrument  is  a  strong  east  wind, 
which  begins  its  operation  upon  the  waters,  at  the 
stretching  out  of  the  hand  of  Moses,  and  ceases  at  the 
same  signal,  and  that  at  the  precise  moment  when  the 
return  of  the  waters  would  be  must  fatal  to  the  Egyp- 
tian pursuing  army. 

It  has,  indeed,  been  asked,  whether  there  were  not 
some  ledges  of  rocks  where  the  water  was  shallow,  so 
that  an  army,  at  particular  times,  might  pass  over  ;  and 
whether  the  Etesian  winds  which  blow  strongly  all 
summer  from  the  north-west,  might  not  blow  so  vio- 
lently against  the  sea  as  to  keep  it  back  "  on  a  heap." 
But  if  there  were  any  force  in  these  questions,  it  is  plain 
that  such  suppositions  would  leave  the  destruction  of 
the  Egyptians  unaccounted  for.  To  show  that  there  ia 
no  weight  in  them  at  all,  let  the  place  where  the  pas- 
sage of  the  Red  Sea  was  effected  be  first  noted.  Some 
fix  it  near  Suez,  at  the  head  of  the  gulf;  but  if  there 
were  satisfactory  evidence  of  this,  it  ought  also  to  be 
taken  into  the  account,  that  formerly  the  gulf  extended 
at  least  twenty-five  miles  north  of  Suez,  the  place 
where  it  terminates  at  present. (5)  But  the  names  of 
places,  as  well  as  tradition,  t\\  the  passage  about  ten 
hours'  journey  lower  down,  at  Clysina,  or  the  valley 
of  Bedea.  The  name  given  by  Moses  to  the  place  where 
the  Israelites  encamped  before  the  sea  was  divided,  was 
Pthahiroth,  which  signifies  "  the  mouth  of  the  ridge," 
or  of  that  chain  of  mountains  which  line  the  we.sfern 
coast  of  the  Red  Sea ;  and  as  there  is  but  one  mouth  of 
that  chain  through  which  an  imtnense  multitude  of  men, 
women,  and  children  could  possibly  pass  when  flying 
before  their  enemies,  there  can  be  no  doubt  whatever 
respecting  the  situation  ot  Pthahiroth;  and  the  modern 
names  of  conspicuous  places  in  its  neighbourhood  prove, 
that  those,  by  whom  such  names  were  given,  believed 
that  this  was  the  place  at  which  the  Israelites  passed 
the  sea  in  safety,  and  where  Pharaoh  was  drowned. 
Thus,  we  have  close  by  Pihahiroth,  on  the  western  side 
of  the  gulf,  a  mountain  called  Atlaka,  which  signifies 
deliverance.  On  the  eastern  coast  ojiposite  is  a  head- 
land called  Ras  Musa,  or  "  the  Cape  of  Moses  ;"  some- 
what lower,  Harnam  Faraun,  "Pharaoh's  Springs;" 
while  at  these  places  the  general  name  of  the  gulf  itself 
is  Bahr-al-Kolsum,  "the  Bay  of  Submersion,"  in  which 
there  is  a  whirlpool  called  Birket  Faraun,  "the  Pool 
of  Pharaoh."  This,  then,  was  the  passage  of  the  Is- 
raelites ;  and  the  depth  of  the  sea  here  is  stated  by 
Bruce,  who  may  be  consulted  as  to  these  localities,  at 
about  fourteen  fathoms,  and  the  breadth  at  between  three 
and  four  leagues.  But  there  is  no  "  ledge  of  rocks," 
and  as  to  the  "  Etesian  whid,"  the  same  traveller  ob- 
serves, "  If  the  Etesian  wind  blowing  from  the  north- 
west in  summer,  could  keep  the  sea  as  a  wall,  on  the 
right,  of  fifty  feet  high,  still  the  difiiculty  would  remaui 
of  building  the  wall  to  the  left,  or  to  the  north.  Ifthe£«('- 
sian  winds  had  done  this  once,  they  must  have  repeated 
if  many  a  time  before  or  since,  from  the  same  causes." 
The  wind  which  actually  did  blow,  according  to  the  his- 
tory, either  as  an  in.strument  of  dividing  the  waters,  or, 
which  is  more  probable,  as  the  instrument  of  drying  the 
ground,  after  the  waters  were  divided  by  the  immediate 
energy  of  the  Divine  power,  was  not  a  north  wind,  but  an 
"  east  wind ;"  and,  as  Dr.  Hales  observes,  "  seems  to  be 
introduced  by  way  of  anticipation,  to  exclude  the  natu- 
ral agency  which  might  be  afterward  resorted  to  for 
solving  the  miracle  ;  for  it  is  remarkable,  that  the?no«- 
soonin  the  Red  Sea  blows  the  summer  half  of  the  year 
from  the  north,  and  the  winter  half  from  the  south,  nei- 
ther of  which  could  produce  the  miracle  in  question." 

The  miraculous  character  of  this  event  is,  therefore, 
mo.st  strongly  marked.  An  expanse  of  water,  and  that 
water  a  sea,  of  from  nine  to  twelve  miles  broad,  known 
to  be  exceedingly  subject  to  agitations,  is  divided,  and  a 
wall  of  water  is  formed  on  each  hand,  affording  a  pas- 
sage on  dry  land  for  the  Israelites.  The  phenome- 
non occurs,  too,  just  as  the  Egyptian  host  are  on  the 
point  of  overtaking  the  fugitives,  and  ceases  at  the  mo- 
ment when  the  latter  reach  the  opposite  shore  in  safety, 
and  when  their  enemies  are  in  the  midst  of  the  passage, 
in  the  only  position  in  which  the  closing  of  the  wall 
of  waters  on  each  side  could  ensure  the  entire  destruc- 
tion of  so  large  a  force  I 

The  falling  of  the  manna  in  the  wilderness  for  forty 
years  is  another  unquestionable  miracle,  and  one  in 


(5)  Lord  Valbntia's  Travels,  vol.  iii.  p.  344. 


60 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  I. 


which  thoTfi  rould  be  neither  mistake  on  the  part  of 
those  wlio  were  sustained  by  it,  nor  Irauci  on  tlie  part 
(vf  Moses.  That  this  event  was  not  prodiieed  by  the  or- 
dinary course  ol  nature,  is  rendered  certain  by  the  (act, 
that  the  same  wilderness  has  been  travelled  by  indi- 
viduals, and  by  large  bodies  of  men,  from  the  earliest 
ages  to  the  present,  but  no  such  supply  of  food  was 
ever  met  with,  except  on  tliis  occasion ;  and  its  mira- 
culous character  is  farther  marked  by  the  following  cir- 
cumstances:— 1,  That  it  fell  but  six'days  in  the  week: 
2,  that  it  fell  in  such  prodieious  ipiantities,  as  sustained 
three  millions  of  souls  :  ."),  that  llicre  fell  a  double  quan- 
tity every  Friday,  to  serve  the  Israelites  for  the  next 
day,  which  was  their  Sabbath :  4,  that  what  was  ga- 
thered on  the  first  live  days  of  the  week  stank  and  bred 
worms  if  kept  above  one  day  ;  but  that  whicli  was  ga- 
thered on  Friday  kept  sweet  lor  two  days:  and,  5,  that 
it  continued  lallmi:  wliile  tlie  Israelites  remained  in  the 
wilderness,  but  ceased  as  soon  as  they  came  out  of  it, 
and  got  corn  to  eat  in  the  land  of  (;anaan.((5)  Let  these 
very  extraordinary  jiarticulars  be  considered,  and  they 
at  once  confirm  the  fact,  while  they  uneiiuivocally  esta- 
blish the  miracle.  No  people  could  be  deceived  in  these 
circumstances  ;  no  person  could  persuade  them  of  tlieir 
truth,  if  they  fiad  not  occurred  ;  and  the  whole  was  so 
clearly  out  of  the  regular  course  of  nature,  as  to  mark 
unequivocally  the  inleriiosition  of  (iod.  To  the  majority 
of  the  numerous  miracles  recorded  in  the  Ohl  Testa- 
ment the  same  remarks  apjily,  and  upon  them  the  same 
miraculous  characters  are  as  indubitably  impressed. 
If  we  proceed  to  those  of  (Christ,  the  evidence  becomes, 
if  possible,  more  indubitable.  They  were  clearly  above 
the  power  of  either  human  agency  or  natural  cau.ses: 
they  were  piil/lk :  they  were  such  as  could  not  admit  of 
collusion  or  deception :  they  were  performed  under  such 
circumstances  as  rendered  it  impossible  for  the  wit- 
nesses and  reporters  of  them  to  mistake:  they  were  of- 
ten done  in  the  presence  of  malignant,  scrutinizing,  anil 
intelligent  enemies,  the  Jewish  rulers,  who  acknow- 
ledged the  facts,  but  attributed  I  hem  to  an  evil  super- 
natural agency ;  and  there  is  no  interruption  in  the  tes- 
timony, from  the  age  in  which  they  were  wrought  to 
this  day.  It  would  be  trifling  with  the  reader  to  exa- 
mine instances  so  well  known  in  their  circumstances  ; 
for  the  slightest  recollection  of  the  feeding  of  the  multi- 
tudes in  the  desert ; — the  healing  of  the  paralytic,  who, 
because  of  the  multitmle,  was  let  down  fVom  the  house- 
top ;— the  in.stant  cure  of  the  withered  hand  in  the  syna- 
gogue, near  Jerusalem,  where  the  Pharisees  were 
"  watching  our  Lord  whether  he  would  heal  on  the  Sab- 
bath-day ;" — the  raising  from  the  dead  of  the  daughter 
of  Jairus,  the  widow's  son,  and  Lazarus :  and  many 
other  instances  of  miraculous  power,  will  be  sufficient 
to  convince  any  ingenuous  mind,  ttiat  all  the  characters 
of  real  and  adeijuately  attested  miracles  meet  in  them. 
That  great  miracle,  the  resurnu'lion  of  our  Lord  him- 
self from  the  dead,  so  oflen  appealed  to  by  the  first 
teachers  of  his  religion,  may,  howt^ver,  be  here  prii|)erly 
adduced,  with  its  convincing  and  irrefragable  circum- 
stances, as  completing  this  branch  of  the  Kxternal  Evi- 
dence. 

That  it  is  a  miracle  in  its  highest  sense  for  a  person 
actually  dead  to  raise  himself  again  to  life,  cannot  be 
doubled;  and  when  wrought,  as  the  raising  of  Christ 
was,  in  attestation  of  a  I)ivine  commission,  it  is  evi- 
dence of  the  most  irrefragable  kind.  So  it  has  been  re- 
garded by  unbelievers,  who  have  bent  all  their  force 
against  it ;  and  so  it  was  regarded  by  Divine  Provi- 
dence, who  rend('red  its  jiroofs  ample  and  indubitable 
in  proportion  to  its  importance.  Let  us,  then,  examine 
the  I'ircumsiances,  as  recorded  in  the  history. 

In  tlip  first  place,  thr  nalifi/  </  CUrixt's  death  is  cir- 
cumstantially and  fully  stated  ;  though,  if  no  circum- 
stantial evidence  had  Ijccri  adduced,  it  is  not  to  be  sup- 
posed that  they  who  had  sought  his  death  with  so  much 
eagerness  would  be  inaltiritive  to  the  full  execution 
of  the  sentence  for  which  they  had  claniourad.  'J'he 
execution  was  jiublic  ;  he  was  crucified  with  common 
malefactors,  in  the  usual  place  of  execution  ;  the  sol- 
diers brake  not  his  legs,  the  usual  practice  when  they 
would  hasten  tlie  death  of  the  malelaclor,  observing 
that  he  was  dead  already.  His  enemies  knew  that  he 
had  predicted  his  resurrection,  and  would  llierefore  be 
careful  that  he  should  not  be  removed  from  the  cross 
before  death  had  actually  taken  place ;  and  Pilate  re- 


(0)  Universal  History,  1. 1,  c. 


fused  to  deliver  the  body  for  burial  until  he  had  ex- 
pressly inquired  of  the  oiKcer  on  duty,  whether  he  were 
already  dead,  ^or  w  as  he  taken  away  to  an  unknown 
or  distant  tomb.  Joseph  of  Arimathea  made  no  secret 
of  the  iilace  w  here  he  had  buried  him.  It  was  in  his 
own  family  tomb,  and  the  Pharisees  knew  w  here  to  di- 
rect the  watch  which  was  appointed  to  guard  the  body 
against  the  approach  of  his  disciples.  The  reality  of  the 
death  of  Christ  is  therefore  established. 

2.  But  by  both  parties,  by  the  Pharisees  on  the  one 
[lart,  and  by  the  disciples  on  the  other,  it  was  agreed, 
that  the  body  mas  mis.sing,  and  that,  in  a  state  of  death, 
it  was  never  more  seen  1  The  sepulchre  was  made 
sure,  the  stone  at  the  month  being  sealed,  and  a  watcli 
of  sixty  Roman  soldiers  appointed  to  guard  it,  and  yet 
the  body  was  not  to  be  found.  Let  us  see,  tlien,  how 
each  party  accounts  for  this  fact.  The  disciples  allirm 
that  two  of  their  com]<any,  going  early  in  the  morning 
to  the  sepulchre  to  embalm  the  body,  saw  an  angel 
descend  and  roll  away  the  stone,  sit  upon  it,  and  in- 
vite tliem  to  see  the  place  where  their  Lord  had  lain, 
informing  them  that  he  was  risen,  and  command- 
ing them  to  tell  the  other  disciples  of  the  fact ; — that 
others  went  to  the  sepulchre  and  found  not  the  body, 
though  the  grave  clothes  remained ;  that,  at  different 
times,  he  ai)])eared  to  them,  both  separately  and  when 
assembled  ;  that  they  conversed  with  him ;  that  he 
liartook  of  their  food ;  that  they  touched  his  body ; 
that  he  continued  to  make  his  appearance  among  them 
lor  nearly  six  weeks,  and  then,  after  many  advices, 
finally  led  them  out  as  far  as  Bethany,  and,  in  the  pre- 
sence of  them  all,  ascended  into  the  clouds  of  heaven. 
This  is  the  statement  of  the  disciples. 

The  manner  in  which  the  Jewish  Sanhedrim  accounts 
for  the  absence  of  our  Lord's  body  from  the  sepulchre 
is,  that  the  Roman  soldiers  having  slept  on  their  post, 
the  disciples  stole  aw  ay  the  corjise.  We  know  of  no 
other  account.  Neither  in  their  earliest  books  nor  tra- 
ditions is  there  any  other  attempt  to  explain  the  alleged 
resurrection  of  Jesus.  We  are  warranted,  theretbre, 
in  concluding  that  the  Pharisees  had  notliiiig  but  this  to 
oppose  to  the  ])0.silive  testimony  of  the  disciples,  who 
also  added,  and  published  it  to  the  world,  that  tbeRomaii 
soldiers  related  to  the  Pharisees  "all  the  things  that 
were  done,"  the  earthquake,  the  appearance  of  the  an- 
gel, &c.;  but  that  they  were  bribed  to  say,  ^'  His  disci- 
ples cnini'  by  visitt  and  stole  him  away,  while  xce  slept." 

On  the  sialrmeiit  of  the  Pharisees  we  may  remark, 
that  though  those  w  ho  were  not  convinced  by  our  Lord's 
Ibrnur  miracles  were  in  a  state  of  mind  to  resist  the 
im|iressiuii  ol  his  resurrection,  yet  in  this  attempt  to 
dislioy  the  tesiimony  of  the  Apostles  they  fell  below 
their  usual  subtlety,  in  circulating  a  story  which  carried 
with  it  its  own  refutation.  This,  however,  may  be  ac- 
counted for  from  the  hurry  and  agitation  of  the  moment, 
and  the  necessity  under  which  they  were  laid  to  invent 
sotn(t/n/iif  to  amuse  the  [lopulace,  who  were  not  indis- 
posed to  charge  them  with  the  death  of  Jesus.  Of  this  it 
is  clear  that  the  Pharisees  were  apjireliensive,  '^Jiaring 
the  jiiople"  on  this  as  on  Ibrnier  occasions.  This  ap- 
pears Irom  the  manner  in  which  the  Sanhedrim  ad- 
dressed the  Apostles,  Acts  v.  28:  "  Did  we  not  strailly 
command  you  that  ye  should  not  teach  in  this  name? 
and  behold  5  ou  have  filled  Jerusalem  with  your  doctrine, 

and    INTENll    TO    IIRING    THIS    man's    BI.OOD    Ul'ON   IS." 

The  majority  of  the  pcojile  were  not  enemies  of  Jesus, 
though  the  Pharisees  were  ;  and  it  was  a  mob  of  base 
fidlows  and  strangers,  of  which  .Jerusalem  was  t\ill  at 
the  pas.sover,  who  bad  been  excited  to  clamour  lor  his 
death.  The  body  of  the  Jewish  poimlace  heard  hnn 
gladly ;  great  numbers  of  them  had  been  deeply  im- 
pressed by  the  raising  of  Lazarus,  in  the  very  neigh- 
bourhood of  Jerusalem,  and  had  in  consequence  accom- 
panied him  with  public  acclamations,  as  ihe  Messiah, 
into  Jeru.salem.  These  sentiments  of  the  people  of  Je- 
rusalem towards  our  Lord  were  transferred  lo  the  Apos- 
tles; for  after  Peter  and  John  had  healed  the  man  at 
till!  gale  of  the  temple,  and  refused  to  obey  the  Council 
in  keeping  silent  as  to  Christ,  when  Ihe  chief  priests 
had  '/nrther  threatened  them,  tin  y  let  them  lio.Jindmg 
not  how  they  might  punish  them,  UEtALSfc;  ok  'i  he  pko- 

I'l.K." 

It  was  in  a  stale  of  considerable  agitation,  therefore, 
thai  this  absurd  and  self-exposed  rumour  was  hastily 
got  up,  and  as  hastily  published.  We  may  add,  also, 
that  it  was  hastily  abandoned  ;  lor  it  is  remarkable,  that 
It  is  never  adverted  to  by  tlie  Pharisees  in  any  of  ilioso 


Chap.  XVI.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


ei 


legal  proccssps  institufod  at  Jerusalom  against  tlio  first 
preachers  of  Christ  as  the  risen  Messiah,  wilhiii  a  few 
davs  alter  the  alleged  event  itself  I'lrst,  Peter  and 
John  are  brought  before  their  ^'reat  council ;  then  the 
whole  body  of  the  Apostles  twice;  on  all  these  occa- 
sions ihey  affirm  llie  I'ai't  of  the  resurrection,  before  the 
very  men  who  had  ori^mated  the  tale  of  the  stealing 
away  of  the  body,  and  ni  none  of  these  instances  did  the 
chief  priests  oppose  this  story  to  the  explicit  testimony 
of  his  disciples  having  seen,  felt,  and  conversed  with 
.lesus,  after  his  passion.  This  silence  cannot  be  ac- 
counted for  but  on  the  supposition  that,  in  the  presence 
of  the  Apostles  at  least,  they  would  not  hazard  its  expo- 
sure. If  at  any  time  the  Roman  guards  could  have  been 
brought  forward  effectually  to  confront  the  Apostles,  it 
was  when  the  whole  body  of  the  latter  were  in  custody, 
and  belbre  the  council,  where  indeed  the  great  question 
at  issue  between  the  parties  was,  whether  Jesus  were 
risen  from  the  dead  or  not.  On  the  one  part  the  Apostles 
stand  belbre  the  rulers  atlinTiing  the  fact,  and  are  ready 
to  go  into  the  detail  of  their  testimony  ;  the  only  testi- 
mony which  could  be  opposed  to  this  is  that  of  the  Ro- 
man soldiers,  but  not  one  of  the  sixty  is  brought  up,  and 
they  do  not  even  advert  to  the  rumour  which  the  rulers 
had  proclaimed.  On  the  contrary,  one  of  them,  Gama- 
liel, advises  the  council  to  take  no  farther  proceedings, 
but  to  let  the  matter  go  on,  for  this  reason,  that  if  it 
were  of  men  it  would  come  to  naught,  but  if  of  God, 
they  could  not  overthrow  it,  and  would  be  found  to  fight 
against  God  himself.  Now  it  is  plain,  that  if  the  Pha- 
risees themselves  believed  in  the  story  they  had  put  into 
the  niiiutbs  ofthe  Roman  soldiers,  no  Doctor  of  the  Law, 
like  (Janialiel,  would  have  given  such  advice,  and 
ecpially  impossible  is  it  that  the  council  should  unani- 
mously have  agreed  to  it.  With  honest  proofs  of  an 
imposture  in  their  hands,  they  could  never  thus  have 
tamely  surrendered  the  public  to  delusion  and  their  own 
characters  to  infamy ;  nor,  if  they  had,  could  they  have 
put  their  non-interference  on  the  ground  assumed  by 
Gamaliel.  The  very  principle  of  his  decision  supposes, 
that  both  sides  acknowledged  something  very  extraor- 
dinary which  might  prove  a  work  of  Gon ;  and  that 
time  would  make  it  manifest.  It  admitted  in  point  of 
fact,  that  Jesis  mujht  be  risun  arain.  The  whole 
council,  by  adopting  Gamaliel's  decision,  admitted  this 
possibility,  or  how  could  time  show  the  whole  work 
built  entirely  upon  this  fact,  to  be  a  work  of  God,  or  not? 
And  thus  I  iamaliel,  without  intending  it,  certainly,  has 
afibrded  evidence  in  favour  of  the  resurrection  of  our 
Lord,  the  more  powerful  from  its  being  incidental. 

The  absurdity  involved  in  the  only  testimony  ever 
brought  against  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord,  rendered 
it  indeed  impossible  to  maintain  the  story.  That  a 
Roman  guard  should  be  found  off  their  watch,  or  asleep, 
a  fault  which  the  military  law  of  that  jieople  punished 
with  death,  was  most  incredible;  that,  if  they  were 
asleep,  the  timid  disciples  of  Christ  should  dare  to  make 
the  attempt,  when  the  noise  of  removing  the  stone  and 
bearing  away  the  body  might  awaken  tiiem,  is  very  im- 
probable ;  and,  above  all,  as  it  has  been  often  put, 
either  the  soldiers  were  awake  or  asleep— if  awake, 
xvhy  did  they  suffer  a  few  unarmed  peasants  and 
women  to  take  away  the  body  ?  and  if  asleep,  how 
came  they  to  know  that  the  disciples  were  the  per- 
sons ? 

Against  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  we  may  then  with 
confidence  say,  there  is  no  testimony  whatever;  it 
stands,  like  every  other  fact  in  the  evangelic  history, 
entirely  uncontradicted  from  the  earliest  ages  to  the 
present ;  and  though  we  grant  tliat  it  does  not  follow, 
that,  because  we  do  not  admit  the  account  given  of  the 
absence  of  our  Lord's  body  from  the  sepulchre  by  the 
Jews,  we  must  therefore  admit  that  of  the  Apostles, 
yet  the  very  inability  of  those  who  first  objected  to  the 
fact  of  the  resurrection  to  account  for  the  absence  of 
the  body,  which  had  been  entirely  in  their  own  power, 
affords  very  strong  presumjitive  evidence  in  favour  of 
the  statement  of  the  disciples.  Uiuler  such  circum- 
stances the  loss  of  the  body  became  itself  an  extraordi- 
nary event.  The  tomb  was  carefully  closed  and  sealed 
by  officers  appointed  for  that  purpose,  a  guard  was  set, 
and  yet  the  body  is  missing.  The  story  of  the  Phari- 
sees does  not  at  all  account  for  the  fact ;  it  is  too  absurd 
to  be  for  a  moment  credited  ;  and  unless  the  history  of 
the  Evangelists  be  admitted,  that  singular  fact  remains 
still  unaccoimted  for.  -  » 

But  in  addition  to  this  presumption,  let  the  circum-. 


stances  of  credibility  in  the  testimony  of  the  disciples 
be  collcclrii,  and  I  be  evidence  becomes  indubitable. 

The  account  given  by  the  disciples  was  not  even  an- 
(niprolialilc  one;  for  allow  the  miracles  wrought  by 
Christ  during  his  life,  and  the  resurrection  follows  as  a 
vntiiral  conclusion  ;  for  before  that  event  can  be  main- 
tained to  be  in  the  lowe.st  sense  improbable,  the  whole 
history  of  his  public  life,  in  opposition  not  lo  the  Evan- 
gelists merely,  but,  as  we  have  seen,  to  the  testimony 
of  Jews  and  Heathens  themselves,  must  be  proved  to 
be  a  fable. 

The  manner  in  which  this  testimony  is  given  is  in 
its  favour.  So  far  from  the  Evangelists  having  written 
in  concert,  they  give  an  account  of  the  transaction  so 
varied  as  to  make  it  clear  that  they  wrote  independently 
of  each  other  ;  and  yet  so  agreeing  in  the  leading  facts, 
and  so  easily  capable  of  reconcilement  in  those  minute 
circumstances  in  which  some  discrepancy  at  first  sight 
appears,  that  their  evidence  in  every  part  carries  with 
it  the  air  of  honesty  and  truth. 

Their  own  account  sufficiently  proves,  that  they 
were  incredulovs  as  to  the  fact  when  announced,  and 
so  not  disposed  to  be  imposed  upon  by  an  imagination. 
This  indeed  was  impossible ;  the  appearances  of  Christ 
were  too  numerous,  and  were  continued  for  too  long  a 
time, — forty  days.  They  could  not  mistake,  and  it  is  as 
impossih/e  that  they  should  deceive ;  impossible  that 
upwards  of  five  hundred  persons,  to  whom  Christ  ap- 
peared, should  have  been  persuaded  by  the  artful  few, 
that  they  had  seen  and  conversed  with  Christ,  or  to 
agree,  not  only  without  reward,  but  in  renunciation  of 
all  interests  and  in  hazard  of  all  dangers  and  of  death 
itself,  to  continue  to  assert  a  falsehood. 

Nor  did  a  long  period  elapse  before  the  fact  of  the 
resurrection  was  proclaimed ;  nor  was  a  distant  place 
chosen  in  which  to  make  the  first  report  of  it.  These 
would  have  been  suspicious  circumstances  ;  but  on  the 
contrary  the  disciples  testify  the  fact  from  the  day  of 
the  resurrection  itself.  One  of  them  in  a  public  speech 
at  the  feast  of  Pentecost,  addressed  to  a  mixed  multi- 
tude, affirms  it ;  and  the  same  testimony  is  given  by  the 
whole  college  of  Apostles,  before  the  great  council 
twice:  this  too  was  done  at  Jerusalem,  the  scene  of 
the  whole  transaction,  and  in  the  presence  of  those 
most  interested  in  detecting  the  falsehood.  Their  evi- 
dence was  given,  not  only  before  private  but  public 
persons,  before  magistrates  and  tribunals,  "before 
philosophers  and  rabbles,  before  courtiers,  before  law- 
yers, before  people  expert  in  examining  and  cross- 
examining  witnesses,"  and  yet  what  Christian  ever  im- 
peached his  accomplices  ?  or  discovered  his  pretended 
imposture  !  or  was  convicted  of  prevarication  ?  or  was 
even  confronted  with  others  who  could  contradict  him 
as  to  this  or  any  other  matter  of  fact  relative  to  his  re- 
ligion ?  To  this  testimony  of  the  Apostles  was  added 
the  seal  of  miracles,  wrought  as  publicly,  and  being  as 
unequivocal  in  their  nature,  as  open  to  public  investi- 
gation, and  as  numerous,  as  those  of  their  Lord  him- 
self. The  miracle  of  the  gift  of  tongues  was  in  proof 
of  the  resurrection  and  ascension  of  Jesus  Christ;  and 
the  miracles  of  healing  were  wrought  by  the  Apostles 
in  their  Master's  nmne,  and  therefore  were  the  proofs 
both  of  his  resurrection  and  of  their  commission.  In- 
deed, of  the  want  of  supernatural  evidence  the  Jews, 
the  ancient  enemies  of  Christianity,  never  complained. 
They  allowed  the  miracles  both  of  Christ  and  his  Apos- 
tles ;  but  by  ascribing  them  to  Satan,  and  regarding 
them  as  diabolical  delusions  and  wonders  wrought  in 
order  to  seduce  them  from  the  Law,  their  admissions 
are  at  once  in  proof  of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  History, 
and  enable  us  to  account  for  their  resistance  to  an  evi- 
dence so  majestic  and  overwhelming. (7) 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

Objections  to  thc  Proof  from  Miracles 
considicred. 
The  first  objection  to  the  conclusivenes.s  ofthe  argu- 
ment in  favour  of  the  Mosaic  and  Christian  systems 
which  is  drawn  from  their  miracles,  is  grounded  upon 


(7)  The  evidences  of  our  Lord's  resurrection  are 
fully  exhibited  in  West  on  the  Resurrection,  Sher- 
lock's Trial  of  the  Witnesses,  and  Dr.  Cook's  Dlustra- 
tion  of  the  Evidence  of  Christ's  Resurrection. 


62 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  L' 


facts  and  doctrines  supposed  to  be  found  in  tlie  Scrip- 
tures themselves. 

It  is  staled,  tliat  tlie  Scriptures  assert  miraculous 
acts  to  have  beeu  i>erforiiied  ia  oinmsition  to  the  mis- 
sion and  to  the  doctrine  of  tliose  wlio  have  professed 
themselves  accredited  instruments  of  mailing  known 
revelations  of  the  will  of  t;od  to  niankmd ;  and  that 
the  sacred  WTiters  freciucntly  speak  of  such  events  as 
possible,  nay,  as  certain  future  occurrences,  even  when 
they  have  not  actually  taken  place.  The  question  there- 
fore is,  how  miracles  should  be  conclusive  proofs  of 
truth,  when  they  actually  have  been,  or  may  be,  wTOUghl 
in  proof  of  falxtliimd.  "iShall  a  miracle  confirm  the 
belief  of  one,  and  not  conlirm  the  belief  of  more  gods 
than  one,  if  wrought  for  that  purpose  ?"(8)  The  in- 
stances usually  adduced  are  the  feats  of  the  Egyptian 
Magi  m  opposition  to  Moses,  and  the  raising  of  Samuel 
by  the  witch  of  ICndor.  The  presumjitions  that  such 
works  are  considered  possible  are  drawn  from  a  pas- 
sage of  Moses  in  the  book  of  Deuteronomy ;  a  jiredic- 
tion  respecting  false  Christs  in  St.  Matthew's  Gospel ; 
and  the  prediction  of  the  man  of  sin,  in  the  writings 
of  St.  Paul :  all  of  which  caution  the  reader  against 
being  si^duced  from  the  truth,  by  "signs  and  wonders" 
performed  by  false  teachers. 

With  respect  to  the  miracles,  or  pretended  miracles, 
■wrought  by  the  magicians  of  Pharaoh,  some  prelimi- 
nary considerations  are  to  be  noted. 

1.  Thai  whether  ilie  persons  called  magicians  were 
regular  priests,  or  a  distinct  class  of  men,  they  were 
known  to  be  e.xpert  in  producing  singular  effects  and 
apparent  transformations  in  natural  objects,  for  after 
Moses  had  commenced  his  marvellous  operations,  they 
were  sent  for  by  Pharaoh  to  oppose  their  power  and 
skill  to  his. 

2.  That  they  succeeded,  or  appeared  to  succeed,  in 
three  atlem|its  to  imitate  the  works  of  Moses,  and  were 
then  controlled,  or  attempted  a  work  beyond  their 
power,  and  were  obliged  to  acknowledge  themselves 
vanquished  by  "  the  finger  of  (Jod."  The  rest  of  the 
miracles  wrought  by  Moses  went  on  without  any  at- 
tempt at  imitation. 

3.  That  these  works,  of  whatever  kind  they  might 
be,  were  wrought  to  hold  up  the  idols  of  Egypt  as 
equal  in  power  to  .lehovah,  the  God  of  Moses  and  the 
Israelites.  This  is  a  consideration  of  importance,  and 
the  fact  is  easily  proved.  If  they  were  mere  jugglers 
and  performed  their  wonders  by  sleight  of  hand,  they 
did  not  wish  the  people  to  know  this,  or  their  influence 
over  them  could  not  have  been  maintained.  They 
therefore  used  "enchantments,"  incongruous  and 
strange  ceremonies,  rites,  and  offerings,  which  among 
all  superstitious  people  have  been  supjiosed  to  have  a 
powerful  etfect  in  commanding  the  influence  of  super- 
natural l)eings  in  their  favour,  and  subjecting  them  to 
their  will.  We  have  an  instance  of  this  useof  "f;i- 
charilminits"  in  the  case  of  Balaam,  who  lived  in  the 
Bsimeage;  and  this  example  goes  very  far,  we  think, 
to  settle  the  sense  in  which  the  Magi  used  "  erir.liant- 
ments;"  for  though  the  ongnuil  wcjrd  used  is  different, 
yet  its  ideal  meaning  is  eiiuall>  capable  of  being  ap- 

'plied  to  the  rites  of  incantation,  and  in  this  sense  it  is 
conlirmed  by  the  whole  story. (il)  Whatever  connexion 
therefore  may  be  supposed  to  exist  between  the  "  en- 
chantmiMils"  used  and  the  works  performed,  or  if  all 
rorinexiori  Iji'  denied,  this  species  uf  religious  rite  was 
performeil,  and  ihi'  pcuple  uniiersKioil,  as  it  wa.s  in- 
tended they  shiiiild  understand,  that  the  wonders  which 
the  Magi  perforini:d  were  tlone  uiwler  the  intluence  of 
their  deities.     The  object  of  Pliaraoh  and  the  magicians 


(3)  Bishop  Fi.KETwooD  on  Miracles. 

(0)  "  They  also  did  in  like  manner  with  their  en- 
rhantments.  The  word  CD'"£0n7i  lahatim,  comes 
from  ton 7'  lahal,  to  liiirn,  to  srt  on  fire  ;  and  prolmbly 
signilii^s  such  incantations  as  required  litstral  fires, 
sarrifires,  fiiinifiations,  burning ';/  incense,  nromeiitr 
and  (id'iri/erniis  dru!;s,  A-c,  as  the  means  of  evoking 
departed  spirits,  or  assistant  demons,  by  whose  minis- 
try, it  is  probable,  the  magicians  in  ((uestion  wrought 
some  of  their  deceptive  miracles;  for  as  the  term  mirn- 
cle  properly  signifies  something  which  exceeds  the 
power  of  nature  or  art  to  produce  (see  verse  9);  hence 
there  could  be  no  miracle  in  this  case,  but  tlio.sc  wronghi 
through  th'j  jiower  of  (Jod,  by  the  nuiiistry  of  Moses 
and  Aaron." — Ur.  Auau  C'L.viiKii;  i/i  loc. 


was  to  show,  that  their  gods  were  as  powerful  as  the 
God  who  had  cumniissioned  Moses,  and  that  they  could 
protect  them  fmni  his  displeasure,  though  they  should 
refuse  at  the  coinniaiid  of  his  comniissionud  scrNant  to 
let  his  peo|)le  go. 

But  whatever  pretence  there  was  of  supernatural  as- 
sistance, it  is  contended  by  several  w Titers  of  great  and 
deserved  authority,  that  no  miracles  were  wrought  at 
all  on  these  occasions ;  that,  by  dexterity  and  previous 
preparation,  serpents  were  substituted  by  the  magicians 
for  rods;  that  a  colouring  matter  was  infused  into  a 
portion  of  water ;  and  that  as  frogs,  through  the  pre- 
vious miracle  of  Moses,  every  where  abounded  in  the 
land  of  Egypt,  a  sufficient  number  might  be  easily  pro- 
cured to  cover  some  given  space ;  and  they  farther 
argue,  that  when  the  miracles  of  Mo.ses  became  such 
as  to  defy  the  possibility  of  the  most  distant  imitation, 
at  that  point  tlic  simulations  of  the  Magi  ceased. 

The  obvious  objection  to  this  is,  that  "  Moses  describes 
the  works  of  the  magicians  in  the  very  same  language 
as  he  does  his  own,  and  therefore  there  is  reason  to  con- 
clude that  they  were  eipially  miraculous."  To  this  it  is 
replied,  that  nothing  is  more  common  than  to  speak  of 
professed  jugglers  as  ilains  w  hat  they  pretend  or  appear 
to  do,  and  that  I  Ins  language  never  misleads.  But  it  is 
also  stated,  and  the  observation  is  of  great  weight,  that 
the  word  used  by  Moses  is  one  of  great  latitude — 
"  thei/ iHD  so,"  that  IS,  in  like  manner,  imi>orling  that 
they  attempted  some  imitation  of  Moses ;  because  it  is 
used  when  lh*;y  failed  in  their  attempt — "  they  did  so 
to  brin^  forth  lice;  but  they  covld  not."  Farther,  Mr. 
Farmer,  l)r.  Hales,  and  others  contend,  that  the  root  of 
the  word  translated  "eiichantment.s"  fitly  expresses 
any  "secret  arllticesor  methods  of  deception,  whereby 
false  appearances  are  im|i(ised  upon  the  spectators." 
For  a  farther  explanation  and  defence  of  this  hypothe- 
sis, an  extract  from  Farmer's  Dissertation  on  Miracles 
is  given,  at  the  end  of  the  ('liaiiter.(l) 

Much  as  these  observations  deserve  attention,  it  may 
be  very  much  doubted,  whether  mere  manual  dexterity 
and  sleight  of  hand  can  sufficiently  account  lor  the  ef- 
fects actually  produced,  if  only  human  agents  were  en- 
gaged ;  and  it  does  not  appear  impracticable  to  meet 
any  dilTiculty  which  may  arise  out  of  an  admission  of 
siipernatiirtil  eril  agency  in  the  imitation  of  the  three 
first  wonders  perliirmed  by  Moses. 

It  ought,  however,  in  the  first  place,  to  be  previously 
stated,  that  the  history  beibre  ns  is  mil  iii  lairtiess  to  be 
judged  of  as  an  insulated  statement,  independent  of  the 
principles  and  doctrines  of  the  revelation  in  which  il  is 
found.  With  that  revelation  il  is  bound  up,  and  by  the 
light  of  its  doctrine  it  is  to  be  judged.  No  infidel,  who 
would  find  in  Scripture  an  argument  against  Scripture, 
has  the  right  to  consider  any  passage  separately,  or  to 
apply  to  it  the  rule  of  his  own  theory  on  religious  sub- 
jects, unless  he  has  first,  by  fair  and  honest  argument, 
dispiis<d  of  the  evidences  of  the  Scriptures  themselves. 
Mr  imisi  disprove  the  authenticity  of  the  sacred  record, 
and  the  truth  of  the  facts  contained  in  it,— he  must  rid 
himself  of  every  proof  of  the  Divine  mission  of  Moses, 
and  of  the  evidence  of  his  miracles,  before  he  is  en- 
titled to  this  right ;  and  if  he  is  inadei)uate  to  this  task, 
he  can  only  consider  the  ca.se  as  a  difficulty,  standing 
on  the  admission  of  the  Scriptures  themselves,  and  to 
be  explained,  as  far  as  possible,  on  the  principles  of  that 
general  system  of  religion  which  the  Scriptures  them- 
selves su|iply.  In  this  nothing  more  is  asked  than  ar- 
gumentative I'ainiess.  The  .'same  rule  is  still  more  obli- 
gatory upon  those  interpreters  who  proliss  to  believe 
in  the  Divine  authority  of  the  sacred  re<(>rds ;  for  by 
the  aid  of  their  general  principles  and  unequivocal 
doctrines,  every  ditficulty  which  they  profess  to  extract 
from  them  is  surely  to  be  examined  in  order  to  ascer- 
tain its  real  character.  What,  however,  is  the  real 
difficulty  in  the  present  case,  supposing  it  to  be  allowed 
that  the  magicians  performed  works  superior  to  the 
power  of  any  mere  human  agent,  and  therefore  super- 
natural !  This  it  is  the  more  neces.sary  to  settle,  as  (he 
dithculty  suppo.scd  to  arise  out  of  tlus  admission  has 
been  ('xaggeraled. 

It  seems  trciierally  to  have  been  .sui)po.scd,  that  the.se 
counter-perlciriiiaM(  rs  were  wrought  to  contradict  the 
Divine  missidii  of  Mo.ses,  ami  that  by  allowing  them  to 
be  supernatural,  we  are  hroii;:lil  into  the  dilliculty  of 
supposing,  that  God  may  authenticate  the  mission  of 


(1)  Bee  note  A,  al  the  end  of  the  chapter. 


Chap.  XVI.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


63 


his  servants  by  miracles,  and  that  miracles  may  be 
wrought  also  to  coatradict  this  attestation,  tluis  h;aving 
us  in  a  state  of  uncertainty.  This  view  is  not  liovvever 
at  all  countenanced  by  the  history.  No  intimation  is 
given  that  the  magicians  performed  their  wonders  to 
prove  that  tliere  was  no  such  God  as  Jeliovah,  or  that 
Moses  was  not  commis.sionod  by  Him.  For,  as  they  did 
not  deny  the  works  of  Moses  to  be  really  performed, 
they  could  no  more  deny  that  he  did  thein  by  the  power 
of  his  God,  than  they  would  deny  that  they  themselves 
pertbrmed  their  exploits  by  the  assistance  of  their  gods, 
— a  point  which  they  doubtless  wished  to  impress  upon 
Pharaoh  and  the  people,  and  for  which  both  were  pre- 
pared by  their  previous  belief  in  their  idols,  and  in  the 
effect  of  incantations.  For  to  suppose  that  Pharaoh 
sent  for  men  to  play  mere  juggling  tricks,  knowing 
them  to  be  mere  jugglers,  seems  too  absurd  to  be  for  a 
moment  admitted,  e.xcept  indeed,  as  some  have  assumed, 
that  he  thought  the  works  of  Moses  to  be  sleight-of- 
han<i  deceptions,  which  he  might  expose  by  the  imita- 
tions of  his  own  jugglers.  But  nothing  of  this  is  even 
hinted  at  in  the  history,  and  at  least  the  second  work  of 
Moses  was  such  as  entirely  to  preclude  the  idea — the 
water  became  blood  thrritighout  the  whole  land,  of  Egypt. 
It  was  not  intended  by  these  works  of  the  Egyptian 
Magi,  to  oppose  the  existence  of  Jehovah,  lor  there  was 
nothing  in  polytheism  which  required  it  to  be  denied, 
that  every  people  had  their  own  local  divinities, — nothing 
indeed  which  required  its  votaries  to  disallow  the  e.x- 
istence  of  even  a  Supreme  Ueity,  the  "  Father  of  gods 
and  men  ;"  and  that  Moses  was  commissioned  by  this 
Jehovah,  "  the  God  of  the  Hebrews,"  to  command 
Pharaoh  to  let  His  people  go,  was  in  point  of  fact  ac- 
knowledged, rather  than  denied,  by  allowing  his  works, 
and  attempting  to  imitate  them.  The  argument  upon 
their  own  principles  was  certainly  as  strong  lor  Moses 
as  for  the  Egyptian  priests.  If  their  extraordinary 
works  proved  them  the  servants  of  their  gods,  the 
works  of  Moses  proved  him  to  be  the  servant  of  his 
(iod. 

Thus  in  this  series  of  singular  transactions  was  there 
no  evidence  from  counter-miracles,  even  should  it  be 
allowed  that  real  miracles  were  wrought,  to  counteract 
or  nullify  the  mission  of  Moses,  or  to  deny  the  exist- 
ence or  even  to  question  any  of  the  attributes  of  the 
true  Jehovah.  All  that  can  be  said,  is,  that  singular 
works,  which  were  intended  to  pass  for  miraculous 
ones,  were  wrought,  not  to  disprove  any  thing  which 
Moses  advanced,  but  to  prove  that  the  Egyptian  deities 
had  power  equal  to  the  God  of  the  Jews ;  in  which 
contest  their  votaries  ultimately  failed — that  pretension 
b^ing  abundantly  refuted  by  the  transcendent  nature 
and  number  of  the  works  of  Moses  ;  and  by  their  being 
" jilagne.t"  from  which  the  objects  of  their  idolatry 
could  not  deliver  them,  and  which,  indeed,  as  the 
learned  Bryant  has  shown,  were  intended  expressly  to 
humble  idolatry  itself,  and  put  it  to  open  and  bitter 
shame. 

If  in  this  instance  we  see  nothing  to  contravene  the 
evidence  of  miracles,  as  attestations  of  the  Divine  com- 
mission of  Mo.ses,  so  in  no  other  case  recorded  in 
Scri|iture.  The  raising  of  the  spirit  of  Samuel  by  the 
witch  of  Endor  is  indeed  the  only  instance  of  any  thing 
approaching  to  miraculous  agency  ascribed  to  an  evil 
spirit,  unless  we  add  the  power  exercised  by  .Satan  over 
Job,  and  his  bearing  our  Lord  through  the  air,  and 
placing  him  upon  an  exceeding  high  mountain.  But 
whether  these  events  were  properly  speaking  miracu- 
lous, may  be  more  than  doubted  ;  and  if  they  were, 
neither  they,  nor  the  raising  of  Samuel,  profess  to  give 
any  evidence  in  opposition  to  the  mission  of  any  servant 
of  God,  or  to  the  doctrines  taught  by  him.  On  the  con- 
trary, so  far  are  the  Scriptures  from  affording  any  ex- 
amples of  miracles,  either  real  or  simtUated,  wrought 
in  direct  opposition  to  the  mission  and  theological  doc- 
trine of  the  inspired  messengers  of  God  in  any  a^e 
that  in  cases  where  the  authority  of  the  mes-sen^er 
•was  fairly  brought  into  question,  the  examples  are  of  a 
quite  different  kind.  Elijah  brought  the  matter  to  issue, 
whether  Jehovah  or  Baal  were  God  ;  and  while  the 
priests  of  Baal  heard  neither  "voice  nor .•^ound"  in  re- 
turn to  all  their  prayers,  the  God  of  Israel  answered  his 
own  projihet  by  lire,  and  by  that  ratified  his  servant's 
commission  and  his  own  Divinity  before  all  Israel. 
The  devds  in  our  Lord's  days  confessed  him  to  be  the 
Son  of  the  Most  High  God.  The  damsel  possessed  with 
a  spirit  of  divination  at  Tbyatira,  gave  testimony  to  the 


mission  of  the  Apostle  Paul  and  his  companions.  We 
read  of  no  particular  arts  performed  by  Elyrnas  the 
sorcerer;  but,  whatever  he  coulil  pcrlbrm,  when  heat- 
tempted  to  turn  away  Sergius  i'aulus  from  the  faith  he 
was  struck  blind.  And  thus  we  find  that  Scripture 
does  nowhere  represent  miracles  to  have  been  actually 
wrought  in  contradiction  of  the  authority  of  any  whom 
God  had  commissioned  to  teach  his  will  to  mankind. 

But  that  the  Scriptures  assume  this  as  pns.sible,  is 
argued  from  Deut.  xiii.  1,  &c., — where  the  people  are 
commanded  not  to  follow  a  prophet  or  dreamer  of 
dreams,  who  would  entice  them  into  idolatry,  though 
he  should  give  them  "  a  sign  or  wonder,  and  the  sign  or 
wonder  come  to  jiass."  Here,  however,  it  ajipears|  that 
not  a  miracle,  but  a  prophecy  of  some  wonderful  event,  is 
spoken  of:  for  this  sign  or  wonder  was  to  come  to  pass. 
Nor  can  the  prediction  be  considered  as  more  than  some 
shrewd  and  accidental  guess, either  from  himself,  or  by 
the  assistance  of  some  evil  supernatural  agency  (a  sub- 
ject we  .shall  just  now  consider),  but  in  fact  falling 
short,  though  in  some  respects  wonderful,  of  a  true  pre- 
diction ;  because  in  the  ISth  chapter  of  this  same  Book, 
the  fulfilment  of  the  words  of  a  prophet  is  made  the 
conclusive  proof  of  his  Divine  commission,  nor  can  we 
suppose  the  same  writer  within  the  distance  of  a  few 
sentences  to  contradict  himself. 

In  Matthew  x.\iv.  24,  it  is  predicted  that  false  Christs 
and  false  prophets  shall  arise  and  show  "  great  signs 
and  wonders,"  calculated  to  deceive  men,  though  not 
"  the  elect."  And  in  2  Thess.  ii.  8  and  9,  the  coming  of 
the  man  of  sin  is  said  to  be  "  after  the  working  of  Satan 
with  alt  poiver,  and  signs,  and  lying  wonders."  The 
latter  prediction  refers  unquestionably  to  the  Papacy, 
and  to  works  wrought  to  lead  men  from  the  true  inter- 
pretation of  the  Gospel,  though  not  to  annul  in  the 
least  the  Divine  authority  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles  j 
Ihe/ormer  supposes  works  which,  as  being  wrought  by 
false  Christs,  are  opposed  to  the  commission  of  our 
Lord,  and  is  indeed  the  only  instance  in  which  a  direct 
contest  between  the  miracles  which  attest  the  authority 
of  a  Divine  messenger,  and  "  great  signs  and  wonders" 
wrought  to  attest  an  opposing  and  contradictory  au- 
thority, is  spoken  of.  What  these  "  signs  a7id  wmidcrs" 
may  be,  it  is  therefore  necessary  to  ascertain. 

In  the  Thessalonians  they  are  ascribed  to  the  "  working 
of  Satan,"  and  in  order  to  bring  the  general  principles 
of  the  revelation  of  the  Scriptures  to  bear  upon  these, 
its  more  obscure  and  difficult  iiarts,  a  rule  to  which  we 
are  in  fairness  bound,  it  must  be  observed, 

1.  That  the  introduction  of  sin  into  the  world  is  as- 
cribed to  the  malice  and  seductive  cunning  of  a  powerful 
evil  spirit,  the  head  and  leader  of  innumerable  others.— 
2.  That  when  a  Redeemer  was  promised  to  man,  that 
promise,  in  its  very  first  annunciation,  indicated  a  long 
and  arduous  struggle  between  him  and  these  evil  super- 
natural agents.— 3.  That  it  is  the  fact,  that  a  powerful 
contest  has  been  maintained  in  the  world  ever  since, 
between  truth  and  error,  idolatry,  superstition,  and  will- 
worship,  and  the  pure  and  autliorized  worship  of  the- 
true  God. — 4.  That  the  Scriptures  uniformly  represenB 
the  Redeemer  and  Restorer  at  the  head  of  one  party  of 
men  in  the  struggle,  and  Satan  at  the  head  of  the  other ;. 
each  making  use  of  men  as  their  instruments,  ihougb 
consistently  with  their  general  free  agency.— 5.  That 
Almighty  God  carries  on  his  purposes  to  win  man  back 
to  obedience  to  Him,  by  the  exhibition  of  truth,  with  its 
liroper  evidences ;  by  command.s,  promises,  threats, 
chastisements,  and  final  punishments  ;  and  that  Satai* 
opposes  this  design  by  exhibitions  of  error  and  false  re- 
ligion, gratifying  to  the  corrupt  passions  and  apjietitea 
of  men,  and  especially  seeks  to  influence  powerful' 
agents  among  men  to  seduce  others  by  their  example, 
and  to  destroy  the  truth  by  persecution  and  force.— 6, 
That  the  false  religions  of  the  heathen,  as  well  as  the 
corruptions  of  Christianity,  took  place  under  this  dia- 
bolical influence ;  and  that  the  idols  of  the  heathen  were 
not  only  the  devices  of  devils,  but  often  devils  them- 
selves,(2)  made  the  objects  of  the  worship  of  men. 


(2)  Some  of  the  demons  worshipped  by  heathens  had 
a  benevolent  reputation,  and  these  were  no  doubt  sug- 
gested by  the  tradition  of  good  angels ;  others  were  ma- 
lignant, and  were  none  other  than  the  evil  angels, 
devils,  handed  down  by  the  same  tradition.  Thus  Plu- 
tarch says,  "  It  has  been  a  very  ancient  opinion,  that 
there  are  malevolent  demons,  who  envy  good  men,  and 
oppose  them  in  their  actions,"'  ice. 


64 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  I- 


either  for  their  wickedness  or  their  supposed  power  to 
huri.(3) 

Now,  as  the  objection  wliich  we  arc  considering  is 
professedly  taken  from  Scn])turi',  lis  doctrine  on  tliis 
subject  must  be  exphiincd  by  itscll',  :inil  for  tins  reason 
the  above  particulars  liavt;  In-i-n  nitroiluccd ;  but  tlie 
inquiry  must  go  farllier.  These  evil  spirits  are  in  a 
slate  of  liostilily  to  the  truth,  and  oppose  it  by  endea- 
vouring to  seduce  men  lo  erroneous  opinions,  and  a  cor- 
rupt worship.  AH  their  power  may  therefore  be  ex- 
pected to  be  put  forlh  in  accomplishment  of  their  de- 
signs; but  10  what  does  their  power  extend?  This  is 
an  important  iiueslion,  and  tiie  .Scriptures  afford  us  no 
small  degree  of  assistance  in  deciding  it. 

1.  They  can  perform  no  work  o{  rrratinn;  for  tliis 
throughout  .Scripture  is  constantly  attributed  to  God, 
and  is  ai)pcaleil  to  by  I  Inn  as  the  proof  of  his  own  Di- 
vinity in  opposilliin  to  idols,  anil  toall  beingswhatever— 
"  Tu  wliom  wilt  ijr  Itkia  /ii<\  nr  ahuU  I  bt  equal  1  sailh 
the  Holy  Uiie.  Lift  k))  ymir  eyes  on  high,  and  behold 
who  hath  crrated  tins,:  lliinvs:'  This  claim  must  of 
neces.sily  cut  oil'  I'rom  every  other  being  the  power  of 
creating  in  any  degree,  tliat  is,  of  making  any  thing  out 
of  nothing  ;  for  a  being  possessing  the  power  to  create 
an  atom  out  of  nothing,  could  not  want  the  ability  of 
making  a  world.  Nay,  creation,  in  its  lower  sense,  is 
in  this  jiassage  denied  to  any  but  God;  that  is,  the 
forming  goodly  and  perfect  natural  objects,  such  as  the 
heavens  and  the  earth  are  replenished  with,  from  a  pre- 
existent  matter,  as  He  formed  all  things  from  matter 
unorganized  and  chaotic.  No  "  sign,^'  therefore,  no 
"  tvonder"  which  implies  creation,  is  possible  to  finite 
beings ;  and  whatever  power  any  of  them  may  have 
over  matter,  it  cannot  extend  to  any  act  of  creation. 

2.  Life  and  dealli  are  out  of  the  power  of  evil  spirits. 
The  dominion  of  these  is  so  exclusively  claimed  by  God 
himself  in  many  passages  of  Scripture  which  are  fa- 
miliar, that  they  need  not  be  cited.—"  Unto  God  the 
Lord  belong  the  issues  fromdeatli'' — '^  I  kill,  and  I  make 
alive  again."  No  "  signs  or  wonders,"  therefore,  which 
imply  dominion  over  these,— the  power  to  produce  a 
living  being,  or  to  give  life  to  the  dead, — are  within  the 
power  of  evil  spirits  ;  these  are  works  of  God. 

3.  The  knowledge  of  future  events,  especially  of 
those  which  depend  on  free  or  contingent  causes,  is  not 
attainable  by  evil  spirits.  This  is  the  property  of  God, 
who  founds  upon  it  the  proof  of  his  Deity,  and  there- 
fore excludes  it  from  all  others  :  "  Show  the  things  that 
are  Co  come  hereafter,  that  we  may  know  that  ye  are 
(;uds."{4)  They' cannot  therefore  utter  a  prediction  in 
the  strict  and  proper  sense ;  though  from  their  great 
knowledge  of  human  affairs,  and  their  long  habits  of 
observation,  their  conjectures  may  be  surprising,  and 
often  accomplished,  and  so  if  uttered  by  any  of  their 
servants  may  have  in  some  cases  the  appearance  of 
prophecies. 

4.  They  do  not  know  certainly  the  thoughts  and 
characters  of  men.  "  That,"  as  St.  Augustine  observes, 
"  they  have  a  great  facility  in  discovering  what  is  in 
the  minds  of  men  by  the  least  external  sign  they  give 
of  it,  and  such  as  the  most  sagacious  men  cannot  per- 
ceive," and  tiiat  they  may  have  other  means  of  access 
too  to  the  mind  besides  these  external  signs;  and  that  a 
constant  observation  of  human  character,  to  which  they 
are  led  by  their  tavourite  work  of  temptation,  gives 
them  great  insight  into  the  character  and  tempers  and 
weakness  of  individuals,  may  be  granted  ;  but  that 
the  absolute,  immediate,  infallible  knowledge  of  the 
thoughts  and  character  belongs  alone  to  God,  is  clearly 
the  doctrine  of  Scrijiture  :  it  is  the  Lord  "  who  scarchetk 
the  heart,"  and  ''knowith  what  is  in  man;"  and  in 
.leremiah  vii.  U,  10,  the  knowledge  of  the  heart  is  attri- 
buted exclusively  to  God  alone. 

Let  all  these  things  then  be  considered,  and  we  shall 
be  able  to  ascertain,  at  least  in  part,  the  limits  within 
which  this  evil  agency  isable  loopcrale  In  opposingtlie 
(ruth,  and  In  giving  currency  lo  falsehood  ;  at  least  we 


(3)  The  imssinn  of  Satan  lo  be  worshipped  appears 
strongly  marked  in  our  Lord's  temptations— "All  lliesi' 
will  1  give  ihee,  if  thou  will  fall  down  and  worship  me." 
In  all  ages  evil  and  sanguinary  benigs  have  been  deified. 
It  was  so  in  the  time  of  Moses,  and  remains  so  to  this 
day  in  India  and  Africa,  where  devil-worship  Is  openly 
professed.  In  « :eylon  nothing  is  more  conunon  ;  and  in 
BTiany  parts  of  Africa  every  village  has  its  Devil-house. 

(4)  Isa.  xl.  as,  26 ;  xli.  23. 


shall  be  able  to  show,  that  the  Scriptures  assign  no 
power  to  this  ^^  working  of  Satan"  tci  ofipose  llie  truth 
by  such  "  signs  and  lemiders"  as  mans  have  .supj)Osed. 
In  no  instance  can  evil  spirits  oppose  the  Irutli,  we  do 
not  say  by  eijual  or  nearly  equal  miracles  and  prophe- 
cies, but  by  real  ones — of  both,  their  works  are  but 
simulations.  Wetakethecaseof  7/i(rac/es.  A  creature 
cannot  create ;  this  is  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  and  it 
win  serve  lo  explain  the  wonders  of  the  Egyptian  Magi. 
They  were,  we  think,  very  far  above  the  sleight  of  hand 
of  mere  men  unassisted ;  and  we  have  seen,  that  as 
idolatry  is  diabolic,  and  even  is  the  worship  of  devils 
themselves,  and  the  instrument  of  their  opposition  to 
God,  the  Scriptures  suppose  them  to  be  exceedingly 
active  in  its  support.  It  is  perfectly  accordant  with  this 
principle,  therelbre,  to  conclude,  that  Pharaoh's  priests 
had  as  much  of  the  assistance  of  the  demons  whose 
ministers  they  were,  as  they  were  able  to  exert.  But 
then  the  great  jirinciples  we  have  just  deduced  from 
Scripture  oblige  ns  to  limit  this  jiowcr.  It  was  not  a 
power  of  working  real  miracles,  hm  of  simulating  them 
in  order  lo  uphold  the  credit  of  idolatry.  Now  the  three 
miracles  of  Moses  wliich  were  simulated,  all  involved 
acrc.iliii!;  energy.  A  serpent  was  created  out  of  the 
matter  ol  I  Ik;  rod  ;  the  frogs,  from  their  immense  mul- 
titude, appear  also  lo  have  been  created  ;  and  blood  was 
formed  out  of  the  matter  of  water.  Hut  in  the  imita- 
tions of  the  Magi,  there  was  no  creation  ;  we  are  for^ 
bidden  by  the  doclrine  of  Scripture  to  allow  this,  and 
therefore  there  must  have  been  deception  and  the  sub- 
stitution of  one  thing  for  another,  which,  though  per- 
formed in  a  manner  apparently  much  above  human 
adroitness,  might  be  very  much  within  the  power  of  a 
number  of  invisible  and  active  spirits.  Serjients,  in  a 
country  where  they  abound,  might  he  subslilnled  for 
rods;  frogs,  which,  after  they  had  been  brought  n|ion  the 
land  by  Moses,  were  numerous  enough,  might  be  sud- 
deidy  thrown  upon  a  cleared  place ;  and  the  waler, 
which  could  only  be  obtained  by  digging,  for  the  jdague  of 
Moses  was  upon  all  the  streams  and  reservoirs,  and  the 
quantity  being  in  consequence  very  limiled,  might  by 
their  invisible  activity  be  easily  mixed  with  blood  or  a 
colouring  matter.  In  all  this  there  was  something  of 
the  imposture  of  thejiriests,  andmuchol  the  a.sslstance 
of  Satan  ;  but  in  the  strict  sense  no  miracle  was 
wrought  by  either,  while  the  works  of  INIoses  were, 
from  their  extent,  unequivocally  miraculoss. 

For  Ihe  reasons  we  have  given,  no  apparent  miracles 
wrouiiht  In  support  of  falsehood  can  f(>r  a  moment  be- 
come rivals  of  the  great  miracles  by  which  the  Revela- 
tions of  the  Scripture  are  attested.  Vox  instance, 
nothing  like  that  of  feeding  several  thousands  of  people 
with  a  few  loaves  and  fishes  can  occur,  for  that  sup- 
poses creation  of  the  matter  and  the  form  of  bread  and 
fish ;  no  giving  life  to  the  dead,  for  the  "  issues  from 
death"  belong  exclusively  to  (iod.  ,\ccor<lingly,  we  find 
in  the  '■'■  sisn^  ami  iioiuiers"  wrouulit  by  the  false 
prophets  and  Chnsts  predicted  in  ^lutthew.  whether  we 
suppose  lliem  mere  iinjioslors,  or  the  Immediate  agents 
of  Satan  also,  nothing  of  this  decisive  kind  to  attest 
their  ndsslon.  Tin:  in  as  promised  to  divide  .lordan,  and 
seduced  many  to  follow  lilin ;  but  he  was  killed  by  the 
Roman  Irooiis  before  he  could  perforin  his  miracle. 
.\notlier  promised  that  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  should 
liill  down,  but  his  followers  were  also  put  lo  the  sword 
by  Felix.  The  false  Ghrist  Baki  iioeHKii.t  raised  a 
large  party ;  but  no  miracles  of  his  are  recorded. 
Another  arose  A.  I).  434,  and  pretended  lo  divide  the 
sea  ;  but  hid  himself  after  many  of  his  besotted  li)llowera 
had  plunged  into  it.  in  faith  that  it  would  retire  from 
Ihem,  and  were  drowned.  Many  other  false  Clirisis 
appeared  at  different  limes ;  bul  the  most  noted  was 
Sakiiatai  Skvi,  in  lliOG.  The  delusion  of  Ihe  .lews 
with  respect  to  him  was  very  great.  Many  of  his  fol- 
lowers were  strangely  affected,  prophesied  of  his  great- 
ness, and  appeared  by  their  conloilions  to  be  under 
some  supernatural  inllnence;  but  Ihe  (;ranil  .Seignior, 
having  a|)|ireliended  Sabbatai,  gave  Iniii  the  choice  of 
proving  his  iMessuihshIp  by  suffering  a  body  of  archers 
to  shoot  at  him,  after  which,  if  he  was  not  wounded,  he 
would  acknowledge  him  to  be  the  Messias ;  or.  If  he 
declined  this,  that  he  should  be  nnpahd.  or  turn  Turk. 
He  chose  the  latter,  and  the  ilelusinn  was  dissipated. 

Now  whatever  "  signs  or  wonders"  nnuhl  be  wrought 
by  any  of  these,  it  is  clear,  from  the  absence  of  all  re- 
cord of  any  unequivocal  miracle,  that  ihey  were  either 
illusions  or  impostures. 


Chap.  XVL] 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


65 


The  same  course  of  remark  applies  to  proplifcy.    To 
know  the  future  cerlainly  is  the  special  prerogative  of 
God.    Tlie  false  proplict  autioipateJ  by  Slosrs  in  Deu- 
teronomy, who  was   to   utter  wonderful   inedictions 
which  should  "  come  to  pass,^^  is  not  therefore  to  be 
supirased  to  utter    predictions  strictly  and  truly,  as 
founded  U])on  an  absolute  knowledge  of  the  future.    A 
shrewd  man  may  guess  happily  in  some  instances,  and 
his  conjectures  when  accomplished  may  apjiear  to  be 
"a  si4;n  and  a  wniidrr"  to  a  people  willing  to  be  de- 
ceived, because  loving  the  idolatry  to  which  he  would 
lead  them.    Still  farther,  the  Scripture  doctrine  does 
not  discountenance  the  idea  of  an  evil  supernatural 
agency,  "  working"  wth  him ;  and  then  the  superior 
sagacity  of  evil  spirits  may  give  to  his  conjectures, 
founded  upon  their  o\vn  natural  foresight  of  probabili- 
ties, a  more  decided  air  of  prophecy,  and  thus  aid  the 
wicked  purpose  of  seducing  men  from  God's  worship. 
Real  and  unequivocal  projihecy  is,  however,  impossible 
to  them;  and  indeed,  we  have  no  in.stance  of  any  ap- 
proach to  it  among  the  false  prophets  recorded  in  the 
Jewish  history.    The  heathen  oracles  may  aftbrd  us  also 
a  comment  on  this.   They  were  exceedingly  numerous  ; 
many  of  them  were  highly  celebrated ;  all  professed  to 
reveal  the  future ;  some  wonderful  stories  are  recorded 
of  them ;  and  it  is  dilficult  to  refer  the  whole  to  the 
imposture  of  priests,  though  much  of  that  was  ulti- 
mately detected.    That  they  kept  their  credit  for  2000 
years,  and  were  silenced  by  the  spread  of  the  Gospel, 
and  that  almost  entirely  before  the  time  of  the  esta- 
blishment of  Christianity  by  Constantine,  as  acknow- 
ledged by  heathen  authors  themselves — that  they  were 
in  many  instances  silenced  by  individual  Christians,  is 
openly  declared   in    the  apologies    of  the    t^hristiaii 
Fathers,  so  that  the  Pythonic  inspiration  could  never 
be  renewed — the.se   are    all  strong  presiuniitions,  at 
least,  that,  in  tliis  mockery  of  the  oracle  of  Zion,  this 
counterfeit  of  the  standing  evidence  given  by  prophecy 
to  truth,  there  was  much  of  diabolical  agency,  though 
greatly  mingled  with  imposture.(5)    Nevertheless,  the 
ambiguity  and  obscurity  by  wliieh  the  oracles  sported 
wth  the  credulity  of  the  heathen,  and  miserably  se- 
duced them  often  to  the  most  diabolical  wickedness, 
and  yet,  in  many  cases,  whatever  might  happen,  pre- 
served the  appearance  of  having  told  the  truth,  sufli- 
ciently  proved  the  want  of  a  certain  and  clear  know- 
ledge of  the  future ;  and  upon  the  showing  of  their  own 
writers,  nothing  was  ever  uttered  by  an  oracle,  which, 
considered  as  prophecy,  can  be  for  a  moment  put  in 
comparison  with  the  least  remarkable  of  those  Scrip- 
ture predictions  which  are  brought  forward  in  proof  of 
the  truth  of  the  Scriptures.    When  they  are  brought 
into  comparison,  the  most  celebrated  of  them  appear 
contemptible. (6)    We  may  then  very  confidently  con- 
clude, that  as  Scripture  nowhere  represents  any  "  signs 
or  v}0)iders"   as  actually  wrought  to  contradict   the 
evidence  of  the  Divine  commission  of  Moses,  of  Christ, 
and  his  Apostles ;  so  in  those  passages  in  which  it 
6uppo.ses  that  they  may  occur,  and  predicts  that  they 
will  be  wrought  iji  favour  of  falsehood,  and  in  the  case 
of  the  false  Christs,  in  opposition  to  the  true  Messiah, 
they  do  not  give  any  countenance  to  the  notion,  that 
either  real  miracles  can  be  wrought  or  real  predictions 
uttered,  even  by  the  permission  of  God,  in  favour  of 
faUsehood;  lor  no  permission,   properly  speaking,  can 
be  given  to  any  being  to  do  what  he  has  not  the  natural 
power  to  elTect ;  and  permission  in  this  case,  to  mean 
any  thing,  must  imply  that  God  himself  wrought  the 
miracles  and  gave  the  predictions  through  the  instru- 
mentality of  a  creature,  it  is  true,  but  in  fact  that  he 
employed  his  Divine  power  in  opposition  to  his  own 
truth — a  dishonourable  thought  which  cannot  certainly 
be  maintained.     His  permission  may,  however,  extend 
to  a  Ucense  to  evil  men,  and  evil  spirits  too,  to  employ 
against  the  truth  and  for  the  seduction  of  men,  what- 
ever natural  power  they  possess.    This  is  perfectly 
consistent  with  the  general  doctrine  of  Scripture  ;  but 
this  permission  is  granted  under  rule  and  limit.    Thus 
the  history  of  Job  is  highly  imiiortant,  as  it  shows  that 
evil  spirits  cannot  employ  their  power  against  a  good 
man  without  express  permission;   an  event  in  the 

(5)  This  subject  is  acutely  and  learnedly  discussed 
in  "  An  Answer  to  M.  de  Fontenelle's  History  of  Ora- 
cles, translated  from  the  Frencli  by  a  Priest  of  the 
Church  of  England." 

(6)  See  note  B,  at  the  end  of  the  chapter. 

E 


history  of  Jesus  teaches  also  th.it  they  cannot  destroy 
even  an  animal  of  the  vilest  kind,  a  swine,  without 
the  same  license.    Moral  ends  too  were  to  be  answered 
in  both  cases— teachmg  the  doctrine  of  providence  to 
future  generations,  by  the  example  of  Job ;  and  punish- 
ing the  Gadarenes  in  their  property,  lor  their  violation 
of  the  law  through  covctousness.    So  entirely  are  these 
invisible  opposers  of  the  truth  and  jilans  of  Christ 
under  control ;  and  as  moral  ends  are  so  explicitly 
marked  in  these  instances,  they  may  be  inferred  as  to 
every  other  where  permission  to  work  evil  or  injury  is 
granted.     In  the  cases  indeed  before  us,  such  moral 
purposes  do  not  entirely  rest  upon  inference,  but  are 
made  evident  from  the  history.    The  agency  of  Satan 
was  permitted  in  support  of  idolatry  in  Egypt,  only  to 
make  the  triumjih   of  the  true  God  over  idols  more 
illustrious,  and  to  justify  his  severe  judgments  upon 
the  Egyptians.    The  false  prophets  anticipated  in  Deu- 
teronomy were  permitted,  as  it  is  stated,  in  order  "  to 
prove  the  people."    A  new  circumstance  of  trial  was 
introduced,  which  would  lead  them  to  compare  the  pre- 
tended predictions  of  the  false  prophet  with  the  illus- 
trious and  well-sustahied  series  of  splendid  miracles 
by  which  the  Jewish  economy  had  been  established, — 
a  comparison  which  could  not  fail  to  confirm  rational 
and  virtuous  men  in  the  truth,  and  to  render  more  inex- 
cusable those  light  aud  vain  persons  who  might  be 
seduced.    This  observation  may  also  be  applied  to  the 
case  of  the  false  Christs.    In  certain  of  these  cases 
there  is  also  something  jxidicial.    When  men  have 
yielded  themselves  so  far  to  vice  as  to  seek  error  as  its 
excu.se,  it  seems  a  principle  of  the  Divine  government 
to  make  their  sin  their  punishment.     The  Egyptians 
were  besotted  with  tlieir  idolatries ;  they  had  rejected 
the  clearest  evidences  of  the  trutli,  and  were  lell  to  the 
delusions  of  the  demons  they  worshipped.     The  Israel- 
ites, in  those  parts  of  their  history  to  which  Moses 
refers,  were  passionately  inclined  to  idolatry  ;   they 
wished  any  pretence  or  sanction  lor  it,  and  were  ready 
to  follow  every  seducer.     Mliat  they    sought,    they 
found — occasions  of  going  astray,  which  would  have 
had  no  eftect  upon  them  had  their  hearts  been  right 
with  God.    The  Jews  rejected  a  spiritual  Messiah, 
with  all  the  evidences  of  his  mission  ;  but  were  ready 
to  Ibllow  any  impostor  who  promised  them  victory  and 
dominion.    They  were  disposed,  therefore,  to  listen  to 
every  pretence,  and  to  become  the  dupes  of  every  illu- 
sion.    But  in  no  instance  was  the  temptation  "either 
irresistible,  or  even  strong,  except  as  it  was  made  so 
by  their  own  violent  inclinations  to  evil,  and  proneness 
to  find  pretences  for  it.    In  all  the  cases  here  supposed, 
the  temptation  to  error  was  never  present  li7(l  in  cir- 
cumstances in  which  it  teas  confronted  uitk  the  in- 
Jinitely  higher  evidence  of  truth,  and  that  not  merely 
in  the  number  or  greatness  of  the  miracles  and  predic- 
tions but  in  the  very  nature  of  the  "  signs"  themselves 
— one   being  unquestionably  miracidoxis,    the    other 
being  at  best   strange  and  surprising,  without  a  de- 
cided miraculous  or  prophetic  character.    The  sudden 
and  unperceived  substitution  of  serpents  for  the  rods  of 
the  magicians,  might,  if  the  matter  had  ended  there, 
have  neutralized  the  effect  of  the  real  transformation  of 
Aaron's  rod  ;  but  then  the  serpent  of  Moses  swallowed 
up  the  others.     When  frogs  were  already  over  all  the 
land  of  Egypt,  the  imitation  must  have  been  confined  to 
some  spot  purposely  freed  from  them,  and  for  that  rea- 
son did  not  bear  an  unequivocal  character  ;  nor  could 
the  turning  of  water  from  a  well  into  blood  (no  diliicult 
matter  to  pretend)  rival  for  an  instant  the  conversion 
of  the  waters  of  the  mighty  Nile,  and  the  innumerable 
channels  and  reservoirs  fed  by  it,  into  that  oti'eiisive 
substance.    To  these  we  are  to  add  the  miracles  which 
followed,  and  which  obliged  even  the   magicians  to 
confess  "  the  finger  of  God."    To  the  people  whom  the 
false  prophet  spoken  of  in  Deuteronomy  should  attempt 
to  lead  astray  from  the  Law,  all  its  magiiiticent  evi- 
dences were  known  ;  the  glory  ol'God  was  then  between 
the  Cherubim;  the   Urim   and  Thummiin  gave  their 
responses  :  and  the  government  was  a  standing  mira- 
cle.    To  those  who  followed   false  Christs,  the  evi- 
dences of  the  mission  of  .lesus  were  known ;  his  un- 
equivocal miracles,  it  is  singular,  were  never  denied  by 
those  very  Jews,  who,  ever  looking  out  for  deception, 
cried,  as  to  the  expected  Christ,  "io.  He  is  here,  and 
lo,  He  is  there'."    The  "tvorktrig  of  Satan,"  and  the 
"  lying  ifondtrs,"   mentioned   in   the  Thessalonians, 
wore  to  take  place  among  a  people,  who  not  only  had 


66 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


[Part  I. 


the  worJs  of  Christ  anJ  his  Apostles,  but  acknowledced 
too  tlu'ir  Divine  authority  as  ostahlishcd  by  miracles 
and  propliofics,  lliu  unequivocal  character  of  which 
theirs  never  even  pretended  to  eijual.  Thus,  in  none 
of  the  instances  adduced  in  the  argument  ^vas  there 
an  exposure  to  inevitable  error,  by  any  evidence  in 
favour  of  falschoo<l :  the  evidence  of  the  truth  was  in 
all  these  cases  at  ham!,  and  jiresented  itself  uniler  an 
obviously  distiiwt  and  suinrior  character.  We  con- 
clude, therefore,  that  the  objection  to  the  conclusive 
nature  of  the  jiroof  of  the  truth  of  the  Scriplur' s  from 
miracles  and  propliciMos,  grounded  upon  tin-  su|ipos;cd 
admission  that  miracles  may  be  wroui;lit  and  iirojihe- 
cies  uttered  in  favour  of  error,  is  nnl  only  without 
foundation,  but  that,  as  far  as  f>criptural  evidence  froes 
on  this  subject,  the  demonstrative  nature  of  real  mira- 
cles and  jirophccies  is,  by  what  it  really  admits  as  to 
''the  working  nf  Satan,"  abundantly  confirmed.  It 
does  not  a<Imit  that  real  miracles  can  bo  wrought,  or 
real  prophecies  uttered ;  and  it  never  supposes  sinm- 
lated  ones,  ir/iea  oi'iioscd  to  rcvraled  truth,  bat  under 
circumstances  in  which  they  can  i)e  detected,  or  which 
give  them  an  eiiuivocal  character,  and  in  which  they 
may  be  compared  with  true  miracles  and  predictions, 
so  lliat  none  can  be  deceived  by  them  but  ttiose  wlio 
arc  violently  bent  on  error  and  transgression. 

Anotlier  objection  to  the  conclusiveness  of  the  proof 
from  miracles  is  brought  from  the  pretended  heathen 
miracles  of  Aristeas,  Pythagoras,  Alexander  of  Pontes, 
Vespasian,  and  Apollonius  Tyana-us,  and  from  accounts 
ofnnraelesin  the  Romish  church;  but  as  this  objec- 
tion has  been  very  fc^cbly  urged  by  the  adversaries  of 
Christianity,  as  though  they  theiusclves  were  ashamed 
of  the  argument,  our  notice  of  it  shall  be  brief.  I'or  a 
full  consideration  of  the  objection,  we  refer  to  the  au- 
thors mentioned  below. (7) 

With  respect  to  most  of  these  pretended  miracles, 
We  may  observe,  that  it  was  natural  to  expect  that  pre- 
tences to  miraculous  powers  should  be  made  under 
every  form  of  religion,  since  the  opinion  of  the  earliest 
ages  was  in  favour  of  the  occurrence  of  such  events; 
and  as  truth  had  been  thus  sanctioned,  it  is  not  .sur- 
prising that  error  should  attempt  to  counterfeit  its  au- 
thority. But  they  arc  all  delicjent  in  evidence.  Many 
of  thein  are  indeed  absurd,  and  carry  the  air  of  fable; 
and  as  toothers,  it  is  well  observed  by  Ur.  IVIacknight,(8) 
that  "they  are  vouched  to  us  by  no  such  testimony  as 
can  induce  a  prudent  man  to  give  them  credit.  'I'hey 
are  not  reported  by  any  eye-witnesses  of  them,  nor  by 
any  persons  on  whom  they  were  wrought.  Those  who 
relate  them  do  not  even  pretend  to  have  received  them 
from  eye-witnesses  ;  we  know  them  only  by  vague  re- 
ports, ilie  original  of  which  no  one  can  exactly  trace. 
The  miracles  ascribed  to  Pythagoras  were  not  rejiorted 
until  several  hundred  years  after  his  death  ;  and  those 
of  Ajiolloniiis,  one  hundred  years  after  his  di^ath." 
M;uiy  instances  wliich  are  given,  especially  among  the 
Papists,  may  be  resolved  into  inifHiiaiihon  ;  others, 
both  popish  and  pagan,  into  the  arlilice  of  priests,  who 
were  of  the  ruling  party,  and  therefore  feared  no 
punishment  even  upon  detection;  and  in  almost  all 
cases,  we  find  that  they  were  jierfonncd  in  favour  of 
the  d'intutaiil.  rrligion,  and  before  persons  whose  reli- 
gions iircjudices  were  to  be  flattered  and  strengthened 
by  tliein,  and,  of  course,  persons  very  much  disposed 
to  become  dupes.  Bishop  Douglas  has  laid  down  the 
following  decisive  and  clear  rules  in  his '•  Crilcr.oii," 
for  trying  miracles.  That  we  may  reasoiiabry  suspect 
any  accounts  of  miracles  to  be  false,  if  they  are  not 
published  till  long  aftir  the  time  when  Ihcy  are  said 
to  have  been  performed  ;  or  if  thoy  were  not  first  pub- 
lished in  the  pliirc  where  they  are  said  to  have  been 
wrought;  or  if  they  probably  were  sulli^red  to  pn.ss 
vilhniit  examiiia/ion,  in  the  time,  and  at  the  place 
where  they  took  their  rise.  Thesi'  are  itmeral  grounds 
of  sus|)icion,  to  which  may  be  added  particular  ones, 
arising  from  any  circumstances  which  jdamly  iiiihcate 
imposture  and  artifice  on  the  one  hand,  or  credulity  and 
imagination  on  the  other. 

Before  such  tests,  all  pagan,  popish,  and  other  pre- 
tended miracles,  without  exception,  shrink  ;  and  lhe\ 
are  not  for  a  moment  to  be  brouglit  into  comparison 

(7)  M MCKNIGHT'S  Truth  of  the  Gospel  History: 
Doi'oi.»s's  Criterion;  Cami'bkll  on  Miracles;  and 
Pa-lkv's  Evidences. 

(8)  Truth  of  the  Gosjiel  Uiatory. 


with  works  wronght  publicly — Iti  the  sight  of  thirw- 
sands,  and  tlici'C  often  oi)posers  of  the  system  to  be 
eslabli.shid  by  tin  m — works  not  byany  ingenuily  what- 
ever to  be  resolved  into  artifice  on  the  one  part,  or  into 
the  effects  of  imagination  on  the  other — works  jjer- 
formed  before  scholars,  statesmen,  rulers,  persecutors ; 
ofwhidithe  instances  are  numerous,  and  the  places 
in  which  they  occurred  various — works  published  at 
the  time  and  on  the  very  spot — works  not  in  favour  of 
a  ruling  system,  but  directed  airainst  every  other  reli- 
gious establishment  under  heaven;  and  for  giving tlieir 
testimony  to  which,  the  original  witnesses  had  there- 
fore to  expect,  and  did  in  succession  receive,  reproach, 
stripes,  iniprisdiinient,  and  death. 

It  is  also  of  importance  to  ob.serve,  that  whatever 
those  pretend  'd  miracles  might  be,  whether  false  or 
exaggerated  relations,  or  artful  impostures;  or  even 
were  we  to  admit  some  of  them  to  have  been  occur- 
rences of  an  extraordinary  and  inexplicable  kind,  they 
are  for  the  most  part,  whether  pagan  or  papal,  a  sort 
of  insulated  occurrences,  which  do  not  so  much  aa 
profess  to  prove  any  thing  of  common  interest  to  the 
world.  As  they  are  destitute  of  cMivincing  marks  of 
credibility,  so  they  have  no  mhereiii  propnety,  nor  any 
perceptible  connexion  with  a  design  of  inij)ortance  to 
mankind.  But  "  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament 
record  a  continued  succession  of  xvonderfnl  works, 
connected  also  in  a  most  remarkable  manner  with  the 
.Ht/s-teni  carried  on  from  the  fall  of  Adam  to  the  coming 
of  Christ.  The  very  first  promise  of  a  Redeemer,  who 
should  bruise  the  serpent's  head,  appears  to  have  been 
accompanied  with  a  signal  miracle,  by  wliich  the  na- 
ture of  the  serpent  tribe  was  instantly  changed,  and 
reduced  to  a  state  of  degradation  and  baseness  expres- 
sive of  the  final  overthrow  of  that  Evil  Spirit,  through 
wliose  deceits  man  had  fallen  from  his  innocence  and 
glory.  The  mark  set  upon  Cain  was  probably  some 
miraculous  change  in  his  external  appearance,  trans- 
mitted to  his  posterity,  and  serving  as  a  memorial  of 
the  first  apostacy  from  the  true  religion.  The  general 
deluge  was  a  signal  instance  of  the  miracalons  pu- 
nishment inflicted  u7ion  the  whole  liuman  race,  when 
they  had  dejiarted  from  the  living  (Jod,  and  were  be- 
come utterly  irreclaimable.  The  dispersion  at  Babel, 
and  the  confusion  of  tongues,  indicated  the  Divine  pur- 
pose of  preventing  an  intemii.xturc  of  idolaters  and 
atheists  with  the  worslii])  of  the  true  fiod.  The  won- 
ders wrought  in  Egypt,  by  the  hand  of  Moses  were 
pointedly  directed  against  the  senseless  and  abomina- 
ble idolatries  of  that  devoted  country,  and  were  mani- 
festly designed  to  expose  their  absurdity  and  falsehood, 
as  well  as  to  efl'ect  the  deliverance  of  God's  people 
Israel.  The  subsequent  miracles  in  the  desert  had 
an  evident  tendency  to  wean  the  Israelites  from  an 
attachment  to  the  false  deities  of  the  surrounding  na- 
tions, and  to  instruct  them  by  figurative  representa- 
tions in  that  'better  Corennyit,  cs/rihlishid  iipna  lietltr 
prominv.t,'  of  which  the  Mosaic  institute  was  designed 
to  be  a  shadow  and  a  type,  'i'hc  settlement  of  the  Is- 
raelites in  Canaan  under  their  leader  Joshua,  and  their 
continuance  in  it  for  a  long  succession  of  ages,  were 
accompanied  with  a  series  of  wonders,  all  operating  to 
that  one  jmrpose  of  the  Almi;;lily,  the  se|iaration  of  his 
people  from  a  wicked  and  iipiisi;itc  worbl,  and  the  jire- 
servation  of  a  chosen  sei-d,  thv()Ui;h  whom  all  the  na- 
tions of  the  earth  should  be  blessed.  Every  miracle 
wrought  under  the  Jewish  Theocracy  appears  to  have 
been  intemlcd  either  to  correct  the  superstitions  and 
impieties  ol'  the  neighbouring  nation.*,  and  to  bring 
them  to  a  conviction  that  (he  Lord  .(ehovah  was  the 
true  God,  and  that  beside  him  there  was  none  other; 
or  to  reclaim  the  Jews,  wh(^never  they  betrayed  a  dis- 
position to  relapSe  into  heathenish  abominations,  and 
to  forsake  that  true  religion  wliich  the  Almighty  was 
pleilged  to  ujihold  throughout  all  ages,  and  for  the  com- 
pletion of  which  he  was  then,  in  his  infinite  wisdom, 
arranging  all  human  events. 

"  In  the  miracles  which  our  Lord  performed,  he  not 
only  evinced  Ins  Divine  jiower,  but  fnllilled  many  im- 
portant prophecies  relating  to  him  as  the  Messiah.  Thus 
they  all'ordiil  a  twofold  evidence  of  his  authority.  In 
sevi^ral  of  them  wc  perceive  likewise  a  striking  reference 
lo  the  especial  objeet  of  his  mission.  Continually  did 
he  apply  these  w()iidcrl'ul  icorfr.f  lojhe  purjiose  of  incul- 
cating and  esiiiiilisbiiig  ilnelrines,  no  less  wonderful 
and  interesting  lo  the  sons  of  men. 

"  The  sumo  may  likowise  be  rcniarKcd  of  the  niira- 


Chap.  XVI.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


67 


cles  recorded  of  the  Apostlrs,  after  our  Lord's  depar- 
ture from  this  world,  in  none  of  which  do  we  fnid  any 
thiijg  done  for  mere  ostentation  ;  but  an  evident  atten- 
tion to  the  great  purpose  of  the  Gospel,  that  ol  '  turn- 
ing men/mm  dark-iicss  unto  light,  and  frum  the  jiuwir 
of  Hatiin  unto  Cud.' 

"Itseims  impossible  for  any  thinking  man  to  take 
such  a  view  as  this  of  the  peculiar  design  and  use  of 
the  Scripture  miracles,  and  not  to  perceive  in  them  the 
unerring  counsels  of  infinite  Wisdom,  as  well  as  the 
undoubted  exertions  of  infinite  Puwcr.  When  we  see 
the  several  parts  of  this  stupendous  scheme  thus  har- 
monizing and  co-operating  for  the  attainment  of  one 
specific  object,  of  the  highest  importance  to  the  whole 
race  of  mankind,  we  cannot  but  be  struck  with  a  con- 
viction of  the  absolute  impossibility  of  imposture  or 
enthusiasm,  in  any  part  of  the  proceeding  We  are  com- 
pelled to  acknowledge,  that  they  e.xliibit  proofs  of  Di- 
vine agency,  carried  on  in  one  continued  series  ;  such 
as  no  other  system  hath  ever  pretended  to  ;  such  as  not 
only  surpasses  all  human  ingenuity,  but  seems  impos- 
sible to  have  been  efltjcted  by  any  combination  of  cre- 
ated beings."(y) 

On  miracles,  therefore,  like  those  which  attest  the 
mission  of  Moses  and  of  Christ,  we  may  safely  rest  the 
proof  of  the  authority  of  both,  and  say  to  each  of  them, 
though  with  a  due  sense  of  the  superiority  of  the  "  Son" 
to  the  "  SERVANT,"  '^  Rabbi,  we  know  that  thou,  art  a 
Teacher  come  from  God,  for  no  man  can  do  these  mira- 
cles that  thou  doest,  except  God  be  with  him." 

Note  A. — Page  62. 

In  reply  to  the  objection  that  "  Moses  describes  the 
works  of  the  magicians  in  the  very  same  language  as 
he  does  his  own,  and  therefore  that  there  is  reason  to 
conclude  that  they  were  equally  miraculous,"  Dr. 
Farmer  remarks : — 

"  1.  That  nothing  is  more  common  than  to  speak  of 
professed  jugglers  as  doing  what  they  pretend  and  ap- 
pear to  do,  and  that  this  language  never  tnisleads, 
when  we  reflect  what  sort  of  men  are  spoken  of, 
namely,  mere  impostors  on  the  sight :  why  might  not 
Moses,  then,  use  the  common  pojiular  language  when 
speaking  of  the  magicians,  without  any  danger  of  mis- 
construction, inasmuch  as  the  subject  he  was  treating, 
all  the  circumstances  of  the  narrative,  and  the  opinion 
which  the  historian  was  known  to  entertain  of  the  in- 
efficacy  and  imposture  of  magic,  did  all  concur  to  pre- 
vent mistakes  ? 

"  2.  Moses  does  not  affirm,  that  there  was  a  perfect 
confonmity  between  his  works  and  those  of  the  magi- 
cians ;  he  does  not  close  the  respective  relations  of  his 
own  particular  miracles,  with  saying  the  magicians 
did  that  thing,  or  according  to  what  he  did,  so  did  they, 
a  form  of  speech  used  on  this  occasion  no  less  than 
three  time^  in  one  chapter,  to  describe  the  exact  cor- 
responden*e  between  the  orders  of  God  and  the  be- 
haviour of  his  servants ;  but  makes  choice  of  a  word 
of  great  latitude,  such  as  does  not  necessarily  express  any 
thing  more  than  a  general  similitude,  such  asis  consistent 
with  a  diflPerence  in  many  important  respects,  they  did 
so,  or  in  like  manner  as  he  had.  That  a  perfect  imi- 
tation could  not  be  designed  by  this  word,  is  evident 
from  its  being  applied  to  cases  in  which  such  an  imita- 
tion was  absolutely  impracticable ;  for,  when  Aaron 
had  converted  all  the  waters  of  Egypt  into  blood,  we 
are  told  the  magicians  did  so,  that  is  something  in  like 
sort.  Nor  can  it  be  supposed  that  they  covered  the 
land  of  Egypt  with  frogs,  tliis  had  been  done  already ; 
they  could  only  appear  to  bring  them  over  some  small 
space  cleared  for  the  purpose.  But  what  is  more  de- 
cisive, the  word  imports  nothing  more  than  their  at- 
tempting some  imitation  of  Moses,  lor  it  is  used  when 
they  failed  in  their  attempt :  They  did  so  to  bring  forth 
lice,  but  they  could  not. 

"  3.  So  far  is  Moses  from  ascribing  the  tricks  of  the 
magicians  to  the  invocation  and  power  of  demons, 
or  to  any  superior  beings  whatever,  that  he  docs  most 
expressly  refer  all  they  did  or  attempted  in  imitation  of 
himself  to  human  artifice  and  imjiosture.  The  ori- 
ginal words,  which  are  translated  e?ic/ia/t/;;ie;ite,(l)  are 


I     (9)  Van  Mildkkt's  Boyle  Lectjlires. 

(1)  The  original  word  used,  Exod.  vlli.  11,  is  Belahate- 

kem;  and  that  which  occurs,  ch.  vii.  22,  and  ch.  viii. 

T,  18,  is  Bclatehcm ;  the  former  i.s  probably  derived 

n-om  Laha.t,  whieh  sig»ifies  to  burn,  and  the  substan- 

E2 


entirely  diffferent  from  that  rcnderM  enchantments  in 
other  jiassages  of  Scripture,  and  do  not  carry  in  them  any 
sort  of  reference  to  .sorcery  or  magic,  or  the  interposi- 
tion ol'  any  spiritual  agents  ;  they  import  dci-ciuion  and 
concialmeiit,  and  ou;^ht  to  have  been  rendered  accret 
aUi^'lits  (ir  jui.'iitiiig.'i,  and  are  thus  tniiislaicd  even 
by  those  who  adopt  the  common  hypolUcsis  with  re- 
gard to  the  magicians.  These  secret  sleiiihis  and  jug- 
iflings  are  expressly  referred  to  the  magicians,  not  to 
the  Devil,  who  is  not  so  much  as  mentioned  in  the  his- 
tory. Should  we  therefore  be  asked.(2)  how  it  came  to 
pass,  in  case  the  works  of  the  magicians  were  per- 
formed by  sleight  of  hand,  that  Moses  has  given  no  hint 
hereof?  we  answer.  He  has  not  contented  himself 
with  a  hint  of  this  kind,  but  at  the  same  time  that  he  as- 
cribes his  own  miracles  to  Jehovah,  he  has,  in  the  most 
direct  terms,  resolved  every  thing  done  in  imitation  of 
them  entirely  to  the  fraudulent  contrivances  of  his  ojipo- 
sers,  to  legerdemain  or  sleight  of  hand,  in  contradistinc- 
tion from  magical  incantations.  Moses  therefore  could 
not  design  to  represent  their  works  as  real  miracles, 
at  the  very  time  he  was  branding  them  as  impos- 
tures. 

"  It  remains  only  to  show,  that  the  works  performed 
by  the  magicians  did  not  exceed  the  cause  to  which 
they  are  ascribed ;  or,  in  other  words,  the  magicians 
proceeded  no  farther  in  imitation  of  Moses,  than  hu- 
man  artifice  might  enable  them  to  go  (while  the  mira- 
cles of  Moses  were  not  liable  to  the  same  impeach- 
ment, and  bore  upon  themselves  the  plainest  signa- 
tures of  that  Divine  power  to  which  they  are  referred). 
If  this  can  be  proved,  the  interposition  of  the  Devil  on 
this  occasion  will  apjiear  to  be  an  hypothesis  invented 
without  any  kind  of  necessity,  as  it  certainly  is  without 
any  authority  from  the  sacred  text. 

"  1 .  With  regard  to  the  first  attempt  of  the  magicians, 
the  turning  rods  into  serpents :  it  cannot  be  accounted 
extraordinary  that  they  should  seem  to  succeed  in  it 
when  we  consider  that  these  men  were  famous  for  the 
art  of  dazzling  and  deceiving  the  sight ;  and  that  ser- 
pents being  first  rendered  tractable  and  harmless,  as  they 
easily  may,  have  had  a  thousand  different  tricks  played 
witli  them,  to  the  astonishment  of  the  spectators. 

"  2.  With  regard  to  the  next  attempt  of  the  magicians 
to  imitate  Moses,  who  had  already  turned  all  the  run- 
ning and  standing  waters  of  Egypt  into  blood,  there  is 
no  difficulty  in  accounting  for  their  success  in  the  de- 
gree in  which  they  succeeded.  For  it  was  during  the 
continuance  of  tills  judgment,  when  no  water  could  be 
procured  but  by  digging  round  about  the  river,  that 
the  magicians  attempted  by  some  proper  preparations 
to  change  the  colour  of  the  small  quantity  that  was 
brought  them  (probably  endeavouring  to  persuade 
Pharaoh,  that  they  could  as  easily  have  turned  a  larger 
quantity  into  blood).  In  a  case  of  this  nature,  impos- 
ture might,  and,  as  we  learn  from  history,  often  did, 
take  place.  It  is  related  by  Valerius  Maximus,(3)  that 
the  wine  poured  into  the  cup  of  Xerxes  was  three 
times  changed  into  blood.  But  such  trifling  feats  as 
these  could  not  at  all  disparage  the  miracle  of  Moses ; 
the  vast  extent  of  which  raised  it  above  the  suspicion 
of  fraud,  and  stamped  upon  every  heart,  that  was  not 
steeled  against  all  conviction,  the  strongest  impression 
of  its  divinity.  For  he  turned  their  streams,  rivers, 
ponds,  and  the  water  in  all  their  receptacles,  into 
blood.  And  the  fish  that  was  in  the  river  (Nile)  died ; 
and  the  river  stank.(4) 


five  a  fiamc  or  shining  stcord-blade.  and  is  applied  to  the 
flaming  sword  which  guarded  the  tree  of  life.  Gen.  iii. 
24.  Those  who  formerly  used  legerdemain,  dazzled  and 
deceived  the  sight  of  spectators  by  the  art  of  brandishing 
their  swords,  and  sometimes  seemed  to  eat  them,  and 
to  thrust  them  into  their  bodies ;  and  the  exjircssion 
.seems  to  intimate,  that  the  magicians  appearing  to  turn 
their  rods  into  serpents,  was  owing  to  their  eluding  the 
eyes  of  the  spectators  by  a  dexterous  management  of 
their  swords.  In  the  preceding  instances  they  made 
use  of  some  different  contrivance,  for  the  latter  word, 
behdche.m,  comes  from  Laa/,  to  cover  or  hide  (which 
some  think  the  former  word  also  does),  and  therefore 
filly  expresses  any  secret  artifices  or  methods  of  decep- 
tion, whereby  false  appearances  are  imposed  upon  the 
spectators. 

(2)  As  we  are  by  Dr.  Macknight,  in  his  Truth  of  the 
Gospel  History,  p.  372. 

(3)  Lib.  i.  c.  6.  (4)  E.\oi.l.  w.  19—21. 


68 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  I. 


"  3.  Pharaoh  not  yielding  to  this  cvidcnre,  Cod  pro- 
rcedid to  tanlicr  piiiHshm(aits,  and  covered  the  whole 
land  of  E^'vpi  with  frogs. (5)  Before  these  frogs  were 
removed,  the  iiiiiKicians  undertook  to  liring  into  Kome 
plaoo  cleared  for  the  pur|)osc  a  fresh  supply ;  which 
they  might  easily  do,  when  there  was  su(-h  plenty 
every  where  at  hand.  Here;  also  the  narrow  compass 
of  the  work  exposed  it  to  the  suspicion  of  being  ef- 
fected hy  human  art ;  to  wliich  the  miracle  of  Moses 
was  not  liable :  the  inlinite  number  of  frogs  which 
tilled  the  whole  kingdom  of  llgypt  (so  that  their  ovens, 
beds,  and  tabl<'s  swarmc  d  with  Ihi-iri),  being  a  jmmf  of 
their  immediate  unraculous  production,  liesides,  the 
iiiagiri;ins  w<'re  nivihle  to  procure  their  removal, 
winch  was  ai  roniplislied  by  Moses,  at  the  .submissive 
;ip|)hcanon  ol'  I'harjoli,  and  at  the  very  time  th.at  Pha- 
raoh liinisclf  cliiisc,  the  more  clearly  to  convince  him 
that  (Jod  was  tlicaiilliorollliese  unraculous  judgments, 
luid  that  their  inllictioM  or  rcmovul((i)  did  not  depend 
upon  the  influence  of  the  elements  or  stars,  at  set  tunes 
or  in  critical  junctures. 

"  4.  The  liistory  of  the  last  attempt  of  tlic  magicians 
confirms  the  account  here  given  of  nil  their  former 
ones.  Mosi^s  lurn(;d  all  tlie  dust  of  the  land  into  lice  ; 
and  this  plague,  like  the  two  jireceding  ones,  being  in- 
llictcd  at  till'  word  of  Moses,  and  e.\tcnded  over  the 
whole  kingdom  of  Eg>pi,  must  necessarily  have  been 
owing,  not  to  human  art,  bill  to  a  Divine  power.  Never- 
theless, the  motives  upon  which  the  magicians  at  first 
engaged  in  the  contest  with  Moses,  the  shame  of  de- 
sisting, and  some  slight  appearances  of  success  in  their 
former  attempts,  jirompted  them  still  to  carry  on  the  im- 
posture, and  to  try  ii'ithllii  ir  I II  r  linn  I  111  nits  to  bring  forth 
lice  ;  but  thcfi  auild  nut.  W'ltli  all  their  skill  in  inagic, 
and  with  all  their  dexterity  in  deceiving  the  spectators, 
they  could  not  even  succeed  so  far  as  they  had  done  in 
former  instances,  by  producing  a  specious  counterfeit 
of  this  work  of  Moses.  Had  they  hitherto  perlbrmed 
real  miracles  by  the  assistance  of  the  Devil,  how  came 
they  to  desist  now?  It  cannot  be  a  greater  miracle  to 
produce  lice,  than  to  turn  rods  into  serpents,  water  into 
blood,  and  to  create  frogs.  It  has,  indeed,  been  very 
oHen  said,  that  the  Devil  was  now  laid  under  a  re- 
straint :  but  hitherto  no  proof  of  this  assertion  has 
been  produced.  The  Scripture  is  silent,  both  as  to  the 
Devil  being  now  resiraineil  from  interposing  any  far- 
ther in  favour  of  the  magicians,  and  as  to  his  having 
allbrded  them  his  assistance  on  the  fbrnier  occasions,  liut 
if  we  agree  with  Moses,  in  ascribm:;  to  the  ma^'icians 
nothing  more  than  the  artifice  and  dexterity  which  be- 
longed to  their  profession,  we  shall  find  that  their 
want  of  success  in  their  last  attempt  was  owing  to  the 
ditfeient  nature  and  circumstances  of  their  enterprise." 

Note  B.—Page  05. 

"Hut  if,  at  any  time,  evil  spirits,  by  their  subtlety 
and  ex|ierieiice,  and  kimwhulge  of  affairs  in  the  world, 
did  Ibretel  things  wliicli  accordingly  came  to  pass,  they 
were  things  that  happened  not  long  after,  and  com- 
monly such  as  themselves  did  e.xcite  and  prompt  men 
to.  Thus,  when  the  conspiracy  against  Ca-sar  was 
come  just  to  be  put  into  execution,  and  the  Devil  had  his 
agents  concerned  in  it,  he  couUl  Ibretel  the  time  and 
place  of  his  death,  liut  it  had  been  foretold  to  I'oni- 
pey,  ( 'rassus,  and  Ca-sar  himself,  belbre,  as  Tiilly  in- 
forms us  from  his  own  knowledge,  that  they  should  all 
di(^  In  their  beds,  and  in  an  lionouiaMe  old  age,  who  yet 
all  died  violent  deaths.  Wise  and  olisci  ving  men  have 
liometimes  been  able  to  make  strange  predictions  con- 
cerning the  state  of  al1':urs  ;  and  then  lore  s|iirils  may 
be  much  more  able  to  doit.  Evil  spirits  could  foretel 
what  they  were  permitted  to  inflict  or  procure;  they 
might  have  foretold  the  calamities  of  Job,  or  the  death 
of  Ahab  at  Ilainoth-gilead. 

"The  Devil  could  not  always  foretel  what  was  to 
come  to  pa.ss,  and  therefore  his  agents  had  need  of  their 
vaults,  and  hollow  statues,  andoilierarlifici^s  to  conceal 
their  ignoranc(^  and  lielplhem  out,  when  their  arts  of 
coninration  failed.  Hut  we  have  no  reason  to  think 
that  the  Devil,  who  is  soindustrious  to  promote  hisevil 
ends,  by  all  jiossilile  means,  would  omit  such  an  op- 
portunity as  was  given  him  by  the  ojiinion  which  the 


(S)  Uxod.  viii.  (i  H.  Nor,  indeed,  can  it  bi;  imagined 
•hat  after  this  or  the  former  plague  had  bicn  removed, 
Pharaoh  would  order  lus  iiiagiciaua  lo  reucw  eilhtr. 

<<)J  Exoil.  viu.b. 


Ileathcns  had  of  their  Oracles :  and  the  tri.ils  which 
Crcpsus  and  Trajan  made  are  sullicient  to  prove,  that 
there  was  something  supernatural  and  rliabolical  in 
them.  C'nesus  sent  to  have  many  Oracles  cimsulted  at 
a  set  time,  and  the  question  to  be  put  lo  them  was, 
what  Crtrsus  himself  at  that  time  wasdohig;  and  he 
resolved  to  be  employed  about  the  most  improbable 
thing  that  could  be  imagined,  for  he  was  boiling  a  tor- 
toise and  a  lamb  togilher  in  a  brass  pot ;  and  yet  the 
Oracle  of  Delphi  discovere<l  to  the  mes.sengers  what 
the  king  was  then  about.  Trajan,  when  he  was  going 
into  Parthia,  sent  a  blank  paper  sealed  up,  to  tin  Oracle 
of  Assyria  for  an  answer:  tho  Oracle  returned  hiin 
another  blank  paper,  to  show  that  it  was  not  so  to  be 
imposed  upon. 

"  liut  though  things  of  present  concernment  were 
discovered  both  to  C'ru?sus  and  Trajan  beyond  all  hu- 
man junver  to  know,  yet  both  were  imiiosed  upon  by 
ambiguous  answers,  when  they  consulted  about  things 
future,  of  which  the  Devil  could  not  attain  the  know- 
ledge. 

"  Many  of  the  Heathen  priests  themselves,  upon  ex- 
amination, publicly  confif'ssed  several  of  the  Oracles  lo 
be  impostures,  and  discovered  the  whole  contrivance 
and  management  of  the  deceit,  which  was  entered  upon 
record.  And  in  the  rest,  the  power  of  the  Devil  was 
always  so  limited  and  restrained,  as  to  aftbrd  suffi- 
cient means  to  undeceive  men,  tliough  many  of  his 
predictions  might  come  to  pass." — Jknkins's  Reason- 
ablrnesf:  of  Christ iavity. 

"  Many  of  the  learned  regard  all  the  Heathen  Ora- 
cles as  the  result  of  the  grossest  imposture.  Home 
consider  them  as  the  work  of  evil  spirits.  Others  are 
of  opinion,  that  through  these  Oracles  some  real  pro- 
phecies were  occasionally  vouchsafed  to  the  Gentile  ■ 
world,  for  their  instruction  and  consolation.  But  to 
whichsoever  of  these  opinions  we  may  incline,  it  will 
not  be  difticult  to  discover  a  radical  difference  between 
these  and  the  Scripture  prophecies. 

"In  thelleallieii  Oracles, we  cannot  d'scem  any  clear 
and  uneipiivocal  tokens  of  genuine  prophecy.  They 
were  destitute  of  dignity  and  importance,  had  no  con- 
nexion with  each  other,  tended  to  no  object  of  general 
concern,  and  never  looked  into  times  remote  from  their 
own.  We  read  only  of  some  few  prediitions  and  prog- 
nostications, scattered  among  the  writings  of  poets  and 
philosophers,  most  ol  which  (besides being  very  weakly 
aiitlieiiticated)  appear  to  have  been  answers  to  ques- 
tions of  nicri-ly  local,  personal,  and  temporary  concern, 
relating  to  the  issue  of  affairs  then  actually  in  hand, 
and  to  events  speedily  to  be  determined.  Far  from 
attempting  to  form  any  chain  of  jirophecies,  re.sj)ecling 
things  far  distant  as  to  time  or  place,  or  matters  con- 
trary lo  human  probability,  and  requiting  supernatural 
agency  lo  eflect  them,  the  Heathen  priests  and  sooth- 
sayers did  not  even  pretend  to  a  systematic  and  con- 
nected ])lan.  They  hardly  dared,  indeed,  to  assume 
the  prophetic  character  in  its  full  force,  but  stood  trem- 
bling, as  it  were,  on  the  brink  of  t\itnrity,  conscious  of 
their  inability  to  venture  beyond  the  depths  of  humau 
conjecture.  Hence  their  predictions  became  so  fleet- 
ing, so  futile,  so  uninteresting,  that  they  were  never 
collected  together  as  worthy  of  preservation,  but  soon 
fell  into  disrepute  and  almost  total  oblivion. 

''  The  Scripture  prophecies,  on  the  other  hand,  con- 
stitute a  scries  of  predictions,  relating  principally  to  one 
grand  object,  of  universal  im|)ortance,  the  work  of 
man's  reijemption,  and  carried  on  in  regular  jirogres- 
sioii  tlinmgh  the  Patriarchal,  Jewish,  and  Christian 
dispensations,  with  a  harmony  and  unilbrmity  of  de- 
sign, clearly  indicating  one  and  the  same  Divine  Author, 
who  alone  could  say,  '  Remember  the  former  things  of 
old  ;  for  I  am  G'od,  and  there  is  none  else  ;  I  am  (."od, 
and  there  is  none  like  me;  declaring  the  end  from  the 
beginning,  and  from  ancient  times  the  things  that  are 
not  yet  done,  saying.  My  counsel  shall  stand,  and  I  will 
ilo  all  my  pleasure.'  The  genuine  jirophets  of  the 
Almighty  beheld  these  things  with  a  clear  and  steadfast 
eye  ;  they  declared  them  with  authority  and  confidence , 
and  they  gave,  moreover^ signs  from  heaven  for  the 
conviclioii  of  others.  Accordingly,  their  writings  have 
been  handed  down  ft-om  age  to  age  ;  have  been  jire- 
served  with  scrupulous  fidelity  ;  and  have  ever  been 
regarded  with  reverence,  from  the  many  incontestable 
evidences  of  their  accomplishment,  and  from  their  in- 
separable connexion  witli  Ihn  religious  hopes  and  ex- 
peciaiions  of  maukitnl."— ii(i'io;>(;/^  LlamlnJI'. 


Chap.  XVII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES, 


69 


CHAPTER  XWl. 

rRopnEciEs  OF  Scripture. 
■  The  nature  and  force  of  the  argument  l>om  pro- 
pliecy  have  been  already  stated  ;(?^  and  it  has  been 
proved,  that  wliere  real  predictions  are  uttered, — not 
happi/  conjectures,  which  shrewd  and  observing  men 
may  sometimes  make,  but  predictions  which  imply 
forcsifjht  of  events  de|iendent  upon  the  various  contin- 
gencies of  human  affairs,  and  a  knowledge  of  the  cha- 
racters, dispositions,  and  actions  of  jiersons  yet  unborn, 
so  as  to  decide  unerringly  on  the  conduct  which  they  will 
pursue, — they  can  only  be  uttered  by  inspired  men,  and 
the  author  of  such  communications  can  be  no  other 
than  the  In/iiiitennd  Omniscient  (Jod,  "  sltowingtoliis 
5cri'«(jf4-  the  thincs  ivhich  . Khali  be  hereafter,"  in  oxAor 
to  authenticate  their  niissiiin,  and  to  affix  the  stamp  of 
his  own  infallible  authority  >i[ion  their  doctrine. 

The  autlientu  ily  and  the  antujuity  of  the  Records 
which  contain  these  predictions  have  been  already  es- 
tablished ;  and  the  only  subject  of  inquiry  proper  to  this 
chapter  is,  the  prophetic  character  of  the  predictions 
said  to  be  contained  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 
A  few  general  observations  may  however  be  previously 
allowed. 

1.  The  instances  to  be  considered  by  those  who  would 
folly  satisfy  themselves  on  this  point  are  not  few  but 
many.  The  believer  in  the  Divine  authority  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments  is  ready  to  offer  for  e.\amina- 
tion  great  numbers  of  professed  projihecies  relative  to 
individuals,  cities,  states,  the  persons  and  offices  of 
Messiah,  and  the  Christian  Church,  which  he  alleges  to 
have  been  unequivocally  fulfilled ;  independent  of  pre- 
dictions which  he  believes  to  be  now  fulfilling;  orwliich 
are  hereafter  to  be  fulfilled  in  the  world. 

2.  If  as  to  the  fulfilment  of  some  particular  prophe- 
cies the  opinions  of  men  should  differ,  there  is  an 
abundance  of  others  the  accomplishment  of  which  has 
been  so  evident  as  to  defy  any  rational  interjiretation 
which  will  not  involve  their  fulfilment ;  while  unbe- 
lievers are  challenged  to  show  any  clear  prediction  of 
Holy  Scripture  which  has  been  falsified  by  the  event, 
througliout  the  whole  range  of  those  ages  which  are 
comjirehended  by  the  Bible,  from  the  Pentateuch  to  the 
Apocalypse. 

3.  The  predictions  in  Scripture  have  already  been 
distincuished  in  their  character  from  the  oracles  and 
divinations  of  the  Heathen  ;(8)  and  it  may  here  be 
farther  observed,  that  they  are  not,  generally,  separate 
and  insulated  predictions  of  the  future,  arising  out  of 
accidental  circumstances,  and  connecting  themselves 
with  merely  individual  interests  and  temporary  occa- 
sions. On  the  contrary,  they  chiefly  relate  to  and  arise 
out  of  a  grand  scheme  for  the  moral  recovery  of  the 
human  race  from  ignorance,  vice,  and  wretchedness. 
They  speak  of  the  agents  to  be  employed  in  it,  and 
especially  of  the  great  agent,  the  Redeemkr  Himself; 
and  of  those  mighty  and  awful  proceedings  of  Provi- 
dence as  to  the  nations  of  the  earth,  by  which  judg- 
ment and  inercy  are  exercised  with  reference  both  to 
the  ordinary  principles  of  moral  government,  and  espe- 
cially to  this  restoring  Economy,  to  its  struggles,  its 
opixjsitions,  and  its  triumphs.  They  all  meet  in  Christ, 
as  in  their  proper  centre,  and  in  him  only,  however 
many  of  the  single  lines,  when  considered  apart,  may 
be  imagined  to  have  another  direction,  and  though  they 
may  pass  through  intermediate  events.  "  If  we  look," 
says  Bishop  Ilurd,  "  into  the  prophetic  writings,  we 
find,  that  prophecy  is  of  a  prodigious  extent ;  that  it 
commenced  from  the  fall  of  man,  and  reaches  to  the 
consummation  of  all  things;  that  for  many  ages  it  was 
delivered  darkly,  to  a  few  persons,  and  with  large  in- 
tervals froin  the  date  of  one  prophecy  to  that  of  ano- 
ther ;  but,  at  length,  became  more  clear,  more  frequent, 
and  was  uniformly  carried  on  in  the  line  of  one  people, 
separated  from  the  rest  of  the  world — among  other  rea- 
sons assigned,  for  this  princip.ally,  to  be  the  repository 
of  the  Uivine  Oracles ;  that,  with  some  intermission, 
the  spirit  of  prophecy  subsisted  among  that  people,  to 
the  coining  of  Christ,  that  He  Himself  and  his  Apos- 
tles e.xercised  this  power  in  the  most  conspicuous  man- 
ner; and  left  behind  them  many  predictions,  recorded 
in  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  which  profess  !o 
respect  very  distant  events,  and  even  run  out  to  the 
end  of  time,  or,  in  St.  John's  expression,  to  that  period 


(7)  Vide  chap.  ix. 


(«)  Vide  chap.  .\vi. 


'  when  tho  mystery  of  God  shall  be  pcrfecied.'  Far- 
ther, besides  the  extent  of  tliis  imjjihitic  scheme,  the 
dignity  of  the  Person  whom  it  cdiii  crns  deserves  our 
conaideration.  He  is  described  in  teriiis  which  excite 
the  most  august  and  magnificent  ideas.  H(  is  spoken  of, 
indeed,  .sometimes  as  being  the  steil  of  the  iio/nnn,  and  as 
the  Son  of  man  ;  yet  so  as  being  at  the  same  time  of 
more  than  mortal  extraction.  He  is  even  represented 
to  us,  as  being  superior  to  men  and  angels ;  as  far 
above  all  principality  and  power ;  above  all  that  is  ac- 
counted great,  whether  in  heaven  or  in  earth ;  as  the 
Word  and  Wisdom  of  God ;  as  the  Eternal  Son  of  the 
Father;  as  the  Heir  of  all  things,  by  whom  He  made 
the  worlds ;  as  the  brightness  of  his  glory,  and  the  ex- 
press image  of  his  jierson.  We  have  no  words  to  de- 
note gi'eater  ideas  than  these  :  the  mind  of  man  cannot 
elevate  itself  to  nobler  conceptions.  Of  such  trans- 
cendent worth  and  excellence  is  that  Jesus  said  to  be, 
to  whom  all  the  projihets  bear  witness  I 

"  Lastly,  tlie  declared  purpose  lor  which  the  Messiah, 
prefigured  by  so  long  a  train  of  prophecy,  came  into 
the  world,  corresjionds  to  all  the  rest  of  the  represen- 
tation. It  was  not  to  deliver  an  oppressed  nation  from 
civil  tyranny,  or  to  erect  a  great  civil  empire,  that  is, 
to  achieve  one  of  those  acts  which  history  accounts 
most  heroic.  No  :  it  was  not  a  mighty  state,  a  victor 
people — 

Non  res  Roman  ae  perituraque  rcgna — 

that  was  worthy  to  enter  into  the  contemplation  of  this 
Uivine  Person.  It  was  another  and  I'ar  sublimer  pur- 
pose which  he  came  to  accomplish ;  a  purjiose,  in  com- 
parison of  which  all  our  policies  are  poor  and  little,  and 
all  the  performances  of  man  as  nothing.  It  was  to  de- 
liver a  world  from  ruin ;  to  abolish  sin  and  death  ;  to 
purify  and  immortalize  human  nature ;  and  thus,  in 
the  most  exalted  sense  of  the  words,  to  be  the  Saviour 
of  men  and  the  bles.sing  of  all  nations.  There  is  no 
exaggeration  in  this  account.  I  deliver  the  undoubted 
sense,  if  not  always  the  very  words,  of  Scripture.  Con- 
sider then  to  what  ftiis  representation  amounts.  I,et 
us  unite  the  several  parts  of  it,  and  bring  them  to  a 
point.  A  spirit  of  jirophecy  pervading  all  time — cha- 
racterizing one  person,  of  the  highest  dignity — and  pro- 
claiming the  accomplishment  of  one  purpose,  the  most 
beneficent,  the  most  divine  the  imagination  itself  can 
project.  Such  is  the  Scriptural  delineation,  whether 
we  will  receive  it  or  no,  of  that  economy  wliich  we  call 
prophetic." 

4.  Prophecy,  in  this  peculiar  sense,  and  on  this  am- 
ple scale,  is  peculiar  to  the  religious  system  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  Nothing  like  it  is  found  any  where 
besides  ;  and  it  accords  perfectly  with  that  system,  that 
nothing  similar  sliould  be  found  elsewhere.  "  The  pro- 
phecies of  Scripture,"  says  that  accomplished  scholar, 
Sir  W.  .Jones,  "  bear  no  resemblance  in  form  or  style 
to  any  that  can  be  produced  from  the  stores  of  Grecian, 
Indian,  Persian,  or  even  Arabian  learning.  The  anti- 
quity of  those  compositions  no  man  of  learning  doubts ; 
and  the  unrestrained  application  of  them  to  events 
long  subsequent  to  their  publication  is  a  .solid  ground 
of  belief,  that  they  were  genuine  predictions,  and  con- 
sequently inspired."  The  advantage  of  this  species  of 
evidence  belongs  then  exclusively  to  our  Revelation. 
Heathenism  never  made  any  clear  and  well-founded 
pretensions  to  it.  Mahometanism,  though  it  stands 
itself  as  a  proof  of  the  truth  of  Scripture  prophecy,  is 
unsupported  by  a  single  prediction  of  its  own.  "  To 
the  Christian  only  belongs  this  testimony  of  his  faith ; 
this  growiyiff  evidence  gathering  strength  by  length  of 
time,  and  affording  from  age  to  age  fresh  proofs  of  its 
Divine  origin.  As  a  majestic  river  expands  it.selfmore 
and  more  the  farther  it  removes  from  its  source,  so  jiro- 
phecy,  issuing  from  the  first  promise  in  paradise  as 
its  fountain-head,  acquired  additional  strength  and  ful- 
ness as  it  rolled  down  successive  ages,  and  will  still 
go  on  increasing  in  extent  and  grandeur,  until  it  shall 
finally  lose  itself  in  the  ocean  of  Eternity." 

5.  The  objection  which  has  been  raised  to  Scripture 
prophecy  from  its  supposed  obscurity,  has  no  solid 
foundation.  There  is,  it  is  true,  a  pro))heIic  language 
of  symbol  and  emblem ;  but  it  is  a  language  which  is 
definite  and  not  equivocal  in  its  meaning,  and  as  easily 
mastered  as  the  language  of  iioitry,  by  attentive  per- 
sons. This,  however,  is  not  always  used.  The  style 
of  the  prophecies  of  Scripture  very  oflen  differs  in  no- 
thing from  the  ordinary  style  of  the  Hebrew  poets ;  aiid. 


70 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


in  nnt  a  few  casex,  and  thone  too  on  which  the  Chrixlinn 
builds  most  in  the  argument,  it  .sinhx  into  the  plain- 
ness of  historical  narrative.  Soinc  dcfrree  of  obscu- 
rity is  essential  to  prophecy:  for  tlic  end  of  it  was  not 
to  gratify  human  curiosity  by  a  <lelail  of  future  events 
and  cirrumstances ;  and  too  great  eleaniess  and  spe- 
ciality might  have  led  to  many  artful  attemiUs  to  fulfil 
the  predictions,  and  so  liir  the  evidence  of  their  accom- 
plishment would  have  been  weakened.  The  two  great 
ends  of  prophecy  are,  to  excite  exiicctation  bcliirc  the 
event,  and  then  locDiilirni  the  truth  by  a  slrikin;;  ami  un- 
equivocal fulfihnciit  ;  audit  is  asulliciciit  answer  lothe 
allegation  of  thcoliscurily  of  the  iirniihitcics  of  Scripture, 
that  they  have  almnd'.iMtly  acconi|)lis!ied  those  objects, 
among  the  most  intelligent  and  investigating,  as  well  as 
among  the  simple  and  unlearned  in  all  ages.  It  cannot  be 
denied,  for  instance,  leaving  out  particidar  cases  which 
might  be  given,  that  by  means  of  these  predictions  the 
expectation  of  the  incarnation  and  appearance  of  a 
Divine  Restorer  was  kept  up  among  the  people  to 
whom  they  were  given,  and  spread  even  to  the  neigh- 
touring  nations  ;  that  as  these  projihccies  multiplied, 
the  hope  became  more  intense  ;  and  that  at  the  time  of 
our  Lord's  coming,  the  expectation  of  the  birth  of  a 
very  extraordinary  person  prevailed,  not  only  among  the 
Jews,  but  among  other  nations.  This  jnirpose  was 
then  sudicieiitly  answered,  and  an  answer  is  given  to 
the  objection.  In  like  manner,  projihecy  serves  as  the 
basis  of  our  hope  in  things  yet  to  come ;  in  the  final 
trium))li  of  truth  and  righteousness  on  earth,  the  uni- 
versal establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  our  Lord,  and 
the  rewards  of  eternal  life  to  be  bestowed  at  his  second 
appearing.  In  these  all  true  Christians  agree ;  and 
their  hope  could  not  have  been  so  unilbrrnly  supported 
in  all  ages  and  under  all  circumstances,  had  not  the 
prophecies  and  predictive  promises  conveyed  with  sulli- 
cient  clearness  the  general  knowledge  of  the  good  for 
■which  they  looked,  though  many  of  its  particulars  be 
unrevealed.  The  second  end  of  prophecy  is,  tocontirm 
the  truth  by  the  subseipient  event ;  and  here  the  ques- 
tion of  the  actual  fulfilment  of  Scripture  prophecy  is 
involved,  to  whicli  we  shall'immediately  advert.  We  only 
now  observe,  that  it  is  no  argument  againt  the  unequi- 
vocal fulfilment  of  several  jirophecies,  that  many  have 
doubted  or  denied  what  the  believers  in  Revelation  have 
on  this  subject  so  strenuously  contended  for.  How  few 
of  mankind  have  read  the  .Scriptures  with  serious  at- 
tention, or  been  at  the  pains  to  compare  their  prophecies 
with  the  statements  in  history  !  ,  How  few,  esiiecially 
of  the  objectors  to  the  Bible,  have  read  it  in  this  man- 
ner 1  How  many  of  them  li:i\  c  rdnii  sscd  unnlusliiiigly 
their  uiiacquaintance  wuh  Um  c(iiiii  iiis,  or  li;ivc  |irov(^(l 
what  they  have  not  coiifesscil  li\  ihc  nuslakes  and  mis- 
representations into  which  they  have  fallen.  As  for 
the  Jews,  the  evident  dominion  of  their  prejudices ; 
their  general  averseness  to  discussion  ;  and  the  extra- 
vagant principles  of  interpretation  they  have  adopted 
for  many  ages,  which  set  all  sober  criticism  at  defiance, 
render  nugatory  any  authority  which  might  be  as- 
cribed to  their  denial  of  the  fulfilment  of  certain  pro- 
phecies in  the  sense  adopted  by  Christians.  We  may 
add  to  this,  that  among  Christian  critics  themselves 
there  may  be  much  disugrcciiieiit.  Kccentricities  and 
absurdities  are  found  aiiioii!.'  the  learned  in  ev(^ry  de- 
partment of  know  ledge,  and  much  of  this  wayward- 
ness and  afTectation  of  singularity  has  infected  inter- 
preters of  Scripture.  Hut,  alter  all,  tlicre  is  a  truth 
and  reason  in  every  subject  wliich  the  understandings 
of  the  generality  of  men  will  apprrlicml  and  acknow- 
ledge, whenever  it  is  fully  undcrslood  and  impnrlially 
considered  ;  to  this  in  all  sui;h  cases  the  appeal  can  only 
be  made,  and  hen;  it  may  be  made  with  confidence. 

(5.  For  want  of  a  right  apprehension  of  the  meaning 
of  somewhat  an  unlortunate  term  wliii-h  has  obtained 
in  theology,  the  "d')»///c  sense^' oi'  miiny  prophecies,  an 
objection  of  another  kind  has  been  raised,  as  though  no 
definite  meaning  could  heassigneil  to  the  proiihecies  of 
Scripture.  Nothing  can  be  more  unlimnded.  "The 
double  A-c/ise  of  many  projihccies  in  the  Old  Testament," 
Bays  an  able  writer,  "  has  btcn  made  a  i)rete\t  by  ill- 
disposed  men,  for  representing  tlnMii  as  of  uiic.ertuin 
meaning,  and  resembling  the  ambiguity  of  tlie  pagan 
Oraclea  But  whoever  considers  the  subject  wjlli  due 
attention,  will  perceive  how  little  iiround  there  is  lor 
BUi-h  an  accnsiitiiiii.  The  eqiiivoc.uions  of  itie  heathen 
Dradcs  niaiiircslly  arose  from  Ihc.'ir  igmiraiici- of  future 
*yci»ts,  aiid  from  their  endeavours  to  conceal  that  igno- 1 


[Part  L 

ranee,  by  such  indefinite  expressions  as  might  be 
C(|ually  applicable  to  two  or  more  events  of  a  contrary 
descriiptlon.  Jiut  the  double  sense  of  the  Scripture 
prophecies,  far  from  originating  in  any  doubt  or  uncer- 
tainty as  to  the  fulfilment  of  them  in  either  sense, 
springs  from  a  foreknowledge  of  their  accomplishment 
in  both  ;  whence  the  jirediction  is  puri)oscly  so  framed 
as  to  include  lioi/i  events,  which,  so  far  from  being 
contrary  to  each  other,  ar<-  ti/jiicnt  the  one  of  the  other, 
and  are  tlius  connected^  together  by  a  mutual  depend- 
ence or  relation.  U'hii?'  has  qlleii  been  satisfactorily 
proved,  with  respect  to  those  jiVophecies  which  referred, 
in  their  primary  seii.se,  to  the  events  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and,  ill  their  farther  and  more  complex  significa- 
tion, to  llio.se  of  the  New:  and  on  this  donble  accom- 
plishment of  some  prophecies  is  grounded  uur  firm  ex- 
pectation of  the  completion  of  others  w  Inch  remain  yet 
unfulfilleil  111  ilicir  secondary  sense,  but  which  we  justly 
consider  as  equally  uncertain  in  their  issue,  as  those 
which  are  already  past.  So  far,  then,  from  any  valid 
objection  lying  against  the  credilnlits  of  the  Scripture 
prophecies,  from  these  seeinin;.'  ambiguities  of  mean- 
ing, we  may  urge  them  as  additional  jirools  of  their 
coming  from  t;od.  For  who  but  the  Being  who  is  in- 
finite in  knowledge  and  in  counsel  could  so  construct 
predictions  as  to  give  them  a  twofold  ajiplication,  to 
events  distant  from,  and  (to  human  I'oresiglit)  uncon- 
nected with,  each  other !  What  power  less  ih.in  Divine 
could  .so  frame  them,  as  to  make  the  accomplishment 
of  them,  in  one  instance,  a  solemn  pledge  and  assurance 
of  their  completion  in  another  instance,  of  still  higher 
and  more  universal  importance  '.  Where  will  the 
scofter  find  any  tiling  like  this  in  the  ariifices  of  hea- 
then Oracles,  to  conceal  their  ignorance,  and  to  impose 
on  the  credulity  of  nKinkind  f" 

We  now  proceed  to  the  enumeration  of  a  few  out  of 
the  great  number  of  predictions  contained  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, which  most  unequivocally  show  a  perfect  know- 
ledge of  future  contingent  events,  and  which  therefore, 
according  to  our  argument,  as  certainly  prove  that  they 
who  uttered  them  "  sjiake  as  they  were  incn^ed  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  by  the  Spirit  of  the  oimiiscient  and  in- 
finitely prescient  God.(9) 


(9)  "  The  correspondences  of  types  and  antitypes, 
though  they  are  not  proper  proofs  of  the  truth  of  a  doc- 
trine, yet  may  be  very  reasonable  confirmations  of  the 
foreknowledge  of  God ;  of  the  uniform  view  of  Pro- 
vidence under  dilTerent  dispBiisations ;  of  the  analogy, 
harmony,  and  agreement  between  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  New.  The  words  of  the  law  concerning  one 
particular  kind  of  death.  He  that  is  hanmd  is  accursed 
of  God,  can  hardly  be  conceived  to  have  been  put  in  on 
any  otlier  account  than  with  a  view  and  foresiglu  to  the 
application  made  of  it  by  St.  Paul.  The  analogies  be- 
tween the  paschal  lamb  and  the  Lamb  of  God  slain 
from  the  foil  niliUion  of  the  xeorld;  between  the  E^yp- 
tiun.  bond(i!!c  and  the  tyranny  of  sin;  between  tlie 
baptism  of  the  Israelites  in  the  sea  and  in  the  cloud, 
and  the  baptism  nf  Christians ;  oetween  the  jiassage 
through  the  wiUlcriicss,  and  through  the  present  world ; 
between  Joshua  bringing  the  peojile  into  the  promised 
land,  and  Jesus  Christ  being  the  Captain  of  salvation 
to  believers ;  between  the  sabbatli  of  rest  proiniscd  to  the 
people  if  God  in  the  earthly  Vanann,  and  ihe  eternal  rest 
promised  to  (he  people  rfGod  in  tlii'  heavenly  Canaan; 
between  the  liberty  granted  them  from  the  time  of  the 
death  if  the  Hi:sh-]iriest,\o  him  that  had  lied  into  Acity 
ofrifu^e.  and  the  ridniiption  purchased  by  Xhediath  of 
Christ ;  bclwcni  the  lliiih-priist  entering  intothe holy 
place  eiHry  i/iiir  icith  the  liiooil  of  others,  a\u\  Christ's 
o;irf  i-nterni:;  icith  his  nun  blood  into  hem-en  itself,  to 
ai'pear  in  the  shadnirs  <if  llnnss  to  come,  if  uo'id  things 
to  come,  the  shadotrs  if  hi  aceiili/  thini^sjUe  pri  scare  of 
God  for  lis.  These,  I  say,  and  innumeiable  other  ana-> 
logics,  between  Ihe  figures  for  Ihe  lime  thru  present, 
/intterns  if  things  in  the  henvens.  and  the  heavenly 
tilings  themselves,  cannot  without  the  force  of  strong 
prejudice  be  conceived  to  have  happened  by  mere  chance, 
w-ithout  any  foresight  or  design.  There  are  no  such 
analogies,  much  less  such  series  of  analogies,  found  in 
the  books  of  more  enthusiastic  writers  living  in  such 
remote  ages  from  each  other.  It  is  much  more  credible 
and  reasonable  to  suppose  what  St.  Paul  affinns,  that 
these  things  were  our  ixamjiles  ;  ami  that  in  that  uni- 
form course  of  Cod's  goverHiiient  of  the  world,  all 
lluiigs  happened  unto  thun  of  old  for'i)isamples,  aiuf 


Cha».  XVII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


71 


The  very  first  promise  mailc  to  man  is  a  prediction 
which  noiiecoulil  havi:  utlcnil  hut  Ho  whose  eye  looks 
through  the  (U'pllis  iif  liiuirc  ;i(.'cs,  and  knows  llie  result 
as  well  as  the  l)e),'iuuiiig  of  all  things.     "  /  will  put  en- 
mity betucen  thee  and  the  tvuman,  and  between  tliy 
seed  and  her  seed ;  it  shall  bruise  thy  head,  and  thou 
shalt  bruise  his  heel."    In  vain  is  it  attempted  to  re- 
solve  the  whole  of  the  transaction  witli  which  this 
prediction  stands  connected  into  allegory.    Such  crili- 
cism,  if  applied  to  any  other  ancient  historical  book, 
bearing  marks  of  authentic  narration  as  unequivocal  as 
She  book  of  Genesis,  would  not  be  tolerated  by  the  ad- 
vocates of  this  absurd  conception  themselves,  whether 
they  are   open   or  disguised   inliilels.      In  vain   is  it 
alleged,  that  a  mere  fact  of  natunU  history  is  stated; 
for  if  tlie  words  are  understood  to  express  no  more  than 
the  enmity  between  the  liuman  race  and  serpents,  it 
would  recjuire  to  be  proved,  in  order  to  establish  a  spe- 
cial punishment  of  the  serpent,  tliat  man  has  a  greater 
hostility  to  serpents  than  to  other  dangerous  animals, 
which  he  extirpates  whenever  he  can  master  them  by 
force  or  stratagem  ;  and  that  serpents  have  a  stronger 
disposition  to  do  injury  to  men  than  to  those  animals 
which  tliey  make  their  daily  prey,  or  to  others  wliicli 
they  never  fail  to  strike  when  within  their  reach.    As 
this  was  obviously  false  in  fact,  Moses  could  not  assert 
it ;  and  if  it  had  been  true  in  natural  history,  to  have 
said  this  and  nothing  more,  to  have  confined  himself  to 
the  mere  literal  fact,  a  fact  of  no  importance,  would 
have  been  far  below  the  chatacter  of  Moses  as  a  writer 
— a  lofty  and  sublime  character,  to  which  the  heathens, 
and  sometimes  infidels  themselves,  have  done  justice. 
In  no  intelligible  sense  can  these  celebrated  words  be 
undcrstoood,  but  in  that  in  which  they  are  fixed  by  in- 
numerable references  and  allusions  of  other  parts  of 
the  sacred  volume,  and  which  ought,  in  all  good  criti- 
cism, to  determine  their  meaning.    The  serpent,  and 
the  seed  of  the  woman,  are  the  representatives  of  two 
invisible  and  mighty  ])owers;  the  one  good,  the  other 
evU  ;  the  one  divine,  though  incarnate  of  the  woman, 
the  other   diabolic ;    between  whom   an   enmity  was 
placed,  which  was  to  express  itself  in  a  long  and  fearful 
struggle,  in  the  course  of  which  the  seed  of  the  woman 
should  sustain  a  temjiorary  wound  and  suffering,  but 
which  should  issue  in  the  bruising  of  the  head,  the  in- 
flicting a  fatal  blow  upon  the  power,  of  his  adversary. 
The  scene  of  this  contest  was  to  be  our  globe,  and 
generally  the  vLsible  agents  of  it  men,  under  their  re- 
spective leaders,  the  serpent  on  the  one  side,  and  the 
seed  of  the  woman  on  the  other,  praclising  and  advo- 
cating, and  endeavouring  to  render  dominant  truth  or 
error,  virtue  or  vice,  obedience  to  God  or  rebellion 
against  his  authority.    We  ask,  then,  has  such  a  con- 
test of  principles  and  powers  taken  place  in  the  world, 
or  not?    The  answer  must  be  in  the  afiirniative  ;  for 
every  age  bears  witness  to  it.     We  see  it  commencing 
in  Cain  and  Abel ; — in  the  resistance  of  the  antedilu- 
vians to  the  righteousness  taught  by  Noah ; — in  their 
punishment ; — in  the  rise  of  idolatry,  and  the  struggles 
of  the  truth  in  opposition  to  it ; — in  the  intlictions  of 
singular  judgments  upon  nations,  for  the  punishment 
and  exposure  of  idolatry,  as  in  tlie  plagues  of  Egypt, 
the  destruction  of  the   nations  of  Canaan,  ifec.     We 
trace  the  contest  throughout  the  whole  history  of  the 
Jewish  nation  down  to  the  coming  of  our  Lord ;  and 
occasionally  we  see  it  extending  into  the  neighbouring 
pagan  nations,  although  they  were  generally,  as  a  part 
of  their  punishment,  "suffered  to  walk  in  their  own 
ways,"  and  Satan  as  to  them  was  permitted  to  "  keep 
his  goods  in  peace,"  till  the  time  of  gracious  visitation 
should  arrive.    We  see  the  incarnate  Redeemer  for  a 
time  suffering,  and  at  length  dying.    Then  was  "the 
hour  and  power  rif  darkness ;"  then  was  his  heel  bruised : 
but  he  died  only  to  revive  again,  more  visibly  and  pow- 
erfully to  establish  his  kingdom  and  to  commence  his 
spiritual  conquests.    In  every  direction  were  the  re- 
gions where  Satan  "  hail  his  seat"  penetrated  by  the 
heavenly  light  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ ;   and  every 
where  the  most  tremendous  persecutions  were  excited 


they  are  written  for  our  admonition,  upon  whom  the 
ends  of  the  world  are  come.  And  hence  arises  that  ajit- 
ness  of  simililude,  in  the  application  of  several  legal 
performances  to  the  morality  of  the  Gospel,  that  it  can 
very  hardly  be  supposed  not  to  have  been  originally  in- 
tended."—Dr.  S.  Clarke's  Evidences  of  Natural  and 
Revealed  Religio-n,  p.  203. 


against  its  unarmed  and  unprotected  preachers  and 
their  converts.  But  the  gates  of  hell  prevailed  not 
against  the  church  founded  on  a  rock,  and  "  Satan/ell 
as  lightning  from  heaven,"— Uuia  the  thrones,  and 
temples,  and  judgment-seats,  and  schools  of  the  ancient 
civilized  world,  the  idolatry  of  ages  was  renounced; 
Christ  was  adored  through  the  vast  extent  of  the  Roman 
Empire,  and  in  many  of  the  countries  beyond  even  its 
ample  sweep.  Under  other  forms  the  enemy  revived, 
and  the  contest  was  renewed  ;  but  in  every  age  it  has 
been  maintained.  The  principles  of  pure  evangelical 
truth  were  never  extinguished ;  and  the  ''  children  of 
the  kingdom^^  were  "minished  and  brought  low,"  only 
to  render  the  renewal  of  the  assault  by  unexpected 
agents,  singularly  raised  up,  more  marked  and  more 
eminently  of  God.  We  need  not  run  over  even  the 
heads  of  the  history  of  the  Church :  what  is  the  pre- 
sent slate  of  tilings?  The  contest  still  continues,  but 
with  increasing  zeal  on  the  part  of  Christians,  who  are 
carrying  on  offensive  operations  against  the  most  dis- 
tant parts  of  the  long-undislurbed  kingdom  of  dark- 
ness; placing  there  the  principles  of  truth;  com- 
mencing war  upon  idolatry  and  superstition  ;  and  esta- 
blishing the  institutions  of  the  Christian  Church  with 
a  success  which  warrants  the  hope  that  the  time  is  not 
far  distant,  when  the  head  of  the  serpent  will  be  bruised" 
in  all  idolatrous  countries,  and  the  idols  of  modern 
Heathen  states,  like  those  of  old,  be  displaced,  to  intro- 
duce the  worship  of  the  universal  Saviour,  "  G(jd  over 
all,  blessed  for  ever." 

May  we  not  ask,  whether  all  this  was  not  infinitely 
above  human  foresight  ?  Who  could  confidently  state, 
that  a  contest  of  this  peculiar  nature  would  continue 
through  successive  ages ;  that  men  would  not  all  go 
over  to  one  or  other  of  the  opposing  parties  ;  nay,  who 
could  confidently  conjecture  in  the  age  of  Moses  (when 
the  tendency  to  idolatry  had  become  so  strong  that  the 
chosen  seed  themselves,  under  the  constant  demonstra- 
tion of  miracles,  visibly  blessed  while  they  remained 
faithful  to  the  worship  of  God,  and  as  eminently  and 
visibly  punished  when  they  departed  from  it,  could  not 
be  preserved  from  the  infection),  that  idolatry  should 
one  day  be  abolished  throughout  the  earth  ?  Past  ex- 
perience and  all  probabilities  were  opposed  to  the  hope 
that  the  cause  of  the  seed  of  the  woman  should  prevail, 
and  yet  it  stands  recorded,  "  it  [rather  IIk]  shall  bruise 
thy  head."  Infidels  may  scoff  at  a  Redeemer,  and  de- 
ride the  notion  of  a  tempter ;  but  they  cannot  deny  that 
such  a  contest  between  opposite  parties  and  principles 
as  is  here  foretold  has  actually  taken  place,  and  still 
continues  ;  that  contest,  so  extended,  so  continued,  and 
so  terminated,  human  loresight  could  not  foretel ;  and 
the  fact  established,  therefore,  is  an  accomplishment  of  a 
prophecy  which  could  originate  only  in  Divine  i)rescience. 
The  celebrated  prediction  of  .lacob  at  the  close  of  his 
life,  respecting  the  time  of  the  appearing  of  "  Shiloh," 
may  ne.\t  be  considered. 

The  word  signifies  "  He  who  is  to  be  se7it,"  or  "  TTie 
Peace-maker :"  in  either  sense,  the  application  to  that 
great  Person  to  whom  all  the  patriarchs  looked  forward, 
and  the  prophets  gave  witness,  is  obvious.  Those  who 
doubt  this,  are  bound  to  give  us  a  better  interpretation. 
— Before  a  certain  event,  a  certain  person  was  to  come, 
to  whom  the  people  should  be  gathered  :  the  event  has 
certainly  arrived,  but  who  is  the  person  ?  The  appli- 
cation of  the  pro[)heey  to  Messiah  is  not  an  invention 
of  Christians.  The  ancient  .lews,  as  appears  from 
their  commentators,  so  understood  it :  and  the  modern 
ones  are  unable  to  resist  the  evidence  drawn  from  it,  in 
favour  of  the  claims  of  our  Lord.  That  it  is  a  predic- 
tion is  proved  from  its  form,  and  the  circunistar.ees 
under  which  it  was  delivered :  that  it  has  received  a 
singular  accomplishment  in  the  person  of  .lesus  of 
Nazareth,  is  also  certain  ;  and  it  is  equally  cerlain,  that 
no  individual  besides  can  be  produced,  in  whom  it  has 
been  in  any  sense  whatever  accomplished.  For  the 
ample  illustration  of  the  prophecy  the  reader  is  referred 
to  commentators,  and  to  Bishop  Newton's  well-known 
work  on  the  prophecies.  It  is  sufficient  here  to  allege, 
that  .ludah,  as  a  tribe,  remained  till  after  the  advent  of 
.lesus  Christ,  wliich  cannot  be  said  of  the  long-dis- 
persed ten  tribes,  and  scarcely  of  Benjamin,  which  was 
merged  in  the  tribe  of  .ludah.— Chi  bu  asks  where  the 
supremacyof  Judah  was  when  Nebuchadnezzar  carried 
the  whole  nation  captive  to  Babylon  ;  when  Alexander 
subdued  Palestine ;  and  when  it  was  a  tributary  pro- 
vince of  the  Roman  Empire  ?    The  prediction,  however, 


72 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  I. 


doea  not  convey  the  idea  either  of  independent  ol-  su- 
preme power.  Tliis  no  one  tribe  hail  when  all  wire 
united  in  one  state,  and  each  had  its  sceptre  and  its 
princes  or  cliiefs.  It  is  therefore  enough  to  show,  tliat 
under  all  its  various  fortunes,  the  tribe  of  .Iiidah  re- 
tained its  nisigns,  and  its  chUfs,  and  its  I  nix  ship  until 
Sliiloh  came.  It  Is  no  unconiniou  thing  for  a  couMtry 
to  be  conquered,  and  for  its  ancient  jjrinces  and  go- 
vernment to  remain,  though  as  tribuiarv . 

With  respect  to  the  tribe  ofJudali  during  the  cap- 
tivity in  liabylon',  Cyrus,  as  we  Icam  from  E/ra  i.  8, 
ordered  the  vessels  of  liie  temple  to  be  restored  to 
"  the  Princti  of  Judnh."  This  sliows  that  the  tribe 
■was  kept  distinct,  and  that  it  had  its  own  internal  {go- 
vernment and  thief.  Under  the  dominion  of  the  As- 
monean  kings,  the  Jews  had  their  rulers,  their  elder.s, 
and  their  council,  and  so  under  the  Romans.  But  soon 
after  the  death  of  Christ,  all  this  was  abolished,  the  na- 
tion dispersed,  and  the  tribes  utterly  confounded.  Till 
our  Lord  came,  and  had  accomplished  his  work  on 
earth,  the  tribe  of  Judah  continued.  This  is  matter  of 
unquestionable  historic  fact.  In  a  sliort  time  after- 
ward it  was  dispersed,  and  mingled  with  the  common 
massof  Jewsof  all  tribes  and  countries:  this  is  equally 
unquestionable.  Now  again  we  ask,  could  either  hu- 
man foresight  determine  this,  or  is  the  application  of 
the  event  to  the  prophecy  fanciful  ?  The  prediction 
■was  uttered  in  the  very  infancy  of  the  stale  oflsrael, 
by  the  father  of  the  fathers  of  the  tribes  of  that  people. 
Ages  passed  away ;  the  mightiest  empires  were  anni- 
hilated; ten  of  the  chosen  tribes  tliemselves  were  ut- 
terly dispersed  into  uiiknown  countries;  another  be- 
came so  insignificant  as  to  lose  its  designation ;  one 
only  remained,  which  imposed  its  very  name  upon  the 
nation  at  large,  the  object  of  public  observation  until 
the  Messiah  came,  and  that  tribe  was  Judah,  the  tribe 
spoken  of  in  the  prediction,  and  it  remained  as  it  were 
only  to  make  the  fnllilment  manifest,  and  ■was  then 
confounded  with  the  relics  of  the  rest.  What  pre- 
science of  countless  contingencies,  occurring  in  the  in- 
tervening ages,  docs  this  imply? — A  prescience, truly, 
■which  can  only  luMojig  to  {;od. 

The  predictions  respecting  the  .lewish  nation,  com- 
mencing ■with  those  of  Moses,  and  running  through 
all  their  projdiets,  are  too  numerous  to  be  adduced. 
One  of  the  most  instructive  and  convincing  exercises 
to  those  Avho  have  any  doubt  of  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures,  would  be  seriously  and  candidly  lo  peruse 
them,  and  by  the  aid  of  those  authors  who  have  e.x- 
pressly  and  largely  written  on  this  subject,  to  compare 
the  prophecies  with  their  alleged  fullilment. — Three  to- 
pics are  prominent  in  the  ]ire(lictioiis  of  Moses  and  the 
projihets  generally, — tlie  frequent  and  gross  departures 
of  the  Jews  from  their  own  law;  their  signal  punish- 
ment in  invasions,  captivities,  dispersions,  oppressions, 
and  persecutions  ;  and  their  final  restoration  to  their 
own  land.  All  these  have  taken  place.  Even  the  last 
■was  accomi)lished  by  the  return  from  Babylon,  though 
in  its  eminent  sense  it  is  si  ill  lunire.  In  pursuance  of 
the  argument,  we  shall  shiiw  lliat  each  of  these  was 
above  human  foresight  and  conjecture. 

The  apostacies  and  idiilatries  of  this  people  were 
forelold  by  Moses  b,;H>rc  Ins  ilcath.  "  /  /.■iiom  ilmt  af- 
ter my  ilralli  yr  icill  ulli  rtij  nirriipl  ijdiirsclvi-s,  mid 
tVTiiasidifrniii  Ihr  iniij  uiiicli  I  liarr  ciiiiiinnndedyuu, 
atid  evil  null  bifatl  you  in  tlif  Inlh  r  ilays;"  Dent.  xxxi. 
29;  and  he  accordingly  proplieln^alh  declares  their  pu- 
nishment. It  is,  perhaps,  scar(  ely  iiossiblc  tolix  upon 
a  stronger  circumstance  than  this  prediction,  to  prove 
that  Moses  was  truly  commissioned  by  (iod,  and  did 
not  pretend  a  divine  sanction  in  order  to  give  weight  to 
his  laws  and  lo  his  personal  authority.  The  rebellious 
race  whom  he  had  first  led  into  the  desert,  had  died 
there ;  and  the  new  generation  were  much  more  dis- 
posed to  obey  their  leader.  At  the  moment  he  wrote 
these  words,  ai)pearanc(«  had  a  favourable  aspect  on 
the  future  obedience  of  the  i)eoiile.  If  this  had  not 
been  the  case,  the  last  Ihouglil  a  merely  political  man 
■would  have  been  diMjioscd  lo  indulge  was,  thathisown 
favourite  inslilntions  should  fall  mio  desuetude  and 
contempt;  and  much  less  would  ho  finish  his  public 
life  by  openly  telling  the  people,  that  he  foresaw  that 
event,  even  if  ho  feared  it.  li  may,  indeed,  he  said, 
that  he  uttered  this  conviction  for  ihe  purpose  of  giving 
a  colour  to  the  threalenings  which  he  pronounces 
against  di.sobcdience  to  his  law,  and  that  the  object  of 
those  fearful  menaces  was  to  deter  the  people  from  de- 


parting from  customs  and  rules  tvliich  he  was  anxiotis, 
for  the  sake  of  his  own  fame,  that  they  should  observe. 
To  this  we  answer,  that  Mo.scs  could  not  exiHJct  any 
weight  to  be  attached  by  the  Israelites  to  his  threat, 
that  the  Divine  )iidgnients  would  be  inflicted  uporf  them 
fornol  obeying  Ins  laWs,  unless  their  Ibrmer  rebellions 
had  been  immediately  and  signally  marked  by  sucU 
visitations.  Without  this  to  su]i|>ort  lilm,  he  would 
have  appeared  in  a  ridiculous  rather  than  in  an  im- 
l)ressive  and  sublime  attitude  belbre  the  people  assem- 
bled to  hearhis  lastcnnimands.  J'or  Ibrty  years  his  in- 
stitutions had  licen  (illen  ilisobcyrd,  and  if  no  inflictions 
ofthe  Divine  disjileasure  followed,  what  reason  had  they 
to  credit  the  menaces  of  INIoscs  as  to  the  future  ?  But 
if  such  inflictions  had  resulted  from  their  disobedience, 
every  thing  is  rational  and  consistent  in  tliis  part  of 
the  conduct  of  their  leader.  Let  the  infidel  choose 
which  of  these  positions  he  pleases.  If  he  think 
that  Moses  aimed  to  deter  them  from  departing  from 
his  institutions  by  empty  threats,  he  ascribes  an  imre- 
dible  absurdity  to  an  umiuestionably  wise  and,  as  in- 
fidels themselves  contend,  a  very  politic  man  ;  but  if 
his  predictive  threats  were  grounded  up*)Ti  Ibrmer 
marked  and  acknowledged  interpo-sitions  of  Divine  pro- 
vidence, the  only  circumstance  which  could  give  them 
weight,  he  was  (lod's  commissioned  leader,  and,  as  he 
professed,  an  insjiired  iirojihet. 

It  is  a  circunist;;nce  of  great  weight  in  the  predic- 
tions of  Moses  resi)ectiiig  the  punishmeni  of  the  Jews, 
that  these  famines,  pestilences,  invasions,  subjugations 
to  tbreign  enemies,  captivities.  Sec.  are  represented 
solely  as  the  conseiiuencc  of  their  vicious  dejiartures 
from  God  and  Ironi  his  laws.  I\ow,  who  could  lore- 
see,  except  an  inspired  man,  that  such  evils  would  in 
no  rust  a  net:  take  place — that  no  famine,  no  blight,  no 
invasion  would  occur  in  Judea,  except  in  obvious  pu- 
nishment of  their  offences  against  their  law?  What 
was  there  in  the  common  course  of  things  to  prevent 
a  small  state,  though  observant  of  the  precepts  of  its 
own  religion,  from  falling  under  the  dominion  of  more 
powerful  neighbouring  nations,  except  the  special  jiro- 
tection  of  God?  and  what  but  this  could  guard  lliem 
from  the  plagues  and  famines  to  which  their  neighbours 
were  liable?  If  the  predictions  of  Moses  were  not  in- 
spired, they  assume  a  principle  which  mere  human 
wisdom  and  policy  never  lakes  into  its  calculations, — 
that  of  the  connexion  of  the  national  prosperity  of  a 
people,  inseparably  and  infallibly,  with  obedience  to 
their  Holy  Writings;  and  because  they  a.ssume  that 
.singular  iirinciple,  the  conclusion  is  in  favour  of  their 
inspiration.  For  let  us  turn  to  the  facts  of  the  case. 
The  sac-red  books  of  the  Jews  are  historical,  as  well  as 
prophetic.  The  history  too  is  distinct  from  Ihe  pro- 
phecy; it  is  often  written  by  other  authors;  and  there 
IS  no  mark  at  all  of  any  desi^'ued  accommodation  of  the 
one  to  the  other.  The  singular  simplicity  of  the  his- 
toric narrative  disproves  this,  as  well  us  the  circum- 
stance, that  a  great  part  of  it  as  recorded  in  the  Old 
Testament  is  a  transcrijit  oftheir  public  records.  Con- 
sult then  this  history,  and  in  every  in.stance  of  siOL'ular 
calamity  we  see  a  previous  departure  from  the  L.iw  of 
Moses;  the  one  following  the  other,  almost  with  the 
regnlanly  and  certainly  of  natural  eflects  and  cau.ses! 
In  this  Ihe  priMliclions  of  Moses  and  lh('  prophets  are 
strikingly  accomjilished ;  and  a  more  than  human  fore- 
sight is  proved. 

Let  us  look  farther  into  the  detail  of  these  threat- 
ened ])unishments.  Besides  the  ordinary  in/iictions  of 
faiUng  harvests  and  severe  diseases  in  their  own  coun- 
try, they  were,  according  to  the  prophecies  of  Moses, 
Deut.  xxviii.,  to  be  ^'■scatlered  ammig  all  fteapk.  from 
one  end  rf  the  earth  even  to  the  ot/iir  ;"  and  where  is 
the  trading  nation  in  which  they  are  not,  in  Asia.  Africa, 
and  Europe?  Many  are  even  to  be  Ibimd  in  the  West 
Indies,  and  in  the  commercial  parts  of  America.  Who 
could  liire.see  this  but  God ;  especially  when  their  sin- 
gular jireservation  as  a  distinct  jM'Ople,  a  solitary  in- 
stance in  the  history  of  nations,  is  also  implied  ?(1) 

(1)  "  They  have  been  dispersed  among  all  countries. 
They  liave  noconnnon  tie  of  localilx  or  government  to 
keep  them  togelher.  All  the  ordinary  principles  of  as- 
similation, which  make  law,  and  nllgion,  and  manners, 
NO  much  a  matter  of  geography,  are  in  their  instance 
suspended.  And  in  exception  to  every  thing  which 
history  has  recorded  of  the  revolutions  of  the  species, 
we  Bee  tu  this  wonderfUl  race  a  vigorous  principle  of 


Chap.  XVII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


73 


They  were  to  find  "  nn  eaxe"  among  these  natinns ;  and 
the  almost  constant  and  long-continued  persecutions, 
robberies,  and  murder  of  .lews,  not  only  in  ancient  na- 
tions, but  esiiecially  anKiMi;  Cliristian  nations  of  the 
middle  a^es,  and  in  llu-  Miiiiornelan  states  to  this  day, 
are  in  wondprfnl  accoiiiphsliEiienl  of  this.  They  were 
to  be  "  a  proverb  and  a  lnj-wiird  amnng  all  iiationn  ;" 
which  has  been  in  every  "place  fulliUed,  but  was  surely 
above  human  intelligence  to  foresee :  and  "  the  strarif^cr 
that  is  within  thee  shall  ffet  above  thee  very  high,  and 
thou  shall  come  very  low."  For  a  comment  on  this, 
let  the  conduct  of  the  "  stranger^'  Turks  and  others 
who  inhabit  Palestine,  towards  the  Jews  who  remained 
there,  be  recollected, — the  one  party  is  indeed  "  very 
high"  and  the  other  "  very /ow."  Other  parts  of  this 
siniiular  chapter  present  equally  striking  predictions, 
uttered  more  than  three  thousand  years  ago,  as  remark- 
ably accomplished ;  but  there  are  some  passages  in  it 
which  refer  in  terms  so  particular  to  a  then  distant 
event,  the  utter  subversion  of  their  polity  and  nation  by 
the  Romans,  as  to  demonstrate  in  the  most  unequivo- 
cal manner  the  prescience  of  him  to  whom  all  events, 
the  most  contingent,  minute,  and  distant,  are  known 
with  absolute  certainty.  That  the  Romans  are  in- 
tended, in  verse  49,  by  the  nation  brought  from  "  the 
end  of  the  earth"  distinguished  by  their  well-known 
ensign  "  the  eagle,"  and  by  their  tierce  and  cruel  dis- 
position, is  exceedingly  probable  ;  and  it  is  remarkable 
that  the  account  which  Moses  gives  of  the  horrors  of 
the  "  siege"  of  which  he  speaks,  is  exactly  paralleled 
by  those  well-known  passages  in  .losephus,  ni  which 
he  describes  the  siegeof  Jerusalem  by  the  Roman  army. 
The  last  verse  of  the  chapter  seems  indeed  to  fix  the 
reference  of  the  foregoing  passages  to  the  final  destruc- 
tion of  the  nation  by  the  Romans,  and  at  the  same  time 
contains  a  prediction,  the  accomplishment  of  which 
cannot  possibly  be  ascribed  to  accident.  "  Avid  the 
Lord  shall  bring  thee  into  Egypt  again  leith  ships,  by 
the  way  rchereofi  spake  unto  thee,  Thou  shall  see  it  no 
more  again  :  and  there  ye  shall  be  sold  unto  your  ene- 
mies for  bondmen  and  bovAlwomen,  and  no  man  shall 
buy  you."  On  this  Ur.  Hale's  remarks,  on  the  author- 
ity of  their  own  national  historian,  Josephus,  "  Of  the 
captives  taken  at  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  above  seven- 
teen years  of  age,  some  were  sent  to  Egypt  in  chains, 
the  greater  part  were  distributed  through  the  provinces 
to  be  destroyed  in  the  theatres,  by  the  sword,  and  by 
wild  beasts ;  the  rest  under  seventeen  were  sold  for 
slaves,  and  that  for  a  trifling  sum,  on  account  of  the 
numbers  to  be  sold,  and  the  scarcity  of  buyers  :  so 
that  at  length  the  prophecy  of  Moses  was  fulfilled — 
'  atul  no  jnan  shall  buy.'  The  part  that  were  reserved 
to  grace  the  triumph  of  Vespasian,  were  probably 
transported  to  Italy  in  '  ships,'  or  by  sea,  to  avoid  a 
prodigious  land  journey  thither  through  Asia  and 
Greece,  —a  circumstance  which  distinguished  this  in- 
vasion and  captivity  from  the  preceding  by  the  Assy- 
rians and  Babylonians.  In  the  ensuing  rebellion,  a 
part  of  the  captives  were  sent  by  sea  to  Egypt,  and  seve- 
ral of  the  ships  were  wrecked  on  the  coast." 

Thus,  at  a  distance  of  fifteen  centuries,  were  these 
contingent  circumstances  accurately  recorded  by  the 
prophetic  spirit  of  Moses— the  takiug  of  innumerable 
Jews  captive — their  transport  to  Egypt — their  being 
sold  till  the  markets  for  slaves  were  glutted,  and  no 
niore  buyers  were  found,  and  embarked  on  board  ves- 
sels, either  to  grace  the  tnumi)h  of  their  conqueror,  or 
to  find  a  market  in  dilTerent  maritime  ports.  Is  it  pos- 
sible that  these  numerous  and  minute  circumstances 
can  be  referred  to  either  happy  conjectures  or  human 
foresight  ? 

But  Moses  and  other  prophets  agree,  that,  after  all 
their  captivities  and  disjjersions.  the  .Tews  shall  be 
again  restored  to  their  own  land.  This  was,  as  we 
have  said,  in  one  instance  accomplished  in  their  resto- 
ration by  Cyrus  and  his  successors  ;  after  which  they 
again  became  a  considerable  state.  But  who  could 
foretel  that,  but  He  who  determines  the  events  of  the 
world  by  his  power  and  wisdom  ?  Jeremiah  fixes  the 
duration  of  the  captivity  to  70  years ;  he  did  that  so 
unequivocally,  that  the  Jews  in  Babylon,  when  the  time 
approached,  began  to  prepare  for  the  event.     But  there 

identity,  which  has  remained  in  undiminished  force  for 
nearly  two  thousand  years,  and  still  pervades  every 
Bhred  and  fragment  of  their  widely  scattered  popula- 
tion."—Cjuuikk'b  Evidences 


was  nothing  in  the  circumstances  of  the  Babylonian 
empire  when  the  prediction  was  uttered,  to  warrant 
the  hope,  much  less  to  supiiort  a  confident  conjecture. 
Could  the  subversion  of  that  powerful  empire  by  allien 
obscure  people,  the  circum.staiice  which  broke  the 
bondage  of  the  Jews,  have  been  Ibresten  by  man  ?  or 
when  we  consider  the  event  as  fulfilling  so'  distinct  a 
prophecy,  can  it  be  resolved  into  imaginative  interpre- 
tation !  A  future  restoration,  however,  awaits  this 
people,  and  will  be  to  the  world  a  glorious  dennmstra- 
tion  of  the  truth  of  pro])hecy.  This  being  future,  we 
cannot  argue  upon  it.  I'liree  things  are  however  cer- 
tain : — the  Jews  themselves  expect  it ;  they  are  pre- 
served by  the  providence  of  God  a  distinct  peojile  for 
their  country  ;  and  their  countrj',  which  in  fact  is  pos- 
sessed by  no  one,  is  preserved/or  them. 

Without  noticing  numerous  prophecies  respecting 
ancient  nations  and  cities,(2)  the  wonderful  and  exact  ac- 
complishment of  which  has  been  pointed  out  by  variou.s 
writers,  and  which  afford  numerous  eminent  instances  of 
the  prescieiiceof  contingent  and  improbable  events,whose 
evidence  is  so  overwhelming,  that,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
illustrious  prophecies  of  Daniel,  unbelievers  have  been 
obhged  to  resort  to  the  subterfuge  of  asserting,  in  op- 
position to  the  most  direct  proofs,  that  the  jirophecies 
were  written  after  the  events,  we  shall  close  our  in- 
stances by  adverting  to  the  prophecies  respecting  the 
Messiah, — the  great  end  and  object  of  the  prophetic 
dispensation.  Of  these  not  a  solitary  instance  or  two, 
of  an  equivocal  kind,  and  expressed  only  in  figurative 
or  symbolic  language,  are  to  be  adduced;  but  upwards 
of  one  hundred  predictions,  generally  of  very  clear  and 
explicit  meaning,  and  each  referring  to  some  different 
circumstance  connected  with  the  appearing  of  Christ, 
his  person,  history,  and  his  ministry,  have  been  selected 
by  divines,  exclusive  of  typical  and  allusive  predic- 
tions,(3)  and  those  which  in  an  ultimate  and  remote 
sense  are  believed  to  terminate  in  him.  How  are  all 
these  to  be  disposed  of,  if  tlie  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures which  contain  them  be  denied  ?  That  the.se  pre- 
dictions are  in  books  written  many  ages  before  the  birth 


(2)  No  work  has  exhibited  in  so  pleasing  and  com- 
prehensive a  manner  the  fulfilment  of  the  leading  pro- 
phecies of  Scripture,  and  especially  of  the  Old  Testa- 
tament,  as  Bishop  Xewton's  Dissertations  on  the  Pro- 
phecies, and  the  perusal  of  it  may  be  earnestly  recom- 
mended, especially  to  the  young.  His  illustrations  of 
the  prophecies  respecting  ancient  Babylon  are  exceed- 
ingly interesting  and  satisfactory;  and  still  farther 
proofs  of  the  wonderfully  exact  accomplishment  of 
those  prophecies  may  be  seen  in  a  highly  interesting 
Memoir  on  the  Ruins  of  Babylon,  by  Claudius  J.  Rich, 
published  in  1815.  Immense  ruins  were  visited  by  him 
near  the  supposed  site  of  ancient  Babylon,  wliich  pro- 
bably are,  though  the  matter  cannot  be  certainly  as- 
certained, the  remains  of  that  astonishing  city,  now 
indeed  "swept  with  the  besom  of  destruction."  He 
tells  us,  loo,  that  the  neighbourhood  is  to  the  present 
a  habitation  only  for  birds  and  beasts  of  prey ;  that  the 
dens  of  lions,  with  their  slaughtered  victims,  are  to 
be  seen  in  many  places ;  and  that  most  of  the  cavities 
are  occupied  with  bats  and  owls.  It  is  therefore  im- 
possible to  reflect  without  awe  upon  the  passage  of 
Isaiah,  written  during  the  prosperity  of  Babylon, 
wherein  he  says,  "  The  wild  beasts  of  the  desert  shall 
lie  there,  and  their  houses  shall  be  full  of  doleful 
creatures,  and  owls  shall  dwell  there,  and  satyrs  shall 
dance  there."  The  present  ruins  of  that  city  also 
demonstrate,  that  the  course  of  the  Euphrates  has 
been  changed,  probably  in  consequence  of  the  channel 
formed  by  Cyrus ;  and  the  yielding  nature  of  the  soil 
denion.strates  that  such  an  operation  could  have  been 
performed  by  a  large  army  with  great  facility  and  des- 
patch. 

The  ruins  examined  by  Mr.  Rich  bear  testimony  to 
the  immense  extent  of  the  city  as  described  by  ancient 
authors.  Va.st  masses  of  masonry,  of  both  burnt  and 
unburnt  brick  and  bitumen,  were  ob.served  in  various 
excavations  in  these  huge  mountains  of  ruins,  which 
are  separated  from  each  other  by  several  miles.  One 
is  called  by  the  Arabs  Birs  Nimrond ;  another  tlie 
Kasr,  or  Palace ;  and  a  third,  which  some  have  thought 
to  be  the  ruins  of  the  Tower  of  Bclus,  is  called  by  the 
natives  Mugelibi,  overturned,  which  expressive  term 
is  also  sometimes  applied  to  the  mounds  of  the  Kasr. 

(3)  Sec  note  (9),  p.  70. 


74 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  I. 


of  our  Saviour,  is  certain— the  testimony  of  the  Jews, 
who  rnject  Christ,  amply  proves  tliis.  That  nu  in- 
terpolations have  talcen  i]la(^c  to  accommodate  thim 
to  him  is  proved,  by  the  same  predictions  being  found 
in  the  co|)ies  wliich  arc  in  tlie  hands  of  tlie  Jews, 
and  which  have  descended  to  tlicm  from  before  the 
Christian  era.  On  tiie  other  liand,  tlie  history  of 
•lesus  answers  to  these  predictions,  and  exhibits  their 
exact  accomplishment.  The  Messiah  was  to  be  of  the 
seed  of  David — born  in  Betiiletiem — born  of  a  virgin— 
an  incarnation  of  Deity,  God  witli  us, — an  eminent  but 
unsuccessful  teacher ; — he  was  to  open  the  eyes  of  the 
blind,  heal  the  lame  and  sick,  and  raise  the  dead — he 
was  to  be  despised  and  reject(^d  by  his  own  countrymen ; 
to  be  arrais'H'd  on  lUlse  charges,  denied  justice,  and 
eondenintd  to  a  violent  death — he  was  to  rise  from  the 
dead,  ascend  to  the  riglit  hand  of  God,  and  there  being 
invested  with  power  and  authority,  he  was  to  ])unisli 
bis  enemies,  and  establish  his  own  spiritual  kingdom, 
which  shall  never  end.  We  do  not  enter  into  more 
minute  predictions,  for  the  argument  is  irresistible 
when  founded  on  these  alone :  and  we  may  assert  that 
no  man,  or  number  of  men,  could  possibly  have  made 
such  conjectures.  Considered  in  themselves  this  is 
impossible.  What  rational  man,  or  number  of  rational 
men,  could  now  be  found  to  hazard  a  conjecture  that 
an  incarnation  of  Deity  would  occur  in  any  given  place 
and  time — that  this  Divine  Person  should  teach  wis- 
dom, work  miracles,  be  unjustly  put  to  death,  rise  again, 
and  establish  his  religion  ?  TJiese  are  thoughts  which 
never  enter  into  the  minds  of  men,  because  they  are 
suggested  by  no  experience,  and  by  no  probability  aris- 
ing out  of  the  usual  course  of  human  afiairs ;  and  yet 
if  the  prophets  were  not  inspired,  it  would  have  been  as 
impossible  for  them  to  have  conceived  such  expecta- 
tions as  (or  us ;  and  iiiileed  mucli  more  so,  seeing  we 
are  now  familiar  with  a  religion  winch  asserts  that  such 
events  have  once  occurred.  If  then  such  events  lay  be- 
yond not  only  human  foresiglit,  but  even  human  thought, 
they  can  only  be  referred  to  inspiration.  But  the  case 
does  not  close  here.  How  shall  we  account,  in  the 
next  place,  for  these  circumstances  all  having  met, 
strange  as  they  are,  in  one  person,  and  in  one  only 
among  all  the  millions  of  men  who  have  been  born  of 
woman, — and  that  person  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ?  He  was 
of  the  house  and  liataifc  of  Darid—he  was  born,  and 
that  by  a  singular  event,  in  BfthkhKiii — he  professed  to 
be  "  God  with  7is,"  and  wrought  miracles  to  substan- 
tiate his  claim.  At  his  word  or  touch,  the  "  eyes  of  the 
blind  were  opened,"  "  the  lame  leaped  as  a  hurt,"  the 
dumb  spake,  the  sick  were  healed,  and  the  dead  lived, 
as  the  prophets  had  foretold.  Of  the  tcisdom  of  his 
teaching,  his  recorded  discourses  bear  witness.  His 
rejection  and  unjust  death  by  his  countrymen,  are  mat- 
ters of  historic  fact ;  his  resurriction  and  ascension 
stand  upon  the  lofty  evidences  which  have  been  already 
adduced  :  the  desinirtion  of  the  Jewish  nation,  accord- 
ing to  his  own  pn-dutions,  followed  as  the  proof  of  the 
terror  of  his  ndciiilrd  majesty;  and  his  '^kingdom" 
among  men  continues  to  this  day.  There  is  no  possible 
meansof  evading  the  evidence  of  the  fullilment  of  these 
predictions  in  the  jier.son  of  our  Lord,  unless  it  could 
be  shown  that  .lesus  and  his  disciples,  by  some  kind  of 
concert,  nuuli-  ilic  events  of  his  lite  and  death  to  cor- 
respond Willi  till-  priiphecies,  in  order  to  substantiate 
his  claim  to  the  Messiahship.  No  iiilidel  has  ever  been 
so  absurd  as  to  hazard  tins  opinion,  except  Lord  Boling- 
broke;  and  his  observations  may  be  taken  as  a  most 
triumphant  proof  of  the  force  of  this  evidence  from 
prophecy,  when  an  hyjiothesis  so  extravagant  was  re- 
sorted to  by  an  acute  mind,  in  order  to  evade  it.  This 
noble  writer  asserts,  that  Jesus  Christ  brought  on  his 
own  death  by  a  series  ol  wilful  and  jireconcerted  mea- 
sures, merely  to  give  his  disciples  Itie  triumiih  of  an 
appeal  to  the  old  prophecies  I  Hut  this  hypothesis  does 
not  reach  the  case  ;  and  to  have  siuceeded,  he  ought  to 
have  shown,  that  our  Lord  preconcerted  his  descent 
from  David— his  being  born  of  a  virgin— his  birth  at 
Bethlehem— and  his  wonderful  endowments  ofeloiiuencc 
and  wisdom;  that  by  some  means  or  other  he  wilfully 
made  the  Jews  ungrateful  to  him  who  healed  their  sn  k 
and  cleansed  their  lejiers ;  and  that  he  not  only  con- 
trived his  own  death,  but  his  resurrection,  and  his  as- 
cension also,  and  the  spread  of  his  religion  in  opposi- 
tion to  human  opinion  and  human  power,  in  order  to 
give  Ills  disciples  the  triumph  of  an  appeal  to  the  iiro-  j 
phecies!    These  subterfuijeg  of  iulidels  toucedc  the  J 


point,  and  show  that  the  truth  cannot  be  denied  but  by 
doing  the  utmost  violence  to  the  under.standing. 

That  wonderful  series  of  particular  prophecies  re- 
specting our  Lord,  contained  in  Isaiah  liii.,  will  illus- 
trate the  foregoing  observations,  and  may  properly 
close  this  chapter. 

To  this  projihecy,  it  cannot  be  objected  that  its  lan- 
guage is  symbolic,  or  that  in  more  than  a  few  beautiful 
metajiliors,  easily  understood,  it  is  even  figurative  ;  its 
style  is  that  of  narrative  ;  it  is  also  entire  in  itself,  and 
unmixed  with  any  other  subject  ;  and  it  evidently  re- 
fers to  one  single  person.  So  the  ancient  Jews  under- 
stood it,  and  applied  it  to  Messiah ;  and  though  the 
modern  Jews,  in  order  to  evade  its  force  in  (he  argu- 
ment with  Christians,  allege  that  it  describes  the  suf- 
ferings of  their  nation,  and  not  of  an  individual,  the 
objection  is  refuted  by  the  terms  of  the  prophecy  itself. 
The  Jewish  ))eople  cannot  be  the  svfferer,  because  he 
was  to  bear  tliiir  gniifs,  to  carr>'  their  sorrows,  and  to 
be  wounded  for  their  transgressions,  "//e  hath  borne 
oi'K  griefs,  and  carried  ovv.  sorrows,"  &c. ;  so  that  the 
]ierson  of  the  sufl'erer  is  clearly  distinguished  from  the 
Jewish  nation.  Besides  which,  his  death  and  burial 
are  spoken  of,  and  his  sufferings  are  represented  (verse 
12)  as  volvntary ;  which  in  no  sense  can  ajiply  to  the 
Jews.  "  Of  himself,  or  of  some  other  man,''  therefore, 
as  the  Ethiopian  eunueh'rightly  conceived,  the  prophet 
must  have  spoken.  To  some  individual  it  must  be 
applied ;  to  none  but  our  Lord  can  it  be  applied  ;  and, 
applied  to  him,  the  jprojihecy  is  converted  into  history 
itself.  The  prophet  declares,  that  his  advent  and  works 
would  be  a  revealing  of"  the  arm  of  the  Lord,"— a.  sin- 
gular display  of  Divine  power  and  goodness;  and 
yet,  that  a  blind  and  incredulous  people  would  not  be- 
lieve ''  the  report."  Appearing  in  a  low  and  humble 
condition,  and  not  as  they  expected  their  Messiah,  in 
the  pomp  of  eastern  monarchy,  his  want  of  "  comeli- 
ness" and  "  desirahUncss"  in  the  eyes  of  his  country- 
men, and  his  rejection  by  them,  are  explicitly  stated — 
'■  He  was  di  spisnl,  luid  ve  estee?ned  him  not."  He  is 
farther  descriln^d  as  "  a  man  of  sorrows  and  acquainted 
with  griifs ;"  yet  his  suft'efings  were  considered  by 
the  Jews  imjudtcinl.  a  legal  punishment,  as  they  con- 
tend to  this  day,  for  his  endeavouring  to  seduce  men 
from  the  law,  and  for  which  they  had  the  warrant  of 
God  himself  in  his  comniands  by  Moses,  thai  such  se- 
ducers .should  be  put  to  death.  With  what  exactness 
are  these  sentiments  of  the  Jews  marked  in  the  pro- 
phecy? We  quote  from  the  translation  of  Bishop 
Lowth, 
"  Yet  we  thought  him  jiirnn.vLLV  stricken, 

Smittkn  of  Giiii,  and  afflicted." 
Christ  himself  and  his  Apostles  uniformly  represented 
his  death  as  vicarious  and  propitiatory  ;  and  this  is  pre- 
dicted  and  confirmed,  so  to  speak,  by  the  evidence  of 
this  |irophecy. 
"  But  he  was  wounded  for  <w;r  transgressions, 

Was  smitten  for  otir  iniquities  ; 

The  chastisemenl  by  which  our  peace  is  effected 
was  laid  upon  him ; 

And  by  his  bruises  we  are  healed. 

We  all  of  us  like  sheep  have  strayed  ; 

We  have  turned  aside,  every  one  to  his  own  way ; 

And  Jehovah  hath  made  to  light  upon  him  the  ini- 
quity of  us  all. 

It  was  exacted,  and  he  was  made  an-nvcrable." 
Who  can  read  the  next  passage  without  thinking  of 
Jesus  before  the  council  of  the  Jews,  and  the  judgmeut- 
seat  of  PUate  ? 
"As  a  lamb  that  is  led  to  the  slaughter. 

And  as  a  sheep  before  her  shearers 

Is  dumb,  so  he  opened  not  his  movth. 

By  an  ojipressive  judgment  he  was  taken  off." 
The  very  circumstances  of  his  burial  are  given  : 
"  Ami  his  grave  was  appointed  with  the  wicked, 

But  with  the  rich  man  was  his  tomb." 
Yet,  though  thus  laid  in  the  grave,  the  eye  of  the  pro- 
phet IiehiiMs  his  resurrection,  '•  lliejiii/ sit  lirfnre  him," 
aiidiiilo  which  lieenlered;  the  dislribiition  of  spiritual 
blessings  lo  his  jieople,  and  bis  sjiintual  coiu|Ucst  of  the 
nations  of  the  earth,  notvvithstaiidnig  the  opposition  of 
"  tlie  inighty ;"  and  he  enumerates  llie.se  particulars 
with  a  plainness  so  wonderful,  that,  by  merely  an  al- 
teration of  the  tenses  of  the  verbs,  the  whole  might  be 
converted  into  an  abridged  view  of  what  has  occurred, 
and  is  now  occurring,  under  the  Christian  Dispuusa- 
tion,  in  the  furtherance  of  human  ealvation : 


Chap.  XVIIL] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


"  If  his  soul  shall  make  a  propitiatory  sacrifice, 

He  shall  see  a  seed  which  shall  prolong  their  days  ; 

And  the  gracious  purpose  of  Jehovah  shall  prosper 
in  his  hands. 

Of  the  travail  of  his  soul  he  shall  see  (the  fruit) 
and  he  .satisfied ; 

By  the  knowledge  of  him  shall  my  servant  justify 
many : 

For  the  punishment  of  their  iniquities  he  shall  bear. 

Therefore  will  I  distribute  to  him  the  many  lor  liis 
portion  ; 

And  the  mighty  people  shall  he  share  for  his  spoil ; 

Because  he  poured  his  soul  out  unto  death; 

And  was  numbered  with  the  transgressors  : 

And  he  bore  the  sin  of  many, 

And  made  intercession  lor  the  transgressors." 
To  all  these  predictions  the  words  of  a  modern  wnter 
are  applicable:  "Let  now  the  infidel  or  the  skeptical 
reader  meditate  thoroughly  and  soberly  upon  these  pre- 
dictions. The  priority  of  the  records  to  the  events  ad- 
mits of  no  question.  The  completion  is  obvious  to 
every  competent  imiuirer.  Here  then  are  facts.  We 
are  called  upon  to  account  tor  these  facts  on  rational 
and  adequate  principles.  Is  human  foresight  equal  to 
the  task  ?  Enthusiasm?  Conjecture.'  Chance?  Politi- 
cal contrivance  ?  If  none  of  these,  neither  can  any  other 
principle  that  may  be  devised  by  man's  sagacity  ac- 
count for  the  facts ;  then  true  philosophy,  as  well  as 
true  religion,  will  ascribe  them  to  the  inspiration  of  the 
Almighty.    Every  ellect  must  have  a  cause."c4) 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

Objections  to  the  Evidence  from  Prophecy 
considered. 

Besides  the  objections  which  have  been  anticipated 
and  answered  in  the  last  chapter,  others  have  been 
made  to  the  argument  from  prophecy,  which,  though 
exceedingly  futile,  ought  to  receive  a  cursory  notice, 
lest  any  should  think  them  of  greater  importance. 

It  has  been  objected,  as  to  some  of  the  prophecies, 
that  they  were  written  after  the  event ;  as,  for  instance, 
the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  in  which  the  name  of  Cyrus  is 
found,  and  the  prophecies  of  Daniel.  This  allegation, 
standing  as  it  does  upon  no  evidence  whatever,  and 
heing  indeed  in  opposition  to  contrary  proof,  shows  the 
hopelessness  of  the  cause  of  infidelity,  and  affords  a 
Jolly  triumph  to  the  evidence  of  projihecy.  For  the 
objector  does  in  fact  acknowledge  that  these  predictions 
are  not  obscure;  that  the  event  exactly  corresponded 
■wUh  them;  and  that  they  were  beyond  human  conjec- 
ture. Without  entering  into  those  questions  respect- 
ing the  date  of  the  books  of  Isaiah  and  Daniel,  which 
properly  belong  to  works  on  the  canon  of  Scripture, 
we  may  observe,  that  the  authors  of  this  objection 
assert,  but  without  giving  the  least  proof,  that  Isaiah 
■wrote  his  prophecies  in  order  to  flatter  Cyrus,  and  thai 
the  book  of  Daniel  was  composed  about  the  reign  of 
ANTKicnus  Epiphanks.  It  is  therefore  admitted  that 
both  were  extant,  and  in  their  present  form,  before  the 
time  of  the  Christian  era;  but  if  so,  what  end,  we  ask, 
is  answered  by  the  objection  ?  The  Scriptures,  as  re- 
ceived by  the  Jews,  were  verified  by  the  sentence  of 
our  Lord  and  his  Apostles ;  and  unless  their  inspira- 
tion can  be  disproved,  the  objection  in  question  is  a 
mere  cavil.  Before  it  can  have  any  weight,  the  whole 
mass  of  evidence  which  supports  the  mission  and  Di- 
vine authority  of  our  Saviour  and  the  Apo.stles  must 
be  overthrown  ;  and  not  till  then  can  it  in  strictness  of 
rea.soning  be  maintained.  Hut  not  to  insist  on  this,  the 
assertion  respecting  Isaiah  is  opposed  to  positive  testi- 
mony. The  testimony  of  the  prophet  himself,  who 
states  that  he  lived  "  in,  the  days  of  Uzziah,  Jotham, 
Ahaz,  and  Hezekiak,  kings  "fJudah;'"  and  the  testi- 
mony of  an  independent  witness,  the  author  of  the 
Second  Book  of  Kings ;  in  the  20th  chapter  of  which 
book,  Isaiah  is  brought  forward  in  conne.xion  with  a 
public  event  of  the  Jewish  liislory — the  dangerous  sick- 
ness and  recovery  of  the  king  Hezekiah.  The  proof  is 
then  as  decisive  as  the  public  records  of  a  kingdom 


(4)  Simpson's  Key  to  the  Priip!i(ries.  See  also  a  large 
Collection  of  Prophecies  willi  tlieir  fulfilment  in  the 
Appendix  to  vol.  i.  of  Hurne's  Introduction  to  the 
Scriptures. 


can  make  it,  that  Isaiah  wrote  more  than  a  hundred 
years  before  the  birth  of  Cyrus. (5) 

The  time  when  Daniel  lived  and  wrote  is  bound  up 
in  like  manner  with  public  history,  and  that  not  only 
of  the  Jews,  but  of  the  Babylonians  and  Persians  ;  and 
could  not  be  antedated  so  as  to  impose  upon  the  Jews, 
who  received  the  book  which  bears  his  name  into  their 
canon,  as  the  production  of  the  same  Daniel  who  had 
filled  exalted  stations  in  the  courts  of  Nebuchadnezzar 
and  his  successors.  In  favour  of  a  later  date  being 
assigned  to  the  book  of  Daniel,  it  has  been  .said  that  it 
has  many  Greek  terms,  and  that  it  was  not  translated  by 
the  LXX. ;  the  translation  now  inserted  in  the  Septua- 
gint  being  by  Thkodotian.  With  respect  to  the  tireek 
terms,  they  are  chiefly  found  in  the  names  of  the  mu- 
sical instruments  ;  and  the  Greeks  acknowledge  that 
they  derived  their  music  from  the  eastern  nations. 
With  respect  to  the  second  objection,  it  is  unfounded. 
The  authors  of  the  Septuagint  did  translate  the  Book 
of  Daniel,  and  their  version  is  cited  by  Clemen.s  Ro- 
MANu.--,  Justin  Martvr,  and  many  of  the  ancient 
Fathers ;  it  occupied  a  column  of  the  Ilexapla  of  Ori- 
gen,  and  is  quoted  by  Jeko.me.  The  present  Greek 
version  by  Theodotian,  inserted  in  the  Septuagint,  was 
made  in  the  second  century,  and  preferred  as  being 
more  conformable  to  the  original.  The  repudiated  ver- 
sion was  published  some  years  ago  from  an  ancient 
MS.  discovered  at  Rome.(6) 

The  opponents  of  Scripture  are  fond  of  the  attempt  to 
lower  the  dignity  and  authority  of  the  sacred  prophe- 
cies by  comparing  them  to  the  Heathen  Oracles.  The 
absolute  contrast  between  them  has  already  been  pointed 
out  ;(7)  but  a  few  additional  observations  may  not  be 
useless. 

Of  the  innumerable  Oracles  which  were  established 
and  consulted  by  the  ancient  heathen,  the  most  cele- 
brated was  the  Delphic ;  and  we  may,  therefore,  fbr  the 
purpose  of  exhibiting  the  contrast  more  perfectly  be- 
tween the  Pythian  Oracle  and  the  prophecies  of  Scrip- 
ture, confine  our  remarks  to  that. 

The  first  great  distinction  lies  in  this,  that  none  of 
the  predictions  ever  uttered  by  the  Delphic  Oracle  went 
deep  into  futtu-ity.  They  relate  to  events  on  the  eve  of 
taking  place,  and  whose  preparatory  circumstances 
were  known.  There  was  not  even  the  pretence  of  fore- 
sight to  the  distance  of  a  few  years ;  though  had  it  been 
a  hundred  years,  even  that  w-ere  a  very  hmited  period 
to  the  eye  of  inspired  prophets,  who  looked  through 
the  course  of  succeeding  ages,  and  gave  proof  by  the 
very  sweep  and  compass  of  their  predictions,  that  they 
were  under  the  inspirations  of  Ilim  to  whom  "  a  day  is 
as  a  thousand  years,  and  a  thousand  years  as  one 
day:' 

A  second  contrast  lies  in  the  ambiguity  of  the  re- 
sponses. The  prophecies  of  Scripture  are  sometimes 
obscure,  though  this  does  not  apply  to  the  most  eminent 


(5)  "But  if  you  will  persevere  in  believing  that  the 
projihecy  concerning  Cyrus  was  written  after  the 
event,  peruse  the  burden  of  Babylon ;  was  that  also 
written  after  the  event?  Were  the  Medes  <Ap»  stir- 
red up  against  Babylon  ?  Was  Babylon,  the  glory 
of  the  kingdoms,  the  beauty  of  the  Chaldces,  then 
overthrown,  and  become  as  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  ? 
Was  it  then  uninhabited?  Was  it  then  neither  fit  for 
the  Arabian's  tent  nor  the  shepherd's  fold  7  Did  the 
wild  beasts  of  the  desert  then  lie  there  ?  Did  the  wild 
beasts  of  the  islands  then  cry  in  their  desolate  houses, 
and  dragons  in  their  pleasant  places?  Were  Nebu- 
chadnezzar and  Belshazzar,  the  son  and  the  grandson, 
then  cut  off?  Was  Babylon  then  become  a  possession 
of  tlie  bittern  and  pools  of  water?  Was  it  then  swept 
with  the  besom  of  destruction,  so  swept  that  the  world 
knows  not  now  where  to  find  it  ]" — Bishop  Watson's 
Apology. 

(6)  Porphyry,  in  his  books  against  the  Christian 
religion,  was  the  first  to  attack  the  prophecies  of 
Daniel ;  and  in  modern  times,  Collins,  in  his  "  Scheme 
of  Literal  Prophecy,"  bent  all  his  force  against  a  book 
so  pregnant  with  proofs  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  and 
the  inspiration  of  ancient  prophecy.  By  two  learned 
opponeins,  his  eleven  objections  were  njost  satisfac- 
torily refuted,  and  shown  to  be  merecavds — by  Bishop 
Chandler,  in  his  "Vindication"  of  his  "  Defence  of 
Christianity;"  and  by  Dr.  Sam.  Chandler,  in  his 
"Vindication  of  Daniel's  Prophecies." 

(7)  Vide  Chapter  xvi. 


78 


THEOLOGICAL  LVSTITUTES. 


[Part  I. 


of  those  which  have  beon  most  signally  fulfilled,  as  we 
have  already  seen ;  but  they  never  equivocate.  For  this 
the  Pythian  Oracle  was  notorious.  Historians  relate, 
that  Crcksi's,  who  had  exjjended  large  sums  ujion  ilie 
agents  of  this  delusion,  was  tricked  by  an  eijuivociition ; 
through  which,  interpreting  the  response  most  Ihvour- 
ably  for  hiniself,  he  was  induced  to  make  an  iinsuc- 
cesat'ul  war  on  Cjtus.  In  his  subseijuent  captivity  he 
repeatedly  reproached  the  Oracle,  and  charged  it  with 
falsehood.  The  response  delivered  to  I'vkrhijs  was 
of  the  same  kind ;  and  was  so  exjircssed  as  to  be  true, 
whether  PyTrhus  conquered  the  Komans  or  the  Ro- 
mans Pyrrhus.  Many  other  instances  of  the  same  kind 
are  given ;  not  to  mention  the  trirtnig,  and  even  banter- 
ing and  jocose  oracles,  which  were  sometimes  pro- 
nonnced.(.S) 

The  venality,  wealth,  and  scr\'ility  of  the  Delphic 
Oracle  present  anotlicr  conirnsi  (o  the  poverty  and  dis- 
interestedness of  the  .lewisli  pni|iliets,  whom  no  gilts 
could  bribe,  and  no  power  awe  in  the  discharge  of  their 
duty.  Demosthenes,  in  one  of  his  speeches  to  the 
Athenians,  publicly  charges  this  oracle  with  being 
"  gained  over  to  the  interests  of  King  Philip ;"  and  the 
Greek  historians  give  other  instances  in  which  it  had 
been  corrupted  by  money,  and  the  prophetess  some- 
times deposed  for  bribery,  sometimes  lor  lewdness. 

Neither  threats  nor  persecutions  had  any  inlluence 
with  the  Jewish  prophets  ;  but  it  would  seem  that  this 
celebrated  Oracle  of  Apollo  was  not  even  proof  against 
raillery.  At  first  it  gave  its  answers  in  verse ;  but  the 
Epicureans,  Cynics,  and  others,  laughing  so  much  at  the 
poorness  of  the  versification,  it  fell  at  length  into  prose. 
"  It  was  surprising,"  said  these  philosophic  wits,  "  that 
Apollo,  the  god  of  poetry,  should  be  a  much  worse  poet 
than  Homer,  whom  he  him.self  had  insi)ired."  Plu- 
tarch considers  this  as  a  principal  cause  of  the  declcit- 
sion  of  the  Oracle  of  Delphos.  Doubtless  it  had  de- 
clined much  in  credit  in  his  day ;  and  the  fiirther  spread 
of  Christianity  completed  its  ruin. 

Can  then  the  prophecies  of  Scripture  be  paralleled 
■with  these  dark,  and  venal,  and  delusive  oracles,  with- 
out impiety  !  and  could  any  higher  honour  he  wished 
for  the  .lewish  prophets,  than  the  comparison  into 
which  they  are  thus  brought  with  the  agents  of  pagan- 
ism at  Delphos  and  otlier  places?  They  had  recourse 
to  no  smooth  speeches,  no  compliances  with  the  tem- 
pers and  prejudices  of  men.  Tlicy  concealed  no  truth 
which  they  were  commissioned  to  declare,  however 
displeasing  to  their  nation,  and  hazardous  to  themselves. 
Tiiey  recjuired  no  caves,  or  secret  places  of  temples, 
from  which  to  utter  their  messages ;  and  those  who 
consulted  them  were  not  practised  upon  by  the  bewil- 
dering ceremonies  imposed  upon  imiuirers  at  Delphos. 
They  prophesied  in  streets,  and  courts,  and  palaces, 
and  in  the  midst  of  large  assemblies.  'I'lieir  predictions 
had  a  clear,  determinate,  and  consistent  sense ;  and 
they  described  future  events  wilh  so  many  ]iarti('ulari- 
ties  of  time  and  place,  as  made  it  siiircely  |iossible  that 
they  should  be  misunderstood  or  misapplied. 

Pure  and  elevated  as  was  the  character  of  the  .lew- 
ish prophets,  the  hardihood  of  iiilidelity  has  attempted 
to  asperse  their  character  ;  because  it  appears  from 
Scripture  story,  that  there  were  false  prophets  and  bad 
men  who  bore  that  name. 

Balaam  is  instanced,  though  not  a  Jewish  prophet ; 
but  that  he  was  always  a  bad  man,  wants  proof  The 
prohabiliiy  is,  that  his  virtue  was  overcome  by  the  of- 
fers of  Balak ;  and  the  prophetic  spirit  was  not  taken 
away  from  him,  because  there  was  an  evident  design 


(8)  Eusehliis  has  preserved  .some  fragiiieiits  of  a  phi- 
losopher, called  (Knomaus;  who,  out  of  resentment  for 
his  having  hieri  so  often  tooled  by  the  oracles,  wrote 
an  ample  cDiiliiiation  of  all  their  impertinences  :  "When 
we  come  to  consult  thee,"  says  he  to  Apollo,  "if  thou 
seest  what  is  in  futurity,  why  dost  thou  use  expri's- 
sions  that  will  not  be  understood  \  If  thou  dost,  thou 
takest  pleasure  in  abusing  us;  if  thou  dost  not,  be  in- 
formed of  us,  and  learn  to  spi-ak  more  clearly.  1  tell 
thee,  that  if  thou  intendedst  an  ecpiivtjiiue,  the  Creek 
word  whereby  thou  allirmedst  that  (lo'sus  should 
overthrow  a  great  enijiire,  was  ill  chose  n  ;  ami  that  it 
could  signify  nothing  but  Cra'sus's  cciiiijnering  Cyrus. 
If  things  must  iiecess;irlly  come  to  pa.ss,  why  do.st  thou 
amuse  lis  wilh  thy  ambigu'ilies  '  What  dost  thou,  wrelith 
as  thou  art,  at  Delphi ;  employed  in  muttering  idle  pro- 
phecies V 


on  the  part  of  Cod  to  make  his  favour  to  Israel  more 
conspicuous,  by  obliging  a  reluctant  prophet  to  bless, 
when  he  would  have  cursed,  and  that  in  the  very  pre- 
sence of  a  hostile  king.  When  that  work  was  done, 
Ualaarn  was  consigned  to  his  proper  punishment. 

Wilh  respect  to  tlie  Jewi.sh  false  prophets,  it  is  a  sin- 
gular proceeding  to  condemn  the  true  ones  for  their 
sake,  and  to  argue  iliat  because  bad  men  assumed  their 
functions,  and  imitated  their  manner,  for  corrujit  pur- 
poses, the  universally  received  prophets  of  the  nation, 
— men  who,  from  the  proofs  they  gave  of  their  inspira- 
tion, had  their  commission  acknowledged  even  by  those 
who  hated  them,  and  their  writings  received  into  the 
Jewish  canon, — were  bad  men  also.  Let  the  charac- 
ters of  Moses,  Samuel,  Elijah,  Eli.slia,  Nathan,  Isaiah, 
Jeremiah,(y)  Daniel,  and  the  authors  of  the  other  pro- 
phetical books,  be  considered  ;  and  how  true  are  the 
words  of  the  Apostle,  that  they  were  "  holy  men  of 
nld,'"  as  well  as  that  they  were  "  mmvd  hy  the  Holy 
Glinxtl"  That  the  prophets  who  prophesied  •'smooth 
things"  were  never  (Considered  as  true  prophets,  except 
for  a  time  by  a  few  who  wished  to  have  their  hopes 
flattered,  is  plain  from  this — noneof  their  writings  were 
preservc^l  by  the  Jews.  Their  predictions  would  not 
abound  in  reproofs  and  threatenings,  like  those  of  Isaiah 
and  Jeremiah ;  and  yet  the  words  of  those  prophets 
who  were  personally  most  displeasing  to  the  .lews  of 
the  age  in  which  they  lived,  liave  been  preserved,  while 
every  flattering  prophecy  was  suffered  to  fall  itito  obli- 
vion almost  as  soon  as  it  was  uttered.  Can  we  have 
a  more  decisive  proof  than  this,  that  the  false  prophets 
were  a  jierfectly  distinct  class  of  men,— the  venal  imi- 
tators ofthe.se  "  holy  men  of  old,"  but  who  never  gave, 
even  to  those  most  disposed  to  listen  to  their  delusive 
lirophecies,  a  satisfactory  proof  of  their  prophetic  com- 
mission ! 

Attempts  have  been  made  to  show,  that  a  few  of  the 
prophecies  of  Scripture  have  failed.  The  following  are 
the  principal  instances: 

It  has  been  said,  that  a  false  promise  was  made  to 
Abraliaiii,  when  it  was  promised  to  him,  that  his  de- 
sceiiiluiits  should  possess  the  territory  which  lies  be- 
tween the  Euphrates  and  the  river  of  Egypt.  Kut  this 
objection  is  clearly  made  in  ignorance  of  the  Scriptures ; 
for  the  fact  is,  that  David  conijuered  that  territory,  and 
that  the  dominions  of  Solomon  were  lliiis  e\teiKled.(l) 

Voltaire  objects,  that  the  prophets  made  promises  to 
the  .lews  of  the  most  unbounded  riches,  dominion,  and 
influence;  insomuch  th.at  they  could  only  have  been 
accomplished  by  their  conijuering  or  proselyting  the 
entire  of  the  habitable  globe.  On  the  contrary,  he  says, 
they  have  lost  their  possessions  instead  of  obtaining 
either  property  or  power,  and  therefore  the  prophecies 
are  fal.'--e. 

The  case  is  here  unfairly  stated.  The  projihets  never 
made  such  exaggerated  promises.  They  predict  many 
sjiiritual  blessings  to  be  bestowed  in  the  times  of  Mes- 
siah, under  figures  drawn  from  worldj)-  opulence  and 
power,  the  figurative  language  of  which  no  attentive 
reader  can  mistake.  They  alsopromi.se  many  civil  ad- 
vantages, but  only  conditionally  on  the  obedience  of  the 
nation  ;  and  they  speak  in  high  terms  of  the  state  of 
the  Jewish  nation,  upon  its  final  restoration,  for  which 
objectors  must  wait  before  they  can  determine  the  pre- 
dictions to  be  false.  But  did  not  Voltaire  know,  that 
the  loss  of  their  own  country  by  the  Jews,  of  which  he 
speaks,  was  predicted  in  the  clearest  manner?  and 
would  he  not  have  seen,  had  he  not  been  blinded  by  his 
preiiuhces,  that  his  very  objection  acknowledges  the 
truth  ol'iu-opliei  y  ?  The'proniises  of  the  prophets  have 
not  bi'cii  I'alsilied'  in  the  instance  givej),  but  their  threats 
have  been  signally  lulliUed. 

Paine,  lullowing  preceihng  writers  of  the  same  sen- 
timents, asserts  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  to  Aha/,  not  to 
have  hiin  verilied  by  the  event,  and  is  thus  answered 
by  llishop  Watson  :(2)  "  The  prophecy  is  ([uoted  by 
vou  to  prove,  and  it  is  the  only  instance  you  produce, 
iliat  Isaiah  was  a  '  lying  prophet  and  impostor.'  Now 
I  maintain,  that  ihis'very  instance  proves  that  he  was 


(!))  A  weak  attempt  has  been  made  by  some  infidel 
writers  to  fasten  a  charge  of  falsehood  on  Jeremiah,  in 
the  case  of  Ins  confidenlial  interview  wilh  King  Zede- 
kiali.  A  satisfactory  refutation  is  given  by  Uishop 
Watson  in  his  answer  to  Paine,  Letter  vi. 

(1)  Vide  2  Sam.  viii. ;  1  Cliron.  xvui. 

(2)  A])olo!^y,  Letter  v. 


Chap,  XVIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


77 


a  true  prophet  and  no  impostor.  The  history  of  the  pro- 
phecy, as  (lelivcretl  in  thu  scveiitli  cliajiter,  is  ttiis — 
Rp/.iukuig  of  Syria,  anil  I'ckahlvin£  of  Israel,  niaJu  war 
upon  Ahaz  king  of  .ludali ;  not  merely,  or,  perhajis,  not 
at  all,  for  tlie  saki;  of  plunilur.  or  the  conijuust  of  ter- 
ritory, but  with  a  declared  purpose  of  inakiiia:  an  en- 
tire revolution  in  the  govKrntnent  of  .ludaU,  of  destroy- 
ing the  royal  house  of  David,  and  of  placinj;  anotlinr 
family  on  the  throne.  Their  purpose  is  thus  expressed 
— '  Let  us  go  up  against  Judah,  and  vex  it,  and  let  us 
make  a  hreaclt  therein  for  lis,  and  set  a  king  in  the 
midst  of  it,  even  the  sou  of  Tabeal.'  Now  what  did  the 
Lord  commission  Isaiah  to  say  to  Ahaz !  Did  he 
commission  him  to  say,  The  kings  shall  not  vex  thee? 
No.— The  kings  shall  not  conquer  thee  !  No. — The 
kings  shall  not  succeed  against  tliee  .'  No : — he  com- 
missioned him  to  say — '  It  (the  purpose  of  the  two 
kings)  shall  not  stand,  neither  shall  it  come  to  pass.' 
I  demand — Did  it  stand,  did  it  come  to  pass?  Was 
any  revolution  effected  !  Was  the  royal  house  of  Da- 
vid dethroned  and  destroyed  ?  Was  Tabeal  ever  made 
king  of  .ludah  !  No.  The  prophecy  was  perfectly 
accomplished.  Vou  say,  '  Instead  of  these  two  Ivings 
failing  in  their  attempt  against  Ahaz,  tliey  succeeded: 
Ahaz  was  defeated  and  destroyed.'  I  deny  the  fact : 
Ahaz  was  defeated,  but  not  destroyed ;  and  even  the 
'  two  hundred  thousand  women,  and  sons  and  daugh- 
ters,' whom  you  represent  as  carried  into  captivity, 
were  not  carried  into  captivity:  tliey  were  made  captives, 
but  they  were  not  carried  into  captivity  ;  for  the  chief 
men  of  -Samaria,  being  admonished  by  a  prophet,  would 
not  suffer  Pekah  to  bring  the  captives  into  the  land — 
'  They  rose  up,  and  took  the  captives,  and  with  the 
spoil  clothed  all  that  were  naked  among  them,  and 
arrayed  them  and  shod  them,  and  gave  them  to  eat  and 
to  drink,  and  anointed  them,  and  carried  all  the  feeble 
of  them  upon  asses  (some  humanity,  you  see,  among 
those  Israelites,  whom  you  every  where  represent  :is 
barbarous  brutes),  and  brought  them  to  .Jericho,  the  city 
of  palm-trees,  to  tlieir  brethren.'  2  Chron.  xxviii.  15. 
The  kings  did  fail  in  their  attempt :  their  attempt  was 
to  destroy  the  house  of  Uavid,  and  to  make  a  revolution : 
but  they  made  no  revolution ;  they  did  not  destroy  the 
house  of  David,  lor  Ahaz  slejit  with  his  fathers;  an  I  Heze- 
kiah,  his  son,  of  the  house  of  David,  reigned  in  his  stead." 
A  similar  attempt  is  made  by  the  same  writer  to  fix 
a  charge  of  false  vaticination  upon  Jeremiah,  and  is 
thus  answered  by  the  Bishop  of  Llandaff :  '"In  the  34lh 
chapter  is  a  prophecy  of  Jeremiah  to  Zedekiah,  in  these 
words,  verse  2. — T/tits  saitk  the  Lard,  Behold,  I  will 
give  this  city  into  the  hands  of  the  king  of  Babylon, 
and  will  burn  it  with  fire  ;  ami  thou,  shall  not  escape 
out  of  his  hand,  but  thou  shall  surely  he  taken,  and 
delivered  into  his  hand  '.  and  thine  eyes  shall  behold 
the  eyes  of  the  kins;  of  Babylon,  and  he  shall  speak 
with  thee  mouth  to  mouth,  and  thou  shall  go  to  Baby- 
lon. Yet  hear  the  word  of  the  Lord,  O  Zedekiah  king 
of  Judah  :  thus  saith  the  Lord,  Thou  shall  not  die  by 
the  sword,  but  Ih'iu  shall  die  in  peace;  and  with  the 
burnings  of  thy  fathers,  the  former  kings  that  were 
before  thee,  so  shall  they  Inirn  odours  for  thee,  and 
will  lament  thee,  saying,  Ah,  lord!  for  I  have  pro- 
nounced the  word,  saith  the  Lord.  Now,  instead  of 
Zedekiah  beliolding  the  eyes  of  ttje  king  of  Babylon, 
and  speaking  with  him  mouth  to  mouth,  and  dying  in 
peace,  and  with  the  burnings  of  odours  at  the  i'uneral 
of  his  fathers  (as  Jeremiah  hath  declared  the  Lord  him- 
self had  pronounced),  the  reverse,  according  to  the 
52<I  chapter,  was  the  case.  It  is  there  stated  (verse 
10),  That  the  king  of  Babylon  slew  the  sons  of  Zede- 
kiah before  his  eyes ;  then,  he  put  out  the  eyes  of  Zede- 
kiah, and  bound  htm  in  chains,  aiui  carried  him  to 
Babylon,  and  put  him  in  prison  till  the  day  of  his 
death.  What  can  we  say  of  these  prophets  but  that 
they  are  impostors  and  liars  V  I  can  say  this — that  the 
prophecy  you  have  produced  was  fulfilled  in  all  Us 
parts;  and  what  then  shall  be  said  of  those  who  call 
Jeremiah  a  liar  and  an  impostor  .'  Here  then  we  are 
fairly  at  issue— you  alfirm  that  the  prophecy  was  not 
IblfiUed,  and  I  affirm  that  it  was  fuliiUeil  in  all  its  parts. 
'  I  will  give  this  city  into  the  hands  of  the  king  of  Baby- 
lon, and  he  shall  burn  it  with  fire  !'  so  says  the  prophet. 
What  says  the  history  ?  '  They  (the  forces  of  the  kinguf 
Babylon)  burnt  the  house  of  God,  and  brake  down^he 
walls  of  .Icrusalem,  and  burnt  all  the  palaces  thereof 
•with  fire.'  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  I'J.— '  Thou  shalt  not  es. 
cape  out  olf  liis  Jiaud,  but  thou  shall  surely  be  tnknn 


and  delivered  into  his  hand:'  so  says  the  prophet. 
What  says  the  liistory  ?  '  The  men  of  war  lied  by  night 
and  the  king  went  the  way  towards  the  plain,  and  thj 
army  of  theChaldees  pursued  alter  the  king,  and  over- 
took him  in  the  plains  of  Jericho ;  and  all  his  anriv 
were  scattered  from  him :  so  they  took  the  king,  anil 
brought  him  up  to  the  king  if  Babylon,  to  Kiblah.'  2 
Kings  XXV.  5. — The  projihet  goes  on,  '  Thine  eyes  shall 
behold  the  eyes  of  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  he  shall 
speak  with  thee  mouth  to  mouth.'  No  iiliasant  cir- 
cumstance this  to  Zedekiah,  who  had  provoked  the 
king  of  Babylon  by  revolting  from  him.  The  history 
says,  '  The  king  of  Babylon  gave  judgment  ujion  Zede- 
kiah,' or,  as  It  is  more  literally  rendered  Iroin  the  He- 
brew, '  .<ipake  judgments  with  him  at  Riblah.'  The 
prophet  concludes  this  part  with,  '  And  thou  shalt  go 
to  Babylon  :' the  history  says,  'The  king  of  Babylon 
bound  him  in  chains,  and  carried  him  to  Babylon,  ami 
put  him  in  prison  till  the  day  of  his  death.'  Jer.  hi. 
11. — '  Thou  shalt  not  die  by  the  sword.'  He  did  noldia 
by  the  sword,  he  diil  not  fall  in  battle — '  But  thou  shalt 
die  in  peace.'  He  did  die  in  peace,  he  neither  expired 
on  the  rack,  nor  on  the  scaffold ;  was  neither  strangled 
nor  poisoned,  no  urmsual  lateof  captive  kings;  he  died 
peaceably  in  his  bed,  though  that  bed  was  in  a  prison. 
—  'And  with  the  burnings  of  thy  fathers  shall  they 
burn  odours  before  thee.'  I  cannot  prove  from  the  his- 
tory, that  this  part  of  the  prophecy  was  accomplished, 
nor  can  you  prove  that  it  was  not.  The  probabiUty  is, 
that  it  was  accom|ilished;  and  I  have  two  reasons  on 
which  I  ground  this  probability.  Daniel,  Shadrach, 
Meschach,  and  Abednego,  to  say  nothingof  other  Jews, 
were  men  of  great  authority  in  the  court  of  the  king 
of  Babylon,  before  and  alter  the  commencement  of  the 
imprisonment  of  Zedekiah:  and  Daniel  continued  in 
power  till  the  subversion  of  tlie  kingdom  of  Babylon 
by  Cyrus.  Now  it  seems  to  me  to  be  very  probable, 
that  Daniel  and  the  other  great  men  of  the  Jews  would 
both  have  inclination  to  reque-st,  and  inliuence  enough 
with  the  king  of  Babylon  to  obtain,  pennission  to  bury 
their  deceased  |irlnce,  Zedekiah,  after  the  manner  of 
his  fathers. — But  if  there  had  been  no  Jews  at  Babylon 
of  consequence  enough  to  make  such  a  request,  still  it 
is  probable  that  the  king  of  Babylon  would  have  ordered 
the  Jews  to  bury  and  lament  their  departed  prince,  alter 
the  manner  of  their  country.  Monarchs,  like  other 
men,  are  conscious  of  the  in.stability  of  human  condi- 
tion ;  and  when  the  pomp  of  war  has  ceased,  when  tho 
insolence  of  conquest  is  abated,  and  the  fury  of  resent- 
ment is  subsided,  they  seldom  fail  to  revere  royalty 
even  in  its  ruins,  and  grant  without  reluctance  proper 
obsequies  to  the  remains  of  captive  kings." 

Ezekiel  is  assaulted  in  tlie  same  manner,  "you 
quote,"  says  the  same  writer,  "  a  passage  froin  Ezekiel, 
in  the  2'Jth  chapter,  where,  speaking  of  Egypt,  it  Is 
said — ^  No  foot  (f  man  shall  pass  through  ft,  nor  foot 
of  beast  shall  pass  through  it,  iteither  shall  it  be  in- 
habited forty  years:'  tliis,  you  say,  'never  came  to 
pass,  and  consequently  it  is  false,  as  all  the  books  I 
have  already  reviewed  are.'  Now  that  the  invasion 
I)redicted  did  come  to  pass,  we  have,  as  Bishop  Newton 
observes,  'the  testimonies  of  Megasthcnes  and  Berosus, 
two  heathen  historians,  who  lived  about  300  years  be- 
fore Christ ;  one  of  whom  affirms,  expressly,  that 
Nebuchadnezzar  conquered  the  greater  part  of  Africa ; 
and  the  other  affirms  it,  in  effect,  in  saying,  that  when 
Nebuchadnezzar  heard  of  the  death  of  his  father,  having 
settled  his  affairs  in  Egypt,  and  committed  the  captives 
whom  he  took  in  Eg>  pt  to  the  care  of  some  of  his 
friends  to  bring  them  alter  him,  he  hasted  directly  to 
Babj  Ion.'  And  if  we  had  been  i)ossessed  of  no  testi- 
mony in  support  of  the  prophecy,  it  would  have  been  a 
hasty  conclusion,  that  the  prophecy  never  came  to  pass ; 
the  liistory  of  Egypt,  at  so  remote  a  period,  being  no- 
where accurately  and  circumstantially  related.  I  admit 
that  no  period  can  be  pointed  out  from  the  age  of 
Ezekiel  to  the  present,  in  which  there  was  no  foot  of 
man  or  beast  to  be  seen  for  forty  years  in  all  Egypt; 
but  some  think  that  onlv  a  part  of  Egypt  is  here  spokea 
of  ;(3)  and  surely  you  do  notexpect  a  literal  accornplish- 


(3)  The  opinion  of  the  Bishop,  that  not  the  whole  of 
what  is  now  called  Egyjit  w;is  intended  in  the  pro- 
phecy, seems  to  derive  confirmation  from  the  following 
passages  in  Richardson's  Travels  in  Egypt  in  1817:— 
"  The  Delta,  according  to  the  tradition  of  the  Jonians, 
13  the  only  part  that  is,  strictly  Bpeaking,  entitled  to  be 


78 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  I. 


ment  of  a  hyperbolical  expression,  denoting  great  deso- 
lation ;  inii"irling  that  tlic  trade  of  Egypt,  wliich  was 
carried  on  then,  as  at  present,  by  caravans,  by  the  foot 
of  man  and  beast,  should  be  annihilated." 

To  this  we  may  add,  that  the  passtigo  respecting  the 
depopulation  of  Egypt  stands  in  the  midst  of  an  ex- 
tended prophecy,  which  has  received  the  most  marked 
fullilment,  and  illustrates,  perhaps  as  strikingly  as  any 
tiling  which  can  be  adduced,  the  cavilling  spirit  of  infi- 
delity, and  proves  that  truth  could  never  be  the  object 
of  discussions  thus  conducted.  Here  is  a  passage 
which  has  some  obscurity  hanging  over  it.  No  one, 
however,  can  prove  that  it  was  not  accomplished,  even 
so  fully  that  the  expressions  might  be  used  without 
violent  hyperbole ;  for  the  invasion  of  Nebuchadnezzar 
was  one  of  the  same  sweeping  and  devastating  cha- 
racter as  his  invasion  and  conquest  of  Judca  :  and  we' 
know,  that  the  greater  part  of  the  inhabitants  of  that 
country  were  destroyed,  or  led  captive,  and  that  the 
land  generally  remained  untilled  for  seventy  years, — 
though  not  absolutely  left  without  inhabitant.  In  the 
common  language  of  men,  Judea  might  be  said  not  to 
be  inhabited,  so  proiligious  was  the  excision  of  its 
people;  and  in  such  circmnstances,  from  the  total  ces- 
sation of  all  former  intercourse,  commercial  and  other- 
Wise,  between  the  different  parts  of  the  kingdom,  it 
might  also,  without  exaggeration,  be  said,  that  the  foot 
of  man  and  beast  did  not  "/i«,s-s  throuoh  it;"  their 
going  from  one  part  to  another  on  business,  or  for 
worship  at  Jerusalem,  being  wholly  suspended.  Now, 
as  we  have  no  reason  to  sujtpose  the  Babylonian  mo- 
narch to  have  been  more  merciful  to  Egypt  tlian  to 
Judea,  the  same  expressions  in  a  popular  sense  might 
be  used  in  respect  of  that  country.  Here  however  in- 
fidelity thought  a  cavil  might  be  rai.sed,  and  totally — 
may  we  not  say  wilfuUy  ? — overlooked  a  prediction  im- 
mediately following,  which  no  human  sagacity  could 
conjecture,  and  against  which  it  is  in  vain  to  urge  thai 
it  was  written  after  the  event :  for  the  accotniilishment 
of  the  i)roi)hecy  runs  on  to  the  present  day,  and  is  as 
palpable  and  obvious  as  the  past  history  and  the  present 
political  state  of  that  country — "  Egypt  shall  be  the 
basest  of  the  kingdnms,  neither  shall  it  exalt  itself 
any  more  above  the  natiDiis — there  shall  be  nn  more  a 
prince  of  the  land  of  Egypt.'" {A)  It  is  more  than  two 
thousand  years  since  the  prophecy  was  delivered,  and 
Egypt  has  never  recovered  its  liberties,  but  is  to  this 
day  under  the  yoke  of  foreigners.  It  was  conquered  by 
the  Babylonians;  then  by  the  Persians:  and  in  suc- 
cession passed  under  the  dominion  of  the  Macedonians, 
Romans,  Saracens,  Mamelukes,  and  Turks.  No  native 
prince  of  Egypt  has  ever  restored  his  country  to  inde- 
pendence, and  a.scendcd  the  throne  of  liis  ancestors ; 
and  the  descendants  of  the  ancient  Egyjitians  are  to 
this  hour  in  the  basest  and  most  oppressed  condition. 
Yet  in  Egypt  the  human  mind  had  made  some  of  its 
earliest  and  most  auspicious  efibrts.  The  stupendous 
monuments  of  art  and  power,  the  ruins  of  which  lie 
piled  upon  the  banks  of  the  Nile,  or  still  defy  the  wastes 
of  time,  attest  the  vastnessof  the  designs  and  the  ex- 
tent of  the  power  of  its  princes.  Egypt,  too,  was  pos- 
se.ssed  of  great  natural  advantages.  Its  situation  was 
singularly  calcul  ted  to  i>roteit  it  agiiinst  funign  inva- 
sion; while  its  great  fertility  jironused  to  secure  the 
country  it  enriched  from  poverty,  baseness,  and  sub- 
jection. Yet  after  a  long  course  of  grandeur,  and  in 
contradiction  to  its  natural  advantages,  Ezekiel  pro- 
nounced that  the  kingdom  should  be  "  <Af  basest  of  all 
kingdoms"  and  that  there  should  he  "  no  jnore  a  prince 
of  the  land  of  Egypt."  So  Ibe  event  has  been,  and  so 
it  remains;  and  that  tins  woiidrrful  |)ropliri-y  should 
be  passed  over  by  intidcls  in  silciicc,  while  Ibcy  si-lect 
from  it  a  pas.sage  which  proinisi'd  to  give  some  colour 
to  objection,  is  dee])ly  cbaniclcristic  of  the  state  of 
their  m'uds.  It  is  not  from  drilcicncy  of  evidence  that 
the  word  of  Ood  is  rejected  by  them.  The  evil  is  not 
the  want  ol'  liylil,  but  the  love  of  darkness. 

Much  riduulc  has  been  cast  upon  the  prophets  for 
those  sigtnliiant  actions  by  which  they  diustrated  their 
predictions  ;  as  when  Jeremiah  hides  his  linen  girdle  in 


called  Egypt,  which  is  hieroglyphically  represented  by 
the  figure  of  a  heart;  no  unapt  similitude." — "The 
principal  places  mentioned  in  our  sacred  writings,  Zoan, 
Zoph,  ajid  Tophanes,  arc  all  referrible  to  the  Delta. 
Probably  litlh^  of  them  remains." 
(4)  Vide  Eick.  xxix.  and  xxx. 


a  hole  of  the  rock,  and  breaks  a  potter's  vessel  in  the 
sight  of  the  people ;  when  Ezekiel  weighs  the  hair  of 
his  head  and  beard  in  balances,  with  many  other  in- 
stances familiar  to  those  who  read  the  Scriptures.  But 
this  ridicule  can  only  procceii  from  ignorance.  In  the 
early  ages  of  the  world,  the  deficiency  of  language  was 
often  supplied  by  signs;  anil  wlien  language  was  im- 
proved, "the  practice  remained,"  says  Bishop  War- 
burton,  "after  the  necessity  was  over;  especially 
among  the  Easterns,  whose  natural  temperament  in- 
clined them  to  this  mode  of  conversation.  The  charges 
then  of  absurdity  and  fanaticism,  brought  against  the 
prophets,  vanish  of  themselves.  The  absurdity  of  ^n 
action  consists  in  its  being  extravagant  and  insignative  ; 
but  use  and  a  fi.xed  application  made  the  actions  in 
question  both  sober  and  pertinent.  1\w.  fanaticism  of 
an  action  consists  in  fondness  for  such  "actions  as  are 
unusual,  and  lor  foreign  modes  of  speech  ;  but  those  of 
the  jirophets  were  idiomatic  and  familiar."  We  may 
add,  that  several  of  these  actions  were  performed  in 
vision ;  and  that,  considering  the  genius  of  the  jieojjle 
who  were  addressed,  they  were  calculated  strorigly  to 
excite  their  attention, — the  end  for  which  they  were 
adopted. 

Such  are  the  principal  objections  which  have  been 
made  to  Scripture  pro])hecy,  as  the  proof  of  Scripture 
truth.  That  they  are  so  few  and  .so  feeble,  wlien  ene- 
mies so  prying  and  cajiable  have  enqiloyed  themselves 
with  so  much  misplaced  zeal  todiscipvcr  any  vulnerable 
part,  is  the  triumph  of  truth.  Their  fulility  has  been 
pointed  out;  and  the  whole  weight  of  the  prec<'ding 
evidence  in  favour  of  the  truth  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  remains  unmoved.  We  have,  indeed,  but 
glanced  at  a  few  of  the.se  extraordinary  revelations  of 
the  future,  for  the  sake,  not  of  exhibiting  the  evidence 
of  prophecy,  which  would  require  a  distinct  volume, 
hut  of  ex])!aining  its  nature  and  pointing  out  its  force. 
To  the  projdiecies  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  attentive 
inquirer  will  add  those  of  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles, 
which  will  appear  not  less  extraordinary  in  themselves, 
nor  less  illustrious  in  their  fultilment,  so  far  as  they 
have  received  theiraccomplishment.  Many  prophecies 
both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  evidently  point  to 
future  times,  and  this  kind  of  evidence  will  (onsciiueiitly 
accumulate  with  the  lapse  of  ages,  and  may  lie  among 
the  means  by  which  Jews,  Mahometans,  and  Pagans 
shall  be  turned  to  the  Christian  laith.  At  all  events, 
prophecy  even  unfullilled  now  answers  an  important 
end.  It  opens  our  jirosiiecl  into  the  luiure;  and  if  the 
detail  is  obscure,  yet,  notwithstanding  tint  mighty  con- 
test which  is  still  going  on  ll(■t\^l•('n  o|i]iosiiig  jiowers 
and  iirincijiles,  we  see  how  the  struggle  will  termiimtc, 
and  know,  to  use  a  prophetic  phrase,  that  "  at  eventimt 
it  shall  be  light." 


CH.VPTER  XIX. 
I.NTKRNAL  EVIDENCE  of  the  Tnitli  of  Scripture — 

COM.ATERAI,    EviDKNf  K. 

The  Internal  Evidence  of  a  revelation  from  fJod  has 
been  stated  to  be  that  which  arises  from  the  apparent 
excellence  and  bcnelicial  tendency  of  the  doctrine. (5) 
This  at  least  is  its  chief  characteristic,  though  other 
particulars  may  also  he  included  in  this  species  of 
proof,  and  shall  be  adduced. 

The  reader  will  recollect  the  distinction  made  hi  the 
chapter  just  referred  to,  between  rotmnal  and  anthni- 
tiraling  eviileiice.  It  has  been  observed,  thai  there  are 
some  truths  made  known  to  us  through  the  medium  of 
a  revelation  from  (iod,  which,  though  in  their  nature 
undiscoverabie  by  the  nnassisted  liiculties  of  man,  >et, 
when  once  revealed,  carry  to  our  reason, .w/or  as  they 
arc  of  a  nature  to  be  comprehended  by  it,  the  demon- 
stration which  accomimnies  truth  of  any  other  kind.tti) 
But  it  is  only  within  tlw!  limit  just  mentioned  that  this 
position  hohis  good  ;  for  such  inillis  only  must  be  un- 
derstood as  are  accompanied  with  reasons  or  rational 
prools  in  the  revelation  itself,  or  wliich,  when  once 
sn^'gested  to  the  mind,  directs  its  thouchts  and  ob.ser- 
vaiion  to  surrounding  tacts  anil  circumstances,  or  to 
established  truths  to  which  they  are  capable  of  being 
compared,  and  by  which  they  are  confirmed.  The  In- 
ternal Evidence  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  therefore,  as 


(5)  Vide  Chap.  ix. 


(6)  Ibid. 


Chap.  XIX.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


79 


Car  as  doctrine,  is  concprned,  is  restrained  to  truths  of 
this  class.  i)(  other  truths  revealed  to  us  in  the  Bible, 
and  those  in  many  instances  fundamental  to  the  system 
of  Christianity,  we  have  no  proof  of  this  kind;  but 
they  stand  on  the  firm  basis  of  Divine  atteslalion,  and 
sulfer  no  diminution  of  their  authority  because  the  rea- 
sons of  them  are  either  hidden  from  us  for  purjjoses  of 
moral  discipline,  or  because  they  transcend  our  facul- 
ties. If  we  had  the  reasons  of  them  before  us,  they 
would  not  be  more  authentic,  thougli  to  the  understaiid- 
ins  they  would  be  more  obvious.  Such  are  the  doc- 
trines of  a  Trinity  of  persons  in  the  Unity  of  the  God- 
head ;  of  the  hypostatic  union  of  the  two  natures  in 
(,'hrist;  of  his  Divine  and  Eternal  Sonship,  &c.  Such 
are  many  facts  in  the  Divine  government— as  the  ]>er- 
inission  of  evil,  and  the  long  apparent  abandonment  of 
lieathen  nations — the  unequal  religions  advantages  af- 
forded to  individuals  as  well  as  nations — and  many  of 
the  circumstances  of  our  individual  moral  trial  upon 
earth.  Of  the  truth  of  these  doctrines,  and  the  fitne.ss 
of  these  and  many  other  facts,  we  have  no  internal 
evidence  whatever;  but  a  very  large  class  of  truths 
which  are  found  in  the  revelations  of  Scripture,  alford 
more  or  less  of  this  kind  of  proof,  and  make  their  ap- 
peal to  our  reason  as  well  as  to  our  faith; — in  other 
words,  their  reasonableness  is  such,  that,  though  the 
great  demonstration  does  not  rest  upon  that,  it  affords 
an  additional  argument  why  they  should  be  thankfully 
received,  and  heartily  credited. 

The  first  and  fundamental  doctrine  of  Scripture  is, 
the  e.xistence  of  God ;  the  Great  and  the  Sole  First 
Cause  of  all  things,  eternal,  self-existent,  present  in  all 
places,  knowing  all  things;  infinite  in  power  and  wis- 
dom ;  and  perfect  in  goodness,  justice,  holiness,  and 
truth.  That  this  view  of  the  Divine  Being,  for  which 
we  are  indebted  to  the  Scriptures  alone,  presents  itscll' 
with  powerful  rational  demonstration  to  the  mind  ol 
man,  is  illustriously  shown  by  that  astonishing  change 
of  opinion  on  this  great  subject  which  took  place  in 
pagan  nations  upon  the  promulgation  of  Christianity, 
and  which  in  Europe  continues  to  this  day  substantially 
unaltered.  Not  only  those  gross  notions  which  pre- 
vailed among  the  vulgar,  but  the  dark,  uncertain,  and 
contradictory  researches  of  the  iiliilosophers  of  different 
schools,  have  passed  away ;  and  the  truth  respecting 
God,  stated  in  the  majesty  and  simplicity  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, has  been,  with  few  e.xceptions,  universally  re- 
ceived, and  that  among  enlightened  Deists  them.selves. 
These  discoveries  of  revelation  have  satisfied  the 
human  mind  on  this  great  and  primary  doctrine ;  and 
have  given  it  a  resting-place  which  it  never  before 
found,  and  from  which,  if  it  ever  departs,  it  finds  no 
demonstration  until  it  returns  to  the  "  marvellous 
liglit"  into  which  revealed  religion  has  introduced  us. 
A  class  of  ideas,  the  most  elevated  and  sublime,  and 
which  the  most  profound  minds  in  former  times  sought 
without  success,  have  thus  become  familiar  to  the  very 
peasants  in  Christian  nations.  Nothing  can  he  a  more 
striking  proof  of  the  appeal  which  the  Scripture  cha- 
racter of  God  makes  to  the  unsophisticated  reason  of 
mankind.(7) 

Of  the  state  and  condition  of  Man  as  it  is  represented 
in  our  Holy  Writings,  the  evidence  from  fact,  and  from 
the  consciousness  of  our  o^vn  bosoms,  is  very  cojiious. 
What  man  is,  in  his  relations  to  God  his  Maker  and 
Governor,  we  had  never  discovered  without  revelation ; 
but  now  this  is  made  known,  confirmatory  fact  crowds 

(7)  The  Scripture  character  of  the  Divine  Being  is 
thus  strikingly  drawn  out  by  Dr.  A.  Clarke  in  Ms  note 
on  Gen.  i.  1 : — 

"The  eternal,  independent,  and  self-existent  Being. 
The  Beins  whose  purposes  and  actions  spring  from  him- 
self, without  foreign  motive  or  influence:  He  who  is 
absolute  in  dominion ;  the  most  pure,  most  simple,  and 
most  spiritual  of  all  essences ;  infinitely  benevolent, 
beneficent,  true,  and  holy :  The  cause  of  all  being,  the 
upholder  of  all  things;  infinitely  happy,  because  infi- 
nitely good  ;  and  eternally  self-sulficient,  needing 
nothing  that  he  has  made.  Illimitable  in  his  im- 
mensity, inconceivable  in  his  mode  of  existence,  and 
indescribable  in  his  essence ;  known  fully  only  to  him- 
self, because  an  infinite  mind  can  only  be  comprehended 
by  itself  In  a  word,  a  Being  who,  from  his  infinite 
wisdom,  cannot  err  or  be  deceived  ;  and  who,  from  his 
infinite  goodness,  can  do  nothing  but  what  is  eternally 
just,  right,  iuid  kind." 


in  on  every  side,  and  affords  its  evidence  of  Ihc  trntli 
of  the  doctrine. 

The  Old  and  New  Testaments  agree  in  representing 
the  human  race  as  aciitiilly  vicious,  anil  ciip.ible,  with- 
out moral  check  and  control,  of  (lie  grc,:lrst  enormi- 
ties;  so  that  not  only  individual  ha]ipuiess,  hut  social 
also,  is  constantly  obstructed  or  endangered.  To  this 
the  history  of  all  ages  bears  witness,  and  present  expe- 
rience gives  its  testimony.  All  the  states  of  antiquity 
crumbled  down,  or  were  suddenly  overwhelmed.  By 
their  own  vices  ;  and  the  general  character  and  conduct 
of  the  people  which  composed  them  may  be  read  in  the 
works  of  their  historians,  poets,  and  satirists,  which 
have  been  transmitted  to  our  times.  These,  as  to  the 
(Ireeks  and  Romans,  fully  bear  out  the  darkest  colour- 
ing of  their  moral  condition  to  be  found  in  the  well- 
known  first  chapter  of  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Church 
at  Rome,  and  other  passages  in  his  various  epistles. 
To  this  day,  the  same  representation  depicts  the  condi- 
tion of  almost  all  pagan  countries,  and,  in  many  respects 
too,  some  jiarts  of  Christendom,  where  the  word  of  God 
has  been  hidden  from  the  people,  and  its  moral  influ- 
ence, consequently,  has  not  been  suficred  to  develope 
itself.  In  those  countries,  also,  where  that  corrective 
has  been  most  carefully  applied,  though  exalted  beyond 
comparison  in  just,  honourable,  benevolent,  and  sober 
jjrinciples  and  habits,  along  with  the  frequent  occurrence 
of  numerous  and  gross  actual  crimes,  the  same  appe- 
tites and  passions  may  be  seen  in  constant  contest  with 
the  laws  of  the  State ;  with  the  example  of  the  virtn- 
ous ;  and  the  controlling  influence  of  the  word  of  God, 
preached  by  faithful  ministers,  taught  as  a  part  of  the 
process  of  education,  and  spread  through  society  by  the 
multiplication  of  its  copies  since  the  invention  of 
printing.  The  Holy  Scriptures,  therefore,  characterize 
HKin  only  as  he  is  actu;tlly  found  in  all  ages,  and  in  all 
places  to  the  utmost  bounds  of  those  geographical  dis- 
coveries which  havebeen  made  through  the  adventurous 
spirit  of  modern  navigators. 

But  they  not  only  assume  men  to  be  actually  viciotis, 
but  vicious  in  consequence  of  a  ynoral  taint  in  their 
nature, — originally  and  inevitably  so,  but  for  those  pro- 
visions of  grace  and  means  of  sanctity  of  which  they 
speak ;  and  as  this  assumption  is  the  basis  of  the  whole 
scheme  of  moral  restoration,  through  the  once  promised 
.seed  of  the  woman,  and  the  now  actually  given  Jksus, 
the  Saviour,  so  they  constantly  remind  him  that  he  is 
'■'■born  in  sin  arid  shapen  in  iniquity,^''  and  that,  being 
bom  of  the  flesh,  "  he  cannot  please  God."  What  is 
thus  represented  as  doctrine  appeals  to  om-  reason 
through  the  evidence  of  unquestionable  fact.  The 
strong  tendency  of  man  to  crime  cannot  be  denied. 
Civil  penal  laws  are  enacted  for  no  other  purpose  than 
to  repress  it;  they  are  multiplied  in  the  most  civilized 
states  to  shut  out  the  evil  in  all  those  new  directions 
towards  which  the  multiplied  relations  of  man,  and  his 
increased  power,  arising  from  increased  intelligence, 
have  given  it  its  im.pulse.  Every  legal  deed  with  its 
seals  and  witnesses,  bears  testimony  to  that  opinion  as 
to  human  nature  which  the  experience  of  man  has  im- 
pressed on  man ;  and  history  itself  is  a  record  chiefly 
of  human  guilt,  because  examples  of  crime  have  every 
where  and  at  all  times  been  much  more  frequent  than 
examples  of  virtue.  This  tendency  to  evil,  the  Scrip- 
tures tell  us,  arises  from  "  the  heart,'" — the  nature  and 
disposition  of  man ;  and  it  is  not  otherwise  to  be  ac- 
counted for.  Some  indeed  have  rejiresented  the  cor- 
ruption of  the  race  as  the  result  of  association  and  ex- 
ample ;  but  if  men  were  naturally  inclined  to  good,  and 
averse  to  evil,  how  is  it  that  not  a  few  individuals  only, 
but  the  whole  race  have  become  evil  by  mutual  asso- 
ciation "?  This  would  be  to  make  the  weaker  cause  the 
more  efficient,  which  is  manifestly  absurd.  It  is  con- 
trary too  to  the  reason  of  the  case,  that  the  example 
and  association  of  persons  naturally  well  disposed 
should  produce  any  other  effect  than  that  of  confirming 
and  maturing  their  good  dispositions ;  as  it  is  the  effect 
of  example  and  association,  among  persons  of  similar 
tastes  and  of  similar  pursuits,  to  confirm  and  improve 
the  habit  which  gives  rise  to  them.  As  little  plausi- 
bility is  there  in  the  opinion  which  would  account  for 
this  general  corruption  from  bad  education.  How,  if 
man  in  all  ages  had  been  rightly  aftccteii  in  his  moral 
inclinations,  did  a  course  of  deleterious  education  com- 
mence 1  How,  if  commenced,  came  it,  that  wliat  must 
have  been  so  abhorrent  to  a  virtuously  disposed  com- 
muuiiy,  was  not  arrested,  and  a  better  system  of  ia- 


80 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  I. 


struction  introduced  ?  But  the  fact  itself  may  be  de- 
nied, as  the  worst  education  inculcates  a  virtue  above 
the  general  practice,  and  no  course  of  education  was 
ever  adopted  purposely  to  encourage  immorality.  In 
the  Scriptures  alone  we  fmd  a  cause  assigned  \\'hieh 
accounts  for  the  phenomenon,  and  we  are  bound  there- 
fore by  the  rules  of  iilnlosophy  itself  to  admit  it.  It  is 
this,  that  man  is  by  nati'kk  prone  to  evil ;  and  as  it 
would  be  highly  unreasonable  to  suppo.se,  that  this  dis- 
position was  implanted  in  hiin  by  his  benevolent  and 
holy  M.iker,  we  arc  ecpially  bound  in  reason  to  admit 
the  Scripture  solution  of  the  fall  of  the  human  race 
from  a  higher  and  belter  state. 

A  third  view  of  the  condition  of  man  contained  in  the 
Scriptures  is,  that  he  is  not  only  under  the  Divine  au- 
thority, but  that  the  government  of  heaven  as  to  him  is 
of  a  mixi:il  character ;  that  he  is  treated  with  severity 
and  with  kindness  also ;  tlial,  considered  both  as  corrupt 
in  his  nature  and  tendencies,  and  as  in  innumerable  in- 
stances actually  ofTending,  hi;  is  jilaced  under  a  rigidly 
restrainiii!;  discipline,  to  meet  his  case  in  the  fir.st  re- 
spect, and  under  correction  and  penal  dispensation  with 
relation  to  the  latter.  On  the  other  hand,  as  he  is  an 
object  beloved  by  the  God  he  has  offended  ;  a  being  for 
whose  pardon  and  recovery  Divine  Mercy  has  made 
provision  ;  moral  ends  are  connected  with  these  seve- 
rities, and  Nature  and  Providence  as  well  as  Revela- 
tion are  crowned  with  instances  of  Divine  benevolence 
to  the  sinning  race.  The  proof  of  these  different  rela- 
tions of  man  to  God  surrounds  us  in  that  admi.vture  of 
good  and  evil,  of  indulgence  and  restraint,  of  felicity 
and  misery,  to  which  he  is  so  manifestly  subject.  Life 
is  felt  in  all  ordinary  circumstances  to  be  a  blessing ; 
but  it  is  short  and  uncertain,  subject  to  diseases  and 
accidents.  Many  enjoyments  fall  to  the  lot  of  men; 
yet  with  the  majority  they  are  attained  by  means  of 
great  and  exhausting  labours  of  the  body  or  of  the 
mind,  through  which  the  risks  to  health  and  life  are 
greatly  multiplied ;  or  they  are  accompanied  with  so 
many  disappointments,  fears,  and  cares,  that  their  num- 
ber and  their  quality  are  greatly  lessened.  The  globe 
itself,  the  residence  of  man,  and  upon  whose  fertility, 
seasons,  exterior  surface,  and  interior  stratification  .so 
much  of  the  extcrn.il  felicity  of  man  dei)ends,  bears 
marks  of  a  mingled  kind  of  just  and  merciful  govern- 
ment, suiteil  to  such  a  being  as  man  in  the  stale  de- 
scribed in  the  Scriptures,  and  to  none  else.  It  cannot 
be  supposed,  that  if  inhabited  by  a  race  of  beings  per- 
fectly holy  and  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  the  Divine  fa- 
vour, this  earth  would  be  subject  to  destructive  earth- 
quakes, volcanoes,  and  inundations;  to  blights  and 
dearths,  the  harbingers  of  famine  ;  to  those  changes  in 
the  atmosiihere  which  induce  wide-wasting  epidemic 
di-sorders;  to  that  general  sterility  of  soil  which  ren- 
ders labour  necessary  to  such  a  degree,  as  fully  to  oc- 
cupy the  time  of  the  majority  of  mankind,  prevent  them 
from  engaging  in  pursuits  worthy  an  intellectual  na- 
ture, and  wear  down  their  spirits  ;  nor  that  the  metals 
60  nei-essary  lor  man  iu  civilized  life,  and,  in  many 
countries,  tlie  material  of  the  fire  by  which  cold  must 
be  repelled,  food  prepared,  and  the  most  important  arts 
exeiMtted,  should  be  hidden  deep  in  the  bowels  of  the 
earth,  so  that  a  great  body  of  mi;n  must  be  doomed  to 
the  dangerous  and  huniljliiig  labour  of  raising  them  1 
These  and  many  otlnsr  inslanc.es(H)  show  a  course  ol' 
discipline  very  incongruous  with  the  most  enlightened 
views  of  the  Divine  character,  if  man  be  considered  as 
aii  innocent  being.  On  the  contrary,  that  he  is  under 
an  unmixed  pfiial  administration,  is  contradicaed  by 
the  facts,  that  the  earth  yet  yields  her  increase  ordi- 
narily to  industry  ;  that  the  destructive  convulsions  of 
nature  are  but  occasional ;  and  that,  generally,  the  health 
of  the  human  race  predominates  over  sickness,  and 
their  animal  enjoymeiit.s  over  positive  misery.  To 
those  diverse  relations  of  man  to  God,  as  staled  in  the 
Bible,  the  crnUrarnties  of  nature  and  providence  bear 
an  exact  adapt  ition.  Assume  man  to  be  any  thing  else 
than  what  is  represented  in  Scri|)lure,  they  would  be 
discordant  and  inexplicable ;  in  this  view  they  har- 
monize.— Man  is  neither  innocinl  nor  Jinally  ion- 
demried — he  is  fallen  and  guilty,  but  not  excluded  from 
the  compassion  and  care  and  benignity  of  his  (;od. 

The  next  leading  doctrine  of  Christianity  is  the  re- 


(8)  See  the  argument  largely  and  ingeniously  ex- 
hibited in  Gisburnk's  Tcsiiiiioay  of  Natunil  I'hcj 
logy,  Sec. 


storation  of  man  to  the  Divine  favour,  through  the  me- 
rits   of  THE    VIC.\R10US    AND  SACRIFICIAL   DKATH  OK 

CuRisT,  the  incarnate  Son  of  God.  To  this  many  ob- 
jections have  been  offered ;  but,  on  the  other  hand, 
many  important  reasons  for  such  a  procedure  have 
been  overlooked.  The  rational  evidence  of  this  doc- 
trine, we  grant,  is  partial  and  limited  ;  but  it  will  be  re- 
collected, that  it  has  been  already  proved,  that  the  au- 
tlKirity  and  truth  of  a  doctrine  are  not  thereby  aflected. 
It  is  indeed  not  unreasonable  to  suppose,  that  the  evi- 
dence of  the  fitness  and  necessity  of  such  a  docirine 
should  be  to  us  obscure.  "  The  reason  of  the  thing," 
says  IJishop  Butler,  "  and  the  whole  analogy  of  nature 
should  teach  us,  not  to  expect  to  have  the  like  informa- 
tion concerning  the  Divine  amduct,  as  concerning  our 
own  ilid.i/,"  On  whatever  terms  God  had  been  pleased  to 
oiler  tbrgivencss  to  his  creatures,  if  any  other  had  been 
morally  possible,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  all  the 
reasons  of  his  conduct,  which  must  of  course  respect 
the  very  principles  of  his  government  in  general,  ex- 
tending not  only  to  man,  but  to  otlier  beings,  could 
have  been  cvjilained ;  and  cert:iin  it  is,  that  those 
to  whom  the  benefit  was  offered  would  have  bad  no 
right  to  recjuire  it. 

The  (;hristian  doctrine  of  atonement  as  a  necessary 
merciful  interposition,  is  grounded  upon  the  liability  of 
man  to  punishment  in  another  life,  for  sins  committed 
against  the  law  of  Cod  in  this  ;  and  against  this  view 
of  the  future  prospects  of  mankind  there  can  lie  no  ob- 
jection of  weight.  Men  are  cajiable  of  committing  sin, 
and  sin  is  jirodnctive  of  miserj  and  disorder.  These 
positions  cannot  be  denied.  That  to  violate  the  lawa 
of  God  and  to  despise  his  authority  are  not  light  crimes, 
is  clear  from  considering  them  in  their  general  eHect 
upon  society,  and  upon  the  world.  Remove  from  the 
human  race  all  the  effects  produced  by  vice,  direct  and 
indireca  ;  all  the  inward  and  outward  miseries  and  ca- 
lamities which  are  entirely  evitable  by  mankind,  and 
which  they  wilfully  bring  upon  themselves  and  others, 
and  scarcely  a  sigh  would  be  heaved,  or  a  groan  heard, 
except  those  extorted  by  natural  evils  (small  compa- 
ratively m  number),  throughout  the  whole  earth.  The 
great  sum  of  human  misery  is  the  effect  of  actual  of- 
fence ;  and  as  it  is  a  principle  in  the  wisest  and  mo.st 
perfect  human  legislaiion  to  estimate  the  guilt  of  indi- 
vidual acts  by  their  general  tendency,  and  to  proportion 
the  piuiishnient  of  them  under  that  consideration,  the 
same  reason  of  the  case  is  in  favour  of  this  principle, 
as  found  in  Scripture ;  and,  thus  considered,  the  deme- 
rit of  the  sins  of  an  individual  against  God  becomes  in- 
calculable. Nor  is  there  any  foundation  to  suppose, 
that  the  punishment  assigned  to  sin  by  the  judicial  ap- 
jiointment  of  the  Supreme  Governor,  is  confined  to  the 
jiresciit  life;  for  helbre  we  can  determine  that,  we 
must  be  able  to  estimate  the  demerit  of  an  act  of  wil- 
ful transgression  in  its  principle,  habits,  and  influence, 
which,  as  parties  inipUcated,  we  are  not  in  a  state  of 
feeling  or  judgment  to  attempt,  were  the  subject  more 
within  our  grasp.  But  the  obvious  reason  of  the  case 
is  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment;  for 
not  only  is  there  an  uiMMjual  adiniiiisiration  of  punish- 
ments in  the  jiresent  hU;,  so  that  many  eminent  offen- 
ders pass  through  the  present  state  without  any  visible 
maniltsialion  of  the  Divine  displeasure  against  their 
conduct,  liut  there  are  strong  and  convincing  proofs 
that  w(^  are  jilaced  in  a  slate  of  trial,  which  continues 
thnui'ilKJiU  li/e,  and  the  result  of  which  can  only  be 
known,  and  consequently  we  ourselves  can  only  be- 
come subjects  of  final  reward  or  punishment,  after  ex- 
istence in  this  world  terminates.  From  the  circum- 
stances we  have  just  enumerated  to  indicate  the  kind 
of  government  which  is  exercised  over  the  human 
race,  we  must  conclude,  that,  allowing  the  Supremo 
Ciovernor  to  bo  wise  and  just,  benevolent  and  lioly, 
men  arc  neither  treated  as  innocent  nor  as  incorrigibly 
rorrujit.  Now,  what  reason  can  possibly  be  given  for 
this  mixed  kind  of  udmhiistralion,  but  that  the  moral 
iiiiprovrment  of  man  is  the  object  intended  by  it?  The 
scvcniy  discountenances  and  reslfhins  vice;  the  an- 
mxalion  of  inward  felicity,  in  all  cases  (and  outward  in 
all  ihose  instances  in  whiili  the  result  depends  upoa 
the  conduct  of  the  individuan,  to  holy  haliils  and  acts, 
Tecommends  and  sanctions  ihcm,  and  allures  to  the  use 
of  those  means  which  God  has  provided  for  enabling 
us  to  form  and  practise  them.  No  other  final  causes, 
it  would  appear,  can  be  assigned  lor  the  peculiar  man- 
ner in  winch  we  arc  governed  in  the  present  lile ;  aud 


Chap,  XIX.] 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


81 


if  the  deterring  and  correcting  severity  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  alluring  and  instructive  kindness  on  the 
other,  whicti  mark  the  Divine  administration,  continue 
throusjhout  life;  if,  in  every  period  of  his  life  here, 
man  IS  capable,  by  the  use  of  the  prescribed  means,  of 
forming  new  habits  and  renouncing  old  ones,  and 
thus  of  accomplishing  the  purposes  of  the  moral  disci- 
phnc  under  which  he  is  placed,  then  is  he  in  a  state  of 
trial  throughout  life,  and  if  so,  he  is  accountable  (iir  the 
whole  course  of  his  life;  and  lus  ultimate  reward  or  jiun- 
ishment  must  be  in  a  state  subsequent  to  the  present. 

It  is  also  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  that  this  future 
punishment  of  the  incorrigible  shall  be  final  and  lui- 
limited;  another  consideration  of  great  imiiortance  in 
considering  the  doctrnie  of  atoiument.  This  is  a  mo- 
nitory doctrine  wliicU  a  revelation  only  could  unfold; 
but  being  made,  it  has  no  inconsiderable  degree  of  ra- 
tional evidence.  It  supposes,  it  is  true,  that  no  future 
trial  shall  be  allowed  to  man,  the  present  having  been 
neglected  and  abused ;  and  to  this  there  is  much  ana- 
logy in  the  constant  procedures  of  the  Divine  govern- 
ment in  the  present  life.  When  many  checks  and  ad- 
monitions from  the  instructions  of  the  wise  and  the 
examples  of  the  froward  have  been  disregarded,  ])0- 
verty  and  sickness,  infamy  and  death  ensue,  in  a  thou- 
sand cases  which  the  observation  of  every  man  will 
furnish ;  the  trial  of  an  individual,  wliich  is  to  issue 
in  his  present  happiness  or  misery,  is  terminated ;  and 
so  far  from  its  being  renewed  frequently,  in  the  hope 
of  his  finally  profiting  by  a  bitter  experience,  advan- 
tages and  opportunities,  once  thrown  away,  can  never 
be  recalled.  There  is  nothing  tlierefore  contrary  to  the 
obvious  principles  of  the  Divine  government  as  mani- 
fested in  this  life,  in  the  doctrine  which  confines  the 
space  of  man's  highest  and  most  solemn  probation 
within  certain  limits,  and  beyond  them  cutting  off  all 
his  hope.  But  let  this  subject  be  considered  by  the 
light  thrown  upon  it,  by  the  circumstance  that  the  na- 
ture of  man  is  irmnortal.  With  those  who  deny  this 
to  be  the  prerogative  of  the  thinking  principle  in  man, 
it  would  be  trifling  to  hold  this  argument ;  but  with 
those  who  do  not,  the  consideration  of  the  subject  un- 
der this  view  is  important. 

The  existence  of  man  is  never  to  cease.  It  follows 
then  from  this,  that  either  the  future  trials  to  be  al- 
lowed to  those  who  in  the  present  life  have  been  incor- 
rigible, are  to  be  limited  in  number,  or  should  they 
successively  fail,  are  to  be  repeated  for  ever.  If  the 
latter,  there  can  be  no  ultimate  judgment,  no  punish- 
ment or  reward  ;  and  consequently  the  Divine  govern- 
ment as  implying  these  (and  this  we  know  it  does, 
trom  what  takes  place  in  the  present  life),  must  be  an- 
7iihi!ated.  If  this  cannot  be  maintained,  is  there  suffi- 
cient reason  to  conclude,  that  all  to  whom  trial  after 
trial  is  supposed  to  be  afforded  in  new  and  varied  cir- 
cumstances, in  order  to  multiply  the  probabilities,  so  to 
speak,  of  their  final  recovery  from  rebellion,  will  be  at 
length  reclaimed?  Before  this  can  be  answered,  it 
must  be  recollected,  that  a  state  of  sufl^ering  which 
would  compel  obedience,  if  we  should  suppose  mere 
suffering  capable  of  producing  this  effect,  or  an  exer- 
tion oUnflueiice  upon  the  understanding  and  will  which 
shall  necessitate  a  definite  choice,  is  neither  of  Ihein  to 
be  assumed  as  entering  into  the  circumstances  of  any 
new  state  of  trial.  Every  such  future  trial  to  be  pro- 
bationary at  all,  that  is,  in  order  to  bring  out  the  ex- 
istence of  a  new  moral  principle,  and  by  voluntary  acts 
to  prove  it,  must  substantially  be  like  the  present, 
though  its  circumstances  may  vary.  Vice  must  have 
its  allurements ;  virtue  must  rise  from  self-denial,  and 
be  led  into  the  arena  to  struggle  with  difficulty ;  many 
present  interests  and  pleasures  must  be  seen  in  con- 
nexion with  vice;  the  rewards  of  obedience  mu.st,  as 
now,  bo  not  only  more  refilled  than  mere  sense  can  be 
gratified  with,  but  also  distant:  the  mind  must  be  ca- 
pable of  error  in  its  moral  estimate  of  things,  through 
the  influence  of  the  senses  and  passions;  and  so  cir- 
cumstanced, that  those  erroneous  views  shall  only  be 
prevented  or  corrected  by  watchfulness,  and  a  diligent 
application  to  meditation,  prayer,  and  the  use  of  those 
means  of  information  on  moral  subjects  which  Al- 
mighty God  may  have  put  within  their  reach.  We 
have  no  right  in  this  argument  to  imagine  to  ourselves 
a  future  condition  where  the  influence  of  every  cir- 
cumstance will  be  directed  to  render  vice  most  diffi- 
cult to  commit,  and  virtUH  most  dllfirult  to  avoid;  for 
this  would  not  be  a  state  of  trial ;  and  if  iii  this  present 


life,  men  have  obstinately  resisted  all  admonitions  from 
heaven;  obdurated  themselves acainst  all  tlieuUccting 
displays  of  the  Divine  kiinlness.  and  the  deterring  mani- 
festations of  the  Divine  majesty,  it  is  most  reasonable  to 
conclude,  that  ajiart  of  them  a't  least  would  abuse  suc- 
cessive trials,  and  frustrate  their  intention,  by  attach- 
ment to  present  and  sensual  gratification.  What  then 
is  to  become  of  them  ?  If  we  admit  a  moral  government 
of  rational  creatures  at  all,  their  jirobation  cannot  be 
eternal,  for  that  leads  to  no  result;  if  probation  be  ap- 
pointed, it  implies  accountability,  a  judicial  decision,  and 
that  judicial  decision,  in  the  case  of  the  incorrigible, 
puHishjuent.  Whenever  then  the  trial,  or  the  series 
of  trials,  terminates  as  to  these  immortal  beings,  the 
subsequent  punishment,  of  what  kind  soever  it  may 
be,  must  be  eternal.  This  doctrine  of  iScrijiture  rests 
therefore  upon  others,  of  which  the  rational  evidence 
is  abundant  and  convincing ; — That  Almighty  God  ex- 
ercises a  moral  government  over  his  creatures  ;  that 
the  present  life  is  a  state  of  moral  discipline  and  trial, 
and  that  man  is  immortal.  If  these  are  allowed,  the 
eternal  duration  of  future  punishments  a.s  to  the  ob- 
stinately wicked,  must  follow;  and  its  accordance 
with  the  principles  just  mentioned  is  its  rational  evi- 
dence. 

That  atonement  for  the  sins  of  men  which  wa8 
made  by  the  death  of  Christ,  is  rejiresented  in  the  Chris- 
tian system  as  the  means  by  which  mankind  tnay  be 
delivered  from  this  awful  catastrophe— from  judicial 
inflictions  of  the  displeasure  of  a  Governor,  whose  au- 
thority has  been  contemned,  and  whose  will  has  been 
resisted,  which  shall  know  no  mitigation  in  their  de- 
gree, nor  bound  to  their  duration  ;  and  if  an  end,  su- 
premely great  and  benevolent,  can  commend  any  pro- 
cedure to  us,  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  atonement  com- 
mends this  kind  of  appeal  to  our  attention.  This  end 
it  professes  to  accomplish  by  means  which,  with  re- 
spect to  the  Supreme  Governor  himself,  preserve  his 
character  from  mistake,  and  maintain  the  authority  of 
his  government ;  and  with  respect  to  man,  give  him 
the  strongest  possible  reason  lor  hope,  and  render 
more  favourable  the  circumstances  of  his  earthly 
probation.  These  are  considerations  which  so  mani- 
festly show,  from  its  own  internal  constitution,  the  su- 
perlative importance  and  excellence  of  Christianity, 
that  it  would  be  exceedingly  criminal  to  overlook 
them. 

How  sin  may  be  forgiven  without  leading  to  such 
misconceptions  of  the  Divine  character  as  would  en- 
courage disobedience,  and  thereby  weaken  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Divine  government,  must  be  considered 
as  a  problem  of  very  difficult  solution.  A  government 
which  admitted  no  forgiveness,  would  sink  the  guilty 
to  despair ;  a  government  which  never  punishes  offijnce, 
is  a  contradiction — it  cannot  exist.  Not  to  punish,  is  to 
dissolve  authority ;  to  punish  without  mercy,  is  to  de- 
stroy, and,  where  all  are  guilty,  to  make  the  destruction 
universal.  That  we  cannot  sin  with  impunity,  is  a 
matter  determined.  The  Ruler  of  the  world  is  not 
careless  of  the  conduct  of  his  creatures  ;  for  that  penal 
consequences  are  attached  to  offence,  is  not  a  subject  of 
argument,  but  is  made  evident  li-om  daily  observation 
of  the  events  and  circumstances  of  the  present  life.  It 
is  a  principle  therefore  already  laid  down,  that  the  au- 
thority of  God  must  be  preserved  ;  and  it  ought  to  be 
observed,  that  in  that  kind  of  adminislration  which  re- 
strains evil  by  penalty,  and  encourages  obedience  by 
favour  and  hope,  we  and  all  moral  creatures  are  the 
interested  parties,  and  not  the  DivineGovernor  himself, 
whom,  because  of  his  independent  and  efficient  nature, 
our  transgressions  cannot  injure.  The  reasons,  there- 
fore, which  compel  him  to  maintain  his  authority,  do  not 
terminate  in  himself.  If  he  becomes  a  party  against 
offenders,  it  is  for  our  sake,  and  for  the  sake  of  the 
moral  order  of  the  universe,  to  which  sin,  if  encouraged 
by  a  negligent  administration,  and  by  entire  or  frequent 
impunity,  would  be  the  source  of  endless  disorder  and 
misery :  and  if  the  granting  of  pardon  to  offence  be 
strongly  and  even  severely  guarded,  we  are  to  refer  it 
to  the  moral  necessit.y  of  the  case  as  arising  out  of  the 
general  welfare  of  accountable  crealures,  liable  to  the 
deep  evil  of  sin,  and  not  to  any  reluctance  on  the  part 
of  our  Maker  to  forgive,  m.uch  less  lo  any  thing  vin- 
dictive in  his  nature, — charges  which  have  been  most 
inconsiderately  and  unfairly  brought  against  the  Chris- 
tian doctrine  of  Christ's  vi(  arious  sufl'erings.  If  it  then 
be  true,  that  the  relief  of  oflendiiig  man  from  fuitiro 


82 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  L 


punishment,  and  his  restoration  to  the  Divine  favour, 
ought,  lor  the  interests  of  mankind  themselves,  and  for 
the  instruction  uiul  caution  of  other  beings,  to  be  so 
bestowed,  that  no  license  sluiU  be  given  to  offence ;  that 
God  himself,  while  he  manifests  his  compassion,  should 
not  appear  less  just,  less  holy,  than  the  0iaintenancc 
of  an  elhcieiit  and  even  awful  authority  demands ;  that 
his  cominaads  shall  be  Celt  to  be  as  compelling,  and  that 
disobedience  shall  as  truly,  though  not  so  uncondi- 
tionally, subject  us  to  the  deserved  penalty,  as  though 
no  hope  of  forgiveness  had  been  exhibited,  we  ask,  on 
■what  scheme,  save  that  which  is  developed  in  the  New 
Testament,  these  necessary  conditions  are  provided 
fori  Necessary  they  are,  unless  we  contend  for  a 
license  and  an  impmiity  which  shall  annul  the  efficient 
control  of  the  universe,  a  point  which  no  reasonable 
man  will  contend  for;  and  if  not,  then  he  must  allow 
an  internal  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  of 
Scripture,  which  makes  the  offer  of  pardon  consequent 
only  upon  the  securities  we  have  before  mentioned.  If 
it  be  said,  that  sin  may  be  pardoned  in  the  exercise  of 
the  Divine  jirerogative,  the  reply  is,  that  if  tliis  preroga- 
tive were  exercised  towards  a  part  of  mankind  only, 
the  passing  by  of  the  others  would  be  with  difficulty 
reconciled  to  the  Divine  character ;  and  if  the  benefit 
were  extended  to  all,  government  would  be  at  an  end. 
This  scheme  of  bringing  men  within  the  exercise  of 
mercy  does  not  therefore  meet  the  obvious  difficulty  of 
the  case ;  nor  is  it  improvetl  by  confining  the  act  of  grace 
only  to  repentant  criminals.  For  in  the  immediate  view 
of  danger,  what  ortL'uder,  surrounded  with  the  wreck 
of  former  enjoyments,  feeling  the  vanity  of  guilty 
pleasures,  now  past  for  ever,  and  beholding  the  approach 
of  the  delayed  but  threatened  penal  visitation,  but 
would  repent?  Were  this  principle  to  regulate  human 
governments,  every  criminal  would  escajie,  and  jurhcial 
iimns  would  become  a  subject  for  ridicule.  Nor  is  it 
I  lie  principle  which  the  Divine  Being  in  his  conduct  to 
ni^'u  in  the  present  state  acts  upon,  though  in  this  world 
l>unishments  are  not  final  and  absolute.  Repentance 
doss  not  restore  health  injured  by  intemperance,  pro- 
perty wasted  by  jirofusiou,  or  character  once  stained 
hy  dishonourable  practices.  If  repentance  alone  can 
secure  pardon,  then  all  must  be  pardoned,  and  govern- 
ment dissolved,  as  in  the  case  of  forgiveness  by  the 
exercise  of  mere  prerogative ;  if  a  selection  be  made, 
then  different  and  discordant  principles  of  government 
are  introduced  into  the  Divine  administration,  wliich  is 
a  derogatory  supiwsition. 

To  avoid  llio  force  of  these  obvious  diineuUiea,  some 
have  added  reformation  to  repentance,  and  would 
restrain  forgiveness  to  those  only  who  to  their  penitence 
add  a  course  of  future  obedience  to  the  Divine  law.  In 
this  opinion,  a  concession  of  importance  is  made  in 
favour  of  the  doctrine  of  Atonement  as  stated  in  the 
Scriptures.  For  we  ask,  why  an  act  of  grace  should 
be  thus  restricted  .'  Is  not  the  only  rea.son  this,  that 
every  one  sees,  that  to  pardon  offence  either  on  mere 
prerogative,  or  on  the  condition  of  rejienlance,  would 
annuf  every  penalty,  and  conseciuently  encourage  vice  ? 
The  prim-iple  assuini!d  then  is,  that  vice  ought  not  to  be 
encouraged  by  an  unguarded  exercise  of  the  Divine 
Mercy;  that  the  autlionty  of  government  ought  to  be 
upheld;  that  Almighty  V.M  ought  not  to  appear  indif- 
ferent to  human  actions,  nor  otherwise  than  as  a  Cod 
"  haliiis;  inir/ailij"  and  "  hn'/ii ^  rii:kle'»isnrs!.<!."  Now, 
precisi^ly  on  these  principles  does  the  (  Uuistian  doctrine 
of  Atonement  rest.  It  carric's  theui  higher;  it  leaches 
that  other  means  have  been  adopted  to  secure  the  object ; 
but  the  ends  pro(iosed  are  the  same  ;  and  thus  to  the 
■principle  on  which  that  great  doctrine  rests,  the  objector 
can  take  no  excei)tioii— that  point  he  has  surrendered, 
and  must  confine  himself  to  a  comparison  of  the  effi- 
ciency of  the  respective  modes,  by  which  the  purjioses 
of  moral  government  nr.iy  be  answered  in  the  exercise 
of  inercy  to  the  guilty,  in  his  own  system,  and  in 
that  of  Christianity.  We  shall  not,  in  order  toi)rove 
"  tlu  wmd'im''  as  well  as  the  grace  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Bible  on  this  subject,  press  our  ojiponent  with 
the  fact,  important  as  it  is,  that  m  the  light  vouch- 
safed unto  us  into  the  rules  of  the  gdvcrnim'ut  of  (Jod 
over  men  with  reference  to  the  pnwent  si.ue  merely,  we 
see  no  reason  to  conclude  any  thing  with  certninty  as 
to  the  efficacy  of  reformation.  A  change  of  conduct 
does  not,  any  more  than  repentanc(%  repair  the  mis- 
chiefs of  former  misconduct.  F.ven  the  sobriety  of  tlie 
reformed  mail  does  not  always  restore  health ;  and  the 


industry  and  economy  of  the  fbrmcrly  negligent  and 
wasteful  repair  not  the  losses  of  extravagance.  Nor 
is  it  necessary  to  dwell  u])on  the  consideration  whicti 
this  theory  involves  as  to  all  the  principles  of  govern- 
ment established  among  men,  which  in  flagrant  ca.ses 
never  suspend  punishment  in  anticipation  of  a  change 
of  conduct ;  but  which  in  the  infliction  of  penalty  look 
steadily  to  the  crime  actually  committed,  and  to  the  ne- 
cessity of  vindicating  the  violated  majesty  of  the  laws. 
The  argument  might  indeed  be  left  here;  but  we  go 
farther  and  show,  that  the  reformation  anticipated  is 
ideal,  because  it  is  impracticable. 

To  make  this  clear,  it  must  be  recollected,  that  they 
who  oppose  this  theory  of  human  reconciliation  toOod, 
to  that  of  the  Scriptures,  leave  out  of  it,  not  only  the 
vicarious  sacrihce  of  Christ,  but  other  important  doc- 
trines; and  esiiecially  that  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
which  awakens  the  thoughtless  to  consideration,  and 
prompts  and  assists  their  eiforts  to  attain  a  higlicr  cha- 
racter, and  to  commence  a  new  course  of  conduct. 
Man  is  therefore  left,  unassisted  and  uninfluenced,  to 
his  own  endeavours,  and  in  the  peculiar  unalleviated 
circumstances  of  his  actual  moral  state.  What  that 
state  is,  we  have  already  seen.  It  has  been  argued,  that 
nothing  can  account  for  the  iiractical  corruption  of  man- 
kind, but  a  moral  faint  in  our  hearts,  a  propensity  of 
nature  to  evil  and  not  to  good ;  and  that  every  other 
mode  of  accounting  for  the  moral  phenomena  which 
the  history  of  man  and  daily  experience  present,  is 
inconclusive  and  contradictory.  How,  then,  is  this  sup- 
posed reformation  to  conunence  ?  We  do  not  say,  the 
exchange  of  one  vice  for  another,  that  specious  kind  oS 
reformation  by  which  many  are  deceived,  for  the  ob- 
jector ought  to  have  the  credit  of  intending  a  reformation 
which  implies  love  to  the  purity  of  the  Divine  com- 
mands; cordial  respect  for  the  authority  of  our  Maker ; 
and  not  partial,  but  univcr.sal,  obedience.  But  if  the 
natural  unchecked  disposition  of  the  mind  is  to  evil, 
and  supernatural  assistance  be  disallowed,  '^  who  can 
l/riiii(  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean?"  To  natural 
propension  we  arc  also  to  add,  in  this  case,  as  reforina- 
titm  is  the  matter  in  question,  the  power  of  habit,  pro- 
verbially dilHcult  to  break,  though  man  is  not  in  fact  in 
the  unassisted  condition  which  the  error  now  opposed 
supposes.  The  whole  of  this  theory  assumes  liuman 
nature  to  be  what  is  is  not ;  and  a  delusive  conclusion 
must,  therefore,  necessarily  result.  If  man  be  totally 
corrupt,  the  only  principles  from  which  reformation  can 
proceed  do  not  e.xist  in  liis  ;;ature  ;  and  if  we  allow  no 
more  than  that  the  propensity  to  evil  in  him  is  stronger 
than  the  propensity  to  s;ood,  it  is  absurd  tosuppo.se,  that  in 
opposing  propensities  the  weakest  should  resist  the  most 
powerful, — that  the  stream  of  the  ri\Tjlet  should  force 
its  way  against  tlie  tides  of  the  ocean.  The  reformation, 
therefore,  wliich  is  to  atone  for  his  vices,  is  tmpracf  icable. 

The  ijuesiion  proposed  abstractedly,  How  may  mercy 
be  extendeil  to  offending  creatures,  the  subjects  of  the 
Divine  goveriimeiit,  witliont  encouraging  vice,  by 
lowering  the  rigiiteous  and  holy  character  of  Cod,  and 
tlie  authority  of  his  government,  in  the  maintenance  of 
which  the  whole  universe  of  beings  are  interested?  is 
therefore  at  once  one  of  the  most  imjiortant  and  one  of 
the  most  difUcult  wliich  can  employ  the  human  mind. 
None  of  the  theories  which  have  been  opposed  to  Chris- 
tianity, alfovd  a  satisfactory  solution  of  the  problem. 
Thi'y  assume  principles  either  destructive  to  moral  go- 
vernment, or  which  cannot,  in  the  circumstajices  of 
man,  be  acted  upon.  The  only  answer  is  fomid  in  the 
Holy  Scnptiu-es.  They  alone  show,  and  indeed  they 
alone  ;)ro/('4.<  to  show,  how  God  may  be  ;u.f<,  and  yet 
the  ju.slitUr  of  the  ungodly.  Other  schemes  show  how 
he  n'lay  tie  nuTciful ;  but  the  ditliculty  does  not  lie  there. 
This  meets  it,  b_\  declaring  "  Hie  risliteousness  of  God," 
at  the  same  tii'ne  that  it  proclaims  his  mercy.  The 
voluntary  sufferings  of  an  incarnate  Divine  persoOi 
"■for  vs,"  in  our  room  and  stead,  magnify  the  justice 
of  God;  display  his  hatred  to  sin;  proclaim  "tkcex- 
cei'dini^  sinfulness'''  of  transgression,  by  the  deep  and 
liaininl  suilerings  of  the  sub.stitute  ;  warn  the  perse- 
vering ofliender  of  the  terribleness  as  well  as  the  cer- 
tainty of  his  punishment ;  and  open  the  gates  of  salva- 
tion t'o  every  penitent.  It  is  a  part  of  the  same  Divine 
plan  to  engage  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to 
awaken  that  penitence,  and  to  lead  the  wandering  soul 
back  to  himself;  to  renew  the  fallen  nature  of  man  in 
righteousness,  at  the  moment  he  is  justified,  through 
faith,  and  to  i>lace  him  in  circumstances  iu  whichhc  may 


Chap.  XIX.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


83 


henceforth  "walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the 
Spirit."  All  the  ends  of  government  are  here  answered. 
No  license  is  given  to  offonce ;  the  moral  law  is  unre- 
pealed ;  the  day  of  judgment  is  still  appointed  ;  future 
and  eternal  punishmeuis  still  display  their  awful  sanc- 
tions ;  a  new  and  sinsular  disjilay  of  the  awful  purity 
of  the  Divine  character  is  afforded ;  yet  pardon  is 
offered  to  all  who  seek  it ;  and  the  whole  world  may  be 
saved ! 

With  such  evidence  of  suitableness  to  the  case 
of  mankind  ;  under  such  lofty  views  of  connexion  with 
the  principles  and  ends  of  moral  govenimeut,  does  the 
doctrine  of  the  Atonkment  present  itself.  But  other 
important  considerations  are  not  wanting,  to  mark  the 
united  wisdom  and  goodness  of  that  method  of  extend- 
ing mercy  to  the  guilty,  which  Christianity  teaches  us 
to  have  been  actually  and  exclusively  adopted.  It  is 
rendered  indeed  "  worthy  of  all  acciptation"  by  the  cir- 
cumstance of  its  meeting  the  difhculties  we  have  just 
dwelt  upon, — difficulties  which  could  not  otherwise 
have  failed  to  make  a  gloomy  impression  upon  every 
offender  awakened  to  a  sense  of  his  spiritual  danger; 
but  it  must  be  very  inattentively  considered,  if  it  does 
not  farther  commend  itself  to  us,  by  not  only  removing 
the  apprehensions  we  might  feel  as  to  the  justice  of  the 
Divine  Lawgiver,  but  as  exalting  him  in  our  esteem  as 
"  the  righteous  Lord,  who  lovcth  righteousness,'''  who 
surrendered  his  beloved  Son  to  siilFering  and  death, 
that  the  influence  of  moral  goodness  might  not  be 
weakened  in  the  hearts  of  his  creatures — as  a  God  of 
love,  affording  in  tliis  instance  a  viewof  tlie  tenderness 
and  benignity  of  his  nature  infinitely  more  impressive 
and  affecting  than  any  abstract  description  could  con- 
vey, or  than  any  act  of  creating  and  providential  power 
and  grace  could  furnish,  and  therefore  most  suitable  to 
subdue  that  enmity  which  had  uniuiturally  grown  up 
in  the  hearts  of  his  creatures,  and  which,  when  corrupt, 
they  so  easily  transfer  from  a  law  which  restrains  their 
inclination  to  the  Lawgiver  himself.  If  it  be  important 
to  us  to  know  the  extent  and  reality  of  our  danger,  by 
the  death  of  Christ  it  is  displayed,  not  hi  description, 
but  in  the  most  impressive  action ;  if  it  be  important 
that  we  should  have  assurance  of  the  Divine  placa- 
bility towards  us,  it  here  received  a  demonstration  inca- 
pable of  greater  certainty :  if  gratitude  is  the  most  pow- 
erful motive  of  future  obedience,  and  one  which  renders 
command  on  the  one  part,  and  active  service  on  the 
other,  "  7iot  grievous  but  joyous,"  the  recollection  of 
such  obligations  as  the  "  love  of  Christ"  has  laid  us  un- 
der, is  a  perpetual  spring  to  this  energetic  affection, 
and  will  be  the  means  of  raising  it  to  higher  and  more 
delightful  activity  for  ever.  All  that  can  most  power- 
fully illustrate  the  united  tenderness  and  awful  majesty 
of  God,  and  the  odiousness  of  sin ;  all  that  can  win 
back  the  heart  of  man  to  his  Maker  and  Lord,  and  ren- 
der future  obedience  a  matter  of  affection  and  delight  as 
well  as  duty ;  all  that  can  extinguish  the  angry  and 
malignant  pas.sions  of  man  toman  ;  all  that  can  inspire 
a  mutual  benevolence,  and  dispose  to  a  self-denying 
charity  for  the  benefit  of  others  ;  all  that  can  arouse  by 
hope,  or  tranquillize  by  faith,  is  to  be  found  in  the  vica- 
rious death  of  Christ,  and  the  principles  and  purposes 
for  which  it  was  endured. 

"  Ancieiu  history  tells  us  of  a  certain  king  who  made 
a  law  against  adultery,  in  which  it  was  enacted  that 
the  offender  should  be  punished  by  the  loss  of  both 
eyes.  The  very  first  offender  was  his  own  son.  The 
case  was  most  distressing;  for  the  king  was  an  affec- 
tionate father,  as  well  as  a  just  magistrate.  After 
much  deliberation  and  inward  struggle,  he  finally  com- 
manded one  of  his  own  eyes  to  be  imlled  out  and  one 
of  his  son's.  It  is  easier  to  conceive  than  to  describe 
what  must  have  been  the  feelings  of  the  son  in  these 
most  affecting  circumstances.  His  offence  would  ap- 
pear to  him  in  a  new  light ;  it  would  appear  to  him  not 
simply  as  connected  with  jiainful  consequences  to  him- 
self, but  as  the  cause  of  a  father's  sufferings,  and  as  an 
Injury  to  a  father's  love.  If  the  king  had  passed  over 
the  law  altogether,  in  his  son's  favour,  he  would  have 
exhibited  no  regard  for  justice,  and  he  would  have  given 
a  very  inferior  proof  of  affection. 

"  If  we  suppose  that  the  happiness  of  the  young  man's 
life  depended  on  the  eradication  of  this  criminal  propen- 
sity, it  is  not  easy  to  imagine  how  the  king  could  more 
•wisely  or  more  eflectually  have  promoted  this  benevo- 
lent object.  The  action  was  not  simply  a  correct  repre- 
sentation of  the  king's  character,— it  also  contained  in 
F2 


itself  an  appeal  most  correctly  adapted  to  the  feelings 
of  the  criminal.  It  justified  the  king  in  the  exercise  of 
clemency;  it  tranquillized  the  son's  mind,  as  being  a 
pledge  of  the  reality  and  sincerity  ofhis  falher's  gracious 
purposes  towards  him ;  and  it  identified  the  object  of 
his  esteem  with  the  object  of  his  gratitude.  Mere  gra- 
titude, unattracted  by  an  object  of  moral  worth,  could 
never  have  stamped  an  impression  of  moral  worth  on 
his  character;  which  was  his  father's  ultimate  design. 
We  might  suppose  the  existence  of  tliis  same  character 
without  its  producing  such  an  action ;  we  might  sup- 
pose a  conllict  of  contending  feelings  to  be  carried  on  in 
the  mind  without  evidencing,  in  the  conduct  flowing 
from  it,  the  Ihll  vehemence  of  the  confhct,  or  defining 
the  adjustment  of  the  contending  feelings ;  but  we  can- 
not suppose  any  mode  of  conduct  so  admirably  litteil  to 
impress  the  stamp  of  the  father's  character  on  the  mind 
of  the  son,  or  to  associate  the  love  of  right  and  the  ab- 
horrence of  wrong  with  the  most  powerful  instincts  of 
the  heart.  The  old  man  not  only  wished  to  act  in  per- 
fect consistency  with  his  own  views  of  duty,  but  also 
to  produce  a  salutary  effect  on  the  mind  ofhis  son ;  and 
it  is  the  full  and  efl'cctual  union  of  these  two  objects 
which  forms  the  most  beautiful  and  striking  part  of  tliis 
remarkable  history. 

"  There  is  a  singular  resemblance  between  this  moral 
exhibition  and  the  communication  which  God  has  been 
pleased  to  make  of  himself  in  the  Gospel.  We  cannot 
but  love  and  admire  the  character  of  this  excellent 
prince,  although  we  ourselves  have  no  direct  interest  in 
it ;  and  shall  we  refuse  our  love  and  admiration  to  the 
King  and  Father  of  the  human  race,  who,  with  a  kind- 
ness and  condescension  unutterablej  has,  in  calling  his 
wandering  children  to  return  to  duty  and  to happniess, 
presented  to  each  of  us  a  like  aspect  of  tenderness  and 
purity,  and  made  use  of  an  argument  which  makes  the 
most  direct  and  irresistible  ajipeal  to  Ihe  most  familiar, 
and  at  the  same  time  the  most  powerful  principles  in 
the  heart  of  man  1 

"  A  pardon  without  a  sacrifice  could  have  made  but 
a  weak  and  obscure  appeal  to  the  understanding  or  the 
heart.  It  could  not  have  demonstrated  the  evil  of  sin ; 
it  could  not  have  demonstrated  the  graciousness  of  God ; 
and  therefore  it  could  not  have  led  man  either  to  hate 
sin  or  to  love  God.  If  the  punishment  as  well  as  the 
criminality  of  sin  consists  in  an  opposition  to  the  cha- 
racter of  God,  the  fullest  pardon  must  be  perfectly  use- 
less, while  this  ojiposition  remains  in  the  heart ;  arid  the 
substantial  usefulness  of  the  pardon  will  depend  upon 
its  being  connected  whh  such  circumstances  as  may 
have  a  natural  and  powerful  tendency  to  remove  this 
opposition,  and  create  a  resemblance.  The  pardon  of 
the  Gospel  is  connected  with  such  circumstances;  for 
the  sacrifice  of  Christ  has  associated  sin  with  the  blood 
of  a  benefactor,  as  well  as  with  our  own  personal  suf- 
ferings,— and  obedience  with  the  dying  entreaty  of  a 
friend  breathing  out  a  tortured  life  for  us,  as  well  as 
with  our  own  unending  glory  in  his  blessed  society. 
This  act,  like  that  in  the  preceding  illustration,  justifies 
God  as  a  lawgiver  in  dispensing  mercy  to  the  guilty; 
it  gives  a  jiledge  of  the  sincerity  and  reality  of  that 
mercy;  and  by  associating  principle  with  mercy,  it 
identifies  the  object  of  gratitude  with  the  object  of  es- 
teem, in  the  heart  of  the  Kinner."(9) 

Inseparably  connected  with  the  great  doctrine  of 
Atonement,  and  adapted  to  the  new  circumstances  of 
trial  in  which  the  human  race  was  placed  in  conse- 
quence of  the  lapse  of  our  first  parents,  is  the  doctrine 
of  the  Influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  this,  though 
supposed  by  many  to  be  farthest  removed  from  rational 


(9)  "  Remarks  on  the  Internal  Evidence  of  the  Truth 
of  Revealed  Religion,  by  Thcjmas  Ehskink,  Esq." — 
This  ]iopular  and  interesting  volume  contains  many 
very  striking,  just,  and  eloquent  remarks  in  illustration 
of  the  Internal  Evidence  of  several  doctrines  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  especially  of  that  of  the  Atonement.  It 
is  to  be  regretted,  however,  that  it  sets  out  from  a  false 
principle,  and  builds  so  much  truth  upon  the  sand. 
"  The  sense  of  moral  obligation  is  the  standard  to  which 
reason  instructs  man  to  adjust  his  system  of  natural 
religion,"  and  this  is  "the  test  by  which  he  is  to  try  all 
pretensions  to  religion."  The  i)rinciple  of  the  book, 
therefore,  is  to  show  the  excellence  of  Christianity  from 
its  imbodying  the  abstract  principles  of  natural  religion 
in  intelligible  and  palpable  action— a  gratuitous  and  un- 
substantial fbiuidation. 


84 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  L 


evidence,  can  neither  be  opposed  by  any  satisfactory  ar- 
gument, nor  is  witliout  an  obvious  reasonableness. 

The  Scriptures  represent  man  in  the  present  slate  as 
subject  not  only  to  various  sensible  cxclleinents  to  trans- 
cession  ;  and  as  influenced  to  resist  temptation  by  the 
kiiowlpdf;e  of  the  Law  of  (;oil  and  its  sanctions,  by  his 
own  sense  of  right  ami  duly,  an<l  by  the  examples  of  the 
evils  of  oflence  which  surround  him;  but  also  as  soli- 
cited to  obedience  by  the  inlluence  of  Ihe  Holy  Spirit, 
and  to  persevering  rebellion  by  the  seductions  of  evil 
spirits. 

This  is  the  doctrine  of  revelation,  and  if  the  evidences 
of  that  revelation  can  be  (hsproved,  it  may  be  rejected  ; 
if  not,  it  must  be  admitted,  whether  any  argumentative 
proof  can  be  offered  in  its  tavour  or  not.  That  it  is  not 
•unreasonable,  may  be  first  established. 

That  Cod,  who  made  us,  and  who  is  a  pure  Spirit, 
cannot  have  inmiediate  access  to  our  thoufrlus,  our 
affections,  and  our  will,  it  would  certainly  be  much 
more  unreasonable  to  deny  than  to  admit ;  and  if  the 
great  and  universal  Spirit  possesses  this  power,  every 
physical  objection  at  least  to  the  doctrine  in  question  is 
removed,  and  Unite  unbodied  spirits  may  have  tltesarne 
kind  of  access  to  the  mind  of  man,  though  not  in  so 
perfect  and  intimate  a  rff^rcc.  Before  any  natural  im- 
possibility can  be  urged  airainst  this  intercourse  of 
spirit  with  sjiirit,  we  must  know  what  no  jihilosopher, 
however  deep  his  researches  into  the  causes  of  the 
phenomena  of  the  mind,  hiis  ever  professed  to  know — 
the  laws  of  ])crce]ition,  memory,  and  association.  We 
can  suagrsi  thoughts  and  reasons  to  each  other,  and 
thus  mulually  inlluence  our  wills  and  affections.  We 
employ  for  this  purpose  the  media  of  signs  and  words  ; 
but  to  contend  that  these  are  the  only  media  tlu-ough 
which  thought  can  be  conveyed  to  thought,  or  that  spi- 
ritual beings  cannot  produce  the  same  effects  im/nedi- 
aleiy,\s  to  found  an  objection  wholly  uiranour  ignorance. 
All  the  reason  which  the  case,  considered  in  itself, 
adbrds,  is  certainly  in  favour  of  tiiis  opinion.  We  have 
access  to  each  other's  minds ;  Hie  can  suggest  thoughts, 
raise  affections,  influence  ihe  wills  of  others ;  and  ana- 
logy therefore  favours  the  conclusion,  that,  though  by 
dilTerent  and  latent  means,  unbodied  spirits  liave  the 
same  access  to  each  other,  and  to  us. 

If  no  physical  impossibility  lies  against  this  repre- 
sentation of  the  circumstances  of  our  ])rohation,  no 
Tnnral  reason  certainly  can  be  urged  against  the  prin- 
cipleitself,  which  makes  us  liable  to  the  contrary  soli- 
citations of  other  beings.  That  God  our  heavenly  Fa- 
ther should  be  solicitous  Ibr  our  welfare,  is  surely  to 
be  admitted  ;  and  that  there  may  be  invisible  beings 
■who  are  anxious,  from  various  motives,  some  of  which 
may  be  conceived,  and  others  are  unknown,  to  entice 
us  to  evil,  is  made  probable  by  this,  that  among  men, 
every  vicious  character  seeks  a  fellowship  in  his  vices, 
and  employs  various  arts  of  seduction,  even  when  he 
has  no  interest  in  success,  that  he  may  not  be  left  to 
em  alone.  In  point  of  fact,  we  see  this  princi])le  of 
moral  trial  in  constant  ojMjration  with  resjiect  to  our 
lellow-crtalures.  Who  is  not  counselled  and  warned 
and  entreated  by  Ihe  good  ?  Wno  is  not  invited  to 
oireiicc  by  the  wicked  !  What  are  all  the  instructive, 
enligliteiiiiig,  and  intlueiitial  institulions  which  good 
and  iH'iicvoleiit  men  establish  and  conduct,  but  means 
by  which  olliers  may  be  drawn  and  inlluenied  to  what 
is  right  7  and  what  are  all  the  eslalilisUmcnts  and  ih'- 
vices  to  multiply  the  gratifications  and  ]>l(asurcs  of 
mankind,  but  means  emplojcd  by  others  to  encourage 
religious  trilling,  and  inriill'erence  to  things  devout  and 
spiritual,  and  often  to  seduce  to  vice  in  its  grossest 
forms  .'  The  principle  is  therefore  ui  manifest  opera- 
tion, and  he  who  would  except  to  this  doctrine  of 
Scripture,  must  also  except  to  the  Divine  government, 
as  it  is  manifested  in  ihe  facts  of  experience,  and  which 
clearly  makes  it  a  circumstance  of  our  probation  in  this 
world,  that  our  opinions,  alfeclions,  and  wills  should 
be  subject  to  the  influence  of  others,  both  for  good 
and  evil. 

By  reference  to  this  fact,  wo  may  also  show  the  fu- 
tility of  the  objection  to  Ihe  doctrine  of  supernatural 
influence,  which  is  drawn  from  the  free  agencj  of 
man.  The  Scrii)turcs  do  not  teach  that  supernatural 
influence,  either  good  or  bad,  deslroys  our  freedom  and 
cccountability.  How  then,  it  is  asked,  is  the  one  to  be 
reconciled  with  the  other  ?  The  answer  is,  that  we 
are  sure  they  are  not  incompatible,  because,  though  we 
may  bo  atiougly  iullueuced  and  solicited  to  good  or  evU 


conduct  by  virtuous  or  viciou.s  persons ;  though  they 
may  enforce  their  resjiective  wishes  by  arguments,  or 
persuasions,  or  hopes,  or  tears;  though  Uiey  may  care- 
fully lead  us  into  circumstances  which  may  be  most 
calculated  to  undennine  or  lo  corroborate  virtuous  reso- 
lutions ;  we  are  yet  conscious  that  we  are  at  liberty 
either  to  yield  or  to  resist ;  and  on  this  consciousness, 
equally  common  to  all,  is  founded  that  common  judg- 
ment of  the  conduct  of  those  who,  though  carefully 
well  advised,  or  assiduously  seduced,  are  always  ircated 
as  free  agents  in  public  opinion,  and  praisi-d  or  cen- 
sured accordingly.  The  case  is  the  same  where  (he 
inlluence  is  supernatural,  only  the  mannerin  which  it  la 
applied  is  dillerent.  In  one  ii  operates  upon  the  springs 
which  most  powerfully  move  the  will  and  atlectiona 
from  without,  in  the  other  it  is  more  inmuuhately  from 
within ;  but  in  neither  case  is  it  to  be  supposed  that 
any  other  beings  can  will  or  choose  for  us.  The  modus 
o])traiidi  in  both  cases  may  be  inexplicable ;  but  wltile 
the  power  of  influencing  our  choice  may  belong  to 
others,  the  power  of  choosing  is  exclusively  and  neces- 
sarily our  own. 

Since,  therefore,  no  reason  physical  w  moral  can  be 
urged  against  the  doctrine  of  IJIvine  inlluence ;  since 
the  principle  on  which  it  is  founded,  as  a  circumstance 
in  our  trial  on  earth,  is  found  to  accord  entirely  with 
the  actual  arrangements  of  the  Divine  government  in 
other  cases,  every  thing  is  removed  wliich  might  ob- 
struct our  view  of  the  excellence  of  this  encouraging 
tenet  of  Divine  Revelation.  The  moral  helpless- 
ness of  man  has  been  universally  felt,  and  universally 
acknowledged.  To  see  the  good  and  to  follow  the  evil, 
has  been  the  complaint  of  all;  and  precisely  to  such  a 
state  is  the  doctrine  of  Divine  Influence  adapted.  As 
the  Atonement  of  Christ  stoojis  to  the  judicial  destitu- 
tioriof  man,  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit  meets  the 
case  of  his  moral  dcstin/tion.  One  finds  him  without 
any  ;Ti<,ans  of  satisfying  the  claims  of  justice,  so  as  to 
c.xeniiJt  iiim  from  punishment ;  the  other,  without  the 
'  iclination  or  the  strength  to  avail  himself  even  of  pro- 
claimed clemency,  and  offered  pardon,  and  becomes 
tlie  means  of  awakening  his  vidgment,  and  exciting, 
and  assisting,  and  crowning  his  efforts  to  obtain  that 
boon,  and  its  consequent  bles:'ings.  The  one  relieves 
him  from  the  penally,  the  other  from  the  disease  of 
sin  ;  the  former  restores  to  man  the  favour  of  God,  Ibo 
other  renews  him  in  his  image. 

To  this  eminent  orfn;)^i/(V/«  of  the  doctrine  to  the  con- 
dition of  man,  we  may  adil  the  affecting  view  which  it 
uiilblds  of  the  Divine  Character.  That  tenderness  and 
compassion  of  God  to  his  offending  creatures  ;  that  re- 
luctance that  they  should  perish ;  that  Divine  and 
sympathizing  anxiety,  so  lo  speak,  to  accomplish  Iheir 
salvation,  which  were  disi)layed  by  "Wf  cross  o/"l'Ar;>7," 
are  herein  continued  in  active  manifestation.  A  Divine 
agent  is  seen  "  seeking,''  in  order  that  he  may  save, 
^^  that  rvkich  is  lost ;'''  following  the  "lost  sheep  into 
thcwilderness,"  that  he  may  "  lirin^  it  home  rejoicing ;'' 
delighting  to  testify  of  Christ,  bccau.se  of  Ihe  salvation 
he  has  procured  ;  lo  acconi])any  with  his  influence  his 
written  revelation,  because  that  alon<;  contains  "  words 
III  which  men  may  be  saved;'  affording  special  a.ssist- 
ancc  to  ministers,  because  they  are  the  messengers  of 
God  proclaiming  peace;  and,  in  a  word,  knocking  at 
ihc  door  of  human  hearts;  arousing  the  conscience; 
calling  liirtli  spiritual  desires;  opening  the  eyes  of  the 
mind  more  clearly  to  discern  ihe  meaning  and  applica- 
tion of  tlic^  revealed  word  ;  and  mollifying  Ihe  heart  to 
receive  its  effectual  im()ression  : — doing  tins  loo  without 
respect  of  persons,  and  making  it  his  special  olUcc  and 
work  to  convince  the  mistaken;  to  awaken  the  Indif- 
ferent;  lo  comfort  the  penitent  and  liuinlile ;  lo  plant 
and  foster  and  bring  to  maturity  in  ihe  hearts  of  the 
obedient  every  grace  and  virtue.  These  are  views  of 
GoJ  which  we  could  not  have  had  but  lor  this  doc- 
trine ;  and  Ihe  obvious  tendency  of  them  Is,  lo  fill  the 
heart  wuh  gratitude  for  a  condescension  so  wonder- 
ful ."'id  a  solicitude  so  tender;  to  impress  us  with  a 
deep  conviction  of  the  value  of  renewed  habits,  since 
(iod  himself  stoops  to  work  them  In  us ;  and  lo  admo- 
nish us  of  the  Itifniile  Importance  of  a  peL-ional  ex|ie- 
rience  ol'  tin-  benertts  of  Clirisi's  death,  since  Ihe  means 
of  our  pardon  and  sanclificaiion  unapplied  can  avail  us 
noiliing. 

We  may  add  (and  it  is  no  feeble  argument  in  favour 
of  the  excellence  of  Ibis  braiich  of  Clirislian  doclrme), 
that  we  are  tbcrvby  oucouragcd  to  aspiro  aftex  a  loftier 


Chap.  XIX.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


85 


cliaracter  of  moral  pnrity,  and  a  more  perfect  state  of 
virtue;  as  well  as  to  entragc  in  more  ditficult  duties. 
Were  wc  left  wlioUy  to  our  own  resources,  wo  slioultl 
despair  ;  and  ptsrliaps  it  is  exactly  in  proportioTi  to  the 
degree  in  which  this  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  ap- 
prehended by  those  who  truly  receive  Christianity,  that 
they  advance  the  standard  of  possible  moral  attainment. 
That  God  should  "  work  in  us  to  will  and  tt>  do  of  his 
good  pleasure,"  is  a  reason  why  we  should  "  ii^ork  out 
our  own  salvation  ivithfear  and  tremUing ;"  lor  as  our 
freedom  is  not  destroyed,  as  even  the  Spirit  may  be 
*'  grieved"  and  "  Quenched,"  our  fall  would  be  unspeak- 
ably au'sravated  by  our  advantages.  But  the  operation 
of  God  within  us  is  also  a  motive  to  the  working  our 
salvation  "  out," — to  the  perfecting  of  our  sanctifica- 
tion  even  to  eternal  life.  None  c.an  despair  of  conquer- 
ing any  evil  habit,  who  steadily  look  to  this  great  doo- 
tnne  and  cordially  embrace  it;  noi.e  can  despair  of 
being  fully  renewed  again  in  the  image  of  God,  when 
they  know  that  it  is  one  of  the  offices  ot'  tlie  Holy  Spirit 
to  effect  this  renovation ;  and  none  who  habitually  rest 
upon  the  promise  of  God,  (or  all  that  assistance  which 
the  written  word  warrants  them  to  e.xpect  in  difficult 
and  painfiU  duties,  and  in  those  generous  enterprises 
for  the  benefit  of  others  which  a  hallowed  zeal  may 
Jead  them  to  engage  in,  will  be  discouraged  in  either. 
"  III  the  name  of  God,"  such  persons  have  in  all  ages 
"  lifted  up  their  banners,''  and  have  thus  been  elevated 
into  a  decision,  a  boldness,  an  enterprise,  a  perseve- 
rance, which  no  other  consideration  or  trust  could  in- 
spire. Such  are  the  practical  effects  of  this  doctrine. 
It  prompts  to  attainments  in  inward  sanctity  and  out- 
ward virtue,  which  U  would  have  been  chimerical  to 
consider  possible,  but  for  the  aid  of  a  Divine  influence; 
and  it  leads  to  exertion  for  the  benefit  ot  others,  the 
success  of  which  would  otherwise  be  too  doubtful  to 
encourage  the  undertaking. 

It  would  be  easy  to  adduce  many  other  doctrines  of 
our  religion,  which,  from  their  obvious  excellence  and 
correspondence  with  the  experience  and  circumstances 
of  mankind,  furnish  much  interesting  internal  evi- 
dence in  favour  of  its  divinity ;  but  as  this  would 
greatly  exceed  the  limits  of  a  chapter,  and  as  those  doc- 
trmes  have  been  considered  against  which  the  most 
strenuous  objections  from  pretended  rational  principles 
have  been  urged ;  the  moral  state  and  condition  of 
man ;  the  atonement  made  by  the  death  of  Christ  for 
the  sins  of  the  vforld  ;  and  the  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,— it  may  have  been  sufficient  for  the  argument  to 
have  shown  that  even  such  doctrines  are  accompanied 
■with  important  and  interesting  reasons ;  and  that  they 
powerfully  commend  Christianity  to  universal  ac- 
ceiitaiice.  What  has  been  said  is  to  be  considered 
only  as  a  specimen  of  the  rational  proof  which  accom- 
panies many  of  the  doctrines  of  revelation,  and  which 
a  considerate  mind  may  with  ease  enlarge  by  numerous 
other  instances  drawn  from  its  precepts,  its  promises, 
and  those  future  and  ennobling  hopes  which  it  sets  be- 
fore us.  The  ifonderfal  agreement  in  doctrine  among 
the  writers  of  tlie  numerous  books  of  which  the  Bible 
is  composed,  who  lived  in  ages  very  distant  from  each 
other,  and  wrote  under  circumstances  as  varied  as  can 
well  be  conceived,  may  properly  close  tliis  part  of  the 
internal  evidence.  "  In  all  the  bearings,  parts,  and  de- 
signs of  the  Book  of  God,  we  shall  find  a  most  strik- 
ing harmony,  fitness,  and  adaptation  of  its  component 
parts  to  one  beautiful,  stupendous,  and  united  whole; 
and  that  all  its  parts  unite  and  terminate  in  a  most 
magnificent  exhibition  of  the  glory  of  God,  the  lustre 
of  his  attributes,  the  strict  and  true  perfection  of  his 
moral  government,  the  magnitude  and  extent  of  his 
grace  and  love,  especially  as  manifested  in  the  salva- 
tion and  happiness  of  man,  in  his  recovery  from  moral 
pravity,  and  restoration  to  a  capacity  of  acquiring  hap- 
piness eternal."(l)  Tliis  argument  is  so  justly  and  for- 
cibly expressed  in  the  following  quotation,  as  to  need 
no  farther  elucidation. 

"  The  Sacred  Volume  is  composed  by  a  vast  variety 
of  writers — men  of  every  different  rank  and  condition, 
of  every  diversity  of  character  and  turn  of  mind  ;  the  | 
monarch  and  the  plebeian,  the  illiterate  and  learned, 
the  foremost  in  talent  and  the  moderately  gifted  in  na- 
tural advantages,  the  historian  and  the  legislator,  the 
orator  and  the  poet, — each  has  his  peculiar  province ; 
'  some  prophets,  some  apostles,  some  evangelists,''  living 

(I)  LtOYc'a  HoraB  Theologicae. 


in  ages  remote  from  each  other,  under  diflbrcnt  modes  of 

civil  government,  under  (lilfercnt  dispensations  of  the  Di- 
vine economy,  fillinga  period  of  lime  which  reached  from 
the  first  dawn  of  heavenly  light  to  its  meridian  radi- 
ance. The  Old  Testament  and  the  New,  the  Law  and 
tjie  Gospel;  the  prophets  predicting  events,  and  the 
evangelists  recording  them;  the  doctrinal  yet  didactic 
e])istoiary  writers,  and  he  who  closed  the  sacred  Canoa 
in  the  Apocalyptic  vision;— all  these  furnished  their 
respective  portions,  and  yet  all  tally  with  a  dove-tailed 
correspondence ;  all  the  diflerent  materials  are  joined 
with  a  completeness  the  most  satisfactory,  with  an 
agreement  the  most  incontrovertible. 

'■  Tins  instance  of  uniformity  without  design,  of 
agr.enKnt  without  contrivance ;  this  consistency  main- 
'Ti  '"d  through  a  long  series  of  ages  without  a  possi- 
b'l'ty  of  the  ordinary  methods  for  conducting  such  a 
plan  ;  these  unparalleled  congruities,  these  unexampled 
coincidences,  form  altogether  a  species  of  evidence,  of 
which  there  is  no  other  instance  in  the  history  of  all  the 
other  books  m  the  world. 

"  All  these  variously  gifted  writers  here  enumerated 
concur  in  this  grand  peculiarity, — that  all  have  the 
same  end  in  view ;  all  are  pointnig  to  the  same  object ; 
all,  without  any  projected  collusion,  are  advancing  the 
same  scheme ;  each  brings  in  his  several  contingent 
without  any  apparent  consideration  bow  it  may  unite 
with  the  portions  brought  by  other  contributors,  with- 
out any  spirit  of  accommodation,  without  any  visible 
intention  to  make  out  a  case,  without  indecKl  any  ac- 
tual resemblance,  more  than  that  every  sejiarate  por- 
tion being  derived  from  the  same  spring,  each  must  be 
governed  by  one  common  principle,  and  that  principle 
being  Truth  itself,  must  naturally  and  consentaneously 
produce  assimilation,  conformity,  agreement.  What 
can  we  conclude  from  all  this,  but  what  is  indeed  the 
inevitable  conclusion, — a  conclusion  which  forces  itself 
on  the  mind,  and  compels  the  submission  of  the  under- 
standing;— that  all  this,  under  differences  of  adminis- 
tration, is  the  work  of  one  and  the  same  great  Omni- 
scient and  Eternal  Spirit  .'"(2) 

The  second  branch  of  the  Internal  Evidence  of  tlie 
Scriptures  consists  of  their  moral  tendency,  and  here, 
as  in  doctrine,  the  believer  may  take  the  highest  and 
rno.st  commanding  ground. 

If,  as  to  the  truths  revealed  in  them,  the  before  ''  ini- 
known  God,"  unknown  even  to  the  philosophers  of 
Athens,  has  been  "  declared"  unto  us;  if  the  true  moral 
condition,  dangers,  and  hopes  of  man  have  been  re- 
vealed; if  the  "  kindyiess  and  good-will  of  God  crur 
Saviour  unto  man"  has  ajipeared  ;  if  the  true  propi- 
tiation has  been  disclosed,  and  the  gates  of  salvation 
opened ;  if,  through  the  promised  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  the  renewal  of  our  natures  in  the  image  of  God 
originally  borne  by  man,  the  image  of  his  holiness,  is 
made  possible  to  all  who  seek  it ;  if  we  have,  in  the 
consentaneous  system  of  doctrine  wliich  we  find  in  the 
Scriptures,  every  moral  direction  which  can  safely 
guide,  every  promise  which  can  convey  a  blessing  suit- 
able to  our  condition,  and  every  hope  which  can  at  once 
support  under  suffering,  and  animate  us  to  go  through 
our  course  of  trial  and  aspire  to  the  high  rewards  of 
another  life;  the  moral  influence  of  such  a  system  is  as 
powerful  as  its  revelations  of  doctrine  are  lolly  and 
important. 

One  of  the  most  flagrant  instances  of  that  malignity 
of  heart  with  which  some  infidel  writers  have  assailed 
the  S'^riptures,  and  which,  more  than  any  thing,  shows 
that  : .  is  not  the  want  of  evidence,  but  a  hostility  arising 
from  A  less  credible  source,  which  leads  them,  in  the 
spirit  of  enmity  and  malice,  wilfully  to  libel  what  they 
ought  to  adore, — is,  that  they  have  boldly  as'^ci  led  the 
Bible  to  have  an  immoral  tendency.  For  tins  the  chief 
proof  wliich  they  pretend  to  offer  is,  that  it  records  the 
failings  and  the  vices  of  some  of  the  leading  characters 
in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 

The  fact  is  not  denied :  but  they  suppress  what  is 
equally  true,  that  these  vices  are  never  mentioned  with 
approbation ;  that  the  characters  stained  with  them  are 
not,  in  those  respects,  held  u])  to  our  imitation ;  and  that 
their  frailties  are  recorded  fur  admonition.  They  dwell 
ujion  the  crimes  of  David,  and  sneer  at  his  being  called 
"  a  man  after  God's  own  heart ;"  but  they  suppress  the 
fact,  that  he  was  so  called  long  before  the  commission 
of  those  crimes ;  and  that  he  was  not  at  any  time  de- 

(2)  Mrs.  Morb's  Character  of  St.  PauJL 


86 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Pabt  I. 


clarcj  to  be  acceptable  to  God  with  reference  to  his  pri- 
vate conduct  as  a  man,  but  in  respect  of  his  jiublic  con- 
duct as  a  king.  Nor  do  tliey  state  that  these  crimes 
are,  in  tlic  same  Scriptunis,  represcnte<i  ,as  bcins  tre- 
mendously visited  by  the  displc-iisure  of  the  Aliuislity 
both  in  tlie  life  of  David,  and  in  tlir  fiiuiro  conduion  of 
his  family.  From  sucli  objci'tors  the  Bible  can  sulTer 
notliins,  because  the  injusiice  of  their  attacks  implies 
a  constrained  honiajie  to  the  force  of  truth.  Kven  this 
very  objection  furnishes  so  strong  an  argument  in 
favour  of  the  sincerity  and  honesty  of  the  sacred 
writers,  that  it  confinns  their  credibility  in  that  which 
unbelievers  tltny,  as  well  as  in  those  relations  which 
they  are  glad,  for  a  hostile  purpose,  to  admit.  Had  the 
Scriptures  been  written  by  cunning  impostors,  such 
acknowledgments  of  crimes  and  frailties  in  their  most 
dislingiiishud  characters,  and  in  some  of  the  writers 
themselvi's,  would  not  have  been  made. 

"  The  Kvaiigilists  all  agree  in  this  most  unequivocal 
character  of  veracity,  that  of  criminating  themselves. 
They  record  their  own  errors  and  offences  with  the 
same  simplicity  with  wliich  they  relate  the  miracles 
and  sufferings  of  their  Lord.  Indeed,  their  dulness, 
mistakes,  and  failings  are  so  intimately  blended  with 
his  history  by  their  continual  demands  upon  his  jia- 
tience  and  forbearance,  as  to  make  no  inconsiderable  or 
unimportant  part  of  it.  This  fideUty  is  eijually  ad- 
mirable both  in  the  composition  and  in  the  preservation 
of  the  Old  Testament,  a  book  which  every  where  testi- 
fies against  those  whose  history  it  contains,  and  not 
seldom  against  the  relaters  themselves.  The  author 
of  the  Pentateuch  proclaims,  in  the  most  pointed  terms, 
the  ingratitude  of  those  chosen  people  towards  God. 
He  prophesies  that  they  will  go  on  filling  up  the 
measure  of  their  offences,  calls  heaven  and  earth 
to  witness  against  them  that  he  had  delivered  his 
own  soul,  anil  declares  that  as  they  have  worshipped 
gods  which  were  no  gods,  God  will  punish  them  by 
calling  a  people  who  were  no  people.  Yet  this  book, 
so  disgraceful  to  their  national  character,  this  register 
of  their  own  offeni-es,  they  would  rather  die  than  lose. 
'This,' says  the  admirable  I'ascal, 'is  an  instance  of 
integrity  which  has  no  example  in  the  world,  no  root 
in  nature.'  In  the  I'entateucli  and  the  (iosjiels,  there- 
fore, these  parallel,  these  unequalled  instances  of 
sinceritv,  are  incontrovertible  proofs  of  the  truth  of 
both."(3) 

It  is  but  just  to  say,  that  the  malignant  absurdity  and 
wickednessof  charging  the  Scriptures  witli  an  immoral 
tendency,  have  not  been  incurred  by  all  who  have  even 
zealously  endeavoured  to  undermine  their  Divine  au- 
thority. Many  of  them  make  important  concessions  on 
this  point.  They  show  in  their  own  characters  the 
effect  of  their  unbelief,  and  [irobably  the  chief  cause 
of  it :  Blount  committed  suicide,  because  he  was  pre- 
vented from  an  incestuous  marriage ;  Tyndal  was  no- 
toriously nilUnious;  Ilobbes  changed  his  principles 
with  bis  iiititrests;  Morgan  continued  to  profess  (Chris- 
tianity whili?  he  wrote  against  it.  The  mor.al  character 
of  Voltaire  was  mean  and  delestable  ;  Boliiigbroke  was 
a  rake  and  a  Hagitious  politician.  Collins  and  Shaftes- 
bury (lualilicd  tjiemselves  l<)r  civil  offices  by  receiving 
the  sacrament,  while  they  were  endeavouring  to  prove 
the  religion  of  wliich  it  is  a  solemn  cvjiression  of  be- 
lief, a  mere  imposture  ;  Hume  was  reveiigel>il,  disgust- 
ingly vain,  ami  an  advoi-ite  of  adultery  and  self-mur- 
der. Paine  was  the  slave  of  low  and  degrading  habits ; 
and  Rousseau  an  abandoned  sensualist,  and  guilty  of 
the  basest  actions,  which  he  scrujiles  not  to  state  and 
palliate.  Yet  even  some  of  these  have  admitted  the 
superior  imrily  of  the  morals  of  the  Christian  Revela- 
tion. The  eloquent  eulogiuin  of  Rousseau  on  the  Gos- 
pel and  its  Author  is  well  known  ;  it  is  a  singular 
passage,  and  shows,  that  it  is  the  state  of  the  liiart.  and 
not  the  )iiilgmiiit,  which  leads  to  the  rejection  of  tlie 
tesliiiiiiiiv  of  (;od.(4) 

rsor  IS  It  surprising  that  a  truth  so  obvious  should, 

(3)  Mrs.  MiiRK'.^i  Character  of  St.  Paul. 

(4)  "I  will  confess  to  you  that  the  majesty  of  the 
Scriptures  strikes  me  with  admiration,  as  the  purity  of 
the  (Jospel  has  its  inlluence  on  my  heart.  Peruse  the 
works  of  our  philosophers,  with  all  their  pomp  of  dic- 
tion: how  mean,  how  contemptible  are  they,  compared 
with  the  Scriptures  !  Is  it  possible  that  a  hook,  at  once 
80  simple  and  sublime,  should  be  merely  the  work  of 
man  ?  la  it  poasiblo  that  the  Bucred  personage,  whose 


even  fl'om  adversaries,  extort  concession.  Nowhere 
but  in  the  Scriplun^s  have  we  a  perfect  system  of 
morals ;  and  the  deficiencies  of  pagan  morality  only 
exalt  the  purity,  the  com|)rehensiveness,  the  practica- 
bility of  ours.  The  character  of  the  Being  acknow- 
li  dged  as  iSuprcme  must  always  impress  itself  upon 
moral  feeling  and  practice ;  the  obligation  of  which 
rests  upon  his  will.  We  have  .seen  the  views  enter- 
tained by  pagans  on  this  all-important  ]ioint,  and  their 
effects.  The  Uod  of  the  liihle  is  "  /inly"  without  spot; 
"_7>/,v<"  without  intermission  or  partiality ;  "good," — 
boundlessly  benevolent  and  beneficent;  and  his  law  is 
the  image  of  himself,  "lialij,  jt/sf.  ami  good."  These 
great  moral  qualities  are  not  as  with  them,  so  far  as 
they  were  apiirehended,  merely  ah.stract,  and  therefore 
comparatively  feeble  in  their  influence.  In  the  person 
of  (,'hrist,  our  God  incarnate,  they  are  seen  exemplified 
in  action,  displaying  themselves  amid  human  relations, 
and  the  actual  circumstances  of  human  life.  With 
thein,  the  authority  of  moral  rules  was  either  the  opi- 
nion of  the  wise,  or  the  tradition  of  the  ancient,  con- 
firmed, it  is  true,  in  some  degree  by  observation  and 
experience ;  but  to  us,  they  are  given  as  commands  im- 
mediately from  the  Supreme  Governor,  and  ratified  as 
His  by  the  mo.st  solemn  and  exjilicit  attestations.  With 
them,  many  great  moral  principles,  being  indistinctly 
aijprchended,  were  matters  of  doubt  and  debate  ;  to  us, 
the  explicit  manner  in  which  they  are  given  excludes 
both :  for  it  cannot  be  (luestioued,  whether  we  are  com- 
manded to  love  our  neighbour  as  ourselves ;  to  do  to 
others  as  we  would  they  should  do  to  us,  a  precept 
winch  comprehends  almost  all  relative  morality  in  one 
plain  iiriiHijiIe ;  to  forgive  our  enemies;  to  love  all 
mankind  ;  to  live  "  righteously"  and  "soberly,"  as  well 
as  "  godly ;"  that  magistrates  must  be  a  terror  only  to 


history  it  contains,  should  be  himself  a  mere  man  ?  Do 
we  find  that  he  assumed  the  tone  of  an  enthusiast  or 
ambitious  sectary  !  What  sweetness,  w  bat  purity  in 
his  manners  1  What  an  atrecting  gracefulness  in  his 
delivery  !  What  sublimity  in  his  maxims  !  What  pro- 
found wisdom  in  his  discourses  I  What  presence  of 
mind  in  his  replies  !  How  great  the  conimand  over  his 
passions  1  Where  is  the  man,  where  the  philosopher, 
who  could  so  live  and  so  die,  without  weakness  and 
without  ostentation  ? — When  Plato  described  his  ima- 
ginary good  man  with  all  the  shame  of  guilt,  yet  merit- 
ing the  highest  rewards  ol'  virtue,  he  descrilied  exactly 
the  character  of  .lesus  Christ :  the  resemblance  was  so 
striking  that  all  the  Chri.sliiiii  Fathers  perceived  it. 

"What  pr(  |ioss('ssi(in,  what  blindness  must  it  be,  to 
com|iare  the  sun  of  Suphrnnicns  [Socrates]  to  the  son 
of  Alary  !  What  an  iiiliiiile  disproportion  is  there  be- 
tvpeen  them  I  Socrates  dying  wiihoia  |)ain  or  ignominy, 
easily  supported  his  characirr  to  the  last :  and  if  his 
death,  however  easy,  had  not  crow  ned  Ins  life,  it  might 
have  been  doubled  uluihcr  .Socrates,  with  all  his  wis- 
dom, was  any  thing  more  ilian  a  vain  soidhst.  He  in- 
vented, it  is  said,  the  theory  of  morals.  Others,  how- 
ever, had  before  put  them  in  practice :  he  had  only  to 
say,  therefore,  what  they  had  done,  and  to  reduce  their 
examples  to  precept.— But  where  could  Jesus  learn 
among  his  competitoi's  that  pure  and  siihlime  morality, 
of  which  he  only  has  given  us  both  prcciiit  and  exam- 
ple ? — The  death  of  Socrates,  peai-cahly  pliilosoplii/.ing 
with  his  friends,  appears  the  most  agreeahle  that  could 
be  wished  for;  that  of  .Tesus,  expiring  iii  the  midst  of 
agoni/.ing  pains,  abused,  insulted,  and  accused  by  a 
whole  nation,  is  the  most  liorrihle  that  could  be  feared. 
SoiTat(!s,  in  ri-ceiving  the  cup  of  poi.son,  blessed  the 
weeping  executioner  who  administered  it ;  but  .lesus, 
in  the  midst  of  excruciating  tortures,  prayed  liir  his 
merciless  tormentors.  Yes  I  if  the  life  and  death  of 
Soi'rales  were  those  of  a  sago,  the  life  and  death  of 
.lesus  were  those  of  a  God.  Shall  we  siqipose  the 
evangelic  history  a  mere  fiction !  Indeed,  my  IViend,  it 
bears  not  the  marks  of  fiction ;  on  the  contrary,  the 
history  of  Socrates,  which  nobody  presumes  to  doubt, 
is  not  so  well  attested  as  that  of  .lesus  Christ.  Such 
a  supposition,  in  fact,  only  shifts  the  dillicully,  without 
obviating  it ;  it  is  more  inconceivable,  that  a  number  of 
persons  should  agree  to  write  such  a  history,  than  that 
one  only  should  furnish  the  subject  of  it.  The  Jewish 
authors  were  incapable  of  the  diction  and  strangers  to 
I  be  morality  contained  in  the  d'ospel,  the  marks  of  whoso 
truth  are  so  striking  ami  inimitable,  that  the  inventor 
would  be  a  more  astonishing  nian  than  the  hero." 


Chap.  XIX.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


87 


«viI-docTS,  and  a  praise  to  them  that  do  well ;  that  sub- 
jects are  to  rondcr  honour  to  whom  honour,  and  iriljute 
to  whom  tribulf,  is  duo ;  lU;it  masters  are  to  be  just  and 
merciful,  and  servants  faithful  and  obedient.  These 
and  many  other  fiiniiliar  precepts  are  too  explicit  to  be 
mistaken,  and  too  authoritative  to  be  disputed ;  two  of 
the  most  [wwerful  means  of  rendering  law  effectual. 
Those  who  never  enjoyed  the  benefit  of  revelation  never 
conceived  justly  and  comprehensively  of  that  moral 
state  of  thi;  heart  from  wluch  right  and  beneficent  con- 
duct alone  can  flow,  and  therefore  when  they  speak  of 
ttie  same  \'irtucs  as  those  enjoined  by  Christianity,  they 
are  to  be  understood  as  attaching  to  thotn  a  lower  idea. 
In  this  the  infinite  superiorUy  of  Christianity  di.splays 
itself.  The  principle  of  obedience  is  not  only  a  sense 
of  duty  to  God,  and  the  fear  of  his  displeasure;  but  a 
tender  love,  excited  by  his  infinite  compassions  to  us  in 
the  gift  of  his  Son,  which  shrinks  from  offending.  To 
this  influential  motive  as  a  reason  of  obedience  is 
added  another,  drawn  from  its  end :  one  not  less  influ- 
ential, but  which  heathen  moralists  never  knew, — the 
testimony  that  we  please  God,  manifested  in  the  ac- 
ceptance of  our  prayers,  and  in  spiritual  and  felicitous 
communion  with  liim.  By  Christianity,  impurity  of 
thought  and  desire  is  restrained  in  an  equal  degree  as 
their  overt  acts  in  the  lips  and  conduct.  Humanity, 
meekness,  gentleness,  ]dacabiUty,  disinterestedness,  and 
charity  are  all  as  clearly  and  solemnly  enjoined  as  the 
grosser  vices  are  prohibited ;  and  on  the  unruly  tongue 
itself  is  impressed  ■'  the  law  of  kindness."  Nor  are 
the  injunctions  feeble;  they  are  strictly  i  aw,  and  not 
mere  advice  and  rer^mmendations.  "  Without  holiness 
no  man  shall  see  the  Lord  ;"  and  thus  our  entrance  into 
heaven,  and  our  escape  from  perdition,  are  made  to  de- 
pend upon  this  preparation  of  mind.  To  all  this  is 
added  possibility,  nay  certainty,  of  attainment.  If  we 
use  the  appointed  means.  A  pagan  could  draw,  though 
not  with  lines  so  perfect,  a  bean  ideal  of  virtue,  wliich 
he  never  thougllt  attainable ;  but  the  ^\full  assurance 
of  hope"  is  given  by  the  religion  of  Christ  to  all  who 
are  seeking  the  moral  renovation  of  their  nature;  be- 
cause "  it  is  God  that  wurketh  in  us  to  will  and  to  do  of 
bis  good  pleasure." 

When  such  is  the  moral  tendency  of  Christianity, 
how  obvious  is  its  beneficial  tendency  both  as  to  the 
individual  and  to  society  1  From  every  passion  wliich 
wastes,  and  burns,  and  frets,  and  enfeebles  the  spirit, 
the  individual  is  set  free,  and  his  inward  peace  renders 
his  obedience  cheerful  and  voluntary;  and  we  might 
appeal  to  infidels  themselves,  whether,  if  the  moral 
principles  of  the  Gospel  were  wrought  into  the  hearts, 
and  irnbodied  in  the  conduct  of  all  men,  the  world 
would  not  be  happy; — whether  if  governments  ruled, 
and  subjects  obeyed,  by  the  laws  of  Christ ; — whether 
if  the  rules  of  strict  justice  which  are  enjoined  upon 
us  regulated  all  the  transactions  of  men,  and  all  that 
mercy  to  the  distressed  which  we  are  taught  to  feel  and 
to  practice  came  into  operation ; — and  whether,  if  the 
.precepts  which  delineate  and  enlbrce  the  duties  of  hus- 
bands, wives,  masters,  servants,  parents,  cliildren,  fully 
and  generally  governed  all  these  relations,  a  better  age 
than  that  called  golden  by  the  poets,  would  not  be 
realized,  and  Virgil's 

Jam  redit  et  Virgo,  redeunt  Satumia  regna, 

be  far  too  weak  to  express  the  mighty  change  ?  Such 
is  the  tendency  of  Cluistianity.  On  immen.se  numbers 
of  individuals  it  has  superinduced  these  moral  changes ; 
all  nations,  where  it  has  been  fully  and  faithfully  eihi- 
bited,  bear,  amid  their  remaining  vices,  the  impress  of 
iis  hallowing  and  benevolent  influence :  it  is  now  in  ac- 
tive exertion  in  many  of  the  darkest  and  worst  parts  of 
the  earth,  to  convey  the  same  blessings ;  and  he  who 
would  arrest  its  progress,  were  he  able,  would  quench 
the  only  hope  which  remains  to  our  world,  and  prove 
himself  an  enemy,  not  only  to  liimself,  but  to  all  man- 
kind. What  then,  we  ask,  does  all  this  prove,  but  that 
the  Scriptures  are  worthy  of  God,  and  propose  the 
very  ends  which  rendered  a  revelation  necessary  ?  Of 
the  whole  system  of  practical  religion  which  it  contains 
we  may  say,  as  of  that  which  is  imbodied  iii  our  Lord's 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  in  the  words  of  one,  who,  in  a 
course  of  sermons  on  that  divine  composition,  has  en- 
tered most  deeply  into  its  spirit,  and  presented  a  most 
instructive  delineation  of  the  character  which  it  was 
intended  to  form:  "Behold  Christianity  in  its  native 
form,  as  delivered  by  its  great  Author.    See  a  picture  of 


God,  as  far  as  he  is  imitable  by  man,  drawn  by  God's 
own  hand. — What  beauty  appears  in  the  whole '.  How 
just  a  symmetry!  Wlial  exact  proiiortioii  in  every 
part !  How  de.sirable  is  the  happiness  here  described  ! 
How  venerable,  liow  lovely  is  the  holiness  :"(5)  "  If," 
says  Bishop  Taylor,  "wisdom,  aiid  mercy,  and  justice, 
and  shnpUcity,  and  holiness,  and  purity,  and  meekness, 
and  contentedness,  and  charity,  be  images  of  (;od,  and 
rays  of  Divinity,  then  that  doctrine  in  wliich  all  these 
shine  so  gloriously,  and  in  which  nothing  else  is  ingre- 
dient, must  needs  be  from  God. — If  the  holy  .lesus  had 
come  into  the  world  with  less  splendour  of  power  and 
mighty  demonstrations,  yet  the  excellence  of  what  he 
taught  makes  Him  alone  fit  to  be  the  master  of  the 

W0RLD.''(6) 

Int:;rnai,  Evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  Scriptures 
may  also  be  collected  from  their  style.  It  is  various, 
and  thus  accords  with  the  profession,  that  the  whole  iH 
a  collection  of  books  by  different  individuals ;  each  has 
Ids  own  peculiarity  so  strongly  marked,  and  so  equally 
sustained  throughout  the  book  or  books  ascribed  to  him, 
as  to  be  a  forcible  proof  of  genuineness.  The  style  of 
Moses,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Daniel,  the  Evange- 
lists, and  St.  Paul,  are  all  strikingly  different.  The 
writers  of  the  iVew  Testament  employ  Hebrew  idioms, 
words,  and  phrases.  The  Greek,  in  wliich  they  wrote, 
is  not  classical  (Jreek ;  but,  as  it  is  observed  by  Bishop 
Marsh,  "  is  such  a  dialect  as  would  be  used  by  persons 
educated  in  a  country  where  Chaldee  or  Syriac  was 
spoken  as  the  vernacular  tongue ;  but  who  also  ac- 
quired a  knowledge  of  Greek  by  l'ra|uent  intercourse 
with  strangers."  This,  tlieretbre,  aflbrds  an  argument 
from  internal  evidence,  that  the  books  were  written  by 
the  persons  whose  names  they  bear ;  and  it  has  been 
shown  by  the  same  prelate,  that  as  this  particular  style 
was  changed  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the 
same  comjiound  language  could  not  be  written  in  any 
other  age  than  the  first  century,  and  proof  is  obtained 
from  this  source  also  in  favour  of  the  antiquity  of  the 
Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament.  An  argument,  to 
the  same  point  of  antiquity,  is  drawn  by  Mii  iiaells 
from  the  accordance  of  the  Evangelic  History  and  the 
Apostolical  Epistles  with  the  history  and  manners  of 
the  age  to  wliich  they  refer.  "  A  (ireek  or  Roman 
Christian,"  he  observes,  "  who  lived  in  the  second  or 
third  century,  though  as  well  versed  in  the  writings  of 
the  ancients  as  Eustathius  or  Asconius,  would  still 
have  been  wanting  in  Jewish  literature ;  and  a  Jewish 
convert  in  those  ages,  even  the  most  learned  Rabbi, 
would  have  been  equally  deficient  in  the  knowledge  of 
Greece  and  Rome.  If,  then,  the  New  Testament,  thus 
exposed  to  detection  (had  it  been  an  imposture),  is 
found,  after  the  severest  researches,  to  harmonize  with 
the  history,  the  manners,  and  the  opinions  of  the  first 
century,  and  since  the  more  minutely  we  inquire,  the 
more  perfect  we  find  the  coincidence,  we  must  conclude 
that  it  was  beyond  the  reach  of  human  abilities  to  ef- 
fectuate so  wonderful  a  deception." 

The  manner  of  the  sacred  writers  is  also  in  proof 
that  they  were  conscious  of  the  truth  of  what  they  re- 
late. The  whole  narrative  is  simple  and  natural.  Even 
in  the  accounts  given  of  the  creation,  the  flood,  the  ex- 
odus from  Egypt,  and  the  events  of  the  life  and  death 
of  Christ,  where  designing  men  would  have  felt  most 
inclined  to  endeavour  to  heighten  the  impression  by 
glowing  and  elaborate  description,  the  same  cliastened 
simplicity  is  preserved.  "  These  sober  recorders  of 
events  the  most  astonishing  are  never  carried  away,  by 
the  circumstances  they  relate,  into  any  pomp  of  diction, 
into  any  use  of  superlatives.  There  is  not,  perhaps,  in 
the  whole  Gospel  a  single  interjection,  not  an  exclama- 
tion, nor  any  artifice  to  call  the  reader's  attention  to  the 
marvels  of  which  the  relators  were  the  witnesses. 
Absorbed  In  their  holy  task,  no  alien  idea  presents 
itself  to  their  mind:  the  object  before  them  fills  it. 
They  never  digress ;  are  never  called  away  by  the  so- 
licitations of  vanity  or  the  suggestions  of  curiosity. 
No  image  starts  up  to  divert  their  attention.  There  is, 
indeed,  in  the  Gospels  much  imagery,  much  allusion, 
much  allegory,  but  they  proceed  from  their  Lord,  and 
are  recorded  as  his.  The  writers  never  fill  up  the  in- 
tervals between  events.  They  leave  cirumstances  to 
make  their  own  impression,  nistead  of  helping  out  the 


(5)  Wesley's  Sermons. 

(6)  "Moral  Demonstration  of  tbeTrutli  of  the  Chris- 
tian Religion." 


88 


THEOLOGICAL   LNSTITUTES. 


[Pakt  L 


reader  by  any  reflections  of  their  own.  They  always 
feci  the  holy '  ground  on  wliich  they  stand.  They  pre- 
serve the  sravity  of  history  and  the  severity  of  truth, 
without  enlarging  the  outline  or  swelling  the  expres- 
sion.' ''(7) 

Another  source  of  Internal  Evir>ENCE,arising  ft-om 
incidental  coiiici/tf^nces;  which,  from  ''their  lat(!nc)' 
and  minuteness,''  must  be  suppo.sed  to  have  their  founda- 
tion in  truth,  is  opened  and  aljlv  illustrated  by  IJr. 
Paley,  in  his  "  Ilora;  Paulina;,"  a  work  which  will  well 
repay  the  perusal. 

Much  of  the  Collateral  Evipknce  of  the  truth 
of  the  Scriptures  generally,  and  of  Christianity  in  par- 
ticular, has  been  anticipated  in  the  course  of  this  dis- 
cussion, and  need  not  iijaiu  be  resumed.  The  a(,'ree- 
ment  of  the  final  rovt;lation  of  the  will  of  God  by  the 
ministry  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles  with  Ibrmer  au- 
thenticated revelations,  has  been  pointed  out;  so  that 
the  whole  constitutes  nne  body  of  harmonious  doctrines, 
gradually  introduced,  and  at  length  fully  unlblded  and 
confirmed.  The  suitableness  of  the  Christian  revela- 
tion to  the  state  of  the  world  at  the  time  of  its  com- 
munication, Ibllows  frotn  the  view  wc  have  given  of 
the  necessity,  not  only  of  a  revelation  generally,  but  of 
such  a  revelation  as  the  mercy  of  God  has  vouchsafed 
to  the  world  through  his  Son.  It  has  also  been  shown, 
that  its  historical  facts  accord  with  the  credible  histories 
and  traditions  of  the  same  times;  that  monuments 
remain  to  attest  its  truth,  in  the  institutions  of  the 
Christian  church ;  and  that  adversaries  have  made  con- 
cessions in  its  favour.(8)  Our  farther  remarks  on  this 
subject,  though  many  other  interesting  paniciilarsmiiihi 
be  embraced,  must  be  confined  to  two  pariicuiurs,  luit 
each  of  a  very  convincing  character.  The  first  is,  the 
marvellous  diffusion  of  Christianity  in  the  first  three 
centuries;  the  second  is,  the  actual  beneficial  effect 
produced,  and  which  is  still  producing,  by  Cliristiaiiity 
upon  mankind. 

With  respect  to  the  first,  the  fact  to  be  accounted  for 
is,  that  the  first  preachers  of  the  Gospel,  though  un- 
supported by  human  power,  and  uncommeniled  by  phi- 
losophic wisdom,  and  even  in  opposition  to  both,  suc- 
ceeded in  effecting  a  revolution  in  the  opinions  and 
manners  of  a  great  portion  of  the  civili/.ed  world,  to 
which  there  is  no  parallel  in  the  history  of  mankind. (9) 
Though  aspersed  by  the  slander  of  the  malicious,  and 
exposed  to  the  sword  of  (he  powerful,  in  a  short  period 
of  time  they  itiduced  multitudes  of  various  nations, 
who  were  etjually  distinguished  by  the  peculiarity  of 
their  manners,  and  the  diversity  of  their  language,  to 
forsake  the  religion  of  their  ancestors.  The  converts 
whom  they  made  deserted  ceremonies  and  institutions, 
which  were  delianded  by  vigorous  authority,  sanctified 
by  remote  age,  and  associated  with  the  most  alluring 
gratification  of  the  passions."(l) 

After  their  deatli  the  same  doctrines  were  taught, 
and  the  same  efliscts  tbllowed,  though  successive  and 
grievous  persecutions  were  waged  against  all  who  pro- 
fessed their  faith  in  Christ,  by  successive  emperors 
and  inferior  magistrates.  Tacitus,  about  A.  I).  ()'2, 
speaking  of  Christianity,  says,  — "This  pernicious 
superstition,  though  checked  ior  a  while,  broke  out 
again,  and  spread  not  only  over  .ludea,  but  reached  the 
city  of  Rome  also.     At  first  they  only  were  apprehended 

(7)  Mrs.  More's  Character  of  St.  Paul. 

(8)  The  collaiejal  leiitimony  to  certain  facts  men- 
tioned in  Scripture,  from  coins,  medals,  and  ancient 
marbles,  may  be  seen  well  ap|ilied  in  Hornk's  Intru- 
darlion  tn  the.  Stiitly  nf  /hi  Smjitiircs,  vol.  i.  p.  238. 

(9)  The  success  of  Mahomet,  though  sometimes 
pushed  forward  as  a  parallel,  is,  in  fact,  both  as  to  the 
means  employed  and  the  effect  jirodui-ed,  a  perfect  con- 
trast. The  means  were  conquest  and  compulsion  ;  the 
rffect  was  to  legali/.e  and  sanctify,  so  to  speak,  the 
natural  passions  of  iricii  lor  [iluiider  and  sensual  grati- 
fication ;  and  it  surely  argues  either  a  very  frail  judg- 
ment, or  a  crimifial  disjiosition  to  object,  that  a  con- 
trast so  marked  should  ever  have  been  exhibited  as  a 
correspondence.  Men  were  i)ersuaded,  when  they 
Were  not  forr.nl,  to  join  the  ranks  of  the  Arabian  im- 
postor by  the  hope  of  plunder,  and  a  present  aiul  future 
life  of  brutal  gratification.  Men  were  persuaded  to 
join  the  Ajiostles  by  the  evidence  of  truth,  and  by  the 
hopeol'  future  spiritual  blessings, but  with  the  corluiuty 
Of  present  disgrace  and  sulTering. 

(1)  KcTT'^i  Sermorui  at  thu  Bamptou  Lecture. 


who  confessed  themselves  to  be  of  that  sort ;  aftenvard 
a  v(ist  mnltUude  were  discovered  and  cruelly  punished." 
I'liny,  the  governor  of  Pontus  and  Hithynia  near  BO 
years  after  the  death  of  Christ,  in  his  wull-known 
letter  to  Trajan,  observes — "The  contagion  of  this 
superstition  has  not  only  invaded  cities,  but  the  smaller 
towns  also,  atid  the  whole  country."  He  speaks  loo  of 
the  idol  temples  having  been  "■  ii/mnst  fomalcen."  To 
the  same  effect  the  Christian  Fathers  speak.  About 
A.  D.  140,  .lustin  Martyr  writes— "  There  is  not  a 
nation,  Greek  or  liarbarian,  or  of  any  other  name,  even 
of  those  who  wander  in  tribes,  and  live  in  tents,  among 
M'hom  prayers  and  thanksgivings  are  not  offered  to  the 
Father  and  Creator  of  the  universe  in  the  name  of  the 
crucified  .lesus."  In  A.  D.  190,  TertuUian,  in  his  Apo- 
logy, appeals  to  the  Roman  governors — "  We  were  but 
of  yesterday,  and  we  have  filled  your  cities  and  towns ; 
the  camp,  the  senate,  and  the  forum."  In  A.  1).  220, 
Origen  says — "  IJy  the  good  providence  of  (iod,  the 
t-'hristian  religion  has  so  flourished  and  increased,  that 
it  is  now  preached  freely,  and  without  molisiation." 
These  reiiresentations,  (iibbon  contends,  are  exaggera- 
tions on  both  sides,  produced  by  the  fears  of  Pliny,  and 
the  zeal  of  the  Christian  Fathers.  But  even  granting 
some  degree  of  exaggeration  arising  not  designedly 
from  warm  feelings,  an  unquestionable  occurrence 
proves  the  futility  of  the  excejitions  taken  to  these 
statements  by  the  elegant  but  infidel  historian.  The 
great  fact  is,  that  in  the  year  A.  1).  300,  Christianity 
became  the  established  rr//<iio7i  if  the  Riimaii.  Empire, 
and  paB:amsm  was  abolished  :  and  it  follows  from  this 
event,  that  the  religion  which  thus  became  triumi)hant 
nfler  unparalleleil  trials  and  sufferings  must  have  es- 
tablished Itself,  jireviously  to  its  receiving  the  sanction 
of  the  State,  in  the  belief  of  a  great  majority  of  the  one 
hvndred  ami  twenty  millions  o(  people  sujiposed  to  bo 
contained  in  the  empire,  or  no  emperor  would  have 
been  in.sane  enough  to  make  the  attempt  to  change  the 
religion  of  so  vast  a  state,  nor,  had  he  made  it,  could 
he  have  succeeded. 

The  success  of  Christianity  in  the  three  centuries 
preceding  Constantine,  has  justly  been  considered  as 
in  no  unimportant  sense  miraculous,  and  as  such,  an 
illustrious  proof  of  its  Divinity.  "  The  obstacles  which 
opposed  the  first  rece|ition  of  Christianity  were  so 
numerous  and  Ibrmiilable,  and  the  human  instruments 
em])loyed  for  its  diffusion  so  apparently  weak  and  in- 
sufficient, that  a  comparison  between  them  will  not 
only  show  that  the  passions  and  opposition  of  man,  far 
from  impeding  the  Divine  designs,  may  uUiniately  be- 
come the  means  of  their  jierfect  acconiiilishnuiit.  but 
will  fully  demonstrate  the  Divine  origin  of  (  hristiaiiity 
by  displaying  the  powerful  assistance  which  the  Al- 
mighty supplied  for  its  establishment. "(2)  The  asto- 
nishing suc'cess  of  Clinstianity  under  such  circum- 
stances, and  at  so  early  a  iierioil,  affords  a  strong  con- 
firmation to  the  truth  of  miracles,  because  it  implies 
lliein,  as  no  other  means  can  be  conceived  by  which  an 
attention  so  general  should  have  been  excited  to  a  reli- 
gion which  was  not  only  without  the  sanction  of  au- 
thority and  rank,  but  opjio.sed  by  both ;  the  scene  of 
whose  facts  lay  in  aproMiicethc  people  of  which  were 
despised;  and  whose  dortrines  held  out  nothing  but 
spiritual  attainments.  Uy  the  effect  of  miracles  during 
the  lives  of  the  first  preachers,  public  curiosity  was 
excited,  and  they  obtained  an  auclience  which  they  could 
not  otherwise  have  commanded.  This  power  of  work- 
ing miracles  was  iransniitlid  to  their  successors,  and 
continued  until  the  purposes  of  infinite  wisdom  were 
accomplished.  They  decreased  in  number  in  the  s(  cond 
century,  and  left  hut  a  few  traces  at  the  dose  of  the 
third.(3)  The  increase  of  Christians  implied  even  more 
than  miracles;  such  was  the  holy  character  of  the  ma- 
jority, during  the  continuance  of  the  rejiroach  and  per- 


(2)  KKrT's  Sermo7JS. 

(3)  Attemjjts  have  been  made  to  deny  the  existence 
of  miraculous  powers  in  Ibi'  ages  iiiiinedialely  succeed- 
ing that  of  the  Aposlles,  but  if  slantlsontlie  niianinious 
and  successive  testimony  of  the  Falliers.  (iiblion,  on 
this  subject,  has  borrowed  his  objections  from  "  The 
Free  Inquiry"  of  Dr.  Middlcton,  whose  belief  in  Chris- 
tianity is  very  suspicious.  This  book  received  many 
alile  answers ;  but  none  more  so  than  one  by  the  Rev. 
.lohn  Wesley.  It  is  a  triumph  to  truth  to  state,  that 
Dr.  Middlcton  felt  himself  obliged  to  givoup  hu  ground 
by  BtiilUng  the  questiou. 


Chap.  XX.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES, 


89 


seeutions  which  followed  the  Christian  namo;  such 
the  patience  with  which  tliey  suflbreii,  and  the  fortitude 
with  which  they  died  ;  that  the  influence  of  God  upon 
their  hearts  is  as  manifest  in  the  new  and  hallowed 
character  wliich  distinguished  them,  and  the  nrieek,  fiir- 
givins,  and  passive  virtues  which  they  exhil)ite<l,  to  the 
astoiushnient  of  the  heathen,  as  his  pnwcr  in  the  mira- 
cles by  which  their  attention  was  first  drawn  to  examine 
that  trulh  which  they  aftcrvv-ard  believed  and  held  liist 
to  death. 

The  actual  effect  produced  by  this  new  religion  upon 
society,  and  which  it  is  still  producing,  is  another  point 
in  the  collateral  evidence:  for  Christianity  has  not 
only  an  atlaptafioyi  for  improving  the  condition  of  so- 
ciety ;  its  excellence  is  not  only  to  be  argued  from  its 
effects  stated  on  hypothetical  cireumslaners;  but  it  has 
actually  won  its  moral  victories,  and  in  all  ages  has 
exhibited  its  trophies.  In  every  pagan  country  where 
it  has  prevaih.'d,  it  lias  abolished  idolalry  with  its  san- 
guinary and  polluted  rit;!s.  It  also  effected  this  mighty 
revolntion,  that  the  sanctions  of  religion  should  no 
longer  be  in  favour  of  the  worst  passions  and  i)ractices, 
but  be  directed  against  them.  It  has  raised  the  stand- 
ard of  morality,  and  by  that  means,  even  where  its 
full  elfects  have  not  been  suffered  to  display  themselves, 
has  insensibly  improved  the  manners  of  every  Christian 
state :  what  heathen  nations  are,  in  point  of  morals, 
is  now  well  known;  and  the  iiilbrmation  on  this  sub- 
ject which  for  several  years  past  has  been  increasing, 
has  put  it  out  of  the  power  of  infidels  to  urge  the  su- 
perior manners  of  either  China  or  Hindostan.  It  has 
abolished  infanticide,  and  human  sacrifices,  so  preva- 
lent among  "ancient  and  modern  heathens ;  put  an  end 
to  polygamy  anA  divorce;  and,  by  the  institution  of 
marriage  in  an  indissoluble  bond,  has  given  birth  to  a 
felicity  and  sanctity  in  tiie  domestic  circle  which  it 
never  before  knew.  It  has  exalted  the  condition  and 
character  of  woman,  and  by  that  means  has  human- 
ized 7nan;  given  refinement  and  delicacy  to  society; 
and  created  a  new  and  important  affection  in  the  human 
breast — the  love  of  woman  founded  on  esteem;  an 
aflfection  generally  unknown  to  heathens  the  most  re- 
fined.(4)  It  abolished  domestic  slavery  in  ancient 
Europe ;  and  from  its  principles  the  struggle  which  is 
now  maintained  with  African  slavery  draws  its  energy, 
and  promises  a  triumph  as  complete.  It  has  given  a 
milder  character  to  umr,  and  taught  modern  nations  to 
treat  their  prisoners  with  humanity,  and  to  restore  them 
by  exchange  to  their  respective  countries.  It  has  laid 
the  basis  of  a  juri.ipriuience  more  just  and  equal ; 
given  civil  rights  to  subjects,  and  placed  restraints  on 
absolute  power ;  and  crowned  its  achievements  by  its 
charity.  Hospitals,  schools,  and  many  other  institu- 
tions for  the  aid  of  the  aged  and  the  poor,  are  almost 
exclusively  its  ovvn  creations,  and  they  abound  most 
where  its  influence  is  most  powerful.  The  same  effects 
to  this  day  are  resulting  from  its  influence  in  those 
heathen  countries  into  which  the  (Jospel  has  been  car- 
ried by  missionaries  sent  out  from  this  and  other 
Christian  states.  In  some  of  them,  idolatry  has  been 
renounced ;  infants  and  widows  and  aged  persons,  who 
would  have  been  immolated  to  their  gods,  or  abandoned 
by  their  cruelty,  have  been  preserved,  and  are  now 
"  the  lilting  to  praise  its  Divine  Author,  as  they  do  at 
this  day."  In  other  instances  the  light  is  prevailing 
against  the  darkness;  and  those  systems  of  dark  and 
sanguinary  superstition  which  have  stood  forages  only 
to  pollute  and  oppress,  without  any  symptom  of  decay, 
now  betray  the  shocks  they  have  sustained  by  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  and  nod  to  their 
final  faU.(5j 


CHAPTER  XX. 

Miscellaneous  Objections  answered. 
The  system  of  revealed  religion  contained  in  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments,  being  opposed  to  the  natural  cor- 
rupt inclinations,  and  often  to  the  actual  practice  of 


(4)  Among  the  Greeks,  the  education  of  women  was 
chiefly  confined  to  courtesans. 

(5)  For  an  ample  illustration  of  the  actual  effects  of 
Chri.stianity  upon  Society,  see  IJishoj)  Porteis's  Bene- 
ficial Effects  of  Christianiti/,  and  RvAK's  History  of 
the  Ejects  ofRdigim  on  Mankind. 


men  ;  laying  them  tmder  rules  to  which  they  are 
averse;  threatening  them  with  a  result  which  they 
dre-ad ;  holding  out  to  them  no  pleasures  but  such  as 
they  distaste,  and  no  advantages  but  those  which  they 
w^ould  gladly  exchange  for  a  perpevual  life  of  sinful  in- 
dulgence on  earth  ;  will  be  regarded  by  many  of  tho 
most  reflecting  among  them  as  a  system  of  restraint ; 
and  must  therefore  often  excite  cither  direct  hostility' 
or  a  disposition  to  encourage  and  admit  sugg<'stiona 
ujndiiig  to  weaken  its  authority.  It  may  be  added 
that,  as  the  Scriiitures  cannot  be' known  without  care- 
ful exaiiiination,  which  iinjilies  a  serious  habit  not  to 
be  found  in  the  -majority,  objections  have  been  often 
raised  by  ingenious  men  in  great  ignorance  of  the  vo- 
lume itself  against  which  they  are  directed  ;  and  being 
sometimes  urge<l  on  the  ground  of  some  popular  view 
of  a  fact  or  doctrine,  they  have  been  received  as  care- 
lessly as  they  were  uttered.  Philosophers  too  have 
sometimes  constructed  hasty  theories  on  various  sub- 
jects, which  have  contradicted  or  been  thought  to  con- 
tradict some  parts  of  the  Scriptures ;  and  the  array  of 
science,  and  the  fascination  of  novelty,  have  equally 
deceived  and  misled  the  theorist  himself  and  his  dis- 
ciples. Since  the  revival  of  letters,  and  in  countries 
where  freedom  of  discussion  has  been  allowed,  object- 
ors have  arisen,  and  numerous  attempts  have  been 
made  to  shake  the  faith  of  mankind.  That  specious 
kind  of  infidelity  known  by  the  name  of  "Deism,"  made 
its  appearance  in  Italy  and  France  about  the  middle 
of  the  sixteenth  century,  and  in  England  early  in 
the  seventeenth.  Under  this  appellation,  and  that  of 
"  The  Religion  of  Nature,"  each  ado])ted  to  deceive  the 
unwary,  the  attack  upon  Christianity  was  at  first  cau- 
tious, and  accompanied  with  many  professions  of  re- 
gard for  its  manifold  excellences.  Lord  Hkrbert  of 
Cherbury  was  the  first  who  in  this  country  advocated 
this  system.  He  lays  down  five  primary  articles  of  reli- 
gion, as  containing  every  thing  necessary  to  be  believed; 
and  as  he  contends  they  are  all  discoverable  by  our  natu- 
ral faculties,  they  supersede,  he  informs  us,  the  necessity 
of  a  revelation.  They  are — that  there  is  a  Sujjreme 
God— that  he  is  chiefly  to  be  worshipped — that  piety 
and  virtue  are  the  principal  part  of  his  worship — that 
repentance  expiates  offence— and  that  there  is  a  state 
of  future  rewards  and  punishments.  The  history  of  in- 
fidelity from  this  time  is  a  striking  comment  upon  the 
words  of  St.  Paul,  ^' But  evil  men  and  seducers  shall 
wax  xvorse  and  worse,  deceiving  and  being  deceived  ;" 
for,  in  the  progress  of  this  deadly  error,  all  Lord  Her- 
bert's five  articles  of  Natural  Religion  have  been  ques- 
tioned or  given  up  by  those  who  followed  him  in  his 
fundamental  principle,  "  that  nothing  can  be  admitted 
which  is  not  discoverable  by  our  natural  faculties." 
HoBBKs,  who  succeeded  ne.xt  in  this  warfare  against 
the  Bible,  if  he  acknowledges  that  there  is  a  God,  re- 
presents him  as  corporeal,  and  our  duty  to  him  as  a 
chimera,  the  civil  magistrate  being  supreme  in  all 
things  both  civil  and  sacred.  Shaftesbury  insists  that 
the  doctrine  of  rewards  and  punishments  is  degrading 
to  the  understanding  and  detrimental  to  moral  virtue. 
HuMK  denies  the  relation  between  cause  and  effect, 
and  thus  attempts  to  overthrow  the  argument  for  the 
existence  of  God  from  the  frame  of  the  universe.  By 
others  the  worship  of  God,  which  Lord  Herbert  advo- 
cates, has  been  rejected  as  unreasonable,  because  He 
needs  not  our  praises,  and  is  not  to  be  turned  from  his 
purposes  by  our  prayers.  As  all  law,  of  Divine  authority, 
IS  on  this  system  renounced,  so  "  piety  and  virtue" 
must  be  understood  to  be  what  every  man  chooses  to 
consider  them,  which  amounts  to  their  anndiilation  ; 
and  as  for  future  reward  and  punishment,  philosophy, 
since  Lord  Herbert's  days,  has  discovered  that  the  soul 
of  man  is  material ;  or  rather,  being  a  mere  result  of 
the  organization  of  the  body,  that  it  dies  with  it.  The 
great  principle  of  the  English  proto-infidel,  "  the  suffi- 
ciency of  our  natural  faculties  to  form  a  religion  for 
ourselves,  and  to  decide  upon  the  merits  of  revealed 
truth,"  IS,  however,  the  principle  of  all ;  and  this  being 
once  conceded,  the  instances  just  given  are  sufliciently 
in  proof  that  the  cable  is  slipped,  and  that  every  one  is 
left  to  take  his  course  wherever  the  winds  and  the  cur- 
rents may  impel  his  unpiloted,  uncharted,  and  uncom- 
passed  bark.  This  grand  principle  of  error,  between 
which  and  absolute  Atheism  there  are  but  a  few  steps, 
has  been  largely  refuted  in  the  foregoing  pages,  and 
the  claims  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  to  be  con.sidered  as  a 
Revelation  from  God,  eatablished  by  argurneois  tho 


90 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  I. 


fsrce  of  which  in  all  other  cases  is  felt,  anJ  arknow- 
ledged,  and  acted  upon  even  by  unbelievers  tlicniselves. 
If  this  has  been  done  salisliictorily,  the  objections  which 
remain  are  of  little  weight,  were  thiy  even  less  capable 
of  being  repelled  ;  and  if  no  answer  can  be  Ibuiid  to 
some  of  the  difficulties  which  may  be  ureed,  this  cir- 
cumstance is  much  more  in  accordance  with  the  iriilh 
of  a  revelation,  than  it  would  be  with  its  falsehood. 
"  We  do  not  deny,"  says  an  excellent  writer  on  the 
Evidences  of  Christianity,(t))  "  that  the  scheme  of  reve- 
lation has  its  ditlicultics  ;  for  if  tlie  things  of  nature  are 
ollen  difficult  to  comprehend,  it  would  be  strange  in- 
deed if  sui)crnatural  matters  were  so  simple,  and  ob-~ 
vious,  and  suited  to  fniiie  capacities,  as  never  to  startle 
and  puzzle  us  at  all.-  He  \vlio  denies  the  Bible  to  have 
come  from  Uod  because  of  lh(;se  difficulties,  may  li)r 
exactly  the  same  reason  deny  that  the  world  w'as 
formed  by  Him." 

The  mere  cavils  of  infidel  WTiters  may  be  hastily  dis- 
missed; the  most  plausible  objeclions  shall  be  con- 
sidered more  at  lar";e.  As  to  the  former,  few  of  them 
could  have  been  uised  if  those  wlio  have  adduced  thciii 
had  consulte<l  the  works  of  coinmentators  and  biblical 
mtics,  writings  with  which  it  is  evident  they  have  little 
acquaintance  ;  and  thus  they  have  shown  how  ill- 
dispo.sed  tliey  have  been  to  become  fully  aciiuaiiited 
■with  the  subjects  which  they  have  subjei'tcd  to  their 
criticism.  To  this  may  be  added  their  ij/noraiK-e  of  the 
idiom  of  the  Hebrew,  the  lanfjuage  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ;  their  inattention  to  the  ancient  manners  and 
customs  ot  the  countries  where  the  sacred  writers  lived, 
to  occasional  errors  in  the  transcription  of  numerous 
copies  which  may  be  rectified  by  collation,  and  to  the 
different  readings,  which,  to  a  candid  criticism,  would 
generally  furnish  the  solution  of  the  difficulty. 

The  Bible  has  been  vehemently  assaulted,  because  it 
represents  God  as  giving  command  to  the  Israelites  to 
e.xterminate  the  nations  of  Canaan ;  but  a  few  remarks 
■will  be  sufficient  to  prove  how  little  weight  there  is  in 
the  charges  which,  on  this  account,  have  been  made 
against  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  objection 
cannot  be  argued  upon  the  mere  ground,  that  it  is  con- 
trary to  the  Divine  Justice  or  Mercy  to  cut  off"  a  people 
indiscriminately,  from  the  eldest  to  the  youngest,  since 
this  is  done  in  eartluiuakes,  pestilences,  &.C..  The  cho- 
lera morbus,  which  has  been  for  lour  years  past  wast- 
ing various  parts  of  Asia,  has  probably  destroyed  half 
a  million  of  jiersons  of  all  ages.  The  character  of  the 
God  of  nature  is  not  therefore  contradicted  by  that  as- 
cribed to  the  God  of  the  Bible.  The  whole  obj(;ction 
resolves  itself  into  this  question  :  Was  it  con.sistent 
■with  the  character  of  God,  to  employ  human  assents  in 
this  work  of  destruction  ?  Wlio  can  prove  that  it  was 
iMit  ?  No  one  ;  and  yet  here  lies  the  whole  stress  of  the 
objection.  The  .lews  were  not  rendered  more  cruel  by 
their  being  so  commissioned  ;  for  we  find  them  much 
more  merciful  in  their  institutions  than  other  ancient 
nations ; — nor  can  this  instance  be  pleaded  in  favour  of 
exterminating  wars,  for  there  was  in  the  case  a  special 
commission  for  a  s]pecial  purpose,  and  by  that  il  was 
limited.  Other  considerations  are  also  to  be  included. 
The  sins  of  the  C'anaaintes  were  of  so  gross  a  nature, 
that  it  was  necessary  to  mark  tlieni  with  signal  ]uinisli- 
ments  for  the  benefit  of  snrroiiiidin^'  nations;  the  em- 
ploying of  the  Israelites,  as  inslrunniils  under  a  special 
and  publicly  proclaimed  commission,  connected  the 
punishment  more  visibly  with  the  offence,  than  if  it 
had  beiMi  inllicted  by  the  array  of  warring  elements, 
while  the  Israelites  themselves  would  be  more  deeply 
impressed  with  the  guilt  of  idolatry,  and  its  ever  ac- 
companying poUuled  and  sanguinary  rites  ;  and,  finally, 
Uie  Canaanitrs  had  been  long  s|iarcd,  and  in  the  mean 
time  both  warned  by  partial  judjjnients,  and  reproved 
by  the  remaining  arlliermls  of  the  ]iatriarulial  religion 
who  resided  among  them. 

Thus  the  objection  rests  upon  no  foundation.  The 
destruction  of  infants,  so  often  dwelt  ujion,  takes  place 
in  nature  and  jirovidence;  the  objection  to  the  employ- 
ment of  human  agents,  arising  from  habits  of  inhu- 
manity being  thireby  induced,  assumes  what  is  false 
in  fact ;  for  this  effiict  upon  tin;  .lews  was  prevented  by 
the  circumstance  of  their  knowing  that  they  acted  as 
ministers  of  the  Divine  disjileasiire,  and  under  his 
commission  ;  and  some  important  reasons  may  be  dis- 
covered for  executing  the  judgment  by  nun,  and  esjie- 


(6)  Dr.  Oliwtuvs  Gbkqoki. 


cially  this,  tliat  it  might  exhibit  the  evil  of  a  sanguinary 
and  obscene  idolatry. 

That  law  in  Deuteronomy,  which  authorizes  parent-i, 
the  father  and  the  mother,  to  bring  "  a  stubborn  and 
rebellious  son,"  wlio  was  also  "  a  glutton  and  a  drunk- 
ard," before  the  elders  of  the  city,  that,  if  guilty,  he 
might  be  stoned,  has  been  called  inhuman  and  brutal. 
In  point  of  fact,  it  was,  hov*ever,  a  merciful  regulation. 
In  almost  all  ancient  nations,  parents  had  the  power  of 
taking  away  the  lives  of  their  children.  This  was  a 
branch  of  the  old  patriarchal  authority  which  did  not 
all  at  once  merge  into  the  kingly  governinenis  which 
were  afterward  established.  There  is  reason,  there- 
fore, to  believe  that  it  was  possessed  by  the  heads  of 
families  among  the  Lsraelites,  and  that  this  was  the 
first  alteni])t  to  control  it,  by  obliging  the  crimes 
alleged  against  their  children  to  be  proved  before  re- 
gular magistrates,  and  thus  preventing  the  effects  of 
unbndleil  passions. 

The  intentional  ofTering  of  Isaac  hy  Abraham  has 
also  had  Its  share  of  censure.  The  answer  is,  I.  That 
Abraham,  who  was  in  the  habit  of  sensible  communi- 
cation with  (lod,  could  have  no  doubt  of  the  Divine 
command,  and  of  the  right  of  God  to  take  away  the  life 
he  had  given.  2.  That  he  proceeded  to  execute  the 
command  of  God,  in  faith,  as  the  Apostle  Paul  has 
stated,  that  God  would  raise  his  son  from  the  dead. 
The  whole  transaction  was  extraordinary,  and  cannot 
therefore  be  judged  by  common  rules ;  and  it  could 
only  be  fairly  objected  to,  if  it  had  been  so  stated  as  to 
encourage  human  sacrifices.  Here,  however,  are  suffi- 
cient guards ;  an  indubitableDivine  command  was  given, 
the  sacrifice  was  prevented  by  the  same  authority;  and 
the  history  stands  in  a  book  which  represents  human 
sacrifices  as  an  abomination  to  God. 

Indelicacy  and  immodesty  have  been  charged  upon 
some  ])arts  of  the  Scriptures.  This  objection  has  some- 
thing in  it  which  indicates  malignity  rather  than  an 
honest  and  princijded  exception  ;  for  in  no  instance  are 
any  statements  made  in  unlir  to  incite  impurity  ;  and 
nothing,  throughout  the  whole  Scripture,  is  represented 
as  more  ofTeiisive  to  God,  or  as  more  certainly  exclud- 
ing persons  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  than  the 
unlawful  gratification  of  the  senses.  It  is  also  to  be 
noted,  that  many  of  the  passages  objected  to  are  in  the 
lun-s  and  prohilii/iiiiisoi'holh  Testaments,  and  as  well 
might  the  statute  and  common  law  of  this  country  be 
the  subject  of  reprehension,  and  be  held  up  as  tending 
to  encourage  vices  of  various  kinds,  because  they  must, 
with  more  or  less  of  circumstantiality,  describe  them. 
We  are  farther  to  take  into  account  the  simplicity  of 
manners  and  language  in  early  limes.  We  observe, 
even  among  the  peasantry  of  modern  states,  a  language 
on  the  subjects  referred  to,  which  is  more  direct,  and 
what  refined  society  would  call  gross ;  but  greater  real 
indelicacy  does  not  necessarily  follow.  Countries  and 
classes  of  peojile  might  be  pointed  out,  where  the  lan- 
guage which  expres.ses  sensual  indulgence  has  more 
of  caution  and  of  periphrasis,  while  the  known  facts 
show  that  their  morals  are  exceedingly  polluted. 

Several  objections  which  have  been  raised  against 
characters  and  transactions  in  the  books  of  Judges, 
Sainnel,  and  Khigs,  are  di.ssipated  by  the  single  consi- 
deration that  where  they  are  obviously  immoral  or  un- 
jnstilialile,  they  are  never  ajijiroved,  and  are  merely 
staled  as  facts  of  history.  The  conduct  of  Ehud, 
of  Samson,  and  of  Jephthah  may  be  given  as  in- 
stances. 

The  advice  of  David,  when  on  his  death-bed,  respect- 
ing Joab  and  Shimei,  has  been  attributed  lo  his  jinvate 
resentment.  This  is  not  the  fact.  He  spoke  iii  his 
character  of  king  and  magistrate,  and  gave  Ins  advice 
on  public  grounds,  as  conunitting  the  kingdom  to  his 
sun. 

The  conduct  of  David  also  towards  the  Ammonites, 
in  putting  them  "  ?/?((/fr  s-aics-  and  hiirrinm  nf  iron," 
has  been  the  subject  of  severe  animadversion.  But  the 
expression  means  no  more  than  that  he  employed  them 
il!  luborious  works,  as  ;<aifin!;,  making  iron  harr(m<s, 
hewing  wood,  and  making  hhcks,  iht-  Hebrew  prefix 
signilying  to  as  well  as  unilrr.  "  lie  ]nil  thnn  to  saws 
anil  harruirs  of  iron  (some  render  it  iron-mmes)  and 
to  aj-c.i  of  iron,  and  viade  than  to  pass  through  the 
hrirk-ldln.-" 

With  respect  totheimprecationsfiinnd  in  many  parts 
olScrijiture,  and  which  have  been  represented  asex- 
presaionu  of  revenge  and  malice,  it  has  beeu  oftea  and 


Chap.  XX.] 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


91 


satisfactorily  observed,  tliat  they  are  predictions  and 
not  anathemas,  the  imperative  mood  being  put  Ibr  the 
future  tense,  according  t'j  the  Hebrew  idiom. 

These  have  been  ad(hiccd  as  specimens  of  the  objec- 
tions urged  by  infidel  writers  against  the  Scriptures, 
and  of  the  ease  with  which  they  may  be  mc't.  For 
others  nf  a  similar  kind,  and  for  answers  to  ohjectioiis 
founded  upon  supposed  coin riidictioiis  between  dilferent 
passages  of  Scripture,  relercncc  must  be  made  to  com- 
merit;ttors.(7)  With  reKi)ect  lo  all  of  them,  it  has  been 
well  observed,  "  that  a  little  skill  in  the  original  lan- 
guages of  the  Scriptures,  their  idioms  and  properties, 
and  in  the  tunes,  occasions,  and  scope  of  tlte  several 
books,  as  well  as  in  the  antiquities  and  customs  of 
those  countries  which  were  tlie  scenes  of  the  transac- 
tions recorded,  will  always  clear  the  main  dilliuulties."' 
To  some  other  objections  of  a  philosojiUical  kind,  as 
being  of  a  more  imposing  aspect,  the  answers  may  he 
more  extended. 

Between  natural  philosophy  and  revelation — the 
book  of  nature  and  the  book  of  God — it  has  been  a  fa- 
vourite practice  with  unbelievers  toinstitiUe  a  contrast, 
and  to  set  the  plainness  and  uncontradictory  character 
of  the  one  against  the  mysteries  and  difliculties  of  the 
other.  The  common  ground  on  which  all  such  objec- 
tions rest  is  an  unwillingness  to  admit  as  truth,  and  to 
receive  as  established  and  authorized  doctrine,  what 
is  incomprehensible.  They  contend,  that  if  a  revela- 
tion has  been  made,  there  can  be  no  mystery  in  it,  for 
that  is  a  contradiction ;  and  that  if  mysteries,  that  is, 
things  incomprehensible,  are  held  to  be  a  part  of  it,  this 
is  fatal  to  its  claims  as  a  revelation.  The  sophism  is 
easily  answered.  Many  doctrines,  many  duties,  are 
comprehensible  enough  ;  no  mystery  at  all  is  involved 
in  them ;  and  as  to  incomprehensible  subjects,  nothing 
is  more  undoubted,  as  vie  have  already  shown,  than 
that  a  fact  may  be  the  subject  of  revelation,  as  that  God 
is  eternal  and  omnipresent,  and  still  remain  myste- 
rious and  incomprehensible.  The  fact  itself  is  not 
hidden,  or  expressed  in  language  or  symbol  so  equi- 
vocal as  to  throw  the  meaning  into  difficulty,  the  oidy 
sense  in  which  the  argument  could  be  valid.  As  a  fact, 
it  is  clearly  revealed  that  these  are  attributes  of  the 
Divine  Nature ;  but  both,  notwithstanding  that  clear 
and  indubitable  revelation,  are  still  incomprehensible. 
— It  is  not  revealed  how  God  is  eternal  and  omnipre- 
sent, nor  is  such  a  revelation  pretended ;  but  it  is  re- 
vealed that  He  is  so — not  how  a  Tnnity  of  persons 
exists  in  Unity  of  essence;  but  that  such  is  the  mode 
of  the  Divine  e.xistence.  If,  however,  men  hesitate  to 
admit  incomprehensible  subjects  as  matters  of  faith ; 
they  cannot  be  permitted  to  tly  for  relief  from  revela- 
tion to  philosophy,  and  much  less  to  set  up  its  superior 
claims,  as  to  clearness  of  manifestation,  to  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  There,  too,  it  will  be  seen,  that  mystery 
and  revelation  go  inseparably  together ;  that  he  who 
will  not  admit  the  mystery  cannot  have  the  benefit  of 
the  revelation  ;  and  that  he  who  takes  the  revelation  of 
facts,  embraces  at  the  same  time  the  mystery  of  their 
causes.  The  facts,  for  instance,  of  the  attraction  of 
gravitation,  of  cohesion,  of  electricity,  of  magnetism, 
of  congelation,  of  thawing,  of  evaporation,  are  all  ad- 
mitted. The  experimental  and  inductive  philosophy  of 
modem  times  has  made  many  revelations  of  the  rela- 
tions and  in  some  instances  of  the  proximate  causes 
of  these  phenomena ;  but  the  real  causes  are  all  confess- 
edly hidden.  With  respect  to  mechanics,  says  a  writer 
who  has  devoted  his  life  to  philosophical  studies,(8)  "  this 
science  is  conversant  a.ho\it  force,  matter,  tmie,  motion, 
space ;  each  of  these  has  occasioned  the  most  elaborate 
disquisitions,  and  the  most  violent  disputes.  Let  it  be 
asked,  what  is  force'!  If  the  answerer  be  candid,  his 
reply  will  be,  '  I  cannot  tell  so  as  to  satisfy  every  in- 
quirer, or  so  as  to  enter  into  the  essence  of  the  thing.' 
Again,  what  is  7nn«fr:'  '  I  cannot  tell.'  What  is  mo- 
tioii  ?  '  I  cannot  tell ;'  "  and  so  of  the  rest.  "  The  fact 
of  the  communication  of  motion  from  one  body  to  an- 
other, is  as  inexplicable  as  the  communication  of  Divine 
influences.  How,  then,  can  the  former  be  admitted 
with  any  face,  while  the  latter  is  denied  solely  on  the 
ground  of  its  incomprehensibility  ? 
"  But  perhaps  I  may  be  told  that  although  things 


(7)  See  also  a  copious  collection  of  these  supposed 
contradictions,  with  judicious  explanations,  in  theAp- 
j)endix  to  vol.  i.  of  Horne's  Introduction,  &;c.. 

18)  Dr.  GftBQOKY's  Letters  ou  the  Cliristian  Religion. 


which  are  incompn^liensiblc  occur  in  otir  physical  and 
mixed  inquiries,  they  have  no  place  in  '  pure  mathe- 
matics, where  all  is  not  only  demonstrable,  but  intelli- 
gible.' This,  again,  is  an  a.ssertion  which  I  cannot  ad- 
mit ;  and  ibr  the  denial  of  which  I  shall  beg  leave  to 
produce  my  reasons,  as  this  will,  I  ajiprehend,  make 
still  more  in  favour  of  my  general  argument.  Now, 
here  it  is  known,  geometricians  can  ilimonstrate  that 
there  are  curves  which  a]iproach  coniinually  to  some 
fi.xed  right  line,  without  the  possibility  of  ever  meeting 
it.  Such,  lor  example,  are  hyperbolas,  which  continu- 
ally apjiroach  towards  their  asymptotes,  but  cannot 
possibly  meet  them,  unless  an  assignable  finite  space 
can  become  equal  to  nothing.  Such,  again,  are  con- 
choids, wliich  continually  approach  to  their  directrices, 
yet  can  never  meet  them,  unless  a  certain  point  can  be 
both  beyond  and  in  contact  with  a  given  line  at  the 
same  moment.  Pdathematicians  can  also  demonstrate 
that  a  s])ace  infinite  in  one  sense,  may  by  its  rotation 
generate  a  solid  of  Jinite  capacity ;  as  is  the  case  with 
the  solid  formed  by  the  rotation  of  a  logarithmic  curve 
of  infinite  length  upon  its  axis,  or  that  formed  by  the 
rotation  of  an  Apollonian  hyperbola  upon  its  asymp- 
tote. They  can  also  show  in  numerous  instances  that 
a  variable  space  shall  be  continually  augmenting,  and 
yet  never  become  equal  to  a  certain  finite  quantity ; 
and  they  frequently  make  transformations  with  great 
facility  and  neatness,  by  means  of  expressions  to  which 
no  definite  ideas  can  be  attached.  Can  we,  for  exam- 
ple, obtain  any  clear  comprehension,  or  indeed  any 
notion  at  all,  of  the  value  of  a  power  whose  exponent 
is  an  acknoii'ledgcd  imaginary  quantity,  as  x  y  — 1  ? 
Can  we,  in  like  manner,  obtain  any  distinct  idea  of 
a  series  constituted  of  an  injinite  number  of  terms  ? 
In  each  case  the  answer,  I  am  convinced,  must  be  in 
the  negative.  Yet  the  science,  in  which  these  and  nu- 
merous other  incomprehensibles  occur,  is  called  Ma- 
thesis,  thk  nsciPLiNK,  because  of  its  incomparable 
superiority  to  other  studies  in  evidence  and  certainty, 
and,  therefore,  its  singular  adaptation  to  discipline  the 
mind.  How  does  it  happen,  now,  that  when  the  inves- 
tigation is  bent  towards  objects  which  cannot  be  com- 
prehended, the  mind  arrives  at  that  in  which  it  acqui- 
esces as  certainty,  and  rests  satisfied !  It  is  not,  mani- 
festly, because  we  have  a  distinct  perception  of  the 
nature  of  the  objects  of  the  inquirj-  (for  that  is  pre- 
cluded by  the  supposition,  and,  indeed,  by  the  preceding 
statement) ;  but  because  we  have  such  a  distinct  per- 
ception of  the  relation  which  those  objects  bear  one  to- 
wards another,  and  can  assign  positively,  without  dan- 
ger of  error,  the  exact  relation,  as  to  identity  or  diversity, 
of  the  quantities  before  us,  at  every  step  of  the  process." 
Modern  astronomy  has  displayed  the  immense  extent 
of  the  universe,  and  by  analogical  reasoning  has  made 
it  probable,  at  least,  that  the  planets  of  our  and  of  other 
systems  may  be  inhabited  by  rational  and  moral  beings 
like  ourselves  ;  and  from  these  premises  infidel  philo- 
sojihy  has  argued  with  apparent  humility  Ibr  the  insig- 
nificance of  the  human  race,  and  the  improbability  of 
supposing  that  a  Divine  person  should  have  been  sent 
into  this  world  for  its  instruction  and  salvation,  when, 
in  comparison  with  the  solar  system,  it  is  but  a  point, 
and  that  system  itself,  in  comparison  of  the  universe, 
may  be  nothing  more. 

Plausible  as  this  may  appear,  nothing  can  have  less 
weight,  even  if  only  the  philosophy  and  not  the  theology 
of  the  case  be  taken  into  consideration.  The  intention 
with  which  man  is  thus  compared  with  the  universe  is, 
to  prove  his  insignificance;  and  the  comparison  must 
be  made  either  between  man  and  the  vastness  of  pla- 
netary and  stellar  matter,  or  between  the  number  of 
mankind  and  the  number  of  supposed  planetary  inha- 
bitants. If  the  former,  we  may  reply  with  Dr.  Beattie, 
"  Great  extent  is  a  thing  so  striking  to  our  imagina- 
tion, that  sometimes,  in  the  moment  of  forgetfnlness, 
we  are  apt  to  think  nothing  can  be  important  but  what 
is  of  vast  corporeal  magnitude.  And  yet,  even  to  our 
apprehension,  when  we  are  willing  to  be  rational,  how 
much  more  sublime  and  more  interesting  an  object  is  a 
mind  like  that  of  Newton,  than  the  unwieldy  force  and 
brutal  stupidity  of  such  a  monster  as  the  poets  de- 
scribe Polyphemus  ?  Who,  that  had  it  in  his  power, 
would  scruple  to  destroy  a  whale,  in  order  to  save  a 
child  .'  Nay,  when  compared  with  the  happiness  of  one 
ipimortal  mind,  the  greatest  imaginable  accumulation 
of  inanimate  substance  must  appear  an  insignificant 
thing.    '  If  we  consider,'  says  Bentley, '  the  dignity  of 


92 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


an  intelligent  being,  and  put  that  in  the  scale  against 
brute  and  inanimate  matter,  we  may  aHimi,  without 
overvaluin;;  human  nature,  that  the  soul  of  one  vir- 
tuous man  is  of  greater  worth  and  excel!«nc<^  than  the 
Bun  and  tiis  planets,  and  all  the  stars  in  the  world." 
Let  us  not  then  make  bulk  the  standard  of  value ;  or 
juiJseof  the  importance  of  man  from  the  weight  of  his 
body,  or  from  the  si/.e  or  situation  of  the  planet  that  is 
now  his  place  of  ahode." 

To  the  same  effect  an  ingenious  and  acute  writer  re- 
marks upon  a  passage  in  Saussure  ( Voyages  dayui  les 
Aljies),  who  speaks  of  men  in  the  phrase  of  tlie  modern 
philosophy,  as  "  the  little  beings  which  crawl  ujion  the 
surface  of  the  earth,"  and  as  shrinking  into  nothing  both 
as  to  "  space  and  time,'^  in  comparison  with  the  vast 
mountains,  and  "  the  great  epochas  of  nature."  "  If," 
Bays  Mr.  Granville  I'enii,(9)  "  there  is  any  sense  or 
virtue  in  this  reflection,  it  nmst  consist  in  duly  esti- 
mating the  rtZa/;ve  miportaiice  oTthe  two  magnitudes 
and  durations,  and  in  concluding  logically,  the  compa- 
rative insignificance  of  the  smaller.  And  it  will  then 
necessarily  follow,  that  the  insignificance  of  the  smaller 
would  lessen,  in  the  same  proportion  in  which  it  might 
increase  in  bulk.  If  the  little  beings  therefore  were  to 
be  magnified  in  the  proportions  of  2,  3,  4,  &;c.,  their  in- 
significance, relatively  to  the  great  features  of  the 
globe,  would  necessarily  diminish  in  tlie  same  ratio. 
The  smaller  the  disproportion  between  the  man  and 
^  the  mountain,  the  less  would  be  the  relative  insignifi- 
cance of  the  tbrmer ;  and  although  the  increase  of 
magnitude  in  the  smaller  object  be  ever  so  inconsider- 
able, yet  if  it  is  positive  and  real,  its  dignity  must  be 
proportionately  increased  in  the  true  nature  of  things : 
the  bigger  the  being  that  crawls  upon  the  stirface  of 
this  globe,  the  less  absurd  would  be  the  supposition 
that  he  is  the  final  object  of  this  terrestrial  creation. 
The  Irish  giant,  tlierelbre,  whose  altitude  exceeded  the 
measure  of  eigjit  feet,  would  exceed  in  relative  dig- 
nity, by  the  same  proportion,  Uaoon  and  Newton, 
whose  height  did  not  attain  to  six  feet.  If  this  is  non- 
sense, then  must  that  also  be  nonsense  Irorn  which  it 
18  the  genuine  conclusion  :  viz.  that  the  material  7nag- 
nitudes  of  the  little  beings,  or  their  duration  upon  the 
earth  on  which  they  '  crawl.^  determines,  in  any  man- 
ner, their  importance,  in  the  creation,  relatively  to  the 
primordial  mountains  which  arise  above  it,  or  to  the 
extent  of  the  regions  which  may  be  surveyed  from 
their  summits.  For,  if  the  same  physically  small  be- 
ings possess  another  magnitude,  which  can  be  brought 
to  another  and  a  diflferent  scale  of  computation  from 
that  of  physical  or  matiriai  magnitude ;  a  scale  infi- 
nitely surpassing  m  importance  the  greatest  measures 
of  that  magnitude ;  then  there  will  be  nothing  asto- 
nishing or  irrational  in  the  supposition,  that  the  highest 
mountains,  and  the  widest  regions,  and  the  entire  sys- 
tem to  which  they  pertain,  may  be  subservient  to  ihe 
ends  of  those  t)ein;;s,  and  to  that  other  system  to  which 
they  pcrlain  ;  which  latter  will  thus  be  found  sujicrior 
in  importance!  to  the  former.  8uch  a  scale  is  that  by 
which  the  intelligent,  moral,  and  immortal  nature  of 
MAN  is  to  be  measured,  and  which  the  sacred  historian 
calls  a  (brmalion  '  after  the  image  ami  likeness  of 
God  ;'  a  scale  so  little  taken  into  the  contemplation  of 
the  science  of  mere  physics.  As  soon,  however,  as 
that  moral  scale  of  magnitude  once  supersedes  the,  phy- 
sical scale  in  the  apjirehension  of  the  mind ;  as  soon 
as  the  mind  perceives  that  the  duration  of  that  intelli- 
gent moral  nature  infinitely  exceeds  the  vastest '  epo- 
cha  of  Nature'  which  the  imagination  of  the  mineral 
geology  can  represent  to  itself,  and  that,  though  the  phy- 
sical nature  of  man  is  limited  to  a  very  small  measure 
of  time,  yet  his  moral  nature  is  unlimited  in  time,  and 
will  outlast  all  the  mountains  of  the  globe  ;  it  tiien  per- 
ceives, at  the  same  moment,  the  counterfeit  quality  of 
the  rellcction,  which  at  first  apjieared  so  sublime  and 
BO  humble,  so  profound  and  so  devout.  The  sublimity 
and  humility  betray  themselves  to  be  the  di.sparage- 
mcnt  and  degradation  of  our  nature  ;  the  profundity  is 
found  to  be  men'  siirlacc,  and  the  devotion  to  be  _a  rc- 
troce.ssion  froiii  the  lif;lit  of  revelation." 

If  the  comparison  of  man  with  men;  material  magni- 
tude will  not  then  support  this  ellbrt  to  effect  his  degra- 
dation and  to  shame  him  out  of  lus  trust  in  the  loving- 
kindness  of  his  God;   if  the    comparison   be   made 


(0) "  Comparative  Estiruatc  of  tbc  Mineroi  and  Mosuic 
Geclogics.'' 


[Part  L 

between  things  which  have  no  relations  in  common, 
and  is  therefore  absurd;  as  little  will  it  serve  this  un- 
natural attempt  to  [iroslrale  man  to  an  insect  rank,  and 
to  inspire  him  with  reptile  feelings,  to  conclude  bis 
insignificance  from  the  number  of  other  beings.  For  it 
is  plain  that  thiir  number  alters  not  his  real  character; 
he  is  .still  iiiiinortal  though  myriads  besides  him  are  im- 
mortal, and  still  he  has  his  deep  capacity  of  pleasure 
and  of  pain.  Unless,  tlierelbre,  it  could  be  proved,  that 
tlie  care  of  God  for  each  must  be  diminished  as  the 
number  of  his  creatures  is  increased;  there  is,  as  Mr. 
Penn  has  stated  it,  neither  "  sense  nor  virtue"  in  such 
reflections  upon  the  littleness  of  man  ;  and  they  imply, 
indeed,  a  base  and  an  unworthy  reflection  upon  the  Su- 
preme Creator  himself,  as  though  lie  could  not  bestow 
upon  all  the  beings  he  has  made  a  care  and  a  love  ade- 
quate to  their  circumstances.  What  man  is  with  resiiect 
to  God,  can  only  be  collected  from  the  Divine  procedures 
tow  ards  him  ;  and  these  are  sufficient  to  excite  the 
devout  exclamations  of  the  Psalmist,  '•  What  is  man 
that  TiiOL'  art  Miftwvh  of  him?  or  the  son  nf  man  that 
rnoi  vistTKsrAfOT.'"  That  he  has  not  only  been  made 
by  God,  but  that  he  is  governed  by  his  providence,  none 
but  Atheists  will  deny  ;  but  any  argument  drawn  from 
such  premises  as  the  above  would  conclude  as  forcibly 
against  jirovidence  as  it  ran  be  made  to  conclude 
against  redemption.  "Our  Saviour,"  says  Dr.  lieatlie, 
"as  if  to  obviate  objections  of  this  nature,  expresses 
most  emphatically  the  superintending  care  of  j)rovidence, 
when  he  teaches,  that  it  is  God  who  adorns  the  grass 
of  the  field,  that  without  him  a  sparrow  lalls  not  on  the 
ground,  and  that  even  the  hairs  of  our  head  are  num- 
bered. Yet  this  is  no  exaggeration  ;  but  must,  if  God  is 
omniscient  and  almighty,  be  literally  true.  Py  a  stu- 
pendous exuberance  of  animal,  vegetable,  and  mineral 
production,  and  by  an  apparatus  still  more  stupendous 
(if  that  were  possible)  for  the  distribution  of  light  and 
heat,  he  suiiplies  the  means  of  life  and  comfort  to  the 
short-lived  inhabitants  of  this  globe.  Can  it  then 
appear  incredible,  nay,  does  not  this  consideration 
render  it  in  the  highest  degree  probable,  that  he  has  also 
prepared  the  means  of  eternal  happiness  for  beings, 
whom  he  has  formed  lor  eternal  duration,  whom  he  has 
endowed  with  faculties  so  noble  as  those  of  the  human 
soul,  and  for  whose  accommodation  chiefly,  during 
their  jiresent  state  of  trial,  he  has  provided  all  the  mag- 
nificence of  this  sublunary  world .'" 

There  is,  however,  another  consideration,  which  gives 
a  sublime  and  overwhelming  grandeur  to  the  Scripture 
view  of  the  redemption  of  the  race  of  man,  and  cf 
which,  for  the  want  of  acquaintance  with  our  sacred 
writings,  infidel  philosophers  appear  never  to  have  en- 
tertained the  least  conception.  It  is  the  moral  con- 
nexion of  this  world  with  the  whole  universe  of  intel- 
ligent creatures;  and  the  " intention"  there  was  in  the 
Divine  Mind  to  convey  to  other  beings,  by  the  history 
and  great  results  of  his  moral  government  over  one 
branch  of  his  universal  family,  a  view  of  his  own  per- 
fections ;  of  the  duties  and  dangers  of  created  and  finite 
beings;  of  transgression  and  holiness,  in  their  princi- 
ples and  in  their  effects  ;  by  a  course  of  actum  so  much 
more  influential  than  abstract  truth,  intimations  of  this 
great  and  impressive  view  are  found  in  various  passages 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  it  opens  a  scene  of  incon- 
ceivable moral  magnificence — "  To  the  intent,  that  to 
the  principalities  and  powers  in  heavenly  places  might 
be  known  by  the  church  the  manifold  wisdom  of 
f;od."(l) 


(1)  "In  this  our  first  period  of  existence,  our  eye 
cannot  penetrate  beyond  the  present  scene,  and  the  hu- 
man race  appears  one  great  and  separate  community; 
but  with  other  worlds,  and  other  communities,  we  pro- 
bably may,  and  every  argument  for  the  truth  of  our 
religion  gives  us  reason  to  think  tha't  we  shall  be  con- 
nected lierealter.  And  if  by  our  behaviour  we  may, 
even  while  here,  as  our  Lord  iwsitively  alhrms,  heighten 
in  some  degree  the  felicity  of  angels,  our  salvation  may 
hereaHcr  be  a  matter  of  importance,  not  to  us  only,  but 
to  many  other  orders  of  immortal  beings.  They,  it  is 
true,  will  not  suffer  for  our  guilt,  nor  be  rewarded  for 
our  obedience.  But  it  is  not  absurd  to  imagine,  that  our 
fall  and  recoviry  may  he  useful  to  tin  ni  as  an  example; 
ami  that  the  Divine  grace  manifested  m  our  n-demption 
may  raise  their  adoration  ami  gratitude  into  higher  rap- 
tures, and  quicken  their  ardour  to  iiujuire,  with  ever 
new  delight,  into  the  divpeiisatioiis  uf  IiiCuite  Wiedoui. 


Chap.  XX.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


93 


It  has  been  objected  to  the  Mosaic  chronology,  that  it 
fixes  the  era  of  creation  only  about  4(I00  years  earlier 
than  the  Christian  era  ;  and  acainst  this,  eviileni-e  has 
been  brought  from  two  sources — the  chronolo;,'y  of  cer- 
tain ancient  nations,  and  ihe  structure  of  the  earth. 

The  objections  drawn  I'roui  the  former  of  these  sources 
have  of  late  rapidly  weakened,  and  are  in  fact  given  up 
by  many  whose  deference  to  the  authority  of  Scripture 
is  very  slight,  though  but  a  few  years  ago  nothing  was 
more  contidently  urged  by  skeptical  writers  than  the 
refutation  of  Moses  by  the  Chinese,  Hindoo,  and  Egyp- 
tian chronologies,  founded,  as  it  was  then  stated,  on 
very  ancient  astronomical  observations  preserved  to  the 
present  day.  It  is,  however,  now  clearly  proved,  that 
the  astronomical  tables,  from  which  it  has  been  at- 
tempted to  assign  a  prodigious  antiquity  to  the  Hindoos, 
have  been  calculated  backwards ;('2)  and  among  the 
Chinese  the  earliest  astronomical  observation  tliat  ap- 
pears to  rest  upon  good  grounds,  is  now  found  to  be  one 
made  not  more  than  two  thousand  nine  hundred  years 
ago.(3)  As  I'or  the  conclusion  drawn  from  the  supposed 
zodiacs  in  the  temples  of  Esneh  and  Dendara  in  Egypt, 
it  is  now  strongly  doubted  whether  the  figures  repre- 
sented upon  thein  are  astronomical  or  mythological, 
that  is,  whether  they  are  zodiacs  at  all.  Their  astro- 
nomical character  is  strongly  denied  by  Dr.  Richardson, 
a  late  traveller,  who  examined  them  with  great  care ; 
and  who  gives  large  reasons  for  liis  opinion.  Even  if 
the  astronomical  character  of  these  as.sumed  zodiacs 
be  allowed,  they  are  found  to  prove  uoiliing.  M.  IJiot, 
an  eminent  French  rnathematieiaa,  has  recently  fixed 
the  date  of  the  oldest  of  them  at  only  716  years  before 
Christ. 

Against  the  excessive  antiquity  assigned  to  some  an- 
cient states,  or  claimed  by  them,  the  science  of  geology 
has  at  length  entered  its  protest ;  and  though,  as  we 
shall  presently  see,  it  has  originated  clironoiogical  ob- 
jections to  the  Mosaic  date  of  the  creation,  on  the  origin 
of  nations  it  has  made  a  full  concession  to  the  history 
of  the  Scriptures.  Cuvier  observes — "  By  a  careful 
investigation  of  what  has  taken  place  on  the  surfaca 
of  the  globe  since  it  has  been  laid  dry  for  the  last  time, 
and  its  continents  have  assumed  their  present  form,  at 
least  in  such  parts  as  are  somewhat  elevated  above  the 
level  of  the  ocean,  it  may  be  clearly  seen  that  this  revo- 
lution, and  consecjuently  the  establisliment  of  our  ex- 
isting societies,  could  not  have  been  very  ancient."(4) 
D'Aubuisson  remarks,  "  that  the  soils  of  all  the  plains 
were  deposited  in  the  bosom  of  a  trancjuil  water;  that 
their  actual  order  is  only  to  be  dated  from  the  retreat  of 
that  water ;  and  that  the  date  of  that  period  is  not  very 
ancient."(5)  "  Uolomieu,  Saussure,  De  Luc,  and  the 
most  distinguislied  naturalists  of  the  age,  have  coincided 
in  this  conclusion,  to  which  they  have  been  led  by  the 
evidence  of  various  monuments  and  natural  chrotwme- 
Uts  which  the  earth  exhibits  ;  and  which  remain  per- 
petual vouchers  for  the  veracity  of  the  Mosaic  chro- 
nology, with  respect  to  the  ejiocha  of  the  revolution 
which  the  Mosaical  history  relates."(6) 

From  the  absence  of  all  counter-evidence  in  the 
records  of  ancient  nations,  as  well  as  from  these  philo- 


This  is  not  mere  conjecture.  It  derives  plausibility 
from  many  analogies  in  nature ;  as  well  as  from  Holy 
Writ,  which  represents  the  mystery  of  our  redemption 
as  an  object  of  curiosity  to  superior  beings,  and  our  re- 
pentance as  an  occasion  of  their  joy." — Dr.  BE.\TTiii's 
Evidences  of  the  Christian  Religion.  See  also  Dr. 
Chalmers's  Discourses  07i  the  Modern  Astronomy. 

(2)  Ci'viER's  TluoTti  of  the  Earth.        (3)  Ibid. 

(4)  "Theory  of  the  Earth."    (5)  Trait6  de  G^ognosie. 

(6)  Pe.nn's  Comparative  Estimate,  &c.  Professor 
Jameson,  in  his  Mineralogical  Illustrations  of  Cuvier's 
Theory,  observes,  "  The  front  of  Salisbury  Craigs  near 
Edinburgh,  affords  a  fine  example  of  the  natural  chro- 
nometer described  in  the  text.  The  acclivity  is  covered 
with  loose  masses  that  have  fallen  from  the  hill  itself; 
and  the  quantity  of  debris  is  in  proportion  to  the  time 
which  has  elapsed  since  the  waters  of  the  ocean  for- 
merly covered  the  neighbouring  country.  If  a  va.st 
period  of  time  had  claimed  since  the  surface  of  the  earth 
had  assumed  its  present  asjicct,  it  is  evident,  that  long 
ere  now  the  whole  of  tliis  hill  would  have  been  enve- 
loped in  its  own  debris.  We  have  here  then  a  proof  of 
the  comparatively  short  period  since  the  waters  left  the 
surface  of  the  globe, — a  period  not  exceeding  a  few 
thousand  years." 


sophical  conclusions,  which  are  to  be  considnre<l  in  tho 
light  of  concessions  nuKh;  to  th(!  chronology  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch, we  may  thcrdbre  coin^lude,  that,  as  to  the 
origin  of  nations  and  the  perioil  of  the  general  deluge, 
the  testimony  of  Scrijiture  remains  unshaken. 

(Jeology  has,  however,  objected  lo  the  Mosaic  date  of 
the  creation  of  the  earth,  which,  it  is  said,  affords  a  pe- 
riod too  limited  toaccount  for  various  phenomena  which 
modern  researches  have  brought  under  consideration. 
To  the  last  general  inundation  of  the  earlh,il  is  allowed 
that  no  higher  a  date  can  be  assigned  than  tlial  which 
Moses  ascribes  to  the  Hood  of  IVoah  ;  but  sn viral  revo- 
lutions, each  of  which  has  changed  the  surface  of  the 
earth,  are  contended  for,  separated  from  each  other  by 
long  intervals  of  time ;  and,  above  all,  it  is  assumed, 
that  the  elements  of  the  primitive  earths  were  contained 
in  an  "  original  chaotic  iluid,"  and  that,  in  obeying  the 
laws  of  the  affinity  of  composition,  they  coalesced  and 
groui>ed  themselves  together  in  difTerent  manners,  and 
.settled  themselves  into  order,  according  to  certain  laws 
of  matter,  after  a  n  vnassignahle  series  of  ages.  These 
are  the  views  of  Cuvier,  D'Aubuisson,  De  Luc,  and 
other  eminent  writers  on  this  subject ;  and  whatever 
they  themselves  might  intend,  they  have  been  made 
use  of  by  infidels  to  discredit  the  authority  of  the  sacred 
historian.  It  has  been  replied,  that  the  Bible  not  being 
intended  to  teach  ])hilosophy,  it  is  not  fair  to  try  it  by  a 
philosophical  standard.  This,  however,  cannot  be  main- 
tained in  the  case  before  us,  though  the  observation  is 
pertinent  in  others,  as  when  the  sun  is  said  to  hav# 
stood  still,  popular  language  being  adopted  to  render 
the  Scriptures  nitelligible.  If  Moses  professes  by  Di- 
vine inspiration  to  give  an  account  of  the  manner  in 
which  the  world  was  framed,  he  must  describe  the 
facts  as  they  occurred  ;  and  if  he  has  assigned  a  date  to 
its  creation  out  of  nothing,  that  date,  if  given  by  an 
infallible  authority,  cannot  be  contradicted  by  true  phi- 
losojihy. 

To  allow' time  sufficient  for  the  gradual  processes  of 
"  precipitation  and  crystallization,"  by  which  the  first 
formations  of  the  solid  earth  are  said  to  have  been  ef- 
fected, others  have  conceded  to  the  geologists  of  this 
class,  that  an  antiquity  of  the  earth  much  higher  than 
that  which  appears  on  the/nce  of  the  Mosaic  account 
may  be  allowed  without  contradicting  it,  and  be  even 
deduaed  from  it.  They  therefore  interpret  the  "  days" 
mentioned  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  as  successive 
periods  of  ages,  and  the  evening  and  morning  of  those 
days  are  made  the  beginnings  and  ends  oftho.se  ima- 
gined periods. (7)  This  interpretation  is,  however,  too 
forced  to  he  admitted  in  the  case  of  so  simple  a  narra- 
tive as  that  of  Moses  ;  and  there  would  be  as  good  a 
reason  for  thus  extending  the  duration  of  the  term 
"  day"  whenever  it  occurs  in  his  writings  to  an  inde- 
finite period,  to  the  destruction  of  all  chronological  ac- 
curacy and  of  all  sobriety  of  WTiting.  No  true  friend 
of  revelation  will  wish  to  see  Moses  defended  against 
the  assaults  of  philosophy  in  a  manner  which,  by 
obliging  us  to  find  a  meaning  in  his  writings  far  remote 
from  the  view  of  general  readers,  would  render  them 
inapplicable  to  the  purpose  of  ordinary  instruction. 
Besides,  if  we  are  to  understand  i\\e first  day  to  have 
been  of  indefinite  length,  a  hundred,  or  a  thousand,  or 
a  million  of  years,  for  instance,  why  not  the  seventh, 
the  Sabbath  also  ?  This  0|iinion  cannot,  therefore  be 
consistently  maintained,  and  we  must  conclude,  with 
Rosenmuller,  "  Dies  hitelligendi  sunt  naturales,  quo- 
rum unusquisque  ab  una  vespera  incipiens,  altera  ter- 
minatur;  quo  modo  .Iud»i,  et  multi  alii  antiquissimi 
populi,  dies  numerarunt — that  we  are  to  understand 
natural  days ;  each  of  which  commencing  from  one 
evening  is  tenirunated  by  the  next;  in  which  manner 
the  Jews,  and  many  others  of  the  most  ancient  nations, 
reckoned  days." 

By  other  believers  in  revelation  who  have  allowed 
the  two  principles  laid  down  by  geologists  to  go  un- 
questioned, viz.  the    original  liquidity   of  the  earth, 


(7)  "  Most  readers  have  presumed,  that  every  night 
and  day  menlioned  in  the  first  chaiiter  of  Genesis  must 
be  strictly  confined  to  tho  term  of  twenty-four  hours, 
thoueh  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  Moses  never  in- 
tended any  such  thing;  for  how  could  Moses  intend  to 
limit  the  duration  of  the  day  to  its  present  length,  he- 
tore,  according  to  his  own  showing,  the  sun  had  begun 
lo  divide  the  day  from  the  uiyht  ?"— MA^TI!;I,L'd  Geology 
of  Sussex. 


94 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  I. 


holding  the  elements  of  all  the  subsequent  forma- 
tions in  a  state  of  solution ;  and  the  necessity  of  a  long 
course  of  ages  lo  comjilete  those  proeesses  by  which 
the  earth  should  be  brought  into  a  fit  slate,  so  to 
sjicak,  for  the  work  of  the  six  days,  wliich  in  that  case 
must  be  confined  to  mere  arraiisrmtnt ;  another,  and 
certainly  a  less  objeclioiuible  mierprctation  of  Moses 
than  that  which  makes  his  natural  days  and  nights 
terms  for  indefinite  periods  of  time,  lias  been  adopted. 
"  Does  Moses  ever  say,  that  when  God  created  the 
heavens  and  the  earth,  he  did  more  at  the  time  al- 
luded lo  than  transform  them  out  of  previously  exist- 
ing materials ;  Or  does  he  ever  say,  that  there  was 
not  an  interval  of  many  ages  between  the  first  act  of 
creation,  described  in  the  first  verse  of  the  book  of  Ge- 
nesis, and  said  lo  have  been  performed  at  the  bf^in- 
nimc ;  and  those  more  detaUed  operations  the  ac-count  of 
which  commences  at  tht;  second  verse,  and  which  are 
described  to  us  a.s  having  been  [icrformcd  in  so  many 
days?  Or,  finally,  does  he  ever  make  us  to  understand 
that  the  genealogies  of  man  went  any  farther  than  to 
fix  the  antiipiity  of  the  species,  and  of  conseciueiue, 
that  they  lell  the  antiquity  of  the  globe  a  free  subject 
for  the  speculations  of  philosophers !  We  do  not 
pledge  ourselves  for  the  truth  of  one  or  all  of  these 
suppositions,  nor  is  it  necessary  we  should.  It  is 
enoueh  that  any  of  them  is  infinitely  more  rational 
than  the  rejection  of  (Christianity  in  the  face  of  its  his- 
torical evideiice."(S)  "  As  to  the  period  when  this  mass 
was  made,  Moses  only  says,  that  it  was  '  hi  the  brpin- 
ninir,' — a  period  this  which  might  have  been  a  million 
of  years  before  its  arrangement."(9) 

To  all  these  suppositions,  though  not  unsupported 
by  the  authority  of  some  great  critics,  there  are  con- 
siderable objections  ;  and  if  the  difficulty  of  reconciling 
geological  phenomena  with  the  Mosaic  chronology 
were  greater  than  it  appears,  none  of  them  ought  has- 
tily lo  be  admitted.  That  creation,  in  the  first  verse  of 
Genesis,  signifies  production  out  of  nothing,  and  not  out 
of  pre-cxiytent  matter,  though  the  original  word  inay 
be  used  in  both  si^nses,  is  made  a  matter  of  failli  by  the 
Apostle  Paul,  who  tells  us,  "  that  Ihethimf.':  ir/nch  are 
seen,  were  nut  made  of  things  which  do  appear ;"  pri  ck 
(paivoiitvuiv  ra  (iXciroiicra  ycyovcvai  ;  which  is  suffi- 
cient to  settle  that  point.  By  the  same  iniiwriant  jias- 
sage  it  is  also  determined,  that  "  the  worlds  were  pro- 
duced in  their  form,  as  well  as  .sutistaiice,  instantly 
out  of  nothing  ;  or  it  would  not  be  true,  that  they  were 
not  made  of  things  which  do  appear."  "  The  Apostle 
states,  that  these  thines  were  not  made  oul  of  a  pre- 
existent  mattir ;  for,  if  they  were,  that  matter,  however 
extended  or  modified,  must  ajijiear  in  that  thing  into 
which  it  is  compounded  and  modified  ;  therefore  it  could 
not  be  said,  that  the  things  which  are  seen  are  not  made 
of  tilings  that  appear;  and  he  shows  us  also,  by  these 
words,  that  the  present  mundane  fabric  was  not  Conned 
or  re-formed  from  one  anterior,  as  some  suppose."(l) 
No  inlerval  of  time  is  allowed  in  the  account  of  the 
creation  b\  Mo.ses,  between  the  creating  and  the  framing 
of  the|  worlds  (that  is.  the  heavens  and  the  earth  sim- 
ply), so  created  and  framed  at  once  by  the  word  of  God. 
The  natural  sense  too  of  the  phrase  "  in  the  bei^in- 
ninff,"  is  also  thus  preserved.  Thrown  back,  so  to 
speak,  into  eternity  without  reference  to  time,  it  has  no 
meaning,  or  at  best  a  very  obscure  one ;  but  connected 
■with  time,  the  commencement  of  our  mundane  chrono- 
logy, it  has  a  ddinile  and  obvious  .sense.  Moses  be- 
pins  his  reckoning  from  the  first  creative  act ; — from 
the  creation  of  the  "  heavens  and  the  earth,"  which 
was  therefore  a  part  of  the  work  of  the  first  natural 
day.  "  In  the  first  of  these  natural  days,  the  whole 
mineral  fabric  of  this  globe  was  formed  at  once,  of 
such  size  and  figure,  with  such  properties,  in  such  pro- 
portions to  .space,  and  with  such  arrangement  of  its 
materials,  as  most  conduced  to  the  ends  for  which  God 
created  it."(2) 

It  will  now  be  observed,  lliat  if  such  intf^rjiretations 


of  ihc  Mosaic  account  cannot  be  allowed,  the  decisions 
of  Scripture  and  .some  of  the  modern  speculations  in 
geology  must  be  left  directly  to  ojipose  each  other,  and 
that  tiieir  hostility  on  this  point  cannot  be  softened  by 
the  advocates  of  accommodation.  On  this  account  no 
alarm  need  be  felt  by  the  believer,  "for  there  ix  no 
counsel  against  the  Lord;-''  and  the  (irogress  of  true 
philosophy  will  ever,  in  the  result,  add  evidence  to  the 
truth  of  revelation.  On  the  aati'/inty  of  the  human 
race  geology  has  been  conipilkd  already  to  give  its 
testimony  lo  the  accuracy  of  Moses,  and  the  time  is 
probably  not  far  distant  when  a  similar  testimony 
will  be  educed  fl-oin  it,  as  lo  the  antiquity  of  the 
globe. 

In  what  it  now  opposes  that  authority,  it  may  .serve  to  re- 
buke the  dogmatism  with  which  it  has  disputed  the  Scrip- 
tures, to  observe,  that,  strictly  sjieaking,  the  science  itself 
is  not  yet  half  a  century  old,  and  is  conversant,  not  with 
the  surfaceof  the  earth  only,  but  with  its  interior  strata, 
which  have  been  as  yet  but  partially  examined.  It  is 
therefore  too  early  to  theorize  with  so  much  confidence; 
and  the  eager  manner  in  which  its  h;isty  speculations 
have  been  taken  up  against  the  Mosaic  account,  can 
only  remind  thinking  men  of  the  e<iually  eager  manner 
in  which  the  chronologies  of  China  and  Hindostan.and 
the  supiiosed  zodiacs  of  Egyptian  temples  were  once 
caught  at,  lor  the  same  reason,  and  we  may  justly  fear 
from  the  same  motives.  It  will,  indeed,  be  time  enough 
to  enter  into  a  formal  defence  of  Moses,  when  geolo- 
gists agree  among  themselves  on  leading  principles. 
Cuvier  gives  rather  an  amusing  a<'couiit  of  the  odd  and 
contradictory  .speculations  of  his  scientific  brethren  ;(3) 
all  of  which  he  of  course  condemns,  and  fancies  him- 
self, as  they  all  fancied  themselves  before  him,  a  suc- 
cessful theorist.  The  vehemence  with  which  the  two 
great  rival  geological  .sects,  the  Neptunian  and  I'luto- 
niaii,  have  disputed,  to  a  degree  almost  unprecedented 
in  the  modern  age  of  philosojihy,  adds  but  little  au- 
thority to  the  decisions  of  either,  inasmuch  as  the  con- 
test is  griiiiiided  ujion  an  assumed  knowledge  of  facts, 
and  tliereliire  shows  that  the  facts  themselves  are  but 
ilidistincily  apprehendi-d  in  their  relations  lo  each  oilier, 
and  that  the  collection  of  phenomena  on  both  sides 
still  need  to  be  arranged  and  st/slemuttztd,  luider  the 
guidance  of  some  calm,  and  modest,  and  master 
iiiind.(4) 

In  all  these  speculations  it  is  observable,  that  it  is 
assumed  at  once  that  philosophy  and  the  Mosaic  ac- 
count are  incompatible,  and  generally  withoni  any 
pains  having  been  taken  to  understand  that  account 
itself.  Yet  as  that  account  professes  to  be  from  one 
who  was  both  the  author  and  the  iiitness  of  the  phe- 
nomena  in  question,  it  might  have   been  supposed 


(8)  Chalmer's  Evidences  of  the  Christian  Reve- 
lation. 

(9)  M\NTKi,i,'s  Geology  of  Sussex. 

(1)  Dr.  A.  Oi.ARKK,  in  loc. 

(2)  This  view  is  totally  inconsistent  with  the  fa- 
vourite notion  of  certain  modern  geologists  of  a  primi- 
tive cliaoiic  ocean,  containing,  like  that  of  llie  heathen 
poets,  the  elements  of  all  things  ;  a  notion  which  thosi5 
who  wiBh  to  reconcile  the  account  of  Gencais  wulj 


the  modern  geology  have  been  willing  to  concede  to 
them,  on  the  ground  that  Mose.s  has  said  that  the  earth 
was  '■■  irilhout  form  and  void"  liul  they  have  not 
considereil,  that  it  was  "/Ae  earth,''  not  a  liquid  ina.s9, 
which  is  thus  characterized;  circumfused  with  water, 
it  is  true,  but  not  mingled  with  it.    The  LXX  render  the 

phrase  17131  17lr\  tohn  iiabohv,aonnTni,Kiii  uKuraa- 
Kcvucroi,  iiiinsible  and  mifuraished. — invisible  bolh  be- 
cause oltlie  darkness,  audi  lie  water  which  covered  it,  and 
unfurnished  because  (hjsiiiute  as  yet  of  vegetables  and 
animals.  "  It  is  wonderlul,"  says  Rosenmnller,  "  liow 
so  many  interpreters  could  imagine  that  a  chaos  was 
described  in  the  words  171 D1  17ln  >oltu  vabohu.  This 
notion  unquestionably  took  its  oricin  from  the  fictions 
of  the  Greek  and  Latin  poets,  which  were  transferred, 
by  those  interpreters,  to  Moses."  Those  fictions  ground 
themselves,  we  may  add,  upon  traditions  received  from 
the  earliest  times  ;  but  the  additions  of  poetic  fancy 
are  not  to  be  applied  to  interpret  the  Scrqitures. 

(3)  Theory,  by  Jamkson,  p.  41—47. 

(4)  Mons.  I,.  A.  Nkckkh  hk  Saissi-rk  {Voyage  en. 
Ecosse),  speaking  of  the  disputes  between  the  Werne- 
rians  and  Hullonians,  says,  "  the  Inrmer  availed  them- 
selves of  the  ascendency  which  a  more  minute  study 
of  minerals  alTbrded,  to  depreciate  the  observations  of 
their  arlversaries.  They  deniid  the  existence  of  facts 
whiih  the  latter  had  discovered,  or  lliey  tried  to  sink 
their  importance.  Hence  it  happened  thai  phenomena, 
important  to  the  natural  history  of  the  earth,  have  never 
been  made  known  and  apiirecialed  as  they  ought  to 
have  been  by  geoloi^isla  most  capable  of  estimating 
their  consequences." 


Chap.  XX.] 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


95 


that  the  aid  of  testimnvy  would  have  been  gladly 
brought  to  i/uliirtiou.  An  able  work  has  been  recently 
published  on  this  siil>jeit  by  Mr.  (Jranville  I'onn,  who 
has  at  onee  reproved  the  bold  philosophy  whieh  ex- 
cludes the  operation  of  (Jod,  and  employs  itself  only 
among  second  causes ;  and  has  uiilolded  the  Mosaic 
account  of  two  great  revolutions  of  the  eartli,  one  of 
which  took  place  when  "  the  waters  were  gathered  mto 
one  place,"  and  the  other  at  the  deluge,  "  when  the 
fountains  of  the  great  deep  were  broken  up,"(5)  and  has 
applied  them  to  account  for  those  phenomena  which 
have  been  made  to  reijuire  a  theory  not  to  be  recouciled 
with  the  sacred  historian. (()) 

Voltaire  objected  to  the  philosophy  of  the  Mosaic  ac- 
count, (hat  it  has  represented  a  solid  firmament  to  have 
been  formed,  in  which  the  stars  are  fixed  as  in  a  wall 
of  adamant.  This  objection  was  made  ia  ignorance  of 
the  import  of  the  original  word  rendered  Jirmanientum 
by  the  Vulgate,  and  which  signifies  an  expanse,  refer- 
ring evidently  to  the  atmosphere.  The  Septuagint 
seems  to  have  rendered  j;''pT  by  ^^cptoina,  which  signi- 
fies a  firm  support,  with  reference  to  the  office  of  the 
atmosphere,  to  keep  up,  as  effectually  as  by  some  solid 
support,  the  waters  contained  in  the  clouds.  The  ac- 
count of  Moses  is  philosophically  true ;  the  expanded 
or  dilfused  atmosphere  '•  divides  the  waters  from  the 
waters,"  the  waters  in  the  clouds  from  the  waters  of 
the  earth  and  sea  ;  and  the  objection  only  shows  igno- 
rance of  the  original  language  or  inattention  to  it. 

It  is  more  dilficult  to  explain  that  part  of  the  Mosaic 
relation  which  represents  light  as  created  on  the  first 
day,  and  the  sun  not  until  the  fourth ;  it  would  be 
wearisome  to  give  the  various  solutions  which  have 
been  offered.  One  of  the  most  recent,  that  which  sup- 
poses the  creation  of  latent  heat  and  light  to  be  spoken 
of,  cannot  certainly  be  maintained;  for  the  light  which 
on  the  first  day  obeyed  the  sublime  fiat,  was  not  latent 
but  in  a  state  of  excitement,  and  collected  itself  into  a 
body  sufficient  to  produce  the  distinction  between  day 
and  night,  which,  had  it  been  either  in  a  latent  state, 
or  every  where  diffused  in  an  excited  form,  could  not 
have  been  effected.  Tlie  difficulty  liowever,  so  far 
from  discrediting  the  Mosaic  account,  affords  it  a  strik- 
ing confirmation.  Had  it  been  compiled  under  popular 
notions,  it  never  could  have  entered  the  mind  of  man, 
drawing  all  his  philosophy  from  the  optical  appear- 
ances of  nature  only,  that  light,  suflicient  to  form  the 
distinction  between  day  and  night,  should  have  been 
created  independent  of  the  sun ;  and  the  conclusion, 
therefore,  is,  that  the  account  was  received  either  from 
inspiration,  or  from  a  tradition  pure  from  its  original 
fountain,  and  which  had  fiowed  on  to  the  time  of  Moses, 
unmi.xed  with  popular  corruptions. 

"  Sir  William  Herschel,"  says  Mr.  Granville  Penn, 
"  has  discovered,  that  the  bod;/  of  the  sun  is  an  opmjue 
substance ;  and  that  the  splendid  matter  which  dis- 
penses to  the  world  lis>it  and  heat,  is  a  lHir\>nous  at- 
mosphere{l)  attached  to  its  surface,  figuratively,  though 
not  ))hysically,  as  flame  is  attached  to  the  wick  of  a 
lump  or  a  torch.  So  that  the  creation  of  the  sun,  as  a 
part  of  the  host  of  heaven,^  does  not  necessarily  imply 
the  creation  of  light ;  and,  conversely,  the  creation  of 
light  does  not  necessarily  imply  the  creation  of  the 
body  of  the  sun.    In  the  first  creation  of  '  the  heaven 


(5)  See  note  A,  at  the  end  of  the  chapter. 

(6)  A  Scientific  Journal  of  great  reputation,  edited  at 
the  Royal  Institution,  has  made  an  honourable  dis- 
claimer of  those  theories  which  contradict  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  speaks  in  commendation  of  the  work  of  Mr. 
Penn — "  We  are  not  inclined,  even  if  we  had  time,  to 
enter  into  the  comparative  merits  of  the  fire  and  water 
fancies,  miscalled  ih^rics ;  but  we  have  certain  old- 
fa.shioned  prejudices,  which,  in  these  enlightened  days 
of  skepticism  and  injidclitij,  will  no  doubt  be  set  down 
as  mightily  ridiculous,  but  which,  nevertheless,  induce 
us  to  pause  before  we  accjuicsce  either  in  the  one  or 
the  other.  There  is  another  mode  of  accounting  for 
the  present  state  of  the  earth's  structure,  on  principles 
at  least  as  rational,  in  a  philosophi(tal  light,  as  either 
the  Plutonian  or  Neptunian;  and  iiiasmni^h  as  it  is 
more  consistent  with,  and  founded  on.  Sacred  History, 
incomparably  superior. — See  Mr.  Granv;li,k  Penn's 
Comparative  Estimate  of  the  Mineral  and  Mosaical 
Geologies.'" 

(7)  Phil.  Trans,  for  1795,  p.  4t) ;  and  for  ISOI,  p.  205. 


and  the  earth,'  therefore,  not  the  planetary  nrlis  only, 
but  the  solar  orb  ilsilf,  wa.s  crcatc^d  m  darkness ; 
awaiting  the  light,  whidi,  by  one  simple  divine  ojiera- 
tion,  was  to  be  communicated  at  once  to  all.  When 
then  the  Almighty  Word,  in  commanding  light,  com- 
manded i\\e  first  illumination  of  the  solar  atmosphere, 
its  new  light  was  immedialely  caught,  and  reflected 
throughout  space,  by  all  the  members  of  the  planetary 
system.  And  well  may  we  imagine,  that,  in  IhM  first, 
sudden,  and  magnificent  illumination  of  the  universe, 
'  The  iiuirning  stars  sang  together,  and  the  Sons  of 
God  shouted  for  joy.'  "  (8) 

Hut  if  the  discovery  of  Herschel  be  real,  the  passage 
just  quoted  suppo.ses  the  solar  orb  to  have  been  invested 
with  its  luminous  atmosphere  on  the  first  day,  aiid  the 
difliculty  in  question  still  remains  untouched,  though 
it  admirably  explains  how  "the  heavens,"  that  is, 
our  solar  system,  should  be  created  by  one  act,  and 
yet  that  it  should  require  a  second  fiat  to  invest  thern 
with  light.  Another  way  of  meeting  the  difficulty 
is,  that  the  lights  which  are  said  to  have  been  tnade 
on  the  fourth  day,  were  not  on  that  day  actually  cre- 
ated, but  determined  to  certain  uses.  Thus  Rosen- 
rnuller :  "  If  any  one  who  is  conversant  with  the  genius 
of  the  Hebrew,  and  free  from  any  previous  bias  of  his 
judgment,  will  read  the  words  of  this  article  in  their 
natural  connexion,  he  will  immediately  perceive  that 
they  import  the  direction  or  determination  of  the  hea- 
venly bodies  to  certain  uses  lehich  they  were  to  supply 
to  the  earth.  The  words  r\1XD  TT  'ire  not  to  be  se- 
parated from  the  rest,  or  to  be  tenderedfiant  luminaria 
—let  there  be  lights :  i.  e.  let  lights  be  made  ;  but  rather, 
let  lights  be,  that  is,  .lerve  in  the  expanse  of  heaven — in- 
serviant  in  expanso  cmloriun—for  distinguishing  be- 
tween day  and  night ;  and  let  them  be,  or  serve  for 
signs,  (S-c.  For  we  are  to  observe,  that  the  verb  nTJ 
to  be,  in  construction  with  the  prefix  7  for,  is  generally 
employed  to  express  the  direction  or  determination  of  a 
thing  to  an  end ;  and  not  the  production  of  the  thing  : 
e.  g.  Num.  X.  31,  Zech.  viii.  19,  and  in  many  other  places." 

To  this  there  is  an  obvious  objection,  that  it  does  not 
assign  any  work,  properly  speaking,  to  the  fourth  day ; 
and  iiow,  when  neither  being  was  on  that  day  given  to 
them,  nor  any  change  effected  in  their  qualities  or  rela- 
tions, the  lights  could  be  determined  to  certain  uses, 
except  by  giving  information  of  their  uses  to  men,  can- 
not be  conceived  ;  and  as  yet  man  was  not  created. 
Mr.  Penn,  indeed,  supposes  that  the  heavenly  bodies 
had  been  hid  from  the  earth  till  the  fourth  day  by  va- 
pours ;  that  then  they  were  for  the  first  time  dispelled  ; 
and,  as  he  eloquently  says,  "  the  amazing  Calendar  of 
the  Heavens,  ordained  to  serve  for  the  notation  of  time 
in  all  human  concerns,  civil  and  religious,  so  long  a.s 
time  and  man  should  continue,  was  therefore  to  be  now 
first  unfolded  to  the  earth,  with  all  the  visible  indices 
of  time  by  which  its  measures  were  thereafter  to  be 
marked,  distinguished  and  computed ;  and  the  splendid 
cause,  which  had  hitherto  issued  its  efiect  of  light 
through  an  interposed  medium,  was  to  dispense  that 
light  to  tlie  earth  immediately,  in  the  full  manifestation 
of  its  eflulgence." 

Tfie  notion  that  the  earth  was  from  the  first  to  the 
fourth  day  enveloped  with  vapour,  so  that,  as  in  a  fog,  the 
distinction  of  day  and  night  was  manifest,  though  the 
celestial  orbs  were  not  visible,  is,  however,  assumed, 
and  does  not  appear  ,juite  philosophical:  and  though 
the  dispersion  of  these  vapours  from  the  atmosphere  as- 
signs a  work  to  the  fourth  day,  it  scarcely  appears  to  be 
of  sufficient  importance  to  accord  with  the  language  of 
the  history.  It  would  be  better  to  suppose  wnh  others, 
that  on  the  fourth  day  the  annual  iTiotion  of  the  earth 
commenced,  which  till  then  merely  turned  upon  its  axis, 
and  with  it  the  annual  motion  of  the  moon  and  planets 
in  their  orbits,— that  wonderfully  rapid  and  yet  regular 
ffight  of  the  heavenly  bodies  which  so  awfully  displays 
the  power  of  the  Great  Artificer  in  communicating,  and 
constantly  feeding,  the  mighty  impulse,  and  which  is  so 
essential  to  the  measurement  of  time,  that  without  it 
the  "  lights"  could  not  be,  or  serve  "  lor  signs  and  sea- 
sons," and  "  for"  solemn  "  days,"  religious  festivals  and 
the  commemoration  of  important  events,  and  -'for 
years."  A  sublime  work  is  thus  assigned  to  the  fourth 
day,  and  the  difficulty  st-ems  mainly  to  be  removed  :  but 
whether  some  violence  is  not  done  to  the  letter  of  the 


(!-)  Job  xx.wiii. 


96 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  1. 


account,  may  still  be  doubted ;  and  the  difficulty  which 
proves,  as  we  have  seen,  if  admitted  in  its  full  I'orce, 
more/itr  the  Mosaic  relation  than  (U^aiivst  it  had  better 
be  retained  than  one  iota  of  the  strjLt  grammatical  and 
contextual  meaning  of  Scripture  be  sullered  to  pass 
away. 

Several  objections  have  been  made  at  different  times 
to  the  Mosaic  account  of  the  deluge.  Tlie  fact,  how- 
ever, is  not  only  preserved  in  the  traditions  of  all  na- 
tions, as  wo  have  already  seen  ;  but  alter  all  the  philo- 
sophical arguments  wiiich  were  formerly  urged  again.st 
it,  philosophy  has  at  length  ackiiowlwlged  tliat  the  pre- 
sent surface  of  the  earth  niust  have  been  submerged  un- 
der water.  "  Not  only,"  sa>  s  Kirwan,  "  in  every  region 
of  Europe,  but  also  of  both  the  old  and  new  continents, 
immense  (juaiitilies  of  marine  shells,  either  dispersed 
or  collected,  have  been  discovered."  This  and  several 
other  facts  seem  to  prove,  that  at  least  a  great  part  of 
the  present  earth  was,  before  the  last  general  convul- 
sion to  which  it  lias  beim  subjected,  the  bed  of  an  ocean 
which,  at  that  time,  was  withdrawn  from  it.  Otlicr 
facts  seem  also  to  prove  with  sufficient  evidence,  that 
this  was  not  a  gradual  retirement  of  the  waters  which 
once  covered  the  parts  now  inhabited  by  men  ;  but  a 
violent  one,  such  as  may  be  supposed  I'roin  the  brief  but 
emphatic  relation  of  Moses.  The  violent  action  of  wa- 
ter has  left  its  traces  in  various  undisputed  plienoniena. 
"  Stratified  mountains  of  various  hcMgnts  e.\ist  indiffer- 
ent parts  of  Europe,  and  of  both  continents,  in  and  be- 
tween whose  strata  various  substances  of  marine,  and 
some  vegetables  of  terrestrial  origin  repose,  eitlier  in 
their  natural  state,  or  petrified. "(D)  "To  overspread 
the  plains  of  the  arctic  circle  with  the  shells  of  Indian 
seas,  and  with  the  bodies  of  elephants  and  rhinoceri,  sur- 
rounded by  masses  of  submarine  vegetation ;  to  accu- 
mulate on  a  single  spot,  as  at  La  Bolca,  in  promiscuous 
confusion,  tlie  marine  productions  of  the  four  quarters 
of  the  globe;  what  conceivable  instrument  would  be 
efficacious  but  the  rush  of  mighty  waters  ?"(1)  These 
facts,  about  which  there  is  no  dispute,  and  which  are 
acknowledged  by  the  advocates  of  each  of  the  prevailing 
geological  theories,  give  a  sufficient  attestation  to  the 
deluge  of  Noati,  in  which  "  tlie  fountains  of  the  great 
deep  wire  broken  vp,"  and  from  winch  precisely  such 
phenomena  might  be  expected  to  follow.  To  tliis  may 
be  added,  though  less  decisive  in  proof,  yet  certainly 
strong  as  presumptive  evidence,  that  the  very  axpcct  of 
the  eartli's  surface  e.vllibits  interesting  marks  both  of  the 
violent  action,  and  the  rapid  subsidence  of  waters; 
as  well  as  affords  a  most  interesting  instance  of  the  Di- 
vine goodness  in  converting  what  was  ruin  itself,  into 
■utility  and  beauty.  The  great  frame- work  of  the  varied 
surface  of  the  habitable  earth  was  probably  laid  by  a 
more  powerful  agency  than  that  of  water ;  either  when 
on  the  third  day  the  waters  under  the  heavens  were  ga- 
thered into  one  place,  and  the  crust  of  the  i)ritiutive 
earth  was  broken  down  to  receive  them  so  that  "  the  dry 
laml  might  appear ;"  or  by  those  mighty  convulsions 
■which  appear  to  tiave  accompanied  the  general  deluge; 
but  the  rounding,  so  to  speak,  of  what  was  rugged, 
where  ttie  substance  was  yielding,  and  the  graceful  un- 
dulations of  hill  and  dale  which  so  frequently  present 
themselves,  were  probably  effected  by  the  retiring  wa- 
ters. The  flood  lias  jiassed  away  ;  but  the  soils  whicli 
it  depositcit  remain  ;  and  the  valleys  through  which  its 
last  streams  were  drawn  off  to  the  ocean,  with  many  an 
eddy  and  sinuous  course,  still  exist,  exhibiting  visible 
proofs  of  its  agency,  and  impressed  with  Ibrms  so 
adapted  to  the  benefit  of  man,  and  ollcn  so  gratilying  to 
the  finest  tiiste,  that  when  the  flood  "  turned'''  it  may  be 
said  to  have  "  lii'l  a  hlessins  hi  hind  it." 

Tims  the  objections  once  mailc  to  Iho  fact  of  a  gene- 
ral deluge  have  been  greatly  wciikeued  by  the  iirogrcss 
of  p\iiloso|)hical  knowledge ;  and  may,  indeed,  be  re- 
garded as  nearly  given  u|(,  like  the  tiiriiier  notion  of  the 
high  antiquity  of  the  race  of  men,  founded  on  the  Chi- 
nese and  Egyptian  chronologies  and  iiretendcd  histo- 
ries. Philosophy  has  even  at  last  found  out  that  tliere 
is  Kufficient  water  in  the  ocean,  if  called  Ibrlli,  to  over- 
flow the  highest  mountains  to  the  height  given  by  Mo- 
ses, a  conclusion  which  it  once  .stoutly  denied.  Keill 
formerly  comiiuled  that  28  oceans  would  b«  necessary 
for  that  purnose,  but  we  are  now  mlbrnird  "  that  a  far- 
ther progress  in  mathematical  and  physical  knowledge 

(0)  Kirwan'k  Geological  Essays. 

(1)  GisBoRNB's  "  Tedtiniony  of  Nat.  Thcoloey,"  &.c. 


has  shown  the  different  seas  and  oceans  to  contain  at 
lea.st  48  times  more  water  than  they  were  tlicn  supposed 
to  do ;  and  that  the  mere  raising  of  the  teni])erature  of 
the  whole  body  of  the  ocean  to  a  degree  no  greater 
than  marine  animals  live  in,  in  the  shallow  seas  be- 
tween the  tropics,  would  so  expand  it  as  more  than  tc 
produce  the  height  above  the  mountains  slated  in  the 
Mo.saic  account."  As  to  the  deluge  of  Noah,  Iberefbre, 
infidelity  has  almost  entirely  lost  the  aid  of  philosophy 
in  framing  objections  to  the  Scriptures. 

The  dimensions  of  the  ark,  and  the  preservation  of  the 
animals  contained  in  it,  are,  however,  still  the  subject 
of  occasional  ridicule,  Ihougli  with  little  foundation. 
Dr.  Hales  jiroves  the  ark  to  have  been  of  the  burthen 
of  42,413  tons,  and  asks,  '•  (an  we  doubt  of  its  being 
sufficient  to  contain  eight  persons,  and  about  two  hun- 
dred or  two  hundred  and  filly  pair  of  fbur-fbotcd  ani- 
mals (a  number  to  which,  according  to  M.  IJuffon,  all 
the  various  distinct  species  may  be  reduced),  together 
with  all  the  subsistence  necessary  for  a  twelvemonth, 
with  the  fowls  of  the  air,  and  sucli  reptiles  and  insects 
as  cannot  live  under  water  ?  All  these  various  animals 
were  controlled  by  the  power  of  God,  whose  special 
agency  is  supjiosed  in  the  whole  transaction,  and '  the 
lion-was  made  to  lie  down  with  the  kid.'  " 

Whether  iNoah  was  commanded  to  bring  with  him, 
into  the  ark,  a  pair  of  all  living  creatures,  zoologically 
and  numerically  considered,  has  been  doubted  ;  and  as 
during  the  long  period  between  the  creation  and  the 
flood,  animals  must  have  spread  themselves  over  a 
great  part  of  the  antediluvian  earth,  and  certain  animals 
would,  as  now,  probably  become  indigenous  to  certain 
climates,  the  jiairs  saved  must  in  such  cases  have  tra- 
velled from  immense  distances.  Of  such  marches  no 
intimation  is  given  in  the  history ;  and  this  seems  to 
render  it  probable  that  the  animals  which  Noah  was 
"  to  bring  with  hi/n"  into  the  ark  were  the  animals 
clean  and  unclean  of  the  country  in  which  he  dwelt,  and 
w  hicli,  from  the  evident  cajiacity  of  the  ark,  must  have 
been  in  great  variety  and  number.  The  terms  used,  it 
is  true,  are  universal ;  and  it  is  satisfactory  to  know, 
that  if  the  largest  sense  of  them  be  taken,  there  was 
ample  accommodation  iij  the  ark.  Nevertheless,  uni- 
versal terms  in  Scripture  are  not  always  to  be  taken 
mathematically,  and  in  the  vision  of  Peter,  the  phrase 
vSavTa  ra  TerpaTtoSa  TTjg  y»;s — all  the  four-footed  beasts 
of  the  earth,"  must  be  understood  of  "  larii  generis  ijua- 
drupcdcs,"  as  Schleusner  parajihrases  it.  In  this  case 
we  may  easily  account  for  the  exuviie  of  animals,  whose 
species  no  longer  exist,  and  which  have  been  discovered 
in  various  places.  The  number  of  such  extinct  species 
has  probably  been  greatly  overrated  by  Cuvier ;  but  of 
the  fact  to  a  considerable  extent,  there  can  be  no  doubt. 
It  is  also  to  be  remarked,  that  we  are  not  obliged  to  go 
to  the  limited  interpretation  of  the  command  to  Noah 
respecting  the  animals  to  be  preserved  in  the  ark,  in  or- 
der to  account  tor  this  fact;  for  without  adopting  tlie 
totally  unscriptural  theory  of  a  former  world;  or  of 
more  general  revolutions  of  the  earth  than  tlie  Scrip- 
tures state  (parti;d  ones  afli'cting  large  districts  may 
have  taken  place),  we  know  of  no  principle  in  the  Word 
of  God,  which  should  lead  us  to  conclude  that  all  the 
animals  which  God  at  first  created  should  be  preserved 
to  the  end  of  time.  In  many  countries  whole  species 
of  wild  animals  have  perished  by  the  prouress  of  culti- 
vation, a  i>rocess  which  must  ultimately  |iroduce  the 
ullcr  cMinclion  of  the  same  species  every  where  The 
ollices  wliicli  many  other  creatures  were  designed  to 
fulfil  in  the  economy  of  nature,  may  have  terminated 
with  the  new  circumstances  in  whicli  the  parts  they 
have  chiefly  inhabited  are  placed.  So  it  might  be  l)efbro 
the  flood,  and  in  many  places  since  Thus,  then,  the 
exuvire  of  extinct  species  maybe  expectetl  to  present 
tlicins(>lvcs.  But  in  addition  to  tliis,  if  we  suppose, 
that  during  the  antediluvian  iierio<l,  animals  of  various 
kinds  had  located  themselves  in  different  portions  of  the 
ocean,  and  in  different  climates  of  the  primitive  earth; 
and  that,  of  the  terrestrial  animals  become  indigenous 
to  parts  of  the  earth  distant  from  Noah  and  the  in- 
habited world,  some  species  were  not  received  into  the 
ark,  their  remains  will  also  occasionally  be  discovered, 
and  present  llie  proof  of  inodrs  of  animated  existence 
not  now  to  be  paralleled.  Among  fossil  remains  it  has 
been  made  a  matterof  surprise  that  no  human  skeletons, 
or  but  few,  and  those  in  recent  formations,  have  been 
fouiKl.  Tbp  reason,  however,  is  not  difficult  to  furiush. 
If  we  admit  that  the  present  toiniuents  were  the  bottom 


Chap.  XX.J 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES, 


97 


of  the  antediluvian  ocean,  and  that  the  ocean  has 
changed  its  (ilace ;  then  the  former  habitations  of  men 
are  submerf,'od,  and  their  remains  are  beyond  human 
reach.  If  any  part  of  the  antediluvian  earth  sull  re- 
mains, it  is  probably  that  region  to  which  Noah  and  his 
family  were  restored  rrom  the  ark  ;  and  in  those  coun- 
tries geology  has  not  coMinienccii  its  interior  researches, 
and  such  fossil  remains  may  there  exist.  There  is  this 
difference  between  the  human  race  and  the  inferior  ani- 
mals, that  while  the  latter  for  near  two  thousand  years 
were  roaming  over  the  wide  earth,  the  former  confined 
them.selves  to  one  region  ;  for  those  extravagant  calcu- 
lations as  to  the  population  of  the  earth  at  the  time  of 
the  flood,  which  some  have  made,  cannot  be  maintained 
on  the  authority  of  Scriiiture,  on  which  they  professedly 
rest ;  since  it  is  certain  that  they  represent  Noah  as  a 
preacher  of  righteousness  to  the  whole  existing  "  ivorUV 
of  men,  during  the  time  the  ark  was  preparing,  one  hun- 
dred and  twenty  years.  The  human  race  must  there- 
fore have  lived,  however  populous,  in  the  same  region, 
and  been  either  in  personal  communication  with  him, 
or  within  reach  of  the  distinct  report  of  his  doctrines, 
and  of  that  great  and  public  act  of  his  faith,  the  pre- 
paringof  theark,  "bythcii-hich  hccnndemned  the  world 
and  became  heir  nf  the  righteousness  which  is  by 
faith."'  Even  Cuvier  gives  it  as  a  reason  why  human 
skeletons  are  not  found  in  a  fossil  state,  "  that  the  place 
which  man  then  inhabited  may  have  sunk  into  the 
abyss,  and  that  the  bones  of  that  destroyed  race  may  yet 
remain  buried  luider  the  bottom  of  some  actual  seas." 

Such  are  the  leading  evidences  of  the  truth  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  and  of  the  religious  system  which  they 
unfold,  from  the  first  promise  made  to  the  first  fallen 
man,  to  its  perfected  exhibition  in  the  New  Testament. 
The  Christian  will  review  these  solid  and  immoveable 
foundations  of  his  faith  with  luiutterable  joy.  They 
leave  none  of  his  moral  interests  unprovided  for  in 
time ;  they  set  before  him  a  certain  and  a  felicitous  im- 
mortality. The  skeptic  and  the  iniidel  may  be  entreated, 
by  every  compassionate  feeling,  to  a  more  serious 
consideration  of  the  evidences  of  this  divine  system  and 
the  difficulties  and  hopeles-sness  of  their  own  ;  and  they 
ought  to  be  reminded,  in  the  words  of  a  modern  writer, 
"  If  Christianity  be  true,  it  is  treviendoacsly  true."  Let 
them  turn  to  an  insulted,  but  yet  a  merciful  Saviour, 
who  even  now  prays  for  his  blasphemers,  in  the  words 
he  once  addressed  to  Heaven  in  behalf  of  his  murderers. 
Father,  forgive  thkm  ;  for  thev  know  not  what 

THKY  do! 


Note  A. — Page  95. 

From  the  work  referred  to  in  the  text,  the  following 
extracts  will  be  read  with  interest. 

Mr.  Penn  first  controverts  the  notion  of  those  geolo- 
gists who  think  that  the  earth  was  originally  a  fluid 
mass  ;  and  as  they  plead  the  authority  of  Sir  I.  Newton, 
who  is  said  to  have  concluded  from  its  figure  (an  obtuse 
spheroid),  that  it  was  originally  a  yielding  mass,  Mr. 
Penn  shows  that  this  was  only  put  hypolhetically  by 
him ;  and  thai  he  has  laid  it  down  expressly  as  his 
belief,  not  that  there  was  first  a  chaotic  ocean,  and  then 
a  gradual  process  of  first  formations,  but  that  "  (iod  at 
the  beginning  formed  all  material  things  of  such  figures 
and  properties  as  most  conduced  to  the  end  for  which 
He  formed  them  ;"  and  that  he  judged  it  to  be  unjihilo- 
sophical  to  ascribe  them  to  any  mediate  or  secondary 
cause,  such  as  laws  of  nature  operating  in  a  chaos. 
Mr.  Penn  then  proceeds  to  show,  that,  though  what 
geologists  call  first  formations  may  have  the  appearance 
of  having  been  produced  by  a  process,  say  of  crystalli- 
zation, or  any  other,  that  it  is  no  proof  that  they  were 
not  formed  by  the  immediate  act  of  (iod,  as  we  are 
taught  in  the  Scriptures  ;  and  Ik^  coulinns  thi.sby  exam- 
ples from  the  ,/7r,sf  /ormriZ/'oiv  111  Uio  animal  and  ve- 
getable kingdoms,  and  contriids  ilial  the  first  formations 
of  the  mineral  kingdom  must  coine  under  the  same 
rule.  "If  a  bone  of  the, ^r.'^^  created  man  now  re- 
mained, and  were  mingled  with  other  bones  pertaining 
to  a  generated  race ;  and  if  it  were  to  be  submitted  to 
the  inspection  and  examination  of  an  anatomist,  what 
opinion  and  judgment  would  its  simsible  phenomena 
suggest,  respecting  the  mode  of  its  first  formation,  and 
what  would  be  his  conclusion  ?  If  he  were  unapprized 
of  its  true  origm,  his  mind  would  ■^ce  nothing  in  its 
sensible  phenomena,  but  the  la.v:ii  oi  ossification  ;  just 
G 


as  the  mineral  geologist  '  sees  nothing  in  the  details  of 
the  IbriiKition  of  minerals,  but  jirerijiUalions,  cryslalli- 
zatiiias,  and  dissolutio)u>.\2)  lie  wciuld  therefore  na- 
turally ]ii(inounc.e  of  this  bono,  as  of  all  the  other  bones, 
that  its  'fibres  icere  originally  srft,'  until,  in  the  shelter 
of  the  maternal  womb,  it  acquired  '  the  hardness  of  a 
cartilage,  and  then  of  bone,'  tliat  this  effect  '  was  not 
produced  at  once,  or  in  a  very  short  tunc,'  but  '  by  de- 
grees ;'  that,  after  birth,  it  iiicreasi'd  in  luirdncss  '  by  the 
continual  addition  <f  ossifying  matter,  until  it  ceased 
to  grojv  at  all? 

"  Physically  tnie  as  this  reasoning  would  appear,  it 
would  nevertheless  be  inorallymxA  really  false.  Why 
would  it  be  false?  Because  it  concluded,  from  mere 
sensible  phenomena,  to  the  certainty  of  a  fact  which 
could  not  be  established  by  the  evidence  of  sensible 
phenomena  a/o«f;  namely,  the  mode  of  the  first  forma- 
tion of  the  substance  of  created  bone. 

"  Let  us  proceed  from  animal  to  vegetable  matter ; 
and  let  us  consider  the  first  created  tree,  under  whicli 
the  created  man  first  reposed,  and  from  which  he 
gathered  his  first  fruit.  That  tree  must  have  had  a  stem, 
or  trunk,  through  which  the  juices  were  conveyed  from 
the  root  to  the  fruit,  and  by  wliich  it  was  able  to  sustain 
the  branches  upon  which  the  fruit  grew. 

"  If  a  portion  of  this  created  tree  now  remained,  and 
if  a  section  of  its  wood  were  to  be  mingled  with  other 
sections  of  propagated  trees,  and  submitted  to  the  in- 
spection and  examination  of  a  naturalist ;  what  oi)iiiion 
and  judgment  would  its  seyisible  phenomena  suggest  to 
him,  respecting  the  mode  of  its  fin-it  formation ;  and 
what  would  be  his  conclusion  .'  If  he  were  unapprized 
of  its  true  origin,  his  mind  would  see  nothing  in  its 
sensible  phenomena,  but  the  laws  of  lignifieation ;  just 
as  the  mineral  geologist  '  sees  nothing  in'  the  details  of 
the  formations  of  primitive  rock,  but  precipitations, 
crystallizations,  and  dissolutions.'  He  would  therefore 
naturally  pronounce  of  it  as  of  all  the  other  sections  of 
wood  :  that  its  'fibres,'  when  they  first  issued  from  the 
seed,  '  were  soft  and  herbaceous ;'  that  they  'did  not 
suddenly  pass  to  the  hardness  of  perfect  wood,'  but, 
'  after  many  years;'  that  the  hardness  of  their  folds, 
'  which  indicate  the  growth  of  eachyear,'  was  therefore 
cflocted  only  '  by  degrees ;'  and  that,  '  since  Nature  does 
nothing  but  by  a  progressive  course,  it  is  not  surprising 
that  its  substance  acquired  its  hardiiess  only  by  little 
and  little.' 

"  Physically  true  as  the  naturalist  would  here  appear 
to  reason,  yet  his  reasoning,  like  that  of  the  anatomist, 
would  be  morally  and  really  false.  And  why  would  it 
be  false  ?  For  the  same  reason ;  because  he  concluded, 
from  mere  sensible  phenomena,  to  the  certainty  of  a 
fact  which  could  not  be  established  by  the  evidence  of 
sensible  phenomena  alone ;  namely,  the  mode  of  the  first 
formation  of  the  substance  of  created  wood. 

"  There  only  now  remains  to  be  considered  the  third, 
or  mineral,  kingdom  of  this  terrestrial  system  ;  and  it 
aiipears  probable,  to  reason  and  philosophy,  by  prima 
facie  evidence,  that  the  principle  determining  the  mode 
of  first  formations,  in  two  parts  of  this  threefold  division 
of  matter,  must  have  equal  authority  in  this  third  part. 
And  indeed,  after  the  closest  investigation  of  the  subject, 
we  can  discover  no  ground  whatever  (or  supposing  that 
this  third  jiart  is  exempted  from  the  authority  of  that 
oommon  principle ;  or  that  physics  arc  a  whit  more 
competent  to  dogmatize  concerning  the  mode  of  first 
formations,  from  the  evidence  of  phenomena  alone,  in 
the  mineral  kingdom,  than  they  have  been  found  to  be 
in  the  animal  or  vegetable;  or  to  aHirm,  from  the  indi- 
cations of  the  former,  that  the  mode  of  its  first  forma- 
tions was  more  gradual  and  tardy  than  those  of  the 
OtlKT  two. 

"  Let  us  try  this  point,  by  proceeding  with  our  com- 
p;u-i.son  ;  and  let  us  consider  the  first  created  roc/i,  as 
we  have  considered  the  first  created  hone  and  wood; 
and  let  us  ask,  what  is  rock,  in  its  nature  and  com- 
position ? 

"  'I'o  this  question  Mineralogy  replies  :  '  By  the  word 
rock,  we  mean  every  mineral  rnass  of  such  l)ulk  as  to 
be  regarded  an  e.^.9ential  part  of  the  structure  of  the 
globe.(3)  We  understand  by  the  word  mineral,  a  na- 
tural body,  inorganic,  solid,  homogeneous,  that  is,  com- 
posed of  integrant  molecules  of  the  same  substance  :(4) 
We  may,  perhaps,  pronounce  that  a  mass  is  essential, 


(1)  D'Aubuisson,  i. 
(4)  Ibid.  p.  271. 


32e,  327.    (3)  Ibid.  p.  272 


98 


THEOLOGICAL  LVSTITUTES. 


[Part  I. 


■when  its  displacement  would  occasion  the  downfall  of 
other  masses  which  are  placed  upon  it.(5)  Such  arc 
those  lofty  and  ancient  mountains,  the  Jirst  and  most 
solid  biincs,  as  it  were,  of  this  globe, — Its  pranicrs,  lex 
plus  sohdes  ossemens, — which  have  merited  the  name 
of  primitive,  because,  scorning  all  support  and  all 
foreign  mixture,  tliey  repose  always  upon  bases  similar 
to  themselves,  and  comprise  witlim  their  substance  no 
mutter  hut  of  the  same  nature.(O)— These  are  the 
primordial  mountains  ;  which  traverse  our  continents 
in  various  directions,  rising  above  the  clouds, separating 
the  basins  of  rivers  one  from  another;  serving,  by 
means  of  their  eternal  snows,  as  reservoirs  (or  feeding 
the  springs,  and  forming  in  some  measure  the  skeleton, 
or,  as  it  were,  the  rou^k  frame-wurk  of  the  earth.(7) 
These  primitive  masses  are  slami)ed  with  the  character 
of  a  formation  allogcther  crystalline,  as  if  they  were 
really  the  product  of  a  tran(|,nil  precipitation.'(8') 

"  Had  the  nuneral  geology  contented  itself  with  this 
simple  mincmlogica!  statemenl,  we  should  have  thus 
argued,  (oinirning  the  crystalline  phenomena  of  the 
first  irnncral  fonriations ;  conformably  to  the  principles 
which  we  have  recognised.  As  the  bone  of  the  lirst 
man,  and  the  wood  of  the  first  tree,  whose  solidity  was 
essential  for  'giving  shape,  firmness,  and  siijiport  to 
their  respective  systems,  were  not,  and  could  not  have 
been,  formed  hy  the  gradual  processes  of  o.ssijicutioii 
and  liixnijication,  of  which  they  nevertheless  must  have 
exhibited  the  sensible  phenomena,  or  apparent  indica- 
tions ;  so,  reason  directs  us  to  conclude,  that  primitive 
rock,  whose  .solidity  was  equally  essential  for  giving 
shape,  firmness,  and  support  to  the  mineral  system  ol 
this  globe,  was  not,  and  could  not  h;ive  been,  formed  by 
the  gradual  processes  of  precipitation  and  crystalli- 
zation, nolwithstandnig  any  sensible  phenomena,  appa- 
rently indicative  of  those  processes,  which  it  may 
exhiljit ;  but  that  in  the  mineral  kingdom,  as  in  the 
anTrnal  and  vegetable  kingdoms,  the  Creating  Agent 
aniiripated  in  his  formations,  by  an  immediate  act, 
fffcctx,  whose  sensible  phenomena  could  not  determine 
the  mode  of  their  formation ;  because  the  real  mode  was 
in  direct  contradiction  to  the  apparent  indications  of  the 
phenomena. 

"  Hut  the  mineral  geology  has  not  contented  itself 
with  that  simple  miiieralogical  statement ;  nor  drawn 
the  conclusion  which  we  have  drawn,  in  conformity 
with  the  principles,  and  in  ob.servance  of  the  rules,  of 
ISeu ion's  iibilosophy.  It  affirms,  '  that  \X\^  rhararAesrs 
by  wbicli  geology  is  written  in  the  book  of  nature,  in 
whicli  It  is  to  be  studied,  are  ?7)mcr«?.s ;'(•')  and  it  '■sees 
nothins;''  in  that  book  of  nature  but  '  precipitations, 
crystallizations,  s.\\i  dissolntion.i  f  and  therefore,  be- 
cause It  sees  nothing  else,  it  concludes  without  hesita- 
tion, from  cri/sZa//i>tc  phenomena  to  actual  cry stalli- 
zatimi.  Thus,  by  attempting  the  impossibility  of 
deducing  a  universal  principle,  viz.  the  mode  of  first 
formations,  from  the  analysis  of  a  single  indindiial, 
viz.  mineral  matter,  .sepiiraie  friim  co-ordinate  animal 
and  vegrtiMe  matter ;  and  coiicl  uding  from  that  defective 
anal\  SIS,  to  the  sencrnl  law  of  first  formations ;  it  set  out 
with  inadei|uale  light,  and  it  is  no  wonder  that  it  ended 
in  absolute  darkness;  for  such  is  its  elemental  chaos. 
and  it.s  rUmiical  precipitation  of  this  globe:  a  doctrine 
BO  nearly  re.sitmbling  the  fi\\i\oi\cA  atomic  philosophii 
of  the  Kpiiurean  school,  that  it  requires  a  very  close 
and  labDriiiiis  iiis|«-.tiiiM  to  discover  a  single  feature,  by 
which  tliey  io:i\  br  di^-^lniguisUed  from  each  other." 

This  argiirm  III  is  l.irgely  siip|)0rted  and  illustrated  in 
the  work;  and  thus  by  referring  first  formations  of 
every  kind  to  an  immediate  act  of  God,  tho.se  immense 


(5)  D'Aubuisson,  i.  p.  27'2. 

(6)  Saussure,  Voyages  des  Alps,  Disc.  I'rcl  p.  6,7. 

(7)  •'uvier,  $7,p  3'J         (>8)  U'Aubuiasoii,  ii.  p.  5. 
(9)  Ibid.  p.  29 


periods  of  time  which  geology  demands  for  its  chemical 
processes,  arc  rendered  unnecessary.  Yrom  first  f urina- 
tions. Mr.  I'enn  proceeds  to  oppose  the  notion  that  the 
earth  has  undergone  many  general  revolutions,  and 
tlniiks  that  all  geological  phenomena  may  be  better 
explained  by  the  jMosaic  record,  which  confines  those 
genend  revolutions  to  two.  Mr.  Penn's  course  of  ob- 
servation will  be  seen  by  the  following  recapitolation 
of  the  second  and  third  parts  of  his  work ; 

"  That  this  globe,  so  constructed  at  its  origin,  has  un- 
dergone two,  and  only  two,  general  changes  or  revolur 
tions  of  its  substance ;  each  of  which  was  caused  by 
the  immediate  will,  intelligence,  and  power  of  Gud 
exercised  upon  the  work  which  he  had  formed,  and 
directing  the  laws  or  agencies  which  He  had  ordained 
within  it. 

"  That,  by  the  fiust  change  or  revolution  [that  of 
gathering  the  waters  into  one  jilace,  and  making  the 
dryland  appear]  one  portion  or  division  of  the  surface 
of  the  globe  was  suddenly  and  violently  fractured  and 
depressed,  in  order  to  form,  in  the  first  instance,  u 
receptaide  or  bed  for  the  waters  universally  diffused 
over  that  surface,  and  to  expose  the  other  [wrtion,  that 
it  might  become  a  dwelling  for  animal  life ;  but  yet, 
with  an  ulterior  design,  that  the  reteptacle  of  the  waters 
should  eventually  become  the  chief  theatre  of  animal 
existence,  by  the  portion  first  exposed  experiencing  a 
similar  fracture  and  depression,  and  thus  becoming,  in 
its  turn,  the  receptacle  of  the  same  waters ;  which 
should  then  be  transfused  into  it,  leaving  their  fonner 
recei)tacle  void  and  dry. 

"That  this  FIRST  revolution  took  place  before  the 
existence,  that  is,  before  the  creation,  of  any  organized 
beings. 

"  That  the  sea,  collected  into  this  vast  fractured  cavity 
of  the  globe's  surface,  continued  to  occupy  it  during 
1(150  years  [from  the  creation  to  the  deluge];  during 
which  long  period  of  time,  its  waters  acted  in  various 
modes,  chemical  and  viecltanical,  upon  the  several  soils 
and  fragments  which  formed  its  bed ;  and  marine 
organic  matter,  animal  and  vegetable,  was  generated 
and  accumulated  in  vast  abundance. 

"That,  after  the  expiration  of  those  IfiSfi  years,  il 
|)leasf(l  God,  in  a  skcono  revolution,  to  execute  his  ulte- 
rior design,  by  repeating  the  amazing  operation  by 
which  he  had  exposed  the  first  earth ;  and  by  the  dis- 
ruption and  depression  of  that  first  earth  bel««v  the 
level  of  the  bed  of  the  first  sea,  to  produce  a  new  bed, 
into  which  the  waters  descended  from  their  Ibrmer  bed, 
leaving  it  to  become  the  theatre  of  the  luture  genera- 
tions of  mankind. 

"  That  Tuia  I'Rksknt  earth  jrosTnATfonMER  BKn. 
"That  it  must,  therefore,  necessarily  exhibit  manifest 
and  universal  evidences  of  the  vicissitudes  which  it  haa 
undergone;  viz.  of  the  vast  ajiparcnt  ruin  occasioned 
by  its  first  violent  disruption  and  depression  ;  of  the 
presence  and  operation  of  the  marine  tluid  during  the 
long  interval  which  succeeded  ;  and  of  the  action  and 
clTects  of  that  fluid  in  its  ultimate  retreat. 

"  Within  the  limits  of  this  drnrrnl  Schnnc,  all  specu- 
lations must  be  confined  which  would  aspire  to  the 
iiuality  of  soinul  geology;  yet  vii.st  and  sublime  is  the 
rield  which  it  lays  open,  to  exercise  the  intelligence  and 
e.xpirience  of  sober  and  philo.sophical  mineralogy  and 
ctiemistry.  lijKin  this  legitimate  ground,  those  many 
valuable  writers,  who  have  unwarily  lent  their  sciein* 
to  uphold  and  pmiiagale  tin' vicious  doclrineof  a  rAno^c 
geogony,  may  j;r<il(igr/i'  with  liill  security;  and  may 
there  concur  to  jiromoic  tb:it  triii-  advancement  of  7in- 
tural  philo.sophy,  whicli  Newton  holds  to  be  inspjiarable 
from  a  proportionate adviinceineiit  of  the  moral.  They 
must  thus  at  length  succeed  in  perfecting  a  true  pkilo- 
sopliictit  geology ;  which  never  ran  exist,  unless  the 
pnni-iple  of  Newton  form  the/(/an</«^yn,  and  the  rela- 
tion of  Mose.s  the  working-plan." 


(99) 

PART  SECOND. 

DOCTRINES  OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES. 


CHAPTER  I. 

The  Existence  of  God. 

The  Divine  Authority  of  those  writings  wliirh  are 
received  by  Christians  as  a  revelation  of  infallible  trutli 
having  been  establislied,  our  next  step  is  seriously,  and 
with  simplicity  of  mind,  to  examine  their  contents,  and 
to  collect  from  them  that  ample  information  on  religious 
and  moral  subjects  which  they  proless  to  contain,  and 
in  which  it  had  become  necessary  that  the  world  should 
be  supernaturally  instructed.  Agreeably  to  a  principle 
which  has  already  been  laid  down,  I  shall  endeavour, 
as  in  the  case  of  any  other  record,  to  exhibit  tlieir 
meaning  by  the  application  of  those  plain  rules  of  in- 
terpretation which  have  been  established  for  such  pur- 
poses by  tlie  connnon  agreement  of  the  sober  part  of 
mankind.  All  the  assistance  within  reach  from  critics, 
commentators,  and  divines  shall  however  be  resorted 
to ;  for,  though  the  water  can  only  be  drawn  pure  from 
the  sacred  fountain  itself,  we  yet  owe  it  to  many  of  these 
guides,  that  they  have  successfully  directed  us  to  the 
openings  through  which  it  breaks,  and  led  the  way 
into  the  depth  of  the  stream. 

The  doctrine  which  the  first  sentence  in  this  Divine 
Revelation  unfolds  is,  that  there  is  a  Gon,  the  Creator 
0/  heaven  and  earth  ;  and  as  this  is  fundamental  to  the 
whole  scheme  of  duty,  promise,  and  hope  wliich  the 
books  of  Scripture  successively  unfold  and  explain,  it 
demands  our  earliest  consideration. 

In  three  distinct  ways  do  the  sacred  writers  furnish 
us  with  information  on  this  great  and  essential  subject, 
the  existence  and  the  character  of  God ; — from  the 
■names  by  which  he  is  designated;  from  the  actions 
ascribed  to  him ;  and  from  the  attributes  with  which 
lie  is  invested  in  their  invocations  and  praises ;  and  in 
those  lofty  descriptions  of  his  nature  which,  under  the 
inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  have  recorded  for 
the  instruction  of  the  world.  These  attributes  will  be 
afterward  particularly  considered ;  but  the  impression 
of  the  general  view  of  the  Divine  character,  as  thus 
revealed,  is  too  important  to  be  omitted. 

The  na?nes  of  God  as  recorded  in  Scripture  convey 
at  once  ideas  of  overwlielming  greatness  and  glory, 
mingled  with  that  awful  mysteriousness  with  which  to 
all  finite  minds,  and  especially  to  the  minds  of  mortals, 
the  Divine  essence  and  mode  of  existence  must  ever 
be  invested.  Though  One,  he  is  □Ti'tN  Eloiiim, 
Gods,  persons  adorable.  He  is  nin^  Jehovah,  self- 
existing.  7X  Et.,  strong,  poii'crfai ;  HTIN  Ehieh, 
/  am,  I  will  be,  self-existence,  independency,  all-siiffl.- 
ciency,  immutability,  eternity;  'Tiy  Shaddai,  Al- 
viighty,  oJl-siifficient ;  |TX  Adon,  Supporter,  Lord, 
Judge.  These  are  among  the  adorable  appellatives  of 
God  which  are  scattered  throughout  the  revelation 
which  he  has  been  pleased  to  make  of  himself:  but  on 
one  occasion  he  was  pleased  more  particularly  to  declare 
"  his  name,"  that  is,  such  of  the  qualities  and  attributes 
of  the  Divine  nature,  as  mortals  are  the  most  interested 
in  knowhig ;  and  to  unfold,  not  only  his  natural,  but 
those  also  of  his  moral  attributes  by  which  his  conduct 
towards  his  creatures  is  regulated.  "And  the  Lord 
passed  by  and  proclaimed.  The  Lord,  the  Lord  God, 
merciful  and  gracioux,  long-siiffertng,  and  abundant 
in  goodness  and  truth,  keeping  mercy  for  thousands, 
forgiving  iniquity,  transgression,  and  sin,  and  that 
will  by  no  means  clear  the  guilty ;  visiting  the  iniquity 
of  the  fathers  upon  the  children,  and  upon  the  child- 
ren's children,  unto  the  third  and  fourth  gen(ralion."{\) 


G2 


(1)  Exodus  x.\.\iv. 


This  is  the  most  ample  and  particular  description  of 
the  character  of  God,  as  given  by  himself,  in  the  sacred 
records ;  and  the  import  of  the  several  titles  by  which 
he  has  thus,  in  his  infinite  condescension  manifested 
himself,  has  been  thus  exliibited.  He  is  not  only  Je- 
hovah, self-exisltnt,  and  El,  the  strong  or  mighty 
God,  but  "Din")  RocHUM,  the  merciful  being,  wbo 
is  full  of  tenderness  and  compassion,  pjn  Chanun, 
the  gracious  one,  he  whose  nature  is  goodness  itself — 
the  loving  God.  D'3X  "]"1X  Erkc  Apavim,  long- 
sujf'ering,  the  being  who,  because  of  his  tenderness,  is 
not  easily  irritated,  but  suiftrs  long  and  is  kind.  21 
Rab,  the  great  or  mighty  one.  IDH  Chksed,  the. 
bountiful  Being;  he  who  is  exuberant  in  his  benefi- 
cence. riDX  Emeth,  the  TVtith,  or  True  One,  He 
alone  who  can  neither  deceive  nor  be  deceived,  lyj 
TDn  NoTSER  Chesed,  the  Presenter  of  bountifulness, 
he  whose  beneficence  never  ends,  keeping  rnercy  for 
thousands  of  generations,  showing  compassion  and 
mercy  while  the  world  endures.  J'jy£)1  TIJ?  NL'/J 
^^5£0^^  NnnKeivonvapeshuvechutafihjhe  teho  bears 
away  iniquity,  transgression,  and  sin;  properly  the 
Rkdkemeb,  the  Parijoner,  the  Fdrgiver,  the  Being 
whose  prerogative  it  is  to  forgive  sin,  and  save  the  soul. 
npJ'  n'7  npJ  N.vKEH  lo  yinnakeh,  the  righteous 
Judge,  who  distributes  justice  with  an  impartial  hand. 
And  pj,>  T  pi)  Paked  uvon,  S,-c.,  he  who  visits  iniquity^ 
he  who  punishes  transgressors,  and  from  whose  justice 
no  sinner  can  escape :  the  God  of  retributive  and  vin- 
dictive justice."(2) 

The  second  means  by  which  the  Scriptures  convey 
to  us  the  knowledge  of  God,  is  by  the  actions  which 
they  ascribe  to  him.  They  contain  indeed  the  important 
record  of  Aw  dealings  with  men  in  every  age  which  is 
comprehended  within  the  limit  of  the  Sacred  HLstory ; 
and  by  prophetic  declaration  they  also  exhibit  the  prin- 
ciples on  which  he  will  govern  the  world  to  the  end  of 
time;  so  that  the  whole  course  of  the  Divine  adminis- 
tration inay  be  considered  as  exhibiting  a  singularly 
illustrative  comment  upon  those  attributes  of  his  nature, 
which,  in  their  abstract  form,  are  contained  in  such 
declarations  as  those  which  have  been  just  quoted.  The 
first  act  ascribed  to  God  is  tliat  of  creating  the  heavens 
and  the  earth  out  of  nothing;  and  by  his  fiat  alone 
arranging  their  parts,  and  peopling  them  with  living 
creatures.  By  this  were  manifested — his  eternity  and  , 
self-existence,  as  he  who  creates  must  be  before  all  crea- 
tures, and  he  who  gives  being  to  others  can  himself 
derive  it  from  none : — his  Almighty  power,  shown  both 
in  the  act  of  creation  and  in  the  number  and  vastiiesa 
of  the  objects  so  produced : — his  wisdom,  in  their  ar- 
rangement, and  in  their  fitness  to  their  respective  ends : — 
and  his  goodness,  as  the  whole  tended  to  the  hap])ines3 
of  sentient  beings.  The  foundations  of  his  natural  and 
moral  government  are  also  made  manifest  by  his  cre- 
ative acts.  In  what  he  made  out  of  nothing  he  had  an 
absolute  right  and  jirerogative  of  ordering  and  disposal : 
so  that  to  alter  or  destroy  his  own  work,  and  to  pre- 
scribe the  laws  by  which  the  intelligent  and  rational 
part  of  his  crealiires  should  be  governed,  are  rights 
which  none  can  question.  Thus  on  the  one  hand  his 
character  of  Lend  or  Governor  is  establishcil,  and  on 
the  other  oiu-  duty  of  Jowly  homage  and  absolute  obe- 
dience. 

Agreeably  to  this,  as  soon  as  man  was  created,  he 

(2)  Dr.  A.  Clarke  in  loc. 


100 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Pakt  II, 


was  placed  under  a  rule  of  conduct.  Obedience  was 
Jo  be  followed  with  the  continuance  of  the  Divine  fa- 
vour; traiir^grcssion  with  death.  The  event  called 
forth  new  inaiufcstations  of  the  character  of  (Jod. 
His  tender  mercy,  in  the  comiiassion  showed  to  the 
fallen  pair;  his  justue,  in  for^'lviiis  them  only  in  the 
view  of  a  satis/action  to  be  hercalter  offered  to  his  jus- 
tice by  an  innocent  representative  of  the  sinning  race ; 
his  LOVE  to  that  race,  in  giving  his  own  Son,  to  become 
this  Rfdfnncr,  and  in  the  fulness  of  time  to  die  for  the 
sins  of  the  whole  world ;  and  his  holiness,  in  eon- 
neciiMff  with  this  provis-ion  for  the  pardon  of  man  tJie 
jiicaiisOf  restoring  him  to  a  sinless  state,  and  to  the 
«bliterateil  iniiiic  of  (.'od  in  which  he  liad  been  created. 
EMTripliliiiiUciiis  of  the  Divine  meiicy  are  traced  from 
age  to  age,  in  his  establishing  his  own  worship  among 
men,  and  remitting  tlu-  jumislinicnt  of  indiviilo:d  and 
national  ofTenccs  in  answirtc/  prayer  ollered  froip  jieiii- 
tent  hearts,  and  in  depenclcin-r  uiion  the  tyinricd  or 
actually  offered  univers;d  sacrifice : — of  his  iondk- 
seENsioN,  in  sloojiing  to  the  ciLses  of  individuals  ;  in 
his  disjicn-sations  both  of  providence  and  grace,  by 
showing  respect  to  the  poor  and  humble;  and,  princi- 
pally, by  the  incarnation  of  (iod  in  the  form  of  a  ser- 
vant, ailmitting  men  into  ntmiliar  and  friendly  inter- 
course with  himself,  and  then  entering  into  heaven  to 
be  their  iialron  and  advwate,  until  they  should  be  re- 
ceived unto  the  same  glory,  "  and  so  be  for  ever  with 
the  Lord;" — of  his  .strictly  iugiiteous  government, 
in  the  deslruetiwi  of  the  old  world,  the  cities  of  the 
plain,  the  nations  of  Canaan,  and  all  ancient  states, 
npon  their  "  filling  up  the  measure  of  their  iniquities ;" 
and,  to  show  that  "  he  will  bif  no  7itcan.i  clear  tlif 
guiUij ;'''  in  the  numerous  and  severe  punishments  in- 
iUcted  even  upon  the  chosen  s(!ed  of  Abraliiim,  because 
of  their  transgressions; — of  his  long-suffering,  in 
frequent  warnings,  delays,  and  corrective  judgments, 
indicted  upon  individuals  and  nations,  before  sentence 
ef  utter  excision  and  destruction: — of  faitiikilness 
and  TRUTH,  in  the  fultilment  of  promi.ses,  often  many 
ages  after  they  were  given,  as  in  the  promises  to  Abra- 
ham respecting  the  possisision  of  the  land  of  Canaan 
by  his  seed  ;  and  in  all  the  ^'promises  made  to  the  fa- 
thers" respecting  the  advent,  vicarious  death,  and  illus- 
trious ertlices  of  the  Christ,  the  Saviour  of  the  world  : — 
of  his  tMMri'ABii.iTv,  in  the  constant  and  unchanging 
faws  and  principles  of  his  government,  which  remain 
to  this  day  pre<-isi'ly  Ihi-saiiic,  in  cvi^y  tlniiiz  mnrersal, 
as  when  first  promulgated,  and  have  been  the  rule  of 
his  conduct  in  all  places  as  well  as  through  all  time  : — 
of  his  PRESCIENCE  of  future  events,  manifested  by  the 
predictions  of  Scripture ; — and  of  the  depth  and  sta- 
bility of  his  COUNSEL,  as  illustrated  in  that  plan  and 
purpose  of  bringing  back  a  revolted  world  to  obedience 
and  felicity,  which  we  find  steaiUly  ke|it  in  view  in  the 
Hcrifilural  history  of  the  acts  of  (;od  in  former  ages; 
which  is  still  the  eml  towards  which  all  his  disiieiisa- 
tions  bend,  however  wide  and  mysterious  their  sweep ; 
and  which  they  will  finally  aecomplisli,  as  we  learn 
from  the  prophetic  hisluri/  of  the  future,  contained  in 
the  Old  and  New  'I'cstamcnts. 

Thus  the  cDiirse  of  Divmc  operation  in  the  world 
has  from  age  to  age  been  a  iicanili  staliiin  of  the  Divine 
character,  continually  recciMiiL'  new  ;iMd  stronger  illus- 
trations 10  the  comiilclion  of  tin Cbiisiian  revelation 
by  the  ministry  of  Christ  and  his  nispircd  lollowers,  and 
still  placing  itself  in  briirhter  light  and  more  impressive 
aspects  as  the  scheme  of  human  redemption  runs  on 
to  its  consummation.  From  all  the  acts  of  (;od  as  re- 
<ordeil  in  the  Scriptures,  we  are  taught  that  h(;  alimc  is 
Cod ;  that  he  is  [iresent  eviTV  where  to  sustain  and 
govern' all  things;  that  his  wisikim  isiiitinite,  his  coun- 
sel .settled,  and  his  power  irresistible;  that  he  is  holy, 
just  and  good;  the  Lord  and  the  .ludge,  but  the  Father 
and  the  Friend  of  man. 

More  at  large  do  we  learn  what  Go<l  is,  from  the  de- 
clarations of  the  Inspired  writings. 

As  to  his  SUDS  FAN!  E,  that  "God  is  a  Spirit."  As 
to  his  DURATION,  that  "/rom  rverlaxtiiiif  to  eviTlastins; 
he  is  God  ;"  "  the  Kiiicc,  eternal,  immortal,  rniisihle." 
That,  after  all  the  manifestations  he  has  made  of  him- 
self, he  is,  from  the  Infinite  perfection  and  glory  of  his 
nature,  iNcoMPREiiENsini.K  ;  "  Jm,  these  are  hut  parts 
fif  his  ways,  and  how  little  a  portion  is  heard  of  him'." 
"Touching  the  Alinighlii,  iir  cannot  find  Inm  out." 
That  he  is  UNciiANGKAiii.it,  "the  Fathir  of  Lights, 
uilU  whom  there  is  710  ranahUnrss,  neithur  shmtoir  of 


turning."    That  "  he  is  the  fovnitain  of  Lifk,"'  and  the 
only  independent  liehig  iii  the  Universe,  "  who  onli/ 
hath  cmmorlaUty.''    That  every  otlier  being,  however 
exalted,  has  its  existence  from  him ;  "fin-  by  him  were 
all  things  created,  which  are  in  heaven  and  m  earth, 
lehetlier  they  are  visible  or  invisible."    That  the  eiist- 
eiice  of  every  thing  is  upheld  by  him,  no  creature  being 
for  a  moment  independent  of  his  support ;  "  by  him  all 
things  consist,"  "  upholding  all  things  by  thv  word  of 
his  power."    That  he  is  ommprksent:  "  Do  not  I  fill 
heaven  aiid  earth  with  my  presence,  saith  the  Lord?" 
That  he  is  omniscient,  "  All  things  arc  naked  and 
open  before  the  eyes  of  him  with  whom  we  have  to  do." 
That  he  is  the  absolute  Lord  and  Owner  of  all  things: 
"  The  heavens,  even  the  heaven  of  heaveJis,  are  thine, 
and  all  the  parts  of  them."    "  The  earth  is  thine,  and 
the  fulness  thereof,  the  world  and  them  that  dwell  there- 
in.'"   "  He  doeth  according  to  his  will  in  the  armies  of 
heaven,   and  among   the  inhabitants  of  the  earth." 
That  his  Providence  extends  lothe  minutest  objects: 
"  The  hairs  of  your  head  are  all  numbered."    "  Are 
not  two  sparrows  soldfrrr  a  farthing?  and  one  of  them. 
shall  not  fall  mi   the  ground  without   your   Father.'^ 
That  he  is  a  being  of  unspotted  I'l  rity  and  perfect 
UKCTITUDE  :  "  Holy,  Hoiy,  Holy.  Lord  God  of  Hosts  ."' 
"  A  God  of  truth,  and  in  whom  is  no  inii/uity."    "  Of 
purer  eyes  than  to  behold  iniquity."    That  he  is  just, 
in  the  administration  of  his  government :  "  Shall  not 
the  Judge  of  the  whole  earth  do  right!"    "  Clouds  and 
darkness  are  round  about  him;  judgment  and  justice 
are  the  habitation  of  his  throne,"    That  his  wishom  i» 
unsearchable;  "  0  the  depth  of  the  wisdom  and  knme- 
Icilgc  if  God!  how  unsearchable  are  his  judgments, 
and  his  ways  pastjinding  out .'"     And,  finally,  that  he 
is  oiion   and  merciful;  "Thou   art  good,  and   thy 
mercy  endureth for  ever."    "His  tender  mircy  is  over 
all  his  works."    "  God,  who  is  rich  in  mercy,  fur  his 
great  love  wherewith  he  Iwed  us,  evi a  uUcn  we  were 
dead  in  sins,  hath  quickened  us  together  with  Christ." 
"  God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself f 
not  imputing  llicir  tre.ijiasses  unto  them."    "  God  hatft 
gin  n  III  u.'  ittrniil  life,  and  this  life  i.v  in  his  i>on." 

Under  ihese  dei'iily  awful,  but  consolatory  views,  do 
the  Scrijiluies  present  to  us  the  supreme  object  of  our 
wursliip  and  trust,  dwelling  upon  each  of  the  abovu 
jiiirliculars  with  inimitable  sublimity  and  beauty  of  lan- 
guage, and  with  an  inexhaustible  variety  of  illustra- 
tion ;  nor  can  we  compare  these  views  of  the  Divine 
Nature  with  the  concej'lions  of  the  most  enlightened 
of  pagans,  without  Iceling  how  much  reason  we  have 
for  everlasting  graiilnde,  that  a  revelation  so  fx]dtcit 
and  so  (iiinprilunsiee  should  have  been  made  to  us  on 
a  suliji  ct  which  only  a  revelation  from  (Jod  himself 
could  have  made  known.  It  is  thus  that  Christian  phi- 
losophers, even  when  they  do  not  use  the  language  of 
the  Scripluics,  are  able  to  sjieak  on  this  great  and 
mysterious  doctrine  in  language  so  clear,  and  with  con- 
ceptions so  noble;  in  a  manner  too  so  ei/uable,  so  dif- 
ferent to  the  sages  of  antiquity,  who,  if  at  any  time 
they  approach  the  truth  when  speaking  of  the  Divine 
Nalnre,  never  fail  to  mingle  with  it  .some  essentially 
erroneous  or  grovelling  conception.  "  Ity  the  word 
Cod,"  says  Dr.  Harrow,  "  wc  mean  a  being  of  intinite 
wisdom,  goodness,  and  po\\*r,  the  creator  and  the 
iiovernor  of  all  things,  to  whom  the  great  attributes  of 
elernilv  and  iiidejiendeiice,  omniscience  and  immen- 
sn\,  perfect  liiilmess  and  pnrity,  perfect  jn.slice  and 
veracit},  complele  liiippiness,  glorious  majesty,  anil 
supreme  right  of  donimion  belong;  and  to  whom  the 
highest  veneration  and  most  prolbimd  snl>ml.ssion 
and  obedience  are  due."(:!)  "  Onr  iiolloii  ot'  Deity," 
says  Hisliop  I'earson,  ''doth  expressl)  slgnily  a  lleing 
or  nature  ot  inliiiite  perfection  ;  and  the  inC.nile  perlpc- 
I ion  of  a  lieing  or  nature  consisis  in  this,  that  it  be 
absolnlely  and  essentially  necessary;  an  ailiiiil  Ueing 
of  Itself:  anil  potential,  or  causative  of  all  beings 
besides  itself,  mdepeniienl  from  any  other,  upon  which 
all  things  else  depend,  and  by  winch  all  things  else  are 
governcd."(4)  "Cod  is  a  Helng.  and  not  any  kind  of 
being;  but  a  s-ulLitanccwhwh  is  the  loimdal  ion  of  other 
beings.  And  not  only  a  substance,  but  /nrfict.  Yet 
many  beings  arc  perfect  In  their  kind,  yet  liiniled  and 
finite,  but  Cod  is  absolutely,  I'ully,  and  ever)  way 
Infinitely  perfect;   and  therefore  above  splrit-s,  above 

(3)  Barrow  on  the  Creed. 
(1)  Pearson  on  the  Creed. 


Chap.  I.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


101 


angels  ^fihn  are  perfect  rnmparativoly.  God's  infinite 
perfection  iiidudrs  all  the  altril)utos,  even  the  must 
excellent.  It  nxcLudrs  all  dependence,  borrowed  exist- 
ence, composition,  corruption,  mortality,  contingency, 
ignorance,  unrighteousness,  weakness,  misery,  and  all 
imperfections  whatever.  It  includes  necessity  of  being, 
independence,  perlect  unity,  simplicity,  immensity, 
eternity,  immortality ;  the  most  perfect  life,  know- 
ledge, wisdom,  integrity,  power,  glory,  bliss,  and 'all 
these  in  the  highest  degree.  We  cannot  pierce  into  the 
secrets  of  this  eternal  Being.  Our  reason  comprehends 
but  little  of  him.  and  when  it  can  proceed  no  farther, 
faith  comes  in,  and  we  believe  lar  more  than  we  can  un- 
derstand :  and  this  our  belief  is  not  contrary  to  reason ; 
but  reason  itself  dictates  unto  us,  that  we  nmst  believe 
far  more  of  God,  than  it  can  inform  us  of."(5)  To  these 
■we  may  add  an  admirable  passage  from  Sir  Isaac  New- 
ton ;  "The  word  Gdd  frequently  signifies  Lord;  but 
every  lord  is  not  Cod;  it  is  the  dominion  of  a  spiritual 
Being  or  Lord  that  constitutes  God ;  true  dominion, 
true  God;  supreme,  the  supreme;  feigned,  the  false 
Cod.  From  such  true  dominion  it  follows,  that  the  true 
God  is  living,  intelligent  ani  powerful ;  and  from  liis 
other  perfections,  that  he  is  supreme,  or  supremely  per- 
fect ;  he  is  eternal  and  infinite ;  omnipotent,  and  om- 
niscient; that  is,  he  endures  from  eternity  to  eternity; 
and  is  present  from  infinity  to  infinity.  He  governs  all 
things  that  exist,  and  knows  all  things  that  are  to  be 
known:  he  is  not  eternity  or  infinity,  but  eternal  and 
infinite;  he  is  not  duration  or  space,  but  he  endures  and 
is  present ;  he  endures  always,  and  is  present  every 
where;  he  is  omnipresent,  not  only  virtually,  but  also 
substantially ;  for  power  without  substance  cannot 
subsist.  All  things  are  contained  and  move  in  him ; 
but  without  any  mutual  passion  ;  he  suffers  nothing 
from  the  motions  of  bodies ;  nor  do  they  undergo  any 
resistance  from  his  omnipresence.  It  is  confessed,  that 
God  e.xi.sts  necessarily,  and  by  the  same  necessity  he 
exists  always  and  every  where.  Hence  also  he  must 
be  perfectly  similar,  all  eye,  all  ear,  all  arm,  all  the 
power  of  perceiving,  understanding  and  acting ;  but 
after  a  manner  not  at  all  corporeal,  after  a  manner  not 
like  that  of  men,  after  a  manner  wholly  to  us  unknown. 
He  is  destitute  of  all  body,  and  all  bodily  shajie;  and 
therefore  cannot  be  seen,  heard,  or  touched ;  nor  ought 
he  to  be  worshipped  under  the  representation  of  any 
thing  corporeal.  We  have  ideas  of  the  attributes  of 
God,  but  do  not  know  the  substance  of  even  any  thing : 
we  see  only  the  figures  and  colours  of  bodies,  hear  only 
sounds,  touch  only  the  outward  surfaces,  smell  only 
odours,  and  taste  tastes ;  and  do  not,  cannot,  by  any 
sense,  or  reflex  act,  know  their  inward  substances; 
and  much  less  can  we  have  any  notion  of  the  sub- 
stance of  God.  We  know  him  by  his  properties  and 
attributes." 

It  is  observable  that  neither  Moses,  the  first  of  the 
inspired  penmen,  nor  any  of  the  authors  of  the  suc- 
ceeding canonical  books,  enters  into  any  proof  of  this 
first  principle  of  religion,  that  there  is  a  God.  They 
all  assume  it  as  a  truth  commonly  known  and  admitted. 
There  is  indeed  in  the  sacred  volume  no  allusion  to  the 
existence  of  atheistical  sentiments,  till  some  ages  after 
Moses,  and  then  it  is  not  quite  clear  whether  speculative 
or  practical  atheism  be  spoken  of.  From  this  circum- 
stance we  learn,  that,  previous  to  the  time  of  Moses, 
the  idea  of  one  supreme  and  infinitely  perfect  God 
was  familiar  to  men ;  that  it  had  descended  to  them 
from  the  earliest  ages  ;  and  also  that  it  was  a  truth  of 
original  revelation,  and  not  one  which  the  sages  of  pre- 
ceding times  had  wrnntrht  out  by  rational  investigation 
and  deduction.  Had  that  been  the  fact,  we  might  have 
expected  some  intunatiou  of  it:  and  that  if  those  views 
of  God  which  are  found  in  the  Pentateuch  were  dis- 
covered by  the  successive  investigations  of  wise  men 
among  the  ancients,  the  progress  of  this  wonderful  dis- 
covery would  have  been  marked  by  Moses ;  or  if  one 
only  had  demonstrated  this  truth  by  his  personal  re- 
searches, that  some  grateful  mention  of  so  great  a  sage, 
of  so  celebrated  a  moral  teacher,  would  have  been  made. 
A  truth  too  so  essential  to  the  whole  Mosaic  system, 
and  upon  which  his  own  official  authority  rested,  had 
it  originated  from  successful  human  investigation, 
would  seem  naturally  to  have  required  a  statement  of 
the  arguments  by  which  it  had  been  demonstrated,  as  a 
fit  introduction  to  a  book  in  which  he  professed  to  re. 

(5)  Lawson's  Theo-Poliiica. 


cord  revelations  received  from  this  newly  disco'icred 
IJeiiig,  and  to  enforce  laws  uttered  under  his  command. 
Xothingof  this  kind  is  attempted  ;  and  the  sacred  his- 
torian and  lawgiver  proceeds  at  once  to  narrate  the  acts 
of  Gi)D,  and  to  declare  his  viU.  The  history  whieli 
he  wrote,  however,  aflbrds  the  reason  why  the  intro- 
duction of  formal  proof  of  the  existence  of  one  true 
God  was  thought  uniiecessarj'.  The  first  man,  we 
are  informed,  knew  God,  not  only  from  his  works,  but 
by  sensible  manifestation  and  converse ;  the  same  divine 
appearances  were  made  to  Noah,  to  Abraham,  to  Isaac,  to 
.Jacob ;  and  when  Moses  wrote,  persons  were  still  living, 
who  had  conversed  with  those  who  conversed  with 
God ;  or  were  descended  from  the  same  families  to 
whom  God  "■  at  sundry  times'' had  appeared  in  visible 
glory,  or  in  angelic  forms.  These  divine  manifestations 
were  also  matters  of  public  notoriety  among  the  primi- 
tive families  of  mankind ;  from  thein  the  tradition  was 
transmitted  to  their  descendants;  and  the  idea  once 
communicated,  was  confirmed  by  every  natural  object 
which  they  saw  around  them.  It  continued  even  after 
the  introduction  of  idolatry ;  and  has  never,  except 
among  the  most  ignorant  of  the  heathen,  been  to  this 
day  obliterated  by  polytheistic  superstitions.  It  was 
thus  that  the  knowledge  of  God  was  communicated  to 
the  ancient  world.  No  discovery  of  this  truth,  either 
in  the  time  of  Moses,  or  in  any  Ibrmer  age,  was  made 
by  human  research  ;  neither  tlie  date  nor  the  process  of 
it  could  theretbre  be  slated  in  his  writings ;  and  it  would 
have  been  trilling  to  moot  a  question  which  had  been 
so  fully  determined,  and  to  attempt  to  prove  a  doctrine 
universally  received. 

That  the  idea  of  a  Supreme  First  Cause  was  at 
first  obtained  by  the  exercise  of  reason,  is  thus  contra- 
dicted by  the  facts,  that  the  first  man  received  the  know- 
ledge of  God  by  sensible  converse  with  him,  and  that 
this  doctrine  was  transmitted,  with  the  confirmation 
of  successive  visible  mnnifeslations,  to  the  early  ances- 
tors of  all  nations.  Whether  the  discovery,  therefore, 
of  the  simple  truth  of  the  existence  of  a  First  Cause 
be  within  the  compass  of  human  powers,  is  a  point 
which  cannot  be  determined  by  matter  of  fact ;  because 
it  may  be  proved  that  those  nations  by  whom  that  doc- 
trine has  been  acknowledged,  had  their  origin  from  a 
common  stock,  resident  in  that  part  of  the  world  in 
which  the  primitive  revelations  wore  given.  They 
were  therefore  never  in  circumstances  in  which  such 
an  experiment  upon  the  power  or  weakness  of  the  hu- 
man mind  could  be  made.  Among  .some  uncivilized 
tribes,  such  as  the  Hottentots  of  Africa,  and  the  Abori- 
gines of  New  South  Wales,  the  idea  of  a  Supreme  Be- 
ing is  probably  entirely  obliterated  ;  some  notions  of 
spiritual  existences,  superior  in  power  to  man,  and 
possessed  of  creative  and  destructive  powers,  do  how- 
ever remain,  naturally  tending  to  that  train  of  reflec- 
tion, which  in  better  instructed  minds  issues  in  the 
apprehension  of  one  Supreme  and  Divine  intelligence. 
IJut  no  instance  has  been  known  of  the  knowledge  of 
God  having  thus,  or  by  any  other  means,  originating  iu 
themselves,  been  recovered  ;  if  restored  to  them  all,  it 
has  been  by  the  instruction  of  others,  and  not  by  the 
rational  investigation  of  even  superior  minds  in  their 
own  tribes.  Wherever  there  has  been  sufficient  mental 
cultivation  to  -call  forth  the  exercise  of  the  rational 
faculty  in  search  of  spiritual  and  moral  truth,  the  idea 
of  a  First  Cause  has  been  previously  known ;  wherever 
that  idea  has  been  totally  obliterated,  the  intellectual 
powers  of  man  have  not  been  in  a  state  of  exercise, 
and  no  curiosity  as  to  such  speculations  has  been 
awakened.  Matter  of  fact  does  not  therefore  support 
the  notion,  that  the  existence  of  God  is  discoverable  by 
the  unassisted  faculties  of  man ;  and  there  is,  I  con- 
ceive, very  slender  reason  to  admit  the  abstract  pro- 
bability. 

A  suflicient  number  of  facts  are  obvious  to  the  most 
cursory  observation,  to  show  that,  without  some  degree 
of  education,  man  is  wholly  the  creature  of  appetite. 
Labour,  feasting,  and  sleep  divide  his  time,  and  wholly 
occujiy  his  thoughts.  If  therefore  we  suppose  a  First 
Cause  to  be  discoverable  by  human  investigation,  we 
must  seek  for  the  instances  among  a  people  whose  civi- 
lization and  intellectual  culture  have  roused  the  mind 
from  its  torpor,  and  given  it  an  interest  in  abstract  and 
philosophic  truth;  for  to  a  people  so  circumstanced 
as  never  to  have  heard  of  God,  the  question  of  the 
existence  of  a  First  Cause  must  be  one  of  mere  philo- 
.  sophy.     Religious  motives,  whether  of  hope  or  fear, 


102 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  II, 


have  no  influence  where  no  religion  exists,  and  its  very- 
first  principle  is  here  sui)pose(i  to  he  as  yet  undisco- 
vered. Belore,  thcrelbre,  we  can  conceive  Ihe  Innnan 
mind  to  have  reached  a  state  of  activity  sulliricntly  en- 
ergetic and  curious  even  to  commence  siu  li  ;iii  iiiqiiiry, 
we  must  suppose  a  jjradual  progress  rrmn  llic  uncivi- 
lized stale  to  a  state  of  civil  and  scienlilii-  cnllivallon, 
and  that  without  rili^Kui  of  any  kind;  without  mmiO 
cojitrol ;  without  princiiiles  of  ;(/.s7/rc,  evcepl  such  as* 
may  have  been  slowly  elal)orated  from  those  relations 
which  concern  the  grosser  interests  of  inen,  if  even 
they  be  possible  ;  without  canscimce ;  without  hope  or 
fear  in  another  life.  That  no  society  of  civilized  men 
"has  ever  been  constituted  under  such  circumstances, 
is  what  no  one  will  deny ;  that  it  is  possible  to  rai.so  a 
body  of  men  into  that  degree  of  civil  improvement 
"which  would  e.\cite  the  passion  lor  philosophic  inves- 
tigation without  the  aid  of  religion,  which,  in  its  lowest 
forms  of  superstition,  admits  in  a  defective  degree  what 
is  implied  in  the  existence  of  God,  a  superior,  creative, 
governing,  and  destroying  power,  can  have  no  proof 
and  is  contradicted  by  every  fact  and  analogy  with 
which  we  are  acquainted.  Under  the  iiilluence  and 
control  of  religion,  all  .states,  ancient  and  modern,  have 
hitherto  been  lorined  and  maintained.  It  has  entered 
essemialiy  iiilo  all  their  legislative  and  gubernative  in- 
stitutions; and  Atheism  is  sooby'iousXy  dissncializinsx, 
that  even  the  philosophic  atheists  of  tireece  and  Koine 
confined  it  to  their  esoteric  doctrine,  and  were  equally 
zealous  with  others  to  maintain  the  public  religion  as  a 
restraint  upon  the  multitude,  without  which  they  clearly 
cnotigh  disceniL-d  that  human  laws,  and  ineroly  humaii 
motives,  would  be  totally  inedVctual  to  prevent  that 
selfish  gratification  of  the  passions;  the  enmities,  and 
the  cupidity  of  men,  which  would  break  up  every  com- 
munity into  its  original  I'raginenis,  and  arm  every  man 
against  his  fellow. 

From  this  we  may  conclude,  that  man  without  reli- 
gion cannot  exist  in  that  state  of  civility  and  cultiva- 
tion in  which  his  intellectual  powers  are  disposed  to, 
or  capable  of  such  a  course  of  imiuiry  as  might  lead 
him  to  a  knowledge  of  (Jod  ;  and  that,  as  a  mere  bar- 
barian, he  would  bo  wholly  occupied  with  the  gratifica- 
tion of  his  appetites  or  his  sloth.  Should  we  however 
suppo.se  it  possiMe,  that  those  who  had  no  previous 
knowledge  of  (;od,  or  of  superior  invisible  powers, 
might  be  brought  to  the  habits  of  civil  life,  and  be  en- 
gaged in  the  pursuit  of  various  knowledge  (which  it- 
self however  is  very  incredible),  it  would  still  remain 
a  (lucstion,  whether,  provided  no  idea  from  tradition  or 
instruction  had  been  suggested  of  the  existence  of  spi- 
ritual superior  beings,  or  of  a  supreme  Creator  or.Kulcr, 
such  a  truth  would  be  within  the  reach  of  man,  even 
in  an  imperfeca  tbrm.  We  liave  already  seen,  that  a 
truth  may  appear  exceedingly  simple,  important,  and 
evident,  when  once  known,  and  on  this  account  its  de- 
monstration may  be  considered  easy,  which  neverthe- 
less has  been  the  result  of  much  jirevious  research,  on 
the  part  of  the  discoverer.((i)  The  abundant  rational 
evidence  of  the  existence  of  t^od,  which  may  now  be 
so  easily  collected,  and  which  is  so  convincing,  is  there- 
fore no  proof,  that,  without  instruction  from  Heaven,  the 
human  injnd  would  ever  have  made  the  discovery. 
"  tJod  is  the  only  way  to  himself ;  he  cannot  in  the  least 
he  come  at,  dilined.or  demonstrated  by  human  reason  ; 
for  where  winild  the  jiniuirer  li\  his  beginning?  He 
is  to  search  lor  somcihing  he  knows  not  what ;  a  nature 
without  known  projierties ;  a  being  without  a  name. 
It  is  impossible  for  such  a  person  to  declare  or  imagine 
what  it  is  he  would  discourse  of,  or  inquire  into  ;  a  na- 
ture he  has  not  the  least  apprehension  of;  <t  subject  he 
has  not  the  least  glimpse  of,  in  whole  or  in  part  ; 
which  he  must  separate  from  all  doubt,  inconsistencies, 
and  errors;  he  must  demonstrate  without  one  known 
or  sure  principle  to  ground  it  upon ;  and  draw  certain 
iiece.ssary  conclusions  whereon  to  rest  his  judgment, 
without  the  least  knowledge  of  one  term  or  proposition 
to  fix  his  procedure  upon ;  and  lherefi>re  can  never 
know  whether  his  conclusion  be  consequent,  or  not  con- 
seijuent,  truth  or  falsehood,  which  is  just  the  same  in 
science,  as  in  architecture,  to  raise  a  building  without 
a  foundation.'X") 

"  Suppo.se  a  person,  whose  powers  of  argumentation 
are  iiniirovcd  to  the  utmost  ])ltch  of  human  capacity, 

(fi)  Vide  Part  i.  e.  iv. 

(7)  Ellis's  Knowledge  of  Divine  Things. 


but  who  has  received  no  idea  of  God  by  any  revelation, 
whether  from  tradition,  Scripture,  or  insiiinition,  how 
is  he  to  convince  himself  that  God  is,  and  from  whence 
is  he  to  learn  uital  (Jod  is  1  That  of  which  as  yet  he 
knows  nothing,  cannot  be  a  subject  of  his  thought,  his 
reasonings,  or  his  conversation.  He  can  neither  afiirm 
nor  deny  till  he  know  wliat  is  to  be  aliirmed  or  denied. 
I'rom  whence  then  is  our  iihilosoplicr  to  divine,  in  the 
Jir.st  instance,  his  idea  of  Ihe  infinite  Being,  concern- 
ing the  reality  ol  whose  existence  lie  is,  in  the  second 
place,  to  decide  .'"(fi) 

"  Would  a  single  individual,  or  even  a  single  pair  of 
the  human  race,  or  iiulred  several  pairs  of  such  beingsas 
we  are,  if  droppeil  Irom  the  liamls  ot  their  Maker  in  the 
most  genial  soil  and  climateot  thisglobe,  withoutasin- 
gle  idea  or  notion  engraved  on  their  minds,  ever  think 
of  instituting  such  an  inquiry  ;  or  short  and  simple  as 
the  iirocess  of  investigation  is,  would  they  be  able  to 
conduct  it,  should  it  somehow  occur  to  them  ?  No 
inan  who  has  paid  due  attention  to  the  means  by  which 
all  our  ideas  of  external  objects  are  introduced  into 
our  minds  through  the  medium  of  the  senses  ;  or  to 
the  still  more  refined  process  by  which  rijlecting  on 
what  passes  in  our  minds  themselves,  when  we  com- 
bine or  analyze  these  ideas,  we  acijuire  the  rudiments 
of  all  our  knowledge  of  intellectual  objects,  will  pre- 
tend that  they  would.  The  efforts  of  intellect  neces- 
sary to  discover  an  unknown  truth,  are  so  much  greater 
than  those  which  may  be  suflicicnt  to  comprehend  that 
truth,  and  feel  the  force  of  the  evidence  on  which  it 
rests,  when  fairly  stated,  tliat  for  one  man,  whose  in- 
tellectual powers  are  equal  to  the  fonner,  ten  thousand 
are  only  equal  to  the  latter."('.l) 

"Between  matter  and  .spirit,  things  visible  .ind  invi- 
sible, time  and  eternity,  beings  finite  and  beings  infinileT 
objects  of  sense  and  objects  of  faith,  the  connexion  is 
not  jierceptible  to  human  observation.  Though  we 
push  our  researches  therefore  lo  the  extreme  point, 
whither  the  light  of  nature  can  carry  us,  they  will  in 
the  end  be  abruptly  terminated,  and  we  must  stop 
short  at  an  immeasurable  distance  between  the  creature 
and  the  Creator.''{l) 

These  observations  have  great  weight,  and  though 
we  allow,  that  the  argument  which  proves  that  the 
cfflcts  with  which  we  are  surrounded  must  have  been 
caused,  and  thus  leads  us  up  tliidiigh  a  chain  of  sub- 
ordinatecause  toonc  first  Cause,  has  in  it  a  simplicity, 
an  obviousness,  and  a  force,  which,  when  we  are  pre- 
viously furnished  with  the  idea  of  (;od.  makes  it  at  first 
sight  difiicult  to  conceive,  that  men,iinder  any  degree  of 
cultivation,  should  be  iiiadeiiiiate  to  it ;  yet,  if  the  human 
mind  ever  commeiieed  such  an  inquiry  at  all,  it  is 
highly  probable,  that  it  would  rest  in  the  notion  of  an 
eternal  succession  of  causes  and  effects,  rather  than 
acquire  the  ideas  of  creation,  in  the  pro])er  sense,  and 
of  a  supreme  Creator.  Scarcely  any  of  the  philoso- 
phers of  the  most  inquisitive  ages  of  Greece,  or  those 
of  their  followers  at  Home,  though  with  the  advantage 
of  traditions  conveying  the  knowled^je  of  (Jod,  seem  lo 
have  been  capable  of  conceivins  of  Creation  out  of  no- 
fhing,(2)  and  they  eonsecineiitly  admitted  the  eternity 
of  matter.  'J'his  was  equally  the  ctise.  wiili  the  theist- 
ical,  the  atheistical,  and  the  polytheistical  philoso- 
phers.(S)  It  was  not  among  them  a  subject  of  dispute ; 
but  taken  for  a  point  settled  and  not  lobecontradii'ted.lhat 
matter  was  eternal,  and  could  not  Iherelbre  be  created. 
Against  this  notion,  since  the  revelation  of  truth  to 
man,  jihilosophy  has  been  able  to  adduce  a  very  satis- 
factory argument ;  but,  though  it  is  not  a  very  recon- 
dite one,  it  was  never  discovered  by  philosophy  while 
unaided  by  the  Scriptures.  In  like  manner  philo.sophy 
can  now  I'urnish  cogent  arguments  against  an  infinite 
succession  of  causes  and  etlects ;  but  it  does  not  appear 
probable  that  Iliey  could  have  been  apprehended  by 


\ 


(S)  Hare's  Preservative  against  Socinianism. 

('.1)  Glcig's  Slackhonse  Intro. 

(1)  Van  .Milderi's  Discourses.      (2)  Vide  Pari  i.  c.  iv. 

{'A)  "  I'ew,  It  any,  of  the  ancient  )iagan  philosophers 
acknowleilgeil  (ind  to  be,  in  the  most  proper  sense,  the 
Creator  of  tlic  world  By  calling  him  Aiiiunpyui  '  the 
Maker  of  the  \vorld,'they  did  not  mean,  that  lie  brought 
it  out  of  non-existence  into  being  ;  but  only  that  he 
budt  it  out  of  pre-existent  materials,  and  disposed  it 
into  a  regular  form  and  order."  See  ample  proofs  and 
illustrations  in  e.  13,  Part  i,  ol  I.ki.and's  Necessity  of 
Revelation. 


Chap.  I.] 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


103 


those  to  whom  the  very  notion  of  a  First  Cause  had  not 
been  ialiuiatcd.  II,  however,  it  were  conceded,  ttiat 
some  glimmering  of  this  great  Irutti  miglu,  by  induc- 
tion, have  been  discovered  Ijy  contemplative  minds  thus 
circumstanced;  by  wtiat  means  could  they  have  de- 
monstrated to  themselves  that  that  great  collection  of 
bodies  which  we  call  the  world  had  but  o/tt  Creator; 
that  he  is  an  incorporeal  Spirit;  that  he  is  eternal,  self- 
existent,  immortal,  and  independent ,'  Certain  it  is, 
that  the  arijunient  a  posteriori  does  not  of  itself  fully 
confirm  all  lliese  conclusions ;  and  the  argument  «  pri- 
on, w  hen  directed  to  these  mysterious  points,  is  not, 
with  all  the  advantages  which  we  enjoy,  so  satislac- 
tory,  as  to  leave  no  rational  ground  of  doubt  as  to  its 
conclusiveness.  No  sober  man,  we  apprehend,  would 
be  content  with  that  as  the  only  foundation  of  liis  faith 
and  hope.  If  indeed  the  idea  of  God  were  iiuiate,  as 
some  have  contended,  the  question  would  be  set  at  rest. 
But  then  every  human  being  would  be  in  possession  of 
it.  Of  this  there  is  not  only  no  proof  at  all,  but  the 
evidence  of  fact  is  against  it;  and  the  doctrine  of  innate 
ideas  may  with  confidence  be  pronounced  a  mere  the- 
ory, assumed  to  support  favourite  notions,  but  contra- 
dicted by  all  experience.  We  are  all  conscious  that 
we  gain  the  knowledge  of  God  by  instruction ;  and  we 
observe,  that,  iu  proportion  to  the  want  of  instruction, 
men  are  ignorant,  as  of  other  things,  so  of  God.  Peter, 
the  wild  boy,  who  in  the  beginning  of  the  last  century, 
was  found  ni  a  wood  in  Germany,  far  from  having  any 
innate  sense  of  God  or  religion,  seemed  to  be  incapa- 
ble of  inf;truction ;  and  the  aboriginal  inhabitants  of 
New-Holland  are  found,  to  this  day,  in  a  state  of  know- 
ledge but  little  superior,  and  certainly  have  no  idea  of 
the  existence  of  one  sujirerae  Creator. 

It  is  therefore  to  be  concluded,  that  we  owe  the  know- 
ledge of  the  existence  of  God,  and  of  his  attributes,  to  re- 
velation alone;  but,  being  now  discovered,  the  rational 
evidence  of  both  is  copious  and  irresistible  ;(4)  so  much 
so,  that  atheism  has  never  been  able  to  make  much  pro- 
gress among  mankind  where  this  revelation  has  been 
preserved.  It  is  resisted  by  demonstrations  too  nume- 
rous, obvious,  and  convincing ;  and  it  is  itself  too  easily 
proved  to  involve  the  most  revolting  absunUties. 

No  subject  has  employed  the  thoughts  and  pens  of 
the  most  profound  thinkers  more  than  the  demonstra- 
tion of  the  being  and  attributes  of  God  ;  and  the  evi- 
dence from  fact,  reason,  and  the  nature  of  things,  which 
has  been  collected,  is  large  and  instructive.  These 
researches  have  not  however  brought  to  light  any  new 
attribute  of  God  not  found  in  Scripture.  This  is  a 
strong  presumption  that  the  only  source  of  our  notions 
on  this  subject  is  the  manife.station  which  God  has 
been  pleased  to  make  of  himself,  and  a  confirmation 
that  human  reason  if  left  to  itself  had  never  made  the 
slightest  discovery  respecting  the  Divine  Nature.  But 
as  to  what  is  revealed,  they  are  of  great  importance  in 
the  controversy  with  polytheism,  and  with  that  still 
more  unnatural  and  monstrous  perversion,  the  philoso- 
phy which  denies  a  God. 

Demonstrations  both  d  priori  and  d  posteriori,  the 
former  beginning  with  the  cause,  the  latter  with  the 
effect,  have  been  attempted,  not  only  of  the  being,  but 
also  of  all  the  attributes  ascribed  to  God  in  the  holy 
Scriptures.  On  each  we  shall  offer  some  observations 
and  illustrations,  taking  the  argument  d  posteriori  first, 
ff^L  both  because,  as  to  the  simple  (juestion  of  the  being  of 
a  God,  it  is  the  only  satisfactory  and  convincing  proof; 
and,  especially,  because  it  is  that  only  to  which  the 
Scriptures  themselves  refer  us.  "  The  lieavens  declare 
the  glory  of  God,  and  the  firmament  showeth  bis 
handy  work"  "  Vor  the  irwisible  things  of  him  from 
the  creation  of  the  world  are  clearly  seen,  being  wider- 
stood  by  the  things  that  are  made,  even  his  eternid 
power  a7id  Godhead."  "For  by  the  greatness  and  beauty 
of  the  creatures  proportionably  the  Maker  of  them  is 
seen." 

(4)  "  Tell  men  there  is  a  God,  and  their  mind  em- 
braces it  as  a  necessary  truth;  unfold  his  attributes, 
and  they  will  see  the  explanation  o!  them  in  his  works. 
When  the  foundation  is  laid  sure  and  firm  that  there  is 
a  God,  and  his  will  the  cause  of  all  things,  anij  nothing 
made  but  by  his  special  appointment  and  command, 
then  the  order  of  beings  will  fill  their  minds  with  a 
due  sense  of  the  Divine  Majesty,  and  they  may  be  made 
a  scale  to  raise  juster  conceptions,  of  what  is'irnmortal 
and  m\'\>iMe."~ELhis's  Knowledse  of  Divine  Things. 


Nature,  as  one  justly  observes,  proceeds  from  causes 
to  elfects  ;  but  the  most  certain  and  successful  investi- 
gations of  tnan  proceed  from  effc<ts  to  causes,  and^this 
IS  the  character  of  what  logicians  have  called  the  argu- 
ment a  posteriori. 

In  philosophy  it  has  been  laid  down  as  an  axiom, 
"  that  no  event  or  change  comes  to  pass  merely  of  it- 
self, but  that  every  change  stands  related  to  and  implies 
the  existence  and  intluence  of  sometliing  else,  in  con- 
sequence of  which  ft-uch  change  comes  to  pass,  and 
which  may  be  regarded  as  the  iirinciple,  beginning,  or 
source  of  the  change  referred  to  it.  Accordingly,  the 
term  cause  is  usually  employed  to  denote  the  supposed 
principle  of  change ;  and  the  term  effect  is  applied  to 
the  change  considered  in  relation  to  the  principle  of 
change  whence  it  proceeded.  This  axiom  or  principle 
is  usually  thus  expressed  ;  "  For  every  effect  there 
must  be  a  cause."  "  Nothing  exists  or  comes  to  pass 
without  a  cause,"  "  Nihil  turpius  philosopho  quam 
fieri  sine  causa  quicqiiam  dicere." 

Rooted  as  tliis  principle  is  in  the  ciommon  sense  and 
the  common  observation  and  experience  of  mankind,  it 
is  assailed  in  the  metaphysical  atheism  of  Hume,  who 
appears  to  have  borrowed  his  argument  from  the  no 
less  skeptical  Hobbes,  and  the  relation  of  cause  and 
efl'ect  has  in  consequence  been  the  subject  of  consider- 
able controversy. 

Causes  have  been  distributed  by  logicians  into  effi- 
cient, material,  final,  &\iA  formal.  Efficient  causes  are 
the  agents  that  produce  certain  effects  ;  material  causes 
are  the  subjects  on  which  the  agent  performs  his  ope- 
ration ;  or  those  contingent  natures  which  lie  witliiii 
the  reach  of  the  agent  to  influence.  Final  causes  are 
the  motives  or  purposes,  which  move  to  action,  or  the 
end  for  which  any  thing  is  done.  Formal  causes  de- 
note the  changes  resulting  from  the  operation  of  the 
agent;  or  Ihat  which  determines  a  thing  to  be  what  U 
is,  ami  distinguishes  it  from  every  thing  else. 

It  is  with  efficient  causes,  as  understood  in  the  above 
distribution,  that  we  are  principally  concerned.     Mr 
Iluine  and  his  followers  have  laid  it  down,  that  there 
is  no  instance  in  which  we  are  able  to  perceive  a  ne- 
cessary connexion  between  two  sticcessive  events  ;  or 
to  comprehend  in  what  manner  the  one  proceeds  from 
the  other,  as  its  cause.    From  experience,  they  observe," 
indeed  we  learn,  that  there  are  many  events,  which  are 
constantly  conjoined,  so  that  the  one  invariably  follows 
the  other  ;  but  it  is  jiossible,  for  any  thing  vve'know  to 
the  contrary,  that  tliis  connexion,  though  a  constant 
one,  as  far  as  our  observation  has  reached,  may  not  be 
a  necessary  connexion  ;  nay,  it  is  possible,  that  there 
may  be  no  necessary  connexions,  among  any  of  the 
phenomena  we  see,  and  if  there  be  any  such  connexions 
existing,  we  may  rest  assured  that  we  shall  never  be 
able  to  discover  them.    This  doctrine  has,  however, 
been  admitted  by  many  who  not  only  deny  the  skepti- 
cal conclusions  which  Hobbes  andlliime  deduced  from 
it,  hut  who  contend  that  it  leads  to  a  directly  contrary 
conclusion.     "The  fallacy  of  this  pan  of  Mr.  Hume's 
system,"  says  Professor  Stewart,  "  does  not  consist  in 
his  premises,  but  in  the  conclusion  which  he  draws 
from  them.    The  word  cause  is  used,  both  by  philoso- 
phers and  the  vulgar,  in  two  senses,  which  are  widely 
different.    When  it  is  said,  that  every  cliange  in  na- 
ture indicates  the  operation  of  a  cause  ;  the  word  cause 
expresses  something  which  is  supposed  to  be  neces- 
sarily connected  with  the  change,  and  \vilhout  which 
it  could  not  have  happened.    This  may  be  called  the 
metaphysical  meaning  of  the  word  ;  and  such  causes 
may  be  called    metaphysical  or  efficient  causes. — In 
natural  philosophy,  however,  when  we  sjieak  of  one 
thing  liehig  the  cause  of  another,  all  that  we  mean  is, 
that  the  two  are  constantly  conjoined;  so  that  when 
we  see  the  one,  we  may  expect  the  other.    These  con- 
junctions we  learn  from  experience  alone ;  and  with- 
out an  acquaintance  with  them,  we  could  not  accom- 
modate our  conduct  to  the  established  course  of  nature. 
The  causes  which  are  the  objects  of  our  investigation 
in  natural  philosophy  may,  for  the  sake  of  distinction, 
be   called    physical   causes."  (5)      By  tliis  distinction 
and  concession  all  that  is  skeptical  and  atheistic,  in 
Hume's  doctrine,  is  indeed  completely  refuted;  for  if 
metaphysical,  or  efRcient  causes  be  allowed,  and  also 
that  "power,  force,  energy,  and  causation,  are  to  be 
regarded  as  attributes  of  mind,  and  can  exist  in  mind 

(5)  Elements,  of  the  Fliilosophy  of  the  Human  Mind. 


104 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[PAhT  11. 


only,"(6)  it  is  of  little  consequence  to  the  argument  as 
to  the  existence  of  a  Supreme  First  (lause,  whether  the 
constant  succession  of  events  among  physical  causes, 
has  a  necessary  connexion  or  not,  or  in  other  words, 
whether  what  is  purely  material  can  have  the  attribute 
of  causation.  The  writer  we  have  just  quoted,  thinks 
that  this  doctrine  is  "more  favourable  to  theism  than 
even  the  common  irotions  upon  this  subject ;"  "  if  at 
the  same  time  we  admit  the  authority  of  that  principle 
of  the  mind  which  leads  us  to  refer  every  change  to 
fin  efficient  cause," — "as  it  keeps  the  Deity  always  in 
view,  not  only  as  the  first,  but  as  the  constantly  ope- 
rating efficient  cause  in  nature,  and  as  the  great  con- 
necting prinoi|)le  among  all  the  various  jitienomena 
which  we  observe.''(7)  This  author  still  farther  thinks 
that  Mr.  Hume  has  undesignedly  furnished  an  antidote 
by  this  error  to  Spiiio/.ism  itself.  "  Mr.  Hume's  doc- 
trine, in  the  unqualified  form  in  whiih  he  states  it, 
may  lead  to  other  consequences  not  less  dangerous  : 
but  if  he  had  not  the  good  fortune  to  conduct  metaphy- 
sicians to  the  .truth,  lie  may  at  least  be  allowed  the 
merit  of  having  shiJt  uji  for  ever  one  of  the  most  fre- 
quented and  fatal  paths  which  led  them  astray," — "the 
cardinal  prin<iplc  on  which  the  wlmle  system  of  Spi- 
noza turns  being,  that  all  events,  physical  and  moral, 
are  necessarily  linked  together  as  causes  and  cf- 
fects."(8) 

When  the  doctrine  is  thus  restricted  to  ■phyxical 
causes,  its  dangerous  tendency  is  greatly  weakened,  if 
not  altogether  neutralized  ;  yet,  notwithstanding  the 
authority  with  which  it  has  been  supported,  it  may  be 
suspected  that  it  is  radically  unsound,  and  that  it  loads 
to  consequences  very  contradictory  to  the  e.xperience 
of  mankind,  or,  at  best,  that  it  is  rather  a  philosophic^al 
'  paradox  or  quibble,  than  a  philosophic  discovery.  What 
are  called,  above,  metaphysical  or  cHicient  causes  are 
admitted,  with  respect  to  mind,  of  which  ''  pnu'er,  force, 
eneri!:y, -dnd  caiisdtioii  are  attributes."  "  One  kind  of 
cause,  namely,  what  a  man,  or  any  other  living  being, 
is  to  his  own  voluntary  actions,  or  to  those  changes 
which  he  produces  directly  in  himself,  and  indirec-tly 
in  himself,  by  the  occasional  exertion  of  his  own 
power,"  says  Dr.  Gregory,('J)  "may  be  called  lor  dis- 
tinction's sake  an  agent.  That  there  are  such  agents, 
and  that  many  events  are  to  be  referred  to  them,  as 
either  wholly  or  partly  tlieir  causes  or  principles  of 
change,  is  not  only  certain  but  even  self-evident."  We 
are  all  conscious  of  power  to  produce  certain  effects, 
and  we  are  sure  that  there  is  between  this  cause  and 
the  effect  produced  more  than  a  mere  relation  of  ante- 
cedence and  sequence,  tor  we  are  conscious  not  only  of 
designini;  to  produce  the  effect,  but  of  the  exntinn  of 
power,  though  we  do  not  always  know  the  medium  by 
which  the  power  acts  upon  the  object,  as  when  we 
jriove  the  hand  or  the  foot  voluntarily,  nor  the  mode  in 
which  the  exerted  energy  connects  itself  with  the  re- 
sult. Vet  the  result  follows  the  will,  and  however 
often  this  is  rojieated,  it  is  still  the  same.  The  rela- 
tions between  |)hysical  causes  and  efTecls  must  be  dif- 
ferent from  this  ;  but  if,  according  to  the  doctnne  of 
llume,  it  were  only  a  relation  oi'  xuccrxsiiin,  the  li)llow- 
ing  absurdities,  as'stated  by  Dr.  Reid,(l)  would  inevita- 
bly follow—"  iiiL'lit  would  be  the  cause  of  day,  and  day 
the  cause  of  night ;  lor  no  two  things  have  more  con- 
stantly followed  each  other  since  till-  beginning  of  the 
world.  Any  Ihin^,  fur  what  we  know,  may  be  the 
cause  of  a/ii;  Ihinv,  suu-a-  nothing  iscssciilial  to  a  cause 
but  US  being  conslantly  followed  by  the  efl'ect :  what  is 
unintelligent  may  be  the  cause  of  what  is  intelligent ; 
folly  may  be  the  cause  of  wisdom,  and  evil  of  good  ; 
and  thus  all  reasoning  from  the  effect  to  the  nature  of 
the  cause,  and  all  reasoning  from  final  eau.ses,  must  be 
given  up  as  fallacious."  Physical  causes,  as  for  exam- 
ple, what  impulse  is  to  motion,  hejl  to  expansion,  fu- 
sion, and  evaporation  ;  the  carlli  to  the  fall  of  a  stone 
towards  it ;  the  sun  and  moon  to  the  tides  ;  express  a 
relation  dilTerent  from  that  between  man  and  any- of 
his  voluntary  actions  ;  but  it  cannot  be  the  same  as  the 
relation  of  priority  and  succession  among  things  or 
events.    Men  have  been  mistaken,  in  some  eases,  in 


(6)  Elements  of  the  Philosophy  of  the  Human  Mind. 

(7)  Ibid. 

(8)  Dissertation  prefixed  to  the  Supplement  of  the 
Encyclo.  Brit. 

(9)  Literary  and  Phil  sojihical  Essays. 
(1)  Keid's  Essays. 


taking  the  circumstances  of  the  succession  of  one  event 
to  another  as  a  proof  of  their  relation  as  cause  and  ef- 
fect ;  but  even  that  shows  that,  in  the  fixed  opinion  of 
mankind,  r(m.st<i7it  succession,  when  there  is  an  ap- 
pearance of  the  dependence  of  one  thing  upon  another, 
implies  more  than  mere  succession,  and  that  what  is 
considered  as  the  cause  has  an  r/ficieiicy  either  from 
itself,  or  by  dcriraiioti,  by  which  the  effect  is  brought 
to  pass.  It  is  truly  observed  by  Dr.  Brown,(2)  ••  We 
find  by  observation  and  experience  that  such  and  such 
eflects  arc  ])roduced  ;  but  when  we  attempt  to  think  of 
the  reason  »'//(/,  and  the  manner  knw  the  causes  work 
those  effects,  then  we  are  at  a  stand,  and  all  our  rea- 
soning is  precarious,  or  at  best  but  probable  conjec- 
ture." From  hence,  however,  it  would  be  a  ridiculous 
conclusion,  that  because  we  are  ignorant  of  the  man- 
ner in  which  physical  causes  act,  they  do  not  act  at 
all  ;  or  that  none  such  exist,  in  the  ordinarily  received 
sense;  that  is,  that  the  effect  is  not  dejnmdent  upon 
what  is  called  the  cause,  and  that  the  presence  of  the 
latter,  according  to  the  established  laws  of  nature,  is 
not  neces-sary  to  the  effect,  so  that  without  it  the  effect 
would  not  follow.  The  (fficiciU  cause  may  be  latent, 
but  the  physical  cause  is  that  throvgh  which  it  ojie- 
rates,  and  must  be  suppo.sed  to  have  an  adaptation  to 
convey  the  power,  so  to  speak,  in  some  precise  mode, 
by  mechanical  or  other  means,  to  the  result,  or  there 
could  neither  be  ingeniuty  and  contrivance  in  the  works 
of  art,  nor  wisdom  in  the  creation.  A  watch  might  in- 
dicate the  hour  without  wheels,  and  a  cloii  might  give 
as  copious  a  light  to  the  planetar>  system  as  the  sun. 
If  the  doctrine  of  Hume  denies  efficient  causes,  it  con- 
tradicts all  consciou.sness  and  the  experience  founded 
upon  it ;  if  it  applies  only  to  physical  causes,  it  either 
confounds  them  with  efficient  eau.ses,  or  says,  in  para- 
do.xical  language,  only  what  has  been  better  said  by 
others,  and  that  without  any  danger  of  involving  either 
absurd  or  dangerous  consequences.  "  When  an  event 
is  produced  according  to  a  known  law  of  nature,  the 
law  of  nature  is  called  the  cause  of  that  event.  IJut  a 
law  of  nature  is  not  the  efficient  cause  of  any  event;  it 
is  only  the  rule  according  to  which  the  efficient  cause 
acts.  A  law  is  a  thing  conceived  in  the  mind  of  a  ra- 
tional being,  not  a  thing  which  has  a  real  existence, 
and  therefore  like  a  motive,  it  can  neither  act  nor  be 
acted  upon,  and  consequently  cannot  be  an  efficient 
cause.  If  there  be  no  being  that  acts  according  to  that 
law,  it  produces  no  effi^ct."(3)  "All  things  that  are 
done  in  the  world,  are  done  immediately  by  (Jod  him 
self,  or  by  created  intelligent  beings  ;  matter  being  evi- 
dently not  al  all  capable  of  any  laws  or  powers  what- 
ever, any  more  than  it  is  callable  of  intelligence ;  ex- 
cepting only  this  one  negative  power,  that  every  part 
of  it  will,  of  itself,  always  and  necessarily  continue  in 
that  state,  whether  of  rest  or  motion,  wherein  it  at  pre- 
sent is.  So  that  all  tho.se  things  which  we  commonly 
say  are  the  eflects  of  the  natuicU  powers  of  matter  and 
laws  of  motion,  of  gravitation,  attraction,  or  the  like, 
are  indeed  (if  we  will  speak  strictly  and  properly)  the 
eflects  of  God's  acting  upon  matter  continually,  and 
every  moment,  either  immediately  by  himself,  or  me- 
diately by  some  treated  intelligent  beings,  t'onse- 
(luently  there  is  no  such  thing  as  what  mi-n  commonly 
call  the  course  of  nature,  or  the  powers  ol'  nature.  The 
course  of  nature,  truly  and  proiieriy  sjieaking,  is  no- 
Ihiiigelsebut  thewillofGod  produciiiu  certain  eflects  in 
a  continued,  regular,  constant,  and  uniliirin  nianner."(4) 
The  true  stale  of  the  case  appears  to  be,  1.  That  there 
are  efficient  causes,  and  that  the  relation  between  them 
and  their  eflicts  are  necessary,  .since  without  the  ope- 
ration of  the  efficient,  the  effect  would  not  take  place. 
This  we  find  in  ourselves,  and  we  proi-eed  iberelbre 
upon  the  surest  ground  when  we  ascribe  efli-cts  which 
are  above  liuinan  power,  to  a  causation  which  is  more 
than  human,  and,  in  the  case  of  the  phenomena  of  uni- 
versal nature,  to  a  divine  cause,  or  in  other  words  to 
<;od.  2.  That  there  are  physical  causes,  between  which 
and  their  effects  there  is  a  relation  or  connexion  very 
diflerent  to  that  of  a  mere  order  of  succession,  which 
in  fact  is  a  relation  which  entirely  excludes  the  idea  of 
causation  in  any  sen.se.  According  to  the  present  esta- 
bli.sht'd  order  of  nature,  this  also  may  be  termed  a  neces- 
sary connexion,  although  not  necessary  in  the  sense  of 
its  being  the  only  method  by  winch  the  infinite  and  first 

(2)  Procedure,  &;c.  of  the  Unman  indersianding. 

(3)  Reid's  Essays.  ('I)  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke 


Chaf.  I-l 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


lt)5 


efficient  could  produce  the  effect.  His  resources  are 
doubtless  Ijoundlcss  ;  but  having  established  a  certain 
order  in  nature,  or,  in  other  words,  havins  given  cer- 
tain powers  and  properties  to  matter,  with  reference  to 
a  mutual  operation  ol'diireront  bodies  upon  each  other, 
his  supreme  efficiency,  his  causing  power,  takes  its  di- 
rection and  dispUiys  itself  in  this  order,  and  is  mndi- 
Jied  by  the  pre-establisheil  and  constantly  uplield  pro- 
perties tliroiigh.  and  hy  which  it  oiu-ralcs.  .So  I'ur,  ami 
in  this  sense,  the  rclalion  bolweeii  physical  causes  and 
effects  is  a  Ufccssari/  oiie,  and  the  doctrine  of  final 
causes  is  thus  established  by  those  wondrous  arrange- 
ments and  adajitalions  in  the  diUerent  parts  of  nature, 
and  in  individual  bodies  which  carry  on  and  conduct 
the  ever-acting  efficiency  of  God  to  those  wise  and  be- 
nevolent ends  which  he  has  proposed.  Thus  the  sun, 
by  virtue  of  a  previously  established  adaptation  be- 
tween its  own  qualities,  the  earth's  atmosphere  and  the 
human  eye,  is  the  necessary  cause  of  light  and  vision, 
though  the  true  efficient  be  the  Creator  himself,  ever 
present  to  his  own  arrangements  ;  as  the  spring  of  a 
watch  is  the  necessary  cause  of  the  motion  of  the 
wheels  and  indices,  though  the  efficient,  in  the  proper 
sense,  is  the  artist  himself  who  framed  the  whole.  In 
these  cases,  there  is  however  tliis  difference  to  be  ob- 
served, though  it  affiicts  not  the  argument  of  a  second- 
ary physical  causation,  that  the  maker  of  a  watch, 
finding  certain  bodies  endued  with  certain  primary 
properties,  may  array  them  one  against  the  other,  anil 
so  leave  his  work  to  go  on  without  his  constant  mi- 
pulse  and  interposition  ;  but  in  nature  the  primary  pro- 
perties of  matter,  and  its  existence  itself  are  derived 
and  dependint,  and  need  the  constant  upholding  of  him 
who  spake  them  out  of  nothing,  and  "  by  whom  they 
all  consists 

The  relation  of  cause  and  effect  according  to  the  com- 
mon sense  and  observation  of  mankind,  being  thus  es- 
tablished,(5)  we  proceed  to  the  arguments  which  are 
founded  upon  it. 

The  existence  of  God,  once  communicated  to  us  by 
his  own  revelation,  direct  or  traditional,  is  capable  of 
ample  proof,  and  receives  an  irresistible  corroborative 
evidence,  «  posteriori. 

An  argument  d  priori,  is  an  argument  from  something 
antecedent  to  something  conseq iicnt ;  from  principle  to 
corollary;  (topi  cause  to  effect.  An  argument  d;)o.s7(- 
riori,  on  the  contrary,  is  an  argument  from  consequent 
to  antecedent,  from  effect  to  catisc.  Both  these  kinds 
of  proof  have  been  resorted  to  in  support  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  existence  of  God ;  but  it  is  on  the  latter  only  that 
any  dependence  can  be  placed,  and  the  demonstration  is 
too  strong  to  need  a  doubtful  auxiliary. 

The  first  argument,  d  posteriori,  for  the  existence  of 
a  God  is  drawn  from  our  own  actual  existence,  and 
that  of  other  beings  around  us.  This,  by  an  obvious 
error,  has  sometimes  been  called  an  argument  d  priori ; 
but  if  our  existence  is  made  use  of  to  prove  the  existence 
of  a  supreme  Creator,  it  is  unquestionably  an  argument 
which  proceeds  from  consequent  to  antecedent,  from  ef- 
fect to  cause.  This  ancient  and  obvious  demonstration 
has  been  placed  in  different  views  by  different  writers. 
Locke  ha.s,  in  substance,  thus  stated  it.  Every  man 
•^  knows,  with  absolute  certainty,  that  he  himself  exists. 
He  knows,  also,  that  he  did  not  always  exist,  but  began 
to  be.  It  is  clearly  certain  to  liim,  that  his  existence 
was  caused  and  not  fortuitous,  and  was  produced  by  a 
cause  adequate  to  the  production.     By  an  adequate 


(5)  The  language  of  every  nation  is  fonned  on  the  con- 
nexion between  cause  and  effect.  For  in  every  lan- 
guage there  are  not  only  many  words  directly  express- 
ing ideas  of  this  subject,  such  as  cause,  efficiency,  ef- 
fect, production,  produce,  effectuate,  create,  generate, 
&c.,  or  words  eijuivalent  to  these ;  but  every  verb  in 
every  language,  except  the  intransitive  impersonal 
verbs,  and  the  verb  substantive,  involves,  of  course 
causation  or  efficiency,  and  refers  always  to  an  agent,  or 
cause,  in  such  a  manner,  that  without  the  operation' of 
this  cause  or  agent  the  verb  would  have  no  meaning. 
All  mankind,  except  a  few  atheistical  and  skeptical  phi- 
losophers, have  thus  agreed  in  acknowledging  this  con- 
nexion, and  they  have  acknowledged  it  as  fully  as 
others  in  their  customary  language.  They  have  spoken 
exactly  as  other  men  speak,  and  the  connexion  between 
cause  and  effect  is  as  often  declared  in  their  conversa- 
tion and  writings,  and  as  much  relied  on,  as  in  those 
of  other  mm.—DwishVs  THcolog'j,  Vol.  I.  pi  5. 


cause,  is  invariably  intended  a  cause  possessing  and 
exerting  an  efficacy  sufficient  to  bring  any  etlect  to  pass. 
In  the  present  c;ise,  an  ade(iuale  cause  is  one  possessing 
and  e.xerting  all  the  understanding  necessary  to  contrive, 
and  the  power  necessary  to  create,  such  a  being  as  the 
man  in  question.  This  cause  is  what  we  are  accus- 
tomed to  call  (Jod.  The  understanding  necessary  to 
contrive,  and  the  power  necessary  to  create,  a  being 
coiiqiounded  of  the  human  soul  and  body,  admit  of  no 
limits.  lie  who  can  contrive  and  create  such  a  being, 
can  contrive  and  create  any  thing.  He  who  actually 
contrived  and  created  man,  certainly  contrived  and 
created  all  things. 

'I'he  same  argument  is  given  more  copiously,  but  with 
great  clearness,  by  Mr.  Howe. 

"  We  therefore  begin  with  God's  existence  ;  for  the 
evincing  of  which,  we  may  be  most  assured.  First,  that 
there  hath  been  somewhat  or  other  from  all  eternity  ; 
or  that,  looking  backward  somewhat  of  real  being  mu.st 
be  confessed  eternal.  Let  such  as  have  not  been  used 
to  think  of  any  thing  more  than  what  they  could  see 
with  their  eyes,  and  to  whom  reasoning  only  seems  dif- 
ficult because  tliey  have  not  tried  what  they  can  do  hi 
it,  but  use  their  thoughts  a  little,  and  by  moving  them  a 
few  easy  steps,  they  will  soon  lind  themselves  as  sure 
of  this  as  that  they  see,  or  hear,  or  understand,  or  are 
any  thing. 

"  For  being  sure  that  something  now  is  (that  you  see, 
for  instance,  or  are  something),  you  must  then  acknow- 
ledge, that  certainly  something  always  was,  and  hath 
ever  been,  or  been  from  all  eternity  ;  or  else  you  must 
say,  that,  some  time,  nothing  was ;  or  that  all  being 
once  was  not.  And  so,  since  you  tind  that  something 
now  is,  there  was  a  time  when  all  being  did  hegin  to  be ; 
that  is,  that  till  that  time  there  was  nothing;  but  now, 
at  that  time,  something  first  began  to  be.  For  what 
can  be  plainer  than  that  if  all  being  some  tune  was 
not,  and  nmv  some  being  is,  every  thing  of  being  had  a 
beginning.  And  thence  it  would  follow,  that  some  be- 
ing, that  is,  the  first  that  ever  began  to  be,  did  of  itself 
start  up  out  of  nothing,  or  made  itself  to  be  when  before 
nothing  was. 

"  But  now,  do  you  not  plainly  see  that  it  is  altogether 
impossible  any  thing  should  do  so ;  that  is,  when  it  was 
as  yet  notliing,  and  when  nothing  at  all  as  yet  was,  that 
it  should  make  itself,  or  come  into  being  of  itself?  For 
surely  making  itself  is  doing  something.  But  can  that 
which  is  nothing  do  any  thing?  Unto  all  doing  there 
must  be  some  doer.  Wherefore  a  thing  must  be  before 
it  can  do  any  thing  ;  and  therefore  it  would  Ibllow,  that 
it  was  before  it  was ;  or  mas  and  was  not,  was  some- 
thing and  nothing,  at  the  same  time.  Yea,  and  that  it 
was  diverse  from  itself;  for  a  cause  must  be  a  distinct 
thing  from  that  which  is  caused  by  it.  Wherefore  it  is 
most  apparent,  that  some  being  hath  ever  been,  or  did 
never  begin  to  be. 

"  Whence,  farther,  it  is  also  evident.  Secondly,  That 
some  being  was  uncaused,  or  was  ever  of  itself  with- 
out any  cause.  For  what  never  was  from  another  had 
never  any  cause,  since  iijothing  could  be  its  own  cause. 
And  somewhat,  as  appears  from  what  hath  been  said, 
never  was  from  another.  Or  it  may  be  plainly  argued 
thus ;  that  either  some  being  was  uncaused,  or  all  being 
was  caused.  But  if  all  being  was  caused,  then  some 
one  at  least  was  the  cause  of  itself;  which  hath  been 
already  shown  impossible.  Therefore  the  expression 
commonly  used  concerning  the  first  being,  that  it  was 
of  itself,  is  only  to  be  taken  negatively,  that  is, 
that  it  was  not  of  another ;  not  positively,  as  if  it  did 
some  time  make  itself  Or  what  there  is  positive  sig- 
nified by  that  fonn  of  speech,  is  only  to  be  taken  thus, 
that  it  was  a  being  of  that  nature,  as  that  it  was  impos- 
sible it  should  ever  not  have  been  ;  not  that  it  did  ever 
of  itself  step  out  of  not  being  into  being. 

"  And  now  it  is  hence  I'arther  evident.  Thirdly,  That 
some  being  is  independent  upon  any  other,  that  is, 
whereas  it  already  appears  that  some  being  did  never 
depend  on  any  other,  as  a  productive  cause,  and  was 
not  beholden  to  any  other,  that  it  might  come  into  being; 
it  is  thereui«3n  equally  evident  that  it  is  simply  inde- 
pendent, or  cannot  be  beholden  to  any  for  its  continued 
being.  For  what  did  never  need  a  productive  cause, 
doth  as  little  need  a  sustaining  or  conserving  cause. 
And  to  make  this  more  iilain,  either  some  being  is  inde- 
pendent, or  all  being  is  dependent.  But  there  is  no- 
thing without  the  compass  of  all  beiug  whereon  it  may 
depend.    Wlierefore  to  say  that  all  being  doth  depend, 


t06 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


is  to  say,  it  depends  on  nothing,  that  is,  that  it  depends 
not.  For  to  depend  on  notliinf?  is  not  to  depend.  It  is 
therefore  a  nianit'est  loiitracliitinn  lo  say  ili;it  all  beinp 
doth  depend;  ajgaiiist  whicli  it  is  no  relief  to  urge,  tliat 
all  beings  do  circularly  depend  on  one  another.(6)  I'or 
so,  however  tlie  whole  eircle  or  sphere  of  being  should 
depend  on  notliing ;  or  one  at  last  depend  on  itself, 
which  negatively  taken,  as  before,  is  true,  and  the  lliins 
we  contend  for — ttiat  one,  the  common  supimrt  of  all 
the  rest,  depends  not  on  any  thiti^'  witlioul  itself. 

"  Whence  also  it  is  plainly  consecjuent,  Fourthly, 
That  such  a  Bein?  is  necessary,  or  doth  necessarily 
exist :  that  is,  that  it  is  of  suelianatureas  that  it  could 
not  or  cainiot  but  be.  For  what  is  in  being,  neither  by 
its  own  choice,  nor  any  other's,  is  necessarily.  But 
what  was  not  made  by  itself  (which  hath  been  shown 
to  be  impossihlf),  nor  by  any  other  (as  it  hath  been 
proved  something  was  not),  it  is  manifest,  it  neither 
depended  on  its  choice  nor  any  other's  that  it  is.  And 
therefore,  its  existence  is  not  owing  to  choice  at  all, 
but  to  the  necessity  of  its  own  nature.  Wherefore  it  is 
always  by  a  simple,  absolute,  natural  necessity  ;  being 
of  a  nature  to  winch  it  is  altogether  repugnant  and  im- 
possible ever  not  to  have  been,  or  ever  to  cease  from  be- 
ing. And  now  having  gone  thus  far,  and  being  assured, 
that  hitherto  we  feel  the  ground  firm  under  us  ;  that  is. 
having  gained  a  full  certainty,  that  there  is  an  eternal, 
uncaused,  independent,  necessary  being,  and  therefore 
actually  and  everlastingly  existing ;  we  may  advance 
one  step  farther, 

"  And  with  equal  assurance  add,  FifMy,  That  this 
eternal,  independent,  uncaused,  necessary  Being  is  self- 
active  ;  that  is  (wliieh  is  at  )iresent  meant),  not  such 
as  acts  upon  itself,  but  that  which  hath  the  power  of 
acting  upon  otlier  things,  in  and  of  itself,  without  deri- 
ving it  from  any  other.  Or  at  least  that  there  is  smdi  a 
Being  as  is  eternal,  uncaused,  &c.,.  having  the  power 
of  action  in  and  of  itself  For  either  such  a  Being  as 
liath  been  already  evinced  is  of  itself  active  or  unactive, 
or  hath  the  power  of  action  of  itself  or  not.  If  we  will 
say  the  latter,  let  it  be  considered  what  we  say,  and  to 
what  purpose  we  say  it. 

"  1.  We  are  to  weigh  what  it  is  wo  affirm,  when  we 
speak  of  an  eternal,  uncaused,  independent,  necessary 
Being,  which  is  of  itself  totally  inactive,  or  destitute  of 
any  active  power.  If  we  will  say  there  is  some  such 
thing,  we  will  confess,  when  we  have  called  it  some- 
thing, it  is  a  very  silly,  despicable,  idle  something,  and 
a  something  (if  we  look  upon  it  alone)  as  good  as  no- 
thing ;  for  there  is  but  little  odds  between  being  no- 
thing and  being  aide  to  do  nothing.  We  will  again 
confess  eternity,  self-origination,  independence,  neces- 
sity of  existence,  to  be  very  great  and  liighly  dignifying 
attributes,  and  import  a  most  inconceivable  excellence. 
For  what  higher  glory  can  we  ascribe  to  any  being, 
than  to  acknowledge  it  to  have  been  from  eternity  of 
itself,(7)  without  being  beholden  to  any  other,  and  to 

(6)  The  notion  of  an  infinite  series  of  caused  and  suc- 
cessive beings  is  absurd  ;  for  of  this  infinite  series, 
cither  soine  one  part  has  not  been  successive  to  any 
other,  or  else  all  the  several  parts  of  it  have  been  suc- 
cessive. If  some  one  part  of  it  was  not  successive,  then 
it  had  a  first  part,  which  destroys  the  suiiposition  o(  its 
infinity.  If  all  the  several  parts  of  it  have  been  succes- 
sive, then  have  they  all  once  been  future:  but  if  they 
have  all  been  future,  a  time  may  be  conceived,  when 
none  of  them  had  existence:  and  if  so,  then  it  follows, 
cither  that  all  the  part.i  and  conseiinnitly  ilic  ic/kiIi-  of 
this  infinite  series  must  have  arisen  Irorn  nothing,  which 
is  absurd  ;  or  else,  that  there  must  be  something  in  the 
whole,  besides  what  is  contained  in  nil  the  parts,  whiili 
is  also  absurd.  See  Clahkk's  Demonstration,  and 
Wooi.ARTON's  Religion  of  Nature.  "A  chain,"  says 
Dr.  I'aley,  "composed  of  an  inlinite  number  of  links 
can  no  more  support  itself,  than  a  chain  composed  of  a 
finite  number  of  links.  If  we  increase  the  number 
of  links  from  ten  to  a  hundred,  and  from  a  hundred 
to  a  thousand,  &c.,  we  make  not  the  smallest  ap- 
pr()ach,  we  observe  not  the  smallest  tendency  towards 
self-MipiKirt." 

(")  "  We  will  acknowledge  an  impropriety  in  this 
word,  and  its  conjugate  xW/"-or/i^)Hn/'',  sometimes  here- 
afler  used,  which  yet  is  recompen.sed  by  their  convcni- 
cncy ;  as  they  may  perhaps  find,  who  shall  make  trial, 
how  to  express  the  sense  intended  by  them  in  other 
words.    And  they  are  used  without  suspicion,  that  it 


be  such  as  that  it  can  be  and  cannot  but  be  in  the  saine 
state,  self-subsisting  and  self-sullicient  lo  all  eternity  .' 
But  can  our  rea.son  either  direct  or  endure  that  we 
should  so  incongruously  misplace  so  magnificent  attri- 
butes as  these,  and  ascribe  llie  ]>rirne  glory  of  the  most 
excellent  Being  unto  that  winch  is  next  to  nothing  ? 
But  if  any  in  the  mean  time  will  be  so  inconsiderate 
as  to  say  this,  let  it 

"2.  Be  considered  to  what  purpose  they  say  it.  Is  it 
lo  exclude  a  necessary  self-active  Being  ?  But  it  can 
signify  nothing  to  that  purjjose.  For  such  a  Being  they 
will  be  Ibrced  to  aiknowl(;dge,  let  thcin  do  what  they 
can  (besides  putting  out  their  own  eyes)  notwithstand- 
ing. For  wtiy  do  they  acknowledge  any  necessary  be- 
ing at  all,  that  was  ever  of  itself?  Is  it  not  because 
they  cannot,  otherwise,  lor  tliiir  hearts,  tell  how  it  was 
ever  po.ssible  that  any  thing  at  all  could  come  into  be- 
ing '.  But,  finding  tiial  soiiuthiiig  is,  they  are  com- 
pelled to  acknowledge  that  sonatlniig  hath  ever  been, 
necessarily  and  of  iiscll.  No  other  account  could  be 
given  how  other  ihiiii.'s  came  to  be.  But  what .'  doth 
It  signify  any  thing  towards  the  giving  an  (recount  of 
the  original  of  all  other  things,  to  sujiposeonly  an  eter- 
nal, self-sub.sisting,  iiiartice  ileing.'  Uid  that  cause 
other  things  to  be  !  Will  not  their  own  breath  choke 
them  if  they  attempt  to  utter  the  self-contradicting 
words,  an  inactive  cause,  which  is  efficient  or  the  au- 
thor of  any  thing?  And  do  they  not  see  that  they  are 
as  far  from  their  mark,  or  do  no  more  towards  the  as- 
signing an  original  to  all  other  things,  by  supposing  an 
eternal,  inactive  being  only ;  tlian  if  they  supposed 
none  at  all  ?  That  which  can  do  nothing,  can  no  more 
be  the  productive  cause  of  another,  than  that  which  is 
nothing.  Wherefore,  by  the  same  reason  that  hath 
constrained  us  to  acknowledge  an  eternal,  uncaused, 
independent,  necessary  Being,  we  are  also  unavoidably 
led  lo  acknowledge  this  Being  to  be  sell-active,  or  such 
as  hath  the  power  of  action  in  and  of  itself ;  or  that  there 
is  certainly  such  a  Being,  who  is  the  cause  of  all  the 
things  which  our  senses  tell  us  are  existent  in  the  world. 

"  For  what  else  is  left  ns  lo  say  or  think  7  Will  we 
think  fit  to  say  that  all  things  we  behold  were,  as  they 
now  are,  necessarily  existent  from  all  eternity  >.  That 
were  to  speak  against  our  own  eyes,  w  hich  continually 
behold  the  ri.se  and  fall  of  living  things,  of  whatsoever 
sort  or  kind,  tliat  can  come  under  their  notice.  For  all 
the  things  we  behold,  are  in  some  resjiect  or  other,  in- 
ternally or  externally,  continually  changinj;,  and  there- 
fore could  never  long  be  beheld  as  they  are.  And  lo 
say  then,  they  have  been  continually  changing  from 
eternity,  and  yet  have  been  necessarily,  is  unintelli- 
gible and  llat  nonsense.  For  what  is  neces.sarily,  is 
always  the  same  ;  and  what  is  in  this  or  that  posture 
necessarily  (that  is,  by  an  intrinsic,  simple,  and  abso- 
lute necessity,  which  must  be  here  meant),  must  be 
ever  so.  Wherefore  to  suppose  the  world  in  this  or 
that  state  necessarily,  and  yet  that  such  a  state  is 
changeable,  is  an  impossible  and  self-contradicting  sup- 
position. 

"  But  now,  since  we  find  that  the  present  state  of 
things  is  changeable,  and  actually  changing,  and 
that  what  is  changeable  is  not  necessarily,  and  of 
itself;  and  since  it  is  evident  that  there  is  some  neces- 
sary being,  otherwise  nothing  could  ever  have  been ; 
and'  that  withmii  action  nothing  could  be  fi-om  it ;  since 
also  all  change  imports  soniew  hat  of  passion,  and  all 
passion  sujiposes  action;  and  all  action,  active  power; 
and  active  iiowcr,  an  original  seat  or  subject,  which 
is  self-active,  or  hath  the  power  of  action  in  and  of  it- 
self (lor  there  could  be  no  derivation  of  it  from  that 
which  hath  it  not,  and  no  first  derivation,  but  from  that 
which  hath  it  originally  of  itself;  and  a  first  derivation 
there  must  be,  since  all  things  that  are,  or  ever  have 
been,  furnishcil  with  it,  and  not  of  themselves,  must 
either  innnediately  or  mediately  have  derived  it  from 
that  which  had  it  of  itself);  it  is  Iherelore  manifest, 
that  there  is  a  necessary,  self-active  Iteiiig,  the  Cause 
and  Author  of  this  perpetually  variable  state  atid  frame 
01  tlnngs. 

"  And  hence,  since  we  can  frame  no  notion  of  life 

can  be  thought  they  arc  meant  lo  signify  as  if  God  ever 
gave  original  to  himself;  but  in  the  negative  sense, 
that  he  never  receiveil  it  fVoin  any  oiher;  yea,  and  that 
he  is,  what  is  more  than  eipiivaliiil  lo  his  being,  self- 
caused  ;  namely,  a  Being  of  hiniscif  so  excellent,  aa 
not  to  need  or  be  capable  to  admit  any  cause." 


Chap.  I.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


107 


which  self-active  powi^r  doih  not,  at  least,  comprehend 
(as  upon  trial  wc  shall  fiml  that  we  cannot),  it  is  con- 
sequent, ^u-lli/i/,  That  this  heina  is  also  originally  vi- 
tal, anil  the  root  ot"  all  vitality,  such  as  hath  lilb  in  or 
of  itself,  and  from  whence  it  is  propagated  to  everj' 
other  living  thing. "C^) 
»  The  self-exisieiit,  eternal,  self-active,  and  vital  Being, 
]  whose  necessary  existence  has  thus  been  jiroved,  is 
•  also  intelligent  ;  of  which  the  demonstration  d  poste- 
riori is  large  and  convincing.  For  since  we  are  speak- 
ing of  a  licMig  who  is  himself  indcpeniient,  and  upon 
whom  all  things  depend;  and  from  the  deiiendence 
of  every  llinis  we  see  around  us,  we  necessarily  infer 
a  cause  of  them,  whom  we  do  not  see,  hut  who  must 
himself  be  indi-penclcnl,  and  from  whom  they  must 
have  originated;  their  actual  existence,  and  their  being 
upheld  and  sustained,  prove  his  power,  and  their  ar- 
rangement, and  wise  and  evidently  intentional  dispo- 
sition, prove  also  his  intelligence. 

In  the  j)roposition  that  the  self-existent  and  original 
cause  of  all  things  mu.st  be  an  intelligent  Being,  Dr. 
Samuel  Clarke  justly  observes,  lies  the  main  question 
between  us  and  Atheists.  "  For  that  .something  must 
be  self-existent,  and  that  that  which  is  self-existent 
must  be  eternal  and  inlinite,  and  the  original  cau.se  of 
all  things,  will  not  bear  much  di.spute.  Hut  all  Atheists, 
whether  they  hold  the  world  to  be  of  itself  eternal,  both 
as  to  matter  and  form,  or  whether  they  hold  the  matter 
to  be  eternal,  and  the  form  contingent,  or  whatever 
hypothesis  they  frame,  have  always  asserted,  and  must 
maintain,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  that  the  self-e.x- 
istent  Being  is  not  an  inteUigent  Being ;  but  either  pure 
inactive  matter,  or  (which  in  other  words  is  the  very 
same  thing)  a  mere  iiecessari/  agent.  For  a  mere  ne- 
cessary agent  must  of  necessity  either  be  plainly  and 
directly  in  tlie  grossest  sense  unintelligent,  which  was 
the  notion  of  the  ancient  Atheists  of  the  self-existent 
Being ;  or  else  its  intelligence,  according  to  Spinoza 
and  some  moderns,  must  be  wholly  separate  from  any 
power  of  will  and  choice,  which,  in  respect  of  excel- 
lence and  perfection,  or  indeed  to  any  common  sense, 
is  the  very  same  thing  as  no  intelligence  at  all.  Now 
that  the  self-existent  Being  is  not  such  a  blind  and  un- 
intelligent necessity,  but  in  the  most  proper  sense  an 
understanding  and  really  active  Being,  does  not  indeed 
so  obviously  and  directly  appear  to  us  by  consider- 
ations n  priori ;  but  a  posteriori  almost  every  tiling  in 
the  world  demonstrates  to  us  this  great  truth,  and  af- 
fords undeniable  arguments  to  prove  that  the  world 
and  all  things  therein  are  the  etTects  of  an  intelligent 
and  hnowing  cause. 

"  And,  Ist.  Since  in  general  there  are  manifestly  in 
things  various  kinds  of  powers,  and  very  different  ex- 
cellences and  degrees  of  perfection  ;  it  must  needs  be, 
that  in  the  order  of  causes  and  effects,  the  cause  must 
always  be  more  excellent  than  the  effect :  and  conse- 
<iuently  the  self-existent  Being,  whatever  that  be  sup- 
posed to  be,  must  of  neces.sity  (being  the  original  of  all 
<  things)  contain  in  itself  the  sum  and  highest  degree  of 
all  the  perfections  of  all  things.  Not  because  that 
which  is  self-existent,  must  therefore  have  all  possible 
perfections  (for  tliis,  though  most  certainly  true  in  it- 
self, yet  cannot  be  so  easily  demonstrated  d  priori): 
but  because  it  is  impossible  that  any  effect  should  have 
any  perfection  which  was  not  in  the  cause.  For  if  it 
had,  then  that  perfection  would  be  caused  by  nothing ; 
which  is  a  plain  contradiction.  Now,  an  unintelligent 
being,  it  is  evident,  cannot  he  endued  with  all  the  per- 
fections of  all  things  in  the  world.;  because  intelligence 
is  one  of  those  perfections.  All  things,  therefore,  cannot 
arise  from  an  unintelliaenl  original :  and  consequently 
the  self-existent  Being  must  of  necessity  be  intelligent. 
"  There  is  no  possibility  for  an  Atheist  to  avoid  the 
force  of  this  argument  any  other  way,  than  by  assert- 
ing one  of  these  two  things  :  either  that  there  is  no  in- 
telligent being  at  all  in  the  universe;  or  that  intelli- 
gence is  no  distinct  perfection,  but  merely  a  composi- 
tion of  figure  and  motion,  as  colour  and  sounds  are 
vulgarly  supposed  to  be.  Of  the  former  of  these  as- 
sertions, every  man's  own  consciousness  is  an  abun- 
dant confutation.  For  they  who  contend  that  beasts  are 
mere  machines,  have  yet  never  presumed  to  conjecture 
that  men  are  so  too.  And  that  the  latter  assertion  (in 
which  the  main  strength  of  Atheism  lies)  ia  most  ab- 
surd and  impossible,  shall  be  shown. 


(8)  Living  Temjile. 


"  For  since  in  men  in  particular  there  is  undeniably 
that  power  which  we  call  thought,  intelligence,  con- 
sciousness, perception,  or  knowledge,  there  must  of 
necessity  either  have  been  from  eternity,  without  any 
original  cause  at  all,  an  inlinite  succession  of  men, 
whereof  no  one  has  had  a  necessary,  but  every  one  a 
dependent  and  commuiucated  being ;  or  else,  these  be- 
ings, endued  with  iicrccption  and  consciousness,  must 
at  some  time  or  other  have  arisen  purely  out  of  that 
which  had  no  such  quality  as  sense,  perception,  or 
consciousness  ;  or  else  they  must  have  been  produced 
by  some  intelligent  sniienor  being.  There  ni'vtr  was 
nor  can  be  any  Atheist  whatsoever,  that  can  deny,  but 
one  of  these  three  sujipositions  must  be  the  truth.  If, 
therelbre,  the  two  former  can  be  proved  to  be  false  and 
impossible,  the  latter  must  be  owned  to  be  demonstrably 
true.  Now  that  the  first  is  impossible,  is  evident  from 
what  lias  been  already  said.  And  that  the  second  is 
likewise  impossible,  may  be  thus  demonstrated  : 

"  If  perception  or  intelligence  be  any  real  distinct 
quality,  or  perfection,  and  not  a  mere  efTect  or  compo- 
sition of  unintelligent  figure  and  motion,  then  beings 
endued  with  perception  or  consciousness  can  never 
possibly  have  arisen  purely  out  of  that  which  itself  had 
no  such  quality  as  perception  or  consciousness ;  because 
nothing  can  ever  give  to  another  any  perfection  which  it 
hath  not  either  actually  in  itself,  or  at  least  in  a  higher 
degree.  This  is  very  evident ;  because,  if  any  thing 
could  give  to  another  any  perfection  which  it  has  not 
itself,  that  perfection  would  be  caused  absolutely  by  n».>- 
ttiing ;  which  is  a  plain  contradiction.  /If  any  one  here  re- 
plies (as  Mr.  Gildon  has  done  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Blount), 
that  colours,  sounds,  tastes,  and  the  like,  arise  from 
figure  and  motion,  which  have  no  such  qualities  in  them- 
selves ;  or  that  figure,  divisibility,  mobility,  and  other 
qualitito  of  matter,  are  confessed  to  be  given  from  God, 
who  yet  cannot,  without  extreme  blasphemy,  be  said  to 
have  any  such  qualities  himself;  and  that  therefore,  in 
like  manner,  perception  or  intelligence  may  arise  out 
of  that  which  has  no  uitelligence  itself:  the  answer  is 
very  easy  ;  first,  that  colours,  sounds,  tastes,  and  the 
like,  are  by  no  means  efiects  arising  from  mere 
figure  and  motion  ;  there  being  nothing  in  the  bodies 
themselves,  the  objects  of  the  senses,  that  has  any 
manner  of  similitude  to  any  of  these  qualities ;  but 
they  are  plainly  thoughts  or  modifications  of  the  mind 
itself,  which  is  an  intelligent  being:  and  are  not  pro- 
perly caused,  but  only  occasioned,  by  the  impressions 
of  figure  and  motion.  Nor  will  it  at  all  help  an  Atheist 
(as  to  the  present  question),  though  we  should  here 
make  for  him  (that  we  may  allow  him  the  greatest 
possible  advantage)  even  that  most  absurd  supposition, 
that  the  mind  itself  is  nothing  but  mere  matter,  and 
not  at  all  an  immaterial  substance.  For,  even  suppos- 
ing it  to  be  mere  matter,  yet  he  must  needs  confess 
it  to  be  such  matter  as  is  endued  not  only  with  figure 
and  motion,  but  also  with  the  quality  of  intelligence 
and  perception ;  and  consequently,  as  to  the  present 
question,  it  will  still  come  to  the  same  thing ;  that 
colours,  sounds,  and  the  like,  which  are  not  qualities  of 
unintelligent  bodies,  but  perceptions  of  mind,  can  no 
more  be  caused  by,  or  arise  from  mere  unintelligent  figure 
and  motion,  than  colour  can  be  a  triangle,  or  sound  a 
square,  or  something  be  caused  by  nothing.  Secondly ; 
as  to  the  other  part  of  the  objection,  that  figure,  divisi- 
bility, mobility,  and  other  qualities  of  matter,  are  (as 
we  ourselves  acknowledge)  given  it  from  God,  who  yet 
cannot,  without  extreme  blasphemy,  be  said  to  have  any 
such  qualities  himself;  and  that  therefore,  in  like  man- 
ner, perception  or  intelligence  may  arise  out  of  that 
which  has  no  intelligence  itself:  the  answer  is  still  ea- 
sier :  that  figure,  divisibility,  mobility,  and  other  such 
like  qualities  of  matter,  are  not  real,  proper,  distinct, 
and  positive  powers,  but  only  negative  qualities,  defi- 
ciencies, or  imperfections.  And  though  no  cause  can 
communicate  to  its  effect  any  real  jierfection  which  it 
has  not  itself,  yet  the  effect  may  easily  have  many  im- 
perfections, deficiencies,  or  negative  quahties,  which  are 
not  in  the  cause.  Though  therefore  figure,  divisibility, 
mobility,  and  the  like  (which  are  mere  negations,  as  all 
limitations  and  all  defects  of  powers  are),  may  be  in  the 
effect,  and  not  in  the  cause  ;  yet  intelligence  (which  I 
now  suppose,  and  shall  prove  immediately,  to  be  a 
distinct  cjuality,  and  which  no  man  can  say  is  a  mere 
negation)  cannot  possibly  be  so. 

"  Having,  therelbre,  thus  dernonstrated,  that  if  per- 
ception or  intelligence  be  supposed  to  be  a  distinct  qua- 


loa 


^ 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


lity  or  perfection  (ttioujh  even  bm  of  matter  only,  ii' 
ttie  Atlii-ist  jileasi's),  ami  not  a tiifri'  cllcct  or  coiiiposilion 
of  uiiintt;lli2cnt  (i^urc  and  motion  ;  then  brings  cinluei! 
with  jierccjition  or  consiiousuuss  can  never  have 
arisen  purely  out  of  that  which  had  no  such  quality  as 
perception  or  consciousness  ;  because  nothing  can  ever 
give  to  another  any  perlection,  which  it  has  not  itself: 
it  will  easily  appear,  Secondly,  that  perception  or  intel- 
ligence is  really  such  a  distinct  quality  or  jierfection, 
and  not  possibly  a  nure  effect  or  conii)osition  ol'  unin- 
telligent figure  and  motion :  and  that  for  this  plain  rea- 
son, because  intelligence  is  not  figure,  and  conscious- 
ness is  not  motion.  For  whatever  can  arise  from,  or  be 
compounded  of  any  things,  is  still  only  those  very  things 
of  which  it  was  compounded.  And  if  infinite  compo- 
sitions or  divisions  be  made  eternally,  the  things  will 
be  hut  eternally  the  same.  And  all  their  possible  effects 
can  never  be  any  thing  but  repetitions  of  the  same. 
For  instance,  all  possible  changes,  compo.sitions,  or 
divisions  of  figure,  are  still  nothing  but  figure ;  and  all 
possible  compositions  or  effects  of  motion,  can  eternally 
be  nothing  but  mere  motion.  If,  therefore,  there 
ever  was  a  time  when  there  was  nothing  in  the  uni- 
verse but  matter  and  motion,  there  never  could  have 
been  any  thing  else  therein  but  matter  and  motion.  And 
it  would  have  been  as  impossible,  there  should  ever 
liave  existed  any  such  thing  as  intelligence  or  con- 
sciousness ;  or  even  any  such  thing  as  light,  or  heat,  or 
sound,  or  colour,  or  any  of  those  we  call  secondary 
qualities  of  matter;  as  it  is  now  impo.ssible  for  motion 
to  be  blue  or  red,  or  for  a  triangle  to  be  transformed  into 
a  sound.  That  which  has  been  ajit  to  deceive  men  in 
this  matter  is  thi.s,  that  they  imagine  compounds  to  be 
somewhat  really  <liflrerent  from  tliat  of  which  they  are 
compounded ;  which  is  a  very  great  mistake.  For  all 
the  things,  of  which  men  so  judge,  either,  if  they  be 
really  different,  are  not  compounds  nor  effects  of  what 
men  judge  them  to  be,  but  are  something  totally  dis- 
tinct; as  when  the  vulgar  think  colours  and  sounds  to 
be  properties  inherent  in  bodies,  when  indeed  they  are 
purely  thoughts  of  the  mind ;  or  else,  if  they  be  really 
compounds  and  effects,  then  they  are  not  dilTerent,  but 
exactly  the  same  that  ever  they  were ;  as  when  two 
triangles  put  together  make  a  square,  that  square  is 
still  nothing  but  two  triangles  ;  or  when  a  square  cut 
in  halves  makes  two  triangles,  those  two  triangles  are 
still  only  the  two  halves  of  a  square  ;  or  when  the  mix- 
ture of  blue  and  yellow  powder  makes  a  green,  thai 
green  is  still  nothing  but  blue  ami  yellow  intermixed, 
as  is  plainly  visible  by  the  help  of  microscopes.  And 
in  short,  every  thing  by  composition,  division,  or  motion, 
is  nothing  else  but  the  very  same  it  was  before,  taken 
cither  in  whole  or  in  parts,  or  in  dillirent  place  or  or- 
der. He,  therefore,  that  will  affinn  intelligence  to  b(^  the 
effect  of  a  system  of  unintelligent  matter  in  motion, 
must  filhcr  aflirin  iiiti  lligence  to  be  a  mere  name  or  ex- 
ternal (IciioiiiiiKiiiDii  ol  (•(■rtain  figures  ami  motions, and 
that  It  <lifrers  from  umntelligent  figures  and  motions,  no 
otherwise  than  as  a  circle  or  triangle  differs  from  a 
square,  which  is  evidently  absurd  ;  or  else  he  must  sup- 
pose It  to  be  a  real  distinct  quality,  arising  from  certain 
motions  of  a  system  of  matter  not  in  itself  intelligent ; 
and  then  this  no  less  evidently  absurd  consecpience 
would  follow,  that  one  quality  inhered  in  another ;  for, 
in  that  case,  not  the  substance  itself,  the  particles  oi' 
which  the  system  consists,  but  the  mere  mode,  the  par- 
ticular mode  of  motion  and  figure,  would  be  intelligent. 
"That  the  self-existiwit  and  original  cause  of  all 
things  is  an  intelligent  being,  appears  abundantly  from 
the  excellent  variety,  order,  beauty,  and  wonderful  con- 
trivance, and  fitness  of  all  things  in  Ihe  world,  to  their 
proper  and  respective  ends.  Since,  llicn  l()re,  things 
arc  thus,  it  must  unavoidably  be  granlcil  (even  by  the 
most  obstinate  Atheist),  either  that  all  plants  and  ani- 
mals are  iirigmally  tin'  workof  an  intelligent  biiiig,  and 
created  by  hiin  in  lime;  or  that  having  been  from  eter- 
nity in  the  same  order  and  method  they  now  are  in, 
they  are  an  eternal  effect  of  an  eternal  intelligent  cause 
continually  exerting  his  infinite  power  and  wisdom ; 
or  else,  that  without  any  self-existent  original  at  all, 
they  have  been  derived  one  from  aimtlier  in  an  eternal 
succession,  by  an  infinite  progress  ol  dependent  causes. 
Thefirstof  these  three  ways  is  the  conclusion  we  assert : 
The  second  (so  far  as  the  cau.se  of  .\lheisiii  is  con- 
cerned) comes  to  the  very  same  thing  :  Ami  the  ilnrd  1 
have  already  shown  to  be  absolutely  imiiossible  and  a 
contradiction. 


"  Supposing  it  was  possible  that  the  form  of  the 
world,  ami  all  the  visible  things  contained  therein,  with 
the  order,  beauty  andexquisitelitnessof  their  parts;  nav, 
supposing  that  even  inlelligeiice  itself,  with  conscious- 
ness and  thought,  in  all  the  beings  we  know,  could  pos- 
sibly be  the  result  or  elltjct  of  mere  unintelligent  mat- 
ter, figure,  and  iiiolion  (which  is  the  most  unreasonable 
and  impossible  siipiiosiiion  in  the  world);  yet  even  still 
there  would  remain  an  undeniable  demonstration,  that 
the  self-existent  being  (whatever  it  be  supposed  to  be) 
must  be  intelligent.  For  even  these  principles  them- 
selves, unintelligent  figure  and  motion,  could  never 
have  possibly  existed,  without  there  had  been  before 
them  an  intelligent  cause.  1  instance  in  motion,  li  is 
evident  there  is  now  such  a  thing  as  motion  in  the 
world  :  which  either  began  at  some  time  or  other,  or 
was  eternal.  If  it  began  at  any  time,  then  the  question 
is  granted,  that  the  first  cause  is  an  intelligent  being  : 
For  mere  unintelligent  matter,  and  that  at  rest,  it  is  ma- 
nifest, could  never  of  itself  begin  to  move.  On  the 
contrary,  if  motion  was  eternal,  it  was  either  eternally 
caused  by  some  eternal  intelligent  being,  or  it  must  of 
itself  be  necessary  and  self-existent;  or  else,  without 
any  necessity  in  its  own  nature,  and  without  any  exter- 
nal necessary  cause,  it  must  have  existed  from  eternity 
by  an  endless  successive  communication.  If  motion 
was  eternally  caused  by  some  eternal  intelligent  being  ; 
this  also  is  granting  the  question,  as  to  ilie  present  dis- 
pute. If  It  was  of  itself  necessary  and  sell-ex isient ; 
then  it  follows,  that  it  must  be  a  contradiction  in  teniis, 
to  suppose  any  matter  to  be  at  rest :  Besides  (as  there 
is  no  end  of  absurdities)  it  must  also  imply  a  contradic- 
tion, to  suppose  that  there  might  possibly  have  been 
originally  more  or  less  motion  in  the  universe  than  there 
actually  was:  Which  is  so  very  absurd  a  consequence, 
that  Spinoza  himself,  though  he  expressly  asserts  all 
things  to  be  necessary,  yet  seems  ashamed  here  to  speak 
out  iiis  oiiinion,  or  rather,  plainly  contradicts  himself 
in  the  question  about  the  original  of  motion.  But  if  it 
be  said,  lastly,  that  motion,  without  any  necessity  in  its 
own  nature,  and  without  any  external  necessary  cause, 
has  existed  from  eternity,  merely  by  an  endless  suc- 
cessive communication,  as  Spinoza,  inconsistently 
enough,  s«ems  to  assert ;  this  I  have  before  shown  to 
be  aphiin  contradiction.  It  remains  therefore  that  tno- 
tion  must  of  necessity  be  originally  caused  by  some- 
thing that  is  intelligent ;  or  else  there  never  could  have 
been  any  such  thing  as  motion  in  the  world.  And 
coii.sequenlly  the  self-existent  being,  the  original  Cause 
of  all  things  (whatever  it  is  supposed  to  be),  must  of 
necessity  be  an  intelligent  being." 

The  argument  from  the  existence  of  motion  to  the 
existence  of  an  ml'  ilianit  First  Cause  is  so  convincing, 
that  the  farther  illustration  of  it,  in  which  the  absurdi- 
ties of  Atheism  are  exlubited  in  another  view,  will  not 
be  unacceptable. 

"Consider  that  all  this  motion  and  motive  power 
must  have  some  soun'e  and  fountain  diverse  fVom  the 
dull  and  sluggish  matter  moved  thitreby,  unto  which  it 
already  hath  appeand  impossible  that  it  should  origin- 
ally and  essi-ulKilly  belong. 

"  Also  that  the  miii/itt)  itrtivt-  lidns;,  which  hath  been 
proved  necessarily  existent,  and  whereto  it  n\\\a\  Jirst 
belong,  if  wesuppose  it  destitute  of  the  self-moderating 
principle  of  wisdom  and  counsel,  I'annot  but  be  always 
exerting  its  motive  power,  invariably  used  to  the  same 
degree,  that  is,  to  its  very  utmost,  and  can  never  cease 
or  fail  to  do  so.  For  its  act  knows  no  limit  but  that  of 
its  power  (if  this  can  have  any),  and  its  power  is  essen- 
tial to  It,  and  Its  e.s.sence  is  necessary. 

"  Farther,  that  the  motion  impressed  upon  the  matter 
of  the  universe  must  hereiiiinn  necessarih  have  received 
a  continual  increase  ever  since  it  came  inio  being. 

"  That  snpi)i)siiig  itiis  motive  poxvcr  to  have  been  ex- 
erted I'rom  eternity,  it  must  have  been  increased  long 
ago  to  an  inlinite  excess. 

'■That  hence  the  coalition  of  the  particles  of  matter 
for  the  forming  of  any  tiling,  had  been  .altogether  im- 
possible. For  let  us  suppose  this  exerted  motive  power 
to  have  been,  any  inslant,  but  b.arely  snllicient  for  such 
a  formation;  because  that  could  not  be  (les|)atched  in 
an  instant,  it  would,  by  its  continual  iiicnase,  be  grown 
so  over-sullicient.  as  in  the  next  instant  to  dissipate 
the  iiarticles  but  now  beginning  to  unite. 

"  At  least,  it  would  be  most  apparent,  that  if  ever 
such  a  frame  of  tilings  as  we  now  behold  could  have 
been  produced,  that  motive  power,  increased  to  so  in- 


Chap.  I.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


109 


finite  an  excess,  must  have  shattered  the  whole  frame 
in  pieces  many  an  ;ise  ago,  or  rather  never  liavc  ]icr- 
mittcd  tliat  such  a  thing  as  we  call  an  age  could  possi- 
bly have  been. 

"  Our  experience  jiives  us  not  to  observe  any  such  de- 
structive or  remarkable  changes  in  the  course  of  nature, 
and  this  indeed  (as  was  long  ago  foretold)  is  the  great 
argunicMt  oft  tie  atheistical  scoffers  in  these  latter  days, 
that  thiii:;s  remain  as  they  were  from  the  beginning  of 
the  creation  to  this  day.  But  let  it  be  soberly  weighed, 
how  it  is  possible  that  the  general  consistency  which 
we  observe  ni  things  throughout  the  universe,  and 
their  steady,  orderly  posture,  can  stand  with  this  mo- 
mently increase  of  motion. 

"  For  we  see  when  we  throw  a  stone  out  of  our 
liand,  whatever  of  the  impressed  force  it  imparts  to  the 
air  through  which  it  makes  its  way,  or  whatever  degree 
of  it  vanishes  of  itself,  it  yet  retains  a  part  a  consider- 
able time,  which  carries  it  all  the  length  of  its  journey, 
and  does  not  vanish  and  die  away  on  the  sudden.  So 
when  we  here  consider  in  the  continual  momently  re- 
newid  of  the  same  force,  always  necessarily  going  forth 
from  the  same  mighty  agent,  without  any  moderation 
or  restraint,  that  every  following  impetus  doth  so  im- 
mediately overtake  the  former,  tliat  whatever  we  can 
suppose  lost,  is  yet  abundantly  over-supplied  ;  upon 
the  whole,  it  cannot  fail  to  be  ever  growing,  and  before 
now  must  have  grown  to  that  all-destroying  e.xcess 
before  mentioned. 

"  It  is  therefore  evident,  that  as  without  the  supjiosi- 
tion  of  a  self-active  Being  there  could  be  no  such  thing 
as  motion,  so  without  the  supposition  of  an  intclligt-nt 
Being  (that  is,  that  the  same  Being  be  both  self-active 
and  intelligent),  there  could  be  no  regular  motion,  such 
as  is  absolutely  necessary  to  the  forming  and  continu- 
ing of  any  of  the  compacted  bodily  substances  which 
our  eyes  behold  every  day;  yea,  or  of  any  whatsoever, 
suppose  we  their  figures,  their  shapes,  to  be  as  rude,  as 
deformed  and  useless  as  we  can  imagine,  much  less 
such  as  the  exquisite  compositions  and  the  exact  order 
of  things  in  the  universe  do  evidently  require  and  dis- 
cover."(9) 

The  proof  that  the  original  cause  of  all  things  is  an 
intelligent  Being,  alluded  to  above  by  Dr.  S.  Clarke,  as 
exhibited  by  the  excellent  variety,  order,  beauty,  and 
wonderful  contrivance  and  fitness  of  all  things  in  the 
world  to  their  proper  and  respective  ends,  has,  from  the 
copious  and  almost  infinite  illustration  of  which  it  is 
capable,  been  made  a  distinct  branch  of  theological 
science.  It  is  the  most  obvious  and  popular,  and  there- 
fore the  most  useful  argument  in  favour  of  the  intelli- 
gence of  that  Being  of  infinite  perfections  we  call  God  ; 
it  is  that  to  which  the  Holy  Scriptures  refer  us  for  the 
confirmation  of  their  own  doctrine  on  this  subject,  and 
it  has  been  constantly  resorted  to  by  all  writers  on  this 
first  principle  of  religion  in  every  age.  When  it  has 
been  considered  separately,  and  the  proofs  from  nature 
have  been  largely  given,  it  lias  been  designated  "  Na- 
tural Theology,"  and  has  given  rise  to  many  important 
works,  equally  entertaining,  instructive,  and  convinc- 
ing.(1)  The  basis,  and  indeed  the  plan,  of  Ur.  Paley's 
Natural  Theology,  are  found  in  the  third  and  following 
chapters  of  Howe's  Living  Temple;  but  the  outline  has 
been  filled  up,  and  the  subject  expanded,  by  that  able 
•writer,  with  great  felicity  of  illustration,  and  acute  and 
powerful  argument.  From  the  platform  of  Paley's 
work,  as  it  may  be  found  in  "  The  I,iving  Temple,"  I 
shall  give  a  few  extracts,  which,  though  they  appear  in 
the  ''Natural  Theology"  in  a  more  expansive  Ibrrn, 
strengthened  by  additional  exafnples,  and  clothed  in 
some  of  the  instances  given  with  a  more  correct  philo- 
sophy, are  not  superseded.  They  bear  upon  the  con- 
clusion with  an  irresistible  tbrce,  and  are  expressed 
with  a  noble  eloquence,  though  in  language  a  httle  an- 
tiquated in  structure. 

"  As  nothing  can  be  produced  without  a  cause,  so  no 
cause  can  work  above  or  beyond  its  own  capacity  and 
natural  aiititude.  Whatsoever,  therefore,  is  ascribed 
to  any  cause  above  and  beyond  its  ability,  all  that  sur- 
plusage is  ascribed  to  no  cause  at  all  ;  and  so  an  effect, 
in  that  part  at  least,  were  supposed  without  a  cause. 

(9)  Howe's  Living  Temple. 

(l)See  BoYi.E  on  Final  Caii-ses ;  Rax's  Wisdom  of 
Ood  in  the  Creation;  Derh.^m's  Astro  and  Physico 
Theology ;  Sturm's  Reflections  :  Palsv's  Natural 
Theology,  «tc. 


And  if  it  then  follow,  when  an  effect  is  produced,  that 
it  had  a  cause,  why  doth  it  not  eipudly  follow,  when  an 
clfect  is  produced,  having  niaiiilest  characters  of  wis- 
dom and  design  upon  it,  that  it  had  a  wise  and  design- 
ing cause?  If  It  be  said  tlieie  are  ,some  fortuitous  or 
casual  (at  least  undesigned)  productions,  that  look  like 
the  effects  of  wisdom  and  contrivance,  but  indeed  are 
not,  as  the  birds  so  orderly  and  seasonably  making  their 
nests,  the  bees  their  comb,  and  the  spider  its  web, 
which  are  capable  of  no  design,  that  exception  needs 
to  be  well  proved  before  it  be  ailmitted ;  and  that  it  be 
plainly  demonstrated,  both  that  these  creatures  are  not 
capable  of  design,  and  that  there  is  not  a  universal  de- 
signing cause,  from  whose  directive  as  well  as  opera- 
tive inliuence  no  imaginable  effect  or  event  can  be  ex- 
empted. In  which  case,  it  will  no  more  be  necessary 
that  every  creature  that  is  observed  steadily  to  work 
towards  an  end  should  itself  design  and  know  it,  than 
that  an  artificer's  tools  should  know  what  lie  is  doing 
with  them ;  but  if  they  do  not,  it  is  plain  he  must.  And 
surely  it  lies  \ipon  them  who  so  except,  to  prove  in  this 
case  what  they  say,  and  not  to  be  so  precarious  as  to 
beg,  or  think  us  so  easy  as  to  grant,  so  much,  only  be- 
cause they  have  thuugtit  fit  to  say  it,  or  would  fain  have 
it  so  ;  that  is,  that  this  or  that  strange  event  happened 
without  any  designing  cause. 

"  But,  however,  I  would  demand  of  snch  asfnake  this 
exception,  whether  they  think  there  be  any  effect  at  all  to 
which  a  designing  cau.se  was  necessary,  or  which  they 
will  judge  impossible  to  have  been  otherwise  produced, 
than  by  the  direction  and  contrivance  of  wisdom  and 
counsel  ?    I   little   doubt  but   there  are  thousands  of 
things  laboured  and  wrought  by  the  hand  of  man, 
which  they  would  presently ,\ipon  first  sight,  pronounce 
to  be  the  effects  of  skill,  and  not  of  chance  ;  yea,  if  they 
only  considered  their  frame  and  shape,  tliough  they 
understood  not  their  use  and  end,  they  would  surely 
think  at  least  some  effects  or  other  sufficient  to  argue 
to  us  a  designing  cause.    And  would  they  but  soberly 
consider  and  resolve  what  characters  or  footsteps  of 
wisdom  and  design  might  be  reckoned  sufficient  to  put 
us  out  of  doubt,  would  they  not,  upon  coiniiaring,  be 
brought  to  acknowledge  that  there  are  nowhere  any 
more  conspicuous  and  manifest  tlian  in  the  things  daily 
in  view,  that  go  ordinarily  with  us  under  the  name  of 
works  of  naticrel    Wtieiice  it  is  plainly  consequent, 
that  wliat  men  commonly  call  vniversal  )iature,it  itiey 
would  be  content  no  longer  to  lurk  in  the  darkness  of 
an  obscure  and  uninterpreted  word,  they  must  confess 
is  nothing  else  but  common  providence,  that  is,  the 
universal  power  which  is  every  where  active  in  the 
world,  in  conjunction  with  the  unerring  wisdom  winch 
guides  and  moderates  all  its  exertions  and  ojierations, 
or  the  wisdoin  which  directs  and  governs  that  power. 
They  must  therefore  see  cause  to  acknowledge  that  an 
exact  order  and  disposition  of  parts  in  very  neat  and 
elegant  compositions  do    plainly  argue  wisdom  and 
skill  in  the  contrivance  ;  only  they  will  distinguish  and 
say.  It  is  so  in  the  effects  of  art,  but  not  of  nature. 
What  is  this   but  to  deny  in  particular  what  they 
granted  in  general  ?     To  make  what  they  have  said 
signify  nothing  more  than  if  they  had  said  such  exqui- 
site order  of  parts  is  the  effect  of  wisdom  where  it  is 
the  efl'ect  of  wi.sdom,  but  it  is  not  the  effect  of  wisdom 
where  it  is  not  the  effect  of  wisdom,  and  to  trifle,  in- 
stead of  giving  a   reason  why  tilings  are  so?    And 
whence  take  they  their  advantage  for  this  trifling,  or 
do  they  hope  to  hide  tlieir  folly  in  it,  but  that  they  thiink 
while  what  is  meant  by  art  is  known,  what  is  meant 
by  nature  cannot  be  known?     But  if  it  be  not  known, 
how  can  tliey  tell  but  their  distinguishing  members  are 
coincident,  and  run  into  one?    Yea,  and  if  they  would 
allow  the  thing  itself  to  speak,  and  the  effect  to  confess 
and  dictate  the  name  of  its  own  cause,  how  plain  is  it 
that  they  do  run  into  one  ;  and  that  the  expression  im- 
jiorts  no  impropriety,  which  we  somewhere   find  in 
Vicvro,  the  art  of  nature ;  or  ratlier,  that  nature  is  ne- 
ttling else  but  divnie  art,  at  least  in  as  near  an  analogy 
as  between  any  things  divine  and  human?    But  that 
this  matter  (even  the  thing  itself,  waiving  for  the  pre- 
sent the  consideration  of  names)  may  be  a  little  more 
narrowly  discussed  and  searched  into,  let  some  curious 
piece  of  workmansliip  be  offered  to  such  a  skeptic's 
view,  the  making  whereof  he  did  not  see,  nor  of  any 
thing  like  it ;  and  we  will  suppose  him  not  told  that 
this  was  made  by  the  hand  of  any  man,  nor  that 
he  hath  any  thing  to  guide  his  judgment  about  the  way 


110 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


of  its  bcoomin?  wliat  it  is,  but  only  his  own  view  of 
tluitliJriu'  iiscll':  and  yd  he  shall  prfsciilly,  willuml 
hcsiiaiiDii,  iiroiiounoo  lliis  was  thi;  cHi.'Ct  of  iiiuch  skill. 
1  wouUl  lioro  iiujuire,  Why  do  you  so  jiroiiouiicu  .'  or, 
Wtwt  is  the  reason  of  this  your  judixtiicnt '!  .Surely  he 
would  not  say  he  hatli  no  reason  at  all  lor  this  so  con- 
fident and  unwaverini;  determination ;  for  then  lie 
would  not  be  determiiiiil,  hut  npeak  by  chance,  and  be 
indiflereiit  to  say  that  or  any  thing  else.  Somewhat  or 
other  there  must  be,  that  when  he  i.s  asked  is  this  the 
efl'ect  of  skill,  shall  so  suddenly  and  irresistibly  capti- 
vate him  into  an  assent  that  it  is  so,  that  he  cannot 
think  otherwise.  IVay,  if  a  thousand  men  were  asked 
the  same  cjuestion,  they  would  as  undonblinfily  say  the 
same  tliinij;;  and  then,  since  there  is  a  reason  for  this 
judgment,  what  can  be  devised  to  be  the  reason,  but 
that  there  are  so  manifest  character.s  and  evidences  of 
skill  in  the  composure,  as  are  not  attributable  to  any 
thing  else?  iVow  here  I  would  farther  demand,  Is 
there  any  thing  in  this  reason?  YeaorN'o?  Dolli  it 
signify  any  thing,  or  is  it  of  any  value  for  the  purpose 
for  which  it  is  alleged  ?  Surely  it  is  of  very  great, 
inasmuch  as,  when  it  is  coiisubrwl,  ii  leaves  it  nut  in 
a  man's  power  to  think  any  thing  >  Ise  ;  and  what  can 
be  said  more  potently  and  ellicacunisly  to  demonstrate  ! 
But  now,  if  tins  reason  signify  any  thing,  it  signifies 
thus  much, — that  wheresoever  there  are  (ujual  charac- 
ters and  evidences  of  skill,  a  skilful  agent  must  be 
acknowledged.  And  so  it  will  (in  spite  of  cavil)  con- 
clude universally  and  abstractedly  from  what  we  can 
suppose  distinctly  signified  by  the  terms  of  art  and 
nature,  that  whatsoever  effect  hath  such,  or  equal  cha- 
racters of  .skill  upon  it,  did  proceed  from  a  skilful  cause. 
That  is,  that  if  this  ellect  be  said  to  be  from  a  skilful 
cause,  as  having  manifest  characters  of  skill  upon  it, 
then  every  such  eirect  that  hath  equally  manifest  cha- 
racters of  skill  u])on  it  must  be,  with  equal  reason, 
concluded  to  be  from  a  skilful  cause. 

"  We  will  acknowledge  skill  to  act,  and  wit  to  con- 
trive, to  be  very  distinguishable  things ;  and  in  refer- 
ence to  some  works  (as  the  making  some  curious  auto- 
maton, or  self-moving  engine)  are  commonly  lodged  in 
divers  subjects;  that  is,  the  contrivance  exercises  the 
wit  and  invention  of  one,  and  the  making,  the  manual 
skill  and  dexterity  of  others  ;  but  the  manifest  charac- 
ters of  both  will  be  .seen  in  the  efl'ect.  That  is,  the 
curious  elaborateness  of  each  several  jiart  shows  the 
latter  ;  and  the  order  and  di^liendence  of  ])arls,  and  their 
conspiracy  to  one  common  end,  the  former.  Each  be- 
tokens design ;  or  at  least  the  smith  or  carpenter  must 
be  understood  to  design  his  own  part,  that  is,  to  do  as 
he  was  directed;  both  together  do  plainly  bespeak  an 
agent  that  knew  what  he  did  ;  and  that  the  thing  was 
not  done  liy  chance,  or  was  not  the  casual  product  of 
only  being  busy  at  random,  or  making  a  careless  stir 
without  aiming  at  any  thing.  And  this  no  man  that  is 
in  his  wits  would,  upon  sight  of  the  whole  frame,  more 
doubt  to  assent  unto,  than  that  two  and  two  make  four. 
And  he  would  certainly  be  thought  mad  that  should 
profess  to  think,  that  only  by  some  one's  making  a 
hustle  among  several  small  fragmentsof  brass,  iron,  and 
wood,  these  parts  happened  to  lie  thus  curiously  formed, 
and  caiiM'  Idgcllnr  unci  tins  traine  of  their  own  accord. 

"Or  lest  tins  should  he  iliouiiht  to  intimate  too  rude 
a  representation  of  tbcir  cdiiieil,  who  think  this  world 
to  have  fiillen  into  this  frame  and  order  wherein  it  is 
by  the  agitation  of  the  moving  jiarts  or  particles  of 
matter,  withoutthc  dinctionofa  wise  mover;  and  that 
we  may  also  make  the  case  as  plain  as  is  possible  to  the 
most  ordinary  capacity,  we  will  suppose  (for  instance) 
that  one  who  had  never  before  seen  a  match,  or  any 
thing  of  that  sort,  hath  now  this  little  engine  first  ofl'er- 
ed  to  his  view ;  can  we  doubt  but  that  he  would,  ujion 
the  mere  sight  of  its  figure,  siruiinre,  and  the  very  cu- 
rious workmanship  which  wr  will  snpposi-  appearing 
in  it,  presently  acknowh  ilge  ihi-  ariilicir's  hand.'  itiit 
if  he  were  also  made  to  understand  the  use  and  purpose 
for  which  it  serves,  and  it  were  distinctly  shown  hiin 
how  each  thing  contributes,  and  all  things  in  this  litth^ 
fabric  concur  to  this  purpose,  the  exact  measuring  and 
dividing  of  time  by  minutes,  hours,  ami  moiillis,  he 
would  certainly  both  confess  and  praise  the  great  inge- 
nuity of  (he  first  inventor.  But  now,  if  a  by-Ktander, 
beholding  hini  m  this  admiration,  woiilrl  uinleriakc  lo 
show  a  profdunder  reach  and  strain  of  wil,  ami  should 
say,  Sir.  you  are  mistaken  concerning  the  rompimlion 
of  this  so  much  adnurcd  piece ;  it  was  not  made  ur  dt- , 


signed  by  the  hand  or  skill  of  any  one  ;  there  were  only 
an  innunierahle  comiiany  of  little  atoms,  or  very  smaU 
bodies,  iiiucli  too  small  to  be  perceived  by  yourseiise, 
that  were  busily  Irisking  and  plying  to  and  fro  about 
the  place  of  its  nativity;  and  by  a  strange  chance,  or  a 
stranger  fate,  and  the  necessary  laws  of  that  motion 
which  they  were  unavoidably  put  into  by  a  certain 
boisterous,  itndesiguing  mover,  they  fell  together  into 
this  small  bulk,  so  as  to  compose  tliis  very  shape  and 
figure,  and  with  this  same  nuniber  and  order  o(  parts 
wliicli  you  now  behold :  one  squadron  of  these  busy 
particles  (little  thinking  what  they  were  about)  agree- 
ing to  make  one  wheel,  and  another  a  second,  in  that 
proportion  which  you  s<'e ;  others  of  them  also  falling 
and  becoming  li.xed  in  so  ha]i])y  a  posture  and  situation, 
as  to  describe  the  several  figures  by  which  the  little 
moving  fingers  point  out  the  hours  of  the  day,  and  the 
day  of  the  month ;  and  all  consiiired  to  fall  together, 
each  into  its  own  place,  in  so  lucky  a  juncture,  as  that 
the  regular  motion  failed  not  to  ensue  which  we  see  is 
now  observed  in  it, — what  man  is  either  so  wise  or  so 
foolish  (for  it  is  hard  to  determine  whether  the  excess 
or  the  defect  should  best  qualify  him  to  be  of  this  lailh) 
as  to  be  capable  of  being  made  believe  this  piece  of  na- 
tural history  .'  And  if  any  one  should  give  this  account 
of  the  production  of  such  a  trille,  would  he  not  be 
thought  in  jest!  But  if  he  persist,  and  solemnly  pro- 
fess that  thus  he  takes  it  to  have  been,  would  he  not 
be  thought  in  good  earnest  mad  ?  And  let  but  any  so- 
ber reason  judge  whether  we  have  not  unspeakably 
more  madness  To  contend  against,  in  such  as  suppose 
this  world,  and  the  bodies  of  living  creatures,  to  have 
fallen  into  this  frame  and  orderly  disposition  of  jiarts 
wherein  they  are,  without  the  direction  of  a  wise  and 
designing  cause  ?  And  whether  there  be  not  an  incom- 
parably greater  number  of  most  wild  and  arbitrary  sup- 
])Ositions  in  their JictioK  than  in  thisl  Besides  the  in- 
numerable supposed  repetitions  of  the  same  strange 
chances  all  the  world  over;  even  as  numberless,  not 
only  as  productions,  but  as  the  changes  that  i-onlinu- 
ally  happen  to  all  tin;  things  i)ro(hu-ed.  And  if  the 
concourse  of  atoms  could  make  this  world,  why  not 
(for  it  is  but  little  to  mention  such  a  thing  as  this) 
a  porch,  or  a  temple,  or  a  house,  or  a  city,  as  Tally 
sjieaks,  which  were  less  operous  and  much  more  easy 
performances  ? 

"  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  all  should  be  astrono- 
mers, anatomists,  or  natural  philosophers,  that  shall 
read  these  lines;  and  therelbre  it  is  intended  not  to  in- 
sist upon  particulars,  and  to  make  as  little  n.se  as  is 
possible  of  terms  that  would  only  be  agreeable  to  that 
supposition.  But  surely  such  general,  easy  rellections 
on  the  frame  of  the  universe,  and  the  order  of  jiarts  in 
the  bodies  of  all  sorts  of  living  creatures,  as  the  mean- 
est ordinary  understanding  is  capable  of,  would  .soon 
discover  incomjiarably  greater  evidence  of  wisdom  and 
design  in  the  contrivance  of  these,  than  in  that  of  a 
watch  or  a  clock.  And  if  there  were  any  whose  un- 
derstandings are  but  ol  that  size  and  measure  as  to  .'sup- 
pose that  the  whole  frame  of  the  heavens  serves  to  no 
other  purjiosc  than  to  be  of  some  such  use  to  us  mor- 
tals here  on  earth  as  that  instrument ;  if  they  would 
but  allow  themselves  leisure  to  think  and  consider, 
they  might  discern  the  most  convincing  and  amazing 
tUscoveries  of  wise  contrivance  and  design  (as  well  as 
of  vastest  might  and  power)  in  disposing  things  into 
so  apt  a  subserviency  to  that  meaner  end  ;  and  that  so 
exact  a  knowledge  is  had  thereby  of  times  and  seasons, 
days  and  years,  as  that  the  simplest  idiot  in  a  country 
may  be  able  to  tell  you,  when  the  light  of  the  sun  is 
withdrawn  from  his  eyes,  at  what  time  it  will  return, 
and  when  it  will  look  in  al  such  a  window,  and  when 
at  the  other  ;  and  by  what  degrees  his  days  and  nights 
shall  either  be  increa.sed  or  diminished  ;  and  what 
proportion  of  lime  he  shall  have  for  his  labours  in  this 
season  of  the  year,  and  what  in  that ;  without  the  least 
suspicion  or  fear  that  it  shall  ever  fall  out  olherwi.se. 

"  For  let  us  sujipose  (what  no  man  can  pretend  is 
more  impossible,  aii<l  what  any  man  must  confess  is 
less  considerable,  than  what  our  eyes  daily  see),  that 
in  .some  part  of  the  air  near  this  earth,  and  within  such 
limits  as  that  the  whole  si-ene  might  be  couvenieiitly 
beheld  at  one  view,  there  should  suddenly  appear  a 
little  globe  of  pure  flaming  light  resembling  that  of  the 
sun,  and  supimse  it  fixed  as  a  centre  to  another  body, 
or  moving  about  that  other  as  its  centre  (as  this  or  that 
hypothesis  best  pluases  us),  which  we  could  plainly 


Chap.  I.]; 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES'. 


l\l 


perceive  to  be  a  proportionalily  little  eartti,  beautified 
■with  little  trees  and  W(H)ds,  flowery  fields  and  (lowuiff 
rivulets,  with  lari^er  lakes  into  whieh  these  discliarf^e 
themselves ;  and  suppose  we  see  other  planets  all  of 
proportionable  bi;;ness  to  the  narrow  limits  assigned 
them,  pla<-ed  at  their  due  distances,  and  playing  about 
this  sup|)osfd  earth  or  sun,  so  as  to  measure  their 
shorter  and  soon  absolved  days,  months,  and  years,  or 
two,  twelve,  or  thirty  years,  according  to  their  sup- 
posed ciicuits  ; — would  they  not  presently,  and  with 
great  amazement,  confess  an  intelligent  contriver  and 
maker  of  this  whole  frame,  above  a  Posidonius,  or  any 
mortal .'  And  have  we  not  in  the  present  frame  of 
things  a  demonstration  of  wisdom  and  counsel,  as  far 
exceeding  that  which  is  now  supposed,  as  the  making 
some  toy  or  bauble  to  please  a  child  is  less  an  argu- 
ment of  wisdom  than  the  contrivance  of  somewhat 
that  is  of  apparent  and  universal  use  ?  Or  if  we  could 
suppose  this  present  state  of  things  to  have  but  newly 
begun,  and  ourselves  pre-existent,  so  that  we  coulil 
take  notice  of  the  very  passing  of  things  out  of  horrid 
confusion  into  the  comely  order  they  are  now  in,  would 
not  this  put  the  matter  out  of  doubt  ?  But  might  what 
would  yesterday  have  been  the  ellect  of  wisdom,  bet- 
ter have  been  brought  about  by  chance,  five  or  six 
thousand  years,  or  any  longer  time  ago  1  It  speaks  not 
want  of  evidence  in  the  thing,  but  want  of  considera- 
tion, and  of  exercising  our  understandings,  if  what 
were  7iew  would  not  only  convince  but  astonish,  and 
what  is  old,  of  the  same  importance,  doth  not  so  much 
as  convince  I 

"  And  let  them  that  understand  any  thing  of  the 
composition  of  a  human  body  (or  indeed  of  any  living 
creature)  but  bethink  themselves  whether  there  be  not 
equal  contrivance,  at  least,  appearing  in  the  composure 
of  that  admirable  fabric,  as  of  any  the  most  admired 
machine  or  engine  devised  and  made  by  human  skill 
and  wit.  If  we  pitch  upon  any  thing  of  knov.n  and 
common  use,  as,  suppose  again,  a  clock  or  watch, 
which  is  no  sooner  seen  than  it  is  acknowledged  (as 
hath  been  said)  the  effect  of  a  designing  cause ;  will 
we  not  confess  as  much  of  the  body  of  a  man  ?  Yea, 
what  comparison  is  there,  when  in  the  structure  of 
some  one  single  member,  as  a  hand,  a  foot,  an  eye,  or 
ear,  there  appears,  upon  a  diligent  search,  unspeakably 
greater  curiosity,  whether  we  consider  the  variety  of 
parts,  their  exciuisite  figuration,  or  their  apt  disposition 
to  the  distinct  uses  and  ends  these  members  serve  for, 
than  is  to  be  seen  in  any  clock  or  watch  ?  Concerning 
which  uses  of  the  several  parts  in  man's  body,  Galen, 
so  largely  discoursing  in  seventeen  books,  inserts  on 
the  leg,  this  epiphonema,  upon  the  mention  of  one  par- 
ticular instance  of  our  most  wise  Maker's  provident 
care;  'Unto  whom  (saith  he)  I  compose  these  com- 
mentaries, (meaning  his  present  work  of  unfolding  the 
useful  figuration  of  the  human  body),  as  certain 
hymns,  or  songs  of  praise,  esteeming  true  piety  to  con- 
sist in  this,  that  I  first  may  know,  and  then  declare  to 
others,  his  wisdom,  power,  providence,  and  goodness, 
than  in  sacrificing  to  him  many  hecatombs :  and  in  the 
ignorance  whereof  there  is  greatest  impiety,  rather 
than  in  abstaining  from  sacrifice.'  '  Nor  (as  he  adds 
in  the  close  of  that  excellent  work)  is  the  most  per- 
fect natural  artifice  to  be  seen  in  man  only ;  but  you 
may  find  the  like  industrious  design  and  wisdom  of  the 
Author,  in  any  living  creature  wliich  you  shall  please 
to  dissect ;  and  by  how  much  the  less  it  is,  so  much 
the  greater  admiration  shall  it  excite  in  you ;  which 
those  artists  show,  that  describe  some  great  thing  (con- 
tractedly),  in  a  very  small  space;  as  that  person  who 
lately  engraved  Phaeton  carried  in  his  chariot  with  his 
four  horses  upon  a  little  ring — a  most  incredible  sight  I 
But  there  is  nothing  in  matters  of  this  nature,  more 
strange  than  in  the  structure  of  the  leg  of  a  flea.' 
How  much  more  might  it  be  said  of  all  its  inward 
parts  I  '  Therefore  (as  he  adds),  the  greatest  commo- 
dity of  such  a  work  accrues  not  to  physicians,  but  to 
them  who  are  studious  of  nature,  namely,  the  know- 
ledge of  our  Maker's  perfection,  and  that  (as  he  had 
said  a  little  above)  it  establishes  the  principle  of  the 
most  perfect  theology ;  which  theology  is  much  more 
excellent  than  all  medicine.' 

"  It  were  too  great  an  undcrlaking,  and  beyond  the 
designed  hmits  of  this  discourse  (though  i(  would  be 
to  excellent  purpose,  if  it  could  he  d ;  wilhout  amus- 
ing terms,  and  in  that  easy,  ruiniliar  way  as  to  be  ca- 
pable of  common  use),  to  imrsue  and  irate  <lislinctly 


the  prints  and  footsteps  of  the  admirable  wisdom 
which  appears  in  the  structure  and  frame  of  this  outer 
temple.  For  even  our  bodies  tliemselves  are  said  to  bo- 
the  temples  of  the  Holy  (Jhost,  1  Cor.  vi.  VJ.  And  to 
dwell  awhile  in  the  coiiteni{)lation  and  discovery  of 
those  numerous  instances  of  most  apparent,  ungain- 
sayable  sagacity  and  providence  which  ofler  them- 
selves to  view  in  every  ]iart  and  particle  of  this  fabric  : 
how  most  coinmndiously  all  things  are  ordered  in  it '. 
With  how  strangely  cautious  circumspection  and  fore- 
sight, not  only  destructive,  but  even  (perpetually)  vexa- 
tious and  afflicting  incongruities  are  avoided  and  pro- 
vided against,  to  jiose  ourselves  upon  the  sundry  obvi- 
ous questions  that  might  be  put  for  the  evincing  of  such 
provident  foresight.  As  for  instance,  how  comes  it  to 
pass  that  the  several  parts  which  we  find  to  be  dimblc 
in  our  bodies,  are  not  single  only  ?  Is  this  altogether 
by  chance  ?  That  there  are  two  eyes,  ears,  nostrils, 
hands,  feet,  &c. :  what  a  miserable,  shiftless  creature 
had  man  been,  if  there  had  only  been  allowed  him  one 
foot  1  A  seeing,  hearing,  talking,  unmoving  statue. 
That  the  hand  is  divided  into  fingers  ?  Those  so  con- 
veniently situate,  one  in  so  filly  opposite  a  posture  to 
the  rest  ? 

"  And  what,  if  eome  one  pair  or  other  of  these  parts 
had  been  universally  wanting?  The  hands,  the  feet, 
the  eyes,  the  ears.  How  great  a  misery  had  it  inferred 
upon  mankind  1  and  is  it  only  a  casualty  that  it  is  not 
so?  That  the  back-bone  is  composed  of  so  many 
joints  (twenty-four,  besides  those  of  that  wluch  is  the 
basis  and  sustainer  of  the  whole),  and  is  not  all  of  a 
piece,  by  which  stooping,  or  any  motion  of  the  head  or 
neck,  diverse  from  that  of  the  whole  body,  had  been 
altogether  impossible  ;  that  there  is  such  variety  and 
cunosity  in  the  ways  of  joining  the  bones  together  in 
that,  and  other  parts  of  the  body,  that  in  some  parts 
they  are  joined  by  mere  adherence  of  one  to  another, 
either  with  or  without  an  intervening  medium,  ami 
both  these  ways  so  diversely;  that  others  are  fa-stened 
together  by  proper  jointing,  so  as  to  suit  and  be  ac- 
companied with  motion,  either  more  obscure  or  mani- 
fest, and  this,  either  by  a  deeper  or  more  superficial  in- 
sertion of  one  bone  into  another,  or  by  a  mutual  inser- 
tion, and  that  in  difl'ereiit  ways;  and  that  all  these 
should  be  so  exactly  accommodated  to  the  several 
parts  and  uses  to  which  they  belong  and  serve ; — was 
all  this  without  design  .'  Who  that  views  the  curious 
and  apt  texture  of  the  eye,  can  think  it  was  not  made 
on  purpose  to  see  with ;  and  the  ear,  upon  the  like 
view,  lor  hearing,  when  so  many  things  must  concur 
that  t'nese  actions  might  be  performed  by  these  organs, 
and  are  found  to  do  so?  Or  who  can  think  that  the 
sundry  Uttle  engines  belonging  to  the  eye  were  not 
made  with  design  to  move  it  upwards,  downwards,  to 
this  side  or  that,  or  whirl  it  about  as  there  should  be 
occasion  ;  without  which  instruments  and  their  appen- 
dages, no  such  motion  could  have  been  ?  Who,  that 
is  not  stupidly  perverse,  can  think  that  the  sundry  in- 
ward parts  (which  it  would  require  a  volume  distinctly 
to  speak  of,  and  but  to  mention  them  and  their  uses 
would  too  unproportionably  swell  this  part  of  this  dis- 
course), were  not  made  purposely  by  a  designing  agent, 
for  the  ends  they  so  aptly  and  constantly  serve  for  ? 
The  want  of  some  one  among  divers  whereof,  or  but 
a  little  misplacing,  or  if  things  had  been  but  a  little 
otherwise  than  they  are,  had  inferred  an  impossibility 
that  such  a  creature  as  man  could  have  subsisted,  or 
been  propagated  upon  the  face  of  the  earth.  As  what 
if  there  had  not  been  such  a  receptacle  prepared  as  the 
stomach  is,  and  so  formed,  and  placed  as  it  is,  to  receive 
and  digest  necessary  nutriment  ?  Had  not  the  whole 
frame  of  man  besides  been  in  vain  ?  Or  what  if  the 
passage  from  it  downwards  had  not  been  made  some- 
what a  little  ascending,  so  as  to  detain  a  convenient 
time  what  it  received,  but  that  what  vv'as  taken  in 
were  suddenly  transmitted  ?  It  is  evident  the  whole 
structure  had  been  ruined  as  soon  as  made.  What  (to 
instance  in  what  seems  so  small  a  matter)  if  that  little 
cover  had  been  wanting  at  the  entrance  of  that  through 
which  we  breathe  (the  depression  whereof  by  the 
weight  of  what  we  eat  or  drink,  shuts  it  and  prevents 
meat  and  drink  from  going  down  that  way) ;  had  not 
unavoidable  sufTocatiori  ensued'  And  who  can  num- 
ber the  instances  that  can  be  given  besides?  Now 
when  there  is  a  concurrence  of  so  many  thing.s  abso- 
lutely neces.sary  (concerning  which  the  common  say- 
ing is  as  apiiljcable,  more  frc(j[uenlly  wont  to  be  applied 


112 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


to  matters  of  morality, — '  Goodness  is  Irom  llie  con- 
1^  currenre  of  all  causes,  evil,  from  any  defeii'),  each  so 
aptly  and  opportunely  serving  its  own  proper  use,  and 
all,  one  common  end,  certamly  to  say  that  so  manifold, 
so  regular  and  stated  a  subserviency  to  that  end,  and 
the  end  itself,  were  undesitimd,  and  tilings  casually 
fell  out  thus,  is  to  say  we  know  or  care  not  what. 

"  We  will  only,  belbre  we  close  this  consideration, 
concerning  the  mere  frame  of  a  human  body  (wliicli 
liath  been  so  hastily  and  superficially  proposed),  offer 
a  supposition  which  is  no  more  strange  (excluding  the 
vulgar  notion  by  which  nothing  is  strange,  but  what  is 
not  common)  than  the  thing  itself  as  it  actually  is ; 
namely.  That  the  whole  more  external  covering  of  the 
body  of  a  man  were  made,  instead  of  skin  and  llesh, 
of  .some  very  transparent  substance,  flexible,  but  clear 
as  very  crystal  ;  through  which,  and  the  other  more 
inward  (and  as  transparent)  integuments,  or  ciifold- 
ings,  we  could  plainly  perceive  the  situation  and  order 
of  all  the  internal  parts,  and  how  they  each  of  them 
perform  their  distinct  oflices;  if  we  could  discern  the 
continual  motion  of  the  blood,  liovv  it  is  conveyed,  by 
its  proper  conduits,  from  its  first  source  and  fountain, 
partly  downwards  to  the  lower  entrails  (if  rather  it 
ascend  not  from  thence,  as  at  least  what  afterward  be- 
comes blood  doth),  partly  upwards,  to  its  admirable 
elaboratory,  the  heart ;  where  it  is  refined  and  fur- 
nished With  fresh  vital  spirits,  and  so  transmitted 
thence  by  the  distinct  vessels,  prepared  for  this  pur- 
pose :  could  we  perceive  the  curious  contrivance  of 
those  little  door.s,  by  which  it  is  let  in  and  out,  on  this 
side  and  on  that ;  tlie  order  and  course  of  its  circula- 
tion, its  most  commodious  distribution  by  two  social 
channels  or  conduit-pipes,  that  every  where  accom- 
pany one  another  throughout  the  body  :  could  we  dis- 
cern the  curious  artifice  of  the  brain,  its  ways  of  pur- 
gation ;  and  were  it  possible  to  jiry  into  the  secret 
chambers  and  receptacles  of  the  less  or  more  jiure 
tipirits  there ;  perceive  their  manifold  conveyances,  and 
the  rare  texture  of  that  net,  commonly  called  the  won- 
derful one:  could  we  behold  the  veins,  arteries,  and 
nerves,  all  of  them  arising  from  their  proper  and  dis- 
tinct originals;  and  their  orderly  dis|iersion  for  the 
most  part,  by  pairs,  and  conjugatior.s,  on  this  side  anrl 
that,  from  the  middle  of  the  back ;  with  the  curiously 
wrought  branches,  which,  supposing  these  to  ajipear 
duly  diversified,  as  so  many  more  duskish  strokes  in 
this  transparent  frame  they  would  be  found  to  make 
throughout  the  whole  of  it;  were  every  smaller  fibre 
thus  made  at  once  discernible,  especially  those  innu- 
merable threads  into  which  the  spinal  marrow  is  dis- 
tributed at  the  bottom  of  the  back :  and  could  we, 
through  the  same  medium,  perceive  those  numerous 
little  machines  made  to  serve  unto  voluntary  motions 
(which  in  the  whole  body  are  computed,  by  .some,  to 
the  number  of  four  hundred  and  thirty,  or  thereabouts, 
or  so  many  of  them  as  according  to  the  present  suppo- 
sition could  possibly  come  in  view),  and  discern  their 
composition,  their  various  and  elegant  figures — round, 
square,  long,  triangular,  &c.,  and  behold  them  do  their 
offices,  and  see  how  they  jily  to  and  fro,  and  work  in 
their  respective  places,  as  any  motion  is  to  be  per- 
formed by  them :  were  all  these  things,  I  say,  thus 
made  liable  to  an  easy  and  distinct  view,  who  would 
not  aiimiringly  cry  out,  H()a\fi:itrfally  and  vnndir- 
f ally  am  I  made  >  And  sure  there  is  no  man  sober, 
who  would  not,  upon  such  a  sight,  i)roiioiiiice  that  man 
mad  that  should  suppo.se  such  a  [iroduction  to  have 
been  a  mere  undesigned  casualty.  At  least,  if  there 
be  any  thing  in  the  world  that  may  be  thought  to  carry 
sullicienlly  convincing  evidences  in  it,  of  its  having 
been  made  industriously,  and  on  purpose,  not  by 
chance,  would  not  this  composition,  thus  offered  to 
view,  be  esteemed  to  do  so  much  more?  Yea,  and  if 
it  did  only  bear  upon  it  clmraclers  equally  evidential 
of  wisdom  and  design,  wiili  what  doth  certainly  so, 
though  in  the  lowest  degree,  it  were  sufficient  to 
evince  our  iiresent  purpose.  I''or  if  one  such  instance 
as  this  would  bring  the  matter  no  higher  than  to  a 
bare  equality,  that  would  at  least  argue  a  maker  of 
man's  body,  as  wise,  and  as  properly  designins,  as  the 
artificer  of  any  such  slighter  piece  of  workmanship, 
that  may  yet,  certainly,  be  concluded  the  effect  of  skill 
and  design.  And  then,  enough  might  be  said,  from 
other  instances,  to  manifest  him  unspeakably  superior. 
.\nd  that  the  matter  would  be  broughl,  nl  Icasi,  to  an 
equality,  upon  the  bupposition  now  made,  there  laii  be 


[Part  U. 

no  doubt,  if  any  one  be  judge  that  hath  not  abjured  his 
understanding  and  his  eyes  together.  And  what  then, 
if  we  lay  aside  that  supposition  (which  only  somewhat 
gratifies  fancy  and  imagination),  doih  that  alter  the 
case  ?  Or  is  there  the  less  of  wisdom  and  contrivance 
expressed  in  this  work  of  forming  man's  body,  only  for 
that  it  is  not  so  easily  and  suddenly  obvious  to  our 
sight .'  Then  we  might  with  the  same  reason  say,  con- 
cerning some  curious  piece  of  carved  work  that  is 
thought  fit  to  be  kept  locked  up  in  a  cabinet,  when  we 
see  it,  that  there  was  admirable  workiiianshiii  shown 
in  doing  it;  but  as  soon  as  it  is  again  slnii  up  in  its  re- 
pository, that  there  was  none  at  all.  Iiiasinuch  as  we 
sjieak  of  the  objective  characters  of  wisdom  and  de- 
sign, that  are  in  the  thing  itself  (though  they  must 
some  way  or  other  come  under  our  notice,  otherwise 
we  can  be  capable  of  arguing  nothing  from  them),  yet, 
since  we  have  sufficient  assurance  that  there  really 
are  such  characters  in  the  structure  of  the  body  of 
man  as  has  been  mentioned,  and  a  thousand  more  than 
have  been  thought  necessary  to  be  mentioned  here  ;  it 
is  plain  that  the  greater  or  less  facility  of  finding  thern 
out,  so  that  we  be  at  a  certainty  that  they  are  (whel  her 
by  the  slower  or  more  gradual  search  of  our  own  eyes, 
or  by  relying  upon  the  testimony  of  such  as  have  pur- 
clia.sed  themselves  that  satisfaction  by  their  own  la- 
bour and  diligence),  is  merely  accidental  to  the  thing 
itself  we  are  discoursing  of  ;  iiiid  neither  adds  to,  nor 
detracts  from,  the  rational  evidence  of  the  present  ar- 
gument. Or  if  it  do  cither,  the  more  abstruse  paths  of 
divine  wisdom  in  this,  as  in  other  things,  do  rather 
recommend  it  the  more  to  our  adoration  and  reverence, 
than  if  every  thing  were  obvious,  and  lay  open  to  the 
first  glance  of  a  more  careless  eye.  The  things  which 
we  arc  sure  (or  may  be,  if  we  do  not  shut  our  eyes) 
the  wise  Maker  of  this  world  hath  done,  do  sufKciently 
.serve  to  assure  us,  that  he  could  have  done  this  also ; 
that  is.  have  made  every  thing  in  the  frame  and  shape 
oi  our  bodies  consjiicuous  in  the  way  but  now  sui>- 
posed,  if  he  had  thought  it  fit.  lie  haih  done  greater 
things.  And  since  he  hath  not  thought  thai  fit,  we 
may  be  bold  to  say,  the  doing  of  it  would  signify  more 
trilling,  and  less  design.  It  gives  us  a  more  amiable 
and  comely  representation  of  the  Heing  we  are  treating 
of,  that  his  works  are  less  for  ostentation  than  use; 
and  that  his  wisdom  and  other  attributes  appear  in 
them  rather  to  the  instruction  of  sober,  than  the  grati- 
fication of  vain  minds. 

"  We  may  therefore  confidently  conclude,  that  the 
figuration  of  the  human  body  carries  w  itii  it  as  manifest, 
uiniuestionable  evidences  of  design,  a.s  any  piece  of  hu- 
man artifice,  that  most  confessedly,  in  the  judgment  of 
any  man,  doth  so  ;  and  therefore  had  as  certainly  a  de- 
signing cause.  We  may  challenge  the  world  to  show 
a  disparity,  unless  it  be  tliat  the  advanlane  is  incon- 
ceivably great  on  our  side.  For  would  not  any  one  that 
halh  nut  abandoned  both  his  reason  and  his  modesty, 
be  ashamed  to  confess  and  admire  the  skill  that  is 
shown  in  making  a  statue,  or  the  jiicture  of  a  man, 
that  (as  one  iMgeiiiously  says)  is  but  the  shadow  of  his 
skin,  and  deny  the  wisdom  that  ajipears  in  the  compo- 
sure of  his  body  itself,  that  lontains  so  numerous  and 
so  various  engines  and  instruments  for  sundry  purposes 
in  it,  asthatit  is  become  an  art,imda  very  laudable  one, 
but  to  discover  and  find  out  the  art  and  skill  that  are 
shown  hi  the  contrivance  and  tiirmation  of  them  ? 

"  And  now,  if  any  should  be  so  incurably  blind  as  not 
to  perceive,  or  so  perversely  w  illul  as  not  to  acknow- 
ledge, an  aiipenranee  of  wisdom  in  the  frame  and  figura- 
tion of  the  body  of  an  animal  (peculiarly  of  man)  more 
than  eipial  to  what  appears  in  any  the  most  exquisite 
piece  of  human  arlilice,  and  which  no  wit  of  man  can 
ever  liiily  imilate:  altiiough,  as  hath  been  said,  an  ac- 
knowledged equality  would  suffice  to  evince  a  wise 
Maker  thereof,  yet  because  it  is  the  existence  of  God 
we  are  now  speaking  of,  and  that  it  is  theretbre  not 
enough  to  evince,  but  to  magnify  the  wl.sdum  we  would 
ascribe  to  him ;  we  shall  iiass  from  the  parts  luid  frame, 
to  the  consideration  of  the  more  principal  powers  and 
functions  of  terrestrial  creatures ;  ascending  IVom  such 
as  agree  to  the  less  perfect  order  of  these,  to  thoso  of 
the  more  perfect,  namely  of  man  himself.  And  surely 
to  have  been  the  author  of  faculties  that  shall  enable  to 
such  functions,  will  evidence  a  wisdom  that  defies  onr 
imilalion,  and  will  dismay  the  attempts  of  it. 

"  We  begin  with  that  of  croiilh.  Many  sorts  of  rare 
engines  wc  acknowledge  contrived  by  the  wiiof  man 


Chap.  I.] 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


113 


but  who  hath  ftver  made  one  thai  could  grow,  or  that 
hud  ill  It  a  selt'-iniproving  povvtr  ?  A  tree,  itn  herb,  a 
pile  or  grass,  may  upon  this  account  cliallenge  all  the 
world  to  make  such  a  thing;  that  is,  to  implant  the 
power  of  growing  into  any  thing  to  which  it  dotli  not 
iiulively  belong,  or  to  niake'a  thing  to  which  it  doth. 

"  Uy  what  art  would  they  make  a  seed  '.  And  which 
way  would  thev  inspire  it  with  a  seminal  form  ?  And 
they  that  think  "this  whole  globe  of  the  earth  was  com- 
pacted by  the  casual  (or  fatal)  coalition  of  particles  of 
matter,  by  what  magic  would  they  conjure  up  so  many 
to  come  together  as  to  make  one  clod  ?  We  vainly 
hunt  with  a  lingering  mind  after  miracles  ;  if  we  did 
not  more  vainly  inean  by  them  nothing  else  but  novelties, 
we  are  compassed  about  with  such :  and  the  greatest 
miracle  is,  that  we  see  them  not.  Vou  with  whom  the 
daily  i)ro(luctions  of  nature  (as  you  call  it)  are  so  cheap, 
see  if  you  can  do  the  like.  Try  your  skill  upon  a  rose. 
Vea,  but  you  must  have  pre-existent  matter  ?  But  can 
you  ever  jirove  the  Maker  of  the  world  had  so,  or  even 
defend  the  possibility  of  uncreated  matter?  And  sup- 
[lose  they  had  the  free  grant  of  all  the  matter  between 
(he  crown  of  their  head  and  the  moon,  could  they  tell 
what  to  do  with  it,  or  how  to  manage  it,  so  as  to  make 
it  \  ieid  thein  one  single  tlower,  that  they  might  glory  in 
as  their  own  production  1 

"And  what  mortal  man,  that  hath  reason  enough 
about  him  to  be  serious,  and  to  think  a  while,  would  not 
even  bo  amazed  at  the  miracle  of  nutrition^  Or  that 
there  are  things  in  the  world  capable  of  nourishment  1 
Or  who  would  attempt  an  imitation  here,  or  not  despair 
to  perform  any  thing  like  it  ?  That  is,  to  make  any 
nourishable  thing.  Are  we  not  here  infinitely  outdone  ? 
Do  we  not  see  ourselves  compassed  about  with  wonders, 
and  are  we  not  ourselves  such,  in  that  we  see,  and  are 
creatures,  from  all  whose  parts  there  is  a  continual  de- 
lluxion,  and  yet  that  receive  a  constant  gradual  supply 
and  renovation,  by  which  they  are  continued  in  the 
same  state  ?  As  the  bush  burning  but  not  consumed. 
It  is  easy  to  give  an  artificial  frame  to  a  thing  that  shall 
gradually  decay  and  waste  till  it  be  quite  gone,  and 
disa|)[Kar.  You  could  raise  a  structure  of  snow,  that 
would  soon  do  that.  But  can  your  manual  skill  com- 
pose a  thing  that,  like  our  bodies,  shall  be  continually 
melting  away,  and  be  continually  repaired,  through  so 
long  a  tract  of  time  ?  Nay,  but  can  you  tell  how  it  is 
done  .'  You  know  in  what  method,  and  by  what  instru- 
ments, food  is  received,  concocted,  separated,  and  so 
much  as  must  serve  for  nourishment,  turned  into  chyle, 
and  that  into  blood,  first  grosser,  and  then  more  refined, 
and  that  distributed  into  all  parts  for  this  purjiose. 
Yea,  and  what  then  ?  Therefore  are  you  as  wise  as 
your  Maker  ?  Could  you  have  made  such  a  tiling  as 
the  stomach,  a  liver,  a  heart,  a  vein,  an  artery  ?  Or  are 
you  so  very  sure  what  the  digestive  quality  is?  Or  if 
you  are,  and  know  what  things  best  serve  to  maintain, 
to  repair,  or  strengthen  it,  who  implanted  that  quality  ? 
Both  where  it  is  so  immediately  useful,  or  in  the  other 
thmgs  you  would  use  for  the  service  of  that  ?  Or  how, 
if  such  things  had  not  been  prepared  to  your  hand, 
would  you  have  devised  to  persuade  the  particles  of 
matter  into  so  useful  and  happy  a  conjuncture,  as  that 
such  a  quality  might  result  ?  Or  (to  speak  more 
suitably  to  the  most)  how,  if  you  had  not  been  shown 
the  way,  would  you  have  thought  it  were  to  be  done,  or 
which  way  would  you  have  gone  to  work,  to  turn  meat 
and  drink  into  llesh  and  blood  ? 

"  And  what  shall  we  say  of  spo^itaneous  motion, 
wherewith  we  find  also  creatures  endowed  thit  are  so 
mean  and  despicable  ;n  our  eyes  (as  well  as  ourselves), 
that  is,  that  .so  silly  a  thing  as  a  fly,  a  gnat,  &c.,  should 
have  a  power  in  it  to  move  itself,  or  stop  its  own  mo- 
lion,  at  its  own  pleasure  ?  How  far  have  all  attempted 
imitations  in  this  kind  fallen  short  of  this  perfection  1 
And  how  much  more  e.\cellent  a  thing  is  the  smallest 
and  most  contemptible  insect,  than  the  most  admired 
machine  we  ever  heard  or  read  of  (as  Arcliitas  Taren- 
tinus's  dove  so  anciently  celebrated,  or  more  lately 
llegiomontanus's  fly,  or  his  eagle,  or  any  the  like) ;  not 
only  as  having  this  peculiar  power,  above  any  thing  of 
this  sort,  but  as  having  the  sundry  other  pmoers,  besides, 
meeting  in  it,  whereof  these  are  wholly  destitute  ? 

"  And  should  we  go  on  to  instance  further  in  the 
several  ])ovversof  sensation,  both  external  and  internal, 
the  various  instincts,  appetitions,  passions,  sympathies, 
antipathies,  the  jiowers  of  memory  (and  we  nnght  add 
of  speech),  that  wo  find  the  inferior  orders  of  creatures 
II 


either  generally  furnished  with,  or  some  of  them,  as  to 
this  last,  disjioscd  uiilo;  how  should  we  even  overdo 
the  present  business ;  and  too  needlessly  instilt  over 
human  wit  (which  \\i-  imisl  suppose  to  have  already 
yielded  the  cause),  in  challenging  it  to  produce  and  offer 
to  view  a  hearing,  seeing  engine,  that  can  imagine,  talk, 
is  capable  of  hunger,  thirst,  of  desire,  anger,  tear,  grief, 
<tc.,  as  its  own  creature,  concerning  which  it  may 
glory  and  .say,  /  have  done  this  '. 

"  Is  it  so  admirable  a  performance,  and  so  ungain- 
sayable  an  evidence  of  skill  and  wisdom,  with  much 
labour  and  long  travail  of  mind  ;  a  busy,  restless  agita- 
tion of  working  thoughts ;  the  ollen  renewal  of  frus- 
trated attempts ;  the  varying  of  defeated  trials,  this 
way  and  that,  at  length  to  hit  upon,  and  by  much  jiains, 
and  with  a  slow,  gradual  progress,  by  the  use  of  who 
can  tell  how  many  sundry  sorts  of  instruments  or  tools, 
by  long  hewing,  hammering,  turning,  filing,  to  compose 
one  only  single  machine  of  such  a  frame  and  structure 
as  that  by  the  frequent  reinforcement  of  a  skilful  hand, 
it  may  be  capable  of  some  (and  that  otherwise  but  a 
very  short-lived)  motion  ?  And  is  it  no  argument,  or 
effect  of  wisdom,  so  easily  and  certainly,  without 
labour,  error,  or  disappointment,  to  frame  both  so  infinite 
a  variety  of  kinds,  and  .so  innumerable  individuals  of 
every  such  kind  of  living  creatures,  that  not  only  with 
the  greatest  facility  can  move  themselves  with  so  many 
sorts  of  motion  downwards,  upwards,  to  and  fro,  this 
way  or  ;that,  with  a  progressive  or  circular,  a  swifter  or 
a  slower  motion,  at  their  own  pleasure ;  but  can  also 
grow,  propagate,  see,  hear,  desire,  joy,  &c.  ?  Is  this  no 
work  of  wisdom,  but  only  either  blind  fate  or  chance? 
Of  how  strangely  perverse  and  odd  a  complexionis  that 
understanding  (if  yet  it  may  be  called  an  understand- 
ing), that  can  make  this  judgment? 

"But  because  whatsoever  comes  under  the  name  of 
cogitation,  properly  taken,  is  assigned  to  some  higher 
cause  than  mechanism  :  and  that  there  are  operations 
belonging  to  man,  whicn  lay  claim  to  a  reasonable  soul, 
as  the  immediate  principle  and  author  of  them,  we  have 
yet  this  farther  step  to  advance,  that  \g,  to  consider  the 
most  apparent  evidence  we  have  of  a  wise,  designing 
agent,  in  the  powers  and  nature  of  this  more  excellent, 
and,  among  other  things,  more  obvious  to  our  notice, 
the  noblest  of  his  productions. 

"  And  were  it  not  for  the  slothful  neglect  of  the  most 
to  study  themselves,  we  should  not  have  need  to  recount 
unto  men  the  common  and  well-known  abilities  and 
excellences  which  peculiarly  belong  to  their  own  na- 
ture. They  might  take  notice,  without  being  told,  that 
first,  as  to  their  intellectual  faculty,  Ihey  have  some- 
what about  them  that  can  think,  understand,  frame 
notions  of  things ;  that  can  rectify  or  supply  the  false  or 
defective  representations  which  are  made  to  them  by 
their  external  senses  and  fancies  ;  that  can  conceiveof 
things  far  above  the  reach  and  sphere  of  sense,  the  moral 
good  or  evil  of  actions  or  inclinations,  and  what  there  is 
in  them  of  rcclitudeorpravity  ;  whereby  they  can  ani- 
madvert, and  cast  theireye  ill  wani  upon  themselves  ;  ob- 
serve the  good  or  evil  acts  or  iiicliiiatuins,  the  knowledge, 
ignorance, dulness,  vigour,  tranquillity,  trouble,  and,  ge- 
nerally, the  perfections  or  imperfections  of  their  own 
minds ;  that  can  apprehend  the  general  natures  of  things, 
the  future  existence  of  what  yet  is  not,  with  the  future 
appearance  of  that  which,  to  us,  as  yet,  appears  not. 

"  They  may  take  notice  of  their  power  of  comparing 
things,  of  discerning  and  making  a  judgment  of  their 
agreements  and  disagreements,  their  proportions  and 
dispositions  to  one  another ;  of  affirming  or  denying 
this  or  that,  concerning  such  or  such  things  ;  and  of  pro- 
nouncing, with  more  or  less  confidence, concerning  the 
truth  or  falsehood  of  such  affirmations  or  negations. 

"  And  moreover,  of  their  power  of  argutnir,  and  in- 
ferring one  thing  from  another,  so  as  from  one  plain  and 
evident  principle  to  draw  forth  a  long  chain  of  conse- 
quences, that  may  be  discerned  to  be  linked  therewith. 

"  They  have  withal  to  consider  the  liberty  and  the 
large  capacity  of  the  human  will,  which,  when  it  is  it- 
self, rejects  the  dominion  of  any  other  Ihan  the  Supreme 
Lord's,  and  refuses  satisfaction  in  any  otlier  than  the 
supreme  and  most  comprehensive  good. 

"  And  upon  even  so  hasty  and  transient  a  view  of  a 
thing  furnished  with  such  powers  and  farulties,  we 
have  sullicient  occasion  to  bethink  ourselves.  How 
came  such  a  thing  as  this  into  being;  whence  did  it 
spring,  or  to  what  original  doth  it  owe  itself?  More 
particularly  wc  have  here  two  things  to  be  remembered 


114 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  11. 


— 'nir.t.noiwiiliHtanding  so  hiL'liixrciicnrTM.iticHoul  ol 
inuiidolh  5 1,1  iii^pc.ir  to  t)(;a<;iiis(<l  Ikiul',  llcil  MOiiictiriie 
liiul  a  lj('(;iiiiiiii;,'— 'I'lmtby  tlioiii  It  issiiHiili  nlly  rviilulit, 
tlialM  owes  ilscir  loa  wiscund  irilclljgiiil  lansc." 

'I'lin  ]inilaM((^  oC  a  watch,  cIiohoii  by  llowo  Ibr  tlic. 
illustriirioii  or  Ills  ar^'Urneiit,  lliat  evidi.iipcs  of  design, 
in  any  i)ro<lui;tioii,  are  cvidciiifH  of  a  disummg  cau.se, 
iti  tliiiti  strikingly  amplilicd  atiil  applied  l>y  I'aley  to  re- 
fute the  leading  atheistic  tlicorii-s.  "'I'lic;  nieclmiiism 
of  the  watch  being  once  obmrveil  and  understood,  the 
inference,  we  think,  is  inevitable,  that  the  watch  mUHt 
have  had  a  maker;  that  there  must  have  existed,  at 
sonic  time  and  at  some  place  or  oilier,  au  artificer  or  ar- 
tifici.TS  who  Ibrnied  it  for  the  (jiirpose  which  we  find  it 
actually  to  answer;  who  eoinprehendcd  its  construc- 
tion, and  desiirned  its  use. 

"  i\or  would  it,  I  apprehend,  weaken  tlie  conclusion, 
thai  we  had  never  seen  a  watch  made;  that  we  had 
never  known  an  artist  capable  of  making  one ;  that  we 
were  altogether  inea])able  of  executing  such  a  jiiece  of 
workmaiisliip  ourselves,  or  of  understanding  in  what 
maimer  it  was  pi^rfornurd ;  all  llils  Ijcijig  no  more  than 
what  is  true  of  some  exijuisitc  remains  ol  amiiMit  art, 
of  some  lost  arts,  and,  to  iIk^  gciii'ralily  ol'  niaiikind,  of 
the  more  curious  productions  ol'  iiiuilcVii  niaiiiilacture. 
Does  one  man  in  a  million  know  liou  oval  I'liinirs  are 
turned?  Ignorance  of  tins  kind  exalls  our  npininn  of 
the  unseen  and  unknown  artist's  skill,  il  lie  be  unseen 
and  unknown,  but  raises  no  doubt  in  our  minds  ol'  the 
existence  and  agency  of  such  an  artist,  at  some  former 
time,  and  in  some  place  or  other.  Nor  can  I  perceive 
that  it  varies  at  all  the  inference,  whether  the  question 
arise  concerning  a  human  agent,  or  concerning  an  agent 
of  a  dilTerent  species,  or  an  agent  iiossessnig,  in  some 
resp(tcts,  a  dlirercnt  nalnre. 

'■  Neither,  secondly,  would  it  invalidate  our  conclu- 
sion, that  the  watcli  {jometimos  went  wrong,  or  that  il 
seldom  went  exactly  right.  The  purjiose  of  the  ma- 
chinery, the  design,  and  the  designer  might  be  evident, 
and  in  the  case  supposed  would  be  evident,  in  wlial- 
eyer  way  we  aci-ouiiled  for  the  irregularity  of  the  movc;- 
tnent,  or  whether  we  could  account  for  it  or  not.  It  is 
not  necessary  that  a  machine  be  perfect,  in  order  to 
show  with  what  design  it  vva-s  made :  slill  less  neces- 
sary, wliere  the  only  (luestion  is,  whether  it  were  made 
with  any  design  at  all. 

"  Nor,  thirdly,  would  it  bring  any  uncertainty  into 
the  argument,  if  there  were  a  few  parts  of  the  watch, 
concerning  which  we  could  not  discover,  or  had  not  yet 
discovered  in  what  manner  they  condui^ed  to  the  gene- 
ral eflect;  or  even  some  parts  coni^erning  which  we 
could  not  ascertain,  whether  they  conduced  to  that  eflect 
in  any  manner  whatever.  For,  as  to  the  first  branch 
of  the  ca.se,  if,  by  the  loss,  or  disorder,  or  decay  of  the 
parts  in  (luestion,  the  movement  of  the  watch  were  found 
in  fact  to  be  slopped,  or  disturbed,  or  retarded,  no  doubt 
would  remain  in  our  minds  as  to  the  utility  or  intention 
of  these  parts,  alilioii:.'li  we  should  be  unable  to  invi.'stl- 
gate  the  manner  according  to  which  or  the  connexion 
by  which,  the  ultimate  effect  de[iended  upon  their  ac- 
tion or  assistance ;  and  the  more  complex  is  the  ma- 
chine, the  more  likely  is  this  obscurity  to  arise.  Then, 
as  to  the  second  tlung  sujiposed,  namely,  that  there 
were  parts  which  might  be  sjiared  without  [irejudice  to 
the  movement  of  the  watch,  and  that  we  had  [iroved 
this  by  exjieriment, — these  superfluous  parts,  even  if 
we  were  completely  assured  that  they  were  hiicIi, 
would  not  vacate  the  rea.soniiig  which  we  had  instituti'il 
concerning  other  parts.  The  indication  of  comrivance 
remained,  witli  respect  to  them,  nearly  as  it  wa.s  before. 
"  Nor,  fourthly,  would  any  man  in  liis  senses  think 
the  existence  ofthc  watch,  with  its  various  machinery, 
accounted  for  by  being  told  thai  it  was  imn  nut  of  pax- 
.iiblr  comliinntioti,.s  of  mati;rial  forms;  that  whatever 
he  had  found,  in  the  pla<i'  where  lic^  had  found  the 
watch,  must  have  contained  some  internal  configuration 
or  other;  and  that  this  coiiligiiralioii  might  be  the 
stniclure  now  exhibited,  namely,  of  Ihc  works  of  a 
watch,  as  well  as  a  diflTcrent  structure. 

'■  Nor,  liflhly,  would  it  yield  his  ini|uiry  niorc  satis- 
faction to  be  answered,  that  there  existed  in  things  « 
principli  of  ordir,  which  had  disposed  the  parts  of  the 
watch  into  their  jiresent  form  and  sit  mil  ion.  lie  never 
knew  a  watch  made  by  the  principle  of  order;  nor  can 
he  e'ven  form  to  himself  an  idea  of  what  is  meant  by  a 
principle  of  order,  dialincl  from  the  intelligence  of  the 
watchmaker. 


"  Sixthly,  lie  would  be  sun>rised  to  hear,  that  the 
mechanism  of  the  watch  was  no  |iroof  of  conlnvance, 
only  a  niolivr  to  iiidurc  Ihf  mind  Id  lliinic  ko. 

"And  not  less  surjirlsed  to  be  informed,  that  the  ' 
wal(;h  in  his  lian<l  was  nolhing  more  than  the  rcusult  of 
the  luux  of  nietallic  nnturc.  It  is  a  jierversion  of  lan- 
guage to  assign  any  law,  a.s  the  eflieieiit, operative  cause 
of  any  thing.  A  law  |irf.sii|i|)oses  an  agent ;  for  it  in 
only  the  mode  according  to  which  an  agent  jiroceeds : 
It  implies  a  power;  for  it  is  the  order  according  to 
which  that  jiower  acts.  Without  this  agent,  without 
this  jiower,  which  are  both  distinct  from  il.self,  the  lutii 
does  nothing, — is  nothing.  'I'he  cxpres.sion,  '  the  law 
of  melitllic  nature,'  may  sound  strange  and  harsh  to  a 
Iihiloseiihic  ear,  but  it  seems  quite  as  justifiable  as  soiim 
others  which  arc  more  familiar  to  him,  such  as  '  the 
law  of  vegetable  nature,'  'the  law  of  animal  nature,' 
or  indeed  as  'the  law  of  nature'  in  general,  when  a.s- 
signed  as  the  cause  of  phenomena,  in  exclusion  id' 
agency  and  power;  or  when  it  is  substituted  infi  the 
place  of  these. 

"Neither,  lastly,  would  our  observer  be  driven  out 
of  his  conclusion,  or  from  his  conlidiun*  in  its  truth, 
by  being  told  that  he  knew  nothing  at  all  about  tliB 
matter.  He  knows  enough  fiir  his  argument ;  hi^ 
knows  the  utility  of  the  end ;  he  knows  the  sub- 
serviency and  ailaptalion  of  the  means  to  the  end. 
These  points  being  known,  his  ignorance  of  other 
points,  his  doubts  concerning  other  points,  affect  not 
the  <ertainty  of  his  rejisoning.  The  consciousness  of 
knowing  little  need  not  beget  a  distrust  of  that  wliich 
he  does  know. 

"  ^uiipose,  in  the  next  place,  that  the  person  who 
found  the  watch  should,  alter  some  time,  discover  that, 
in  addition  to  all  the  |pri)perlies  which  he  had  hitherto 
observed  in  it,  it  possessiMl  the  unexpected  property  of 
liroducing,  in  the  course  of  its  movement,  another  watch 
like  itself  (the  thing  is  conceivable) ;  that  it  contained 
within  it  a  mechaiusm,  a  system  of  parts,  a  mould  for 
instance,  or  a  complex  adjusiment  of  lathes,  files,  anil 
other  tools,  evidently  and  separately  laleulated  for  this 
purpo.se;  let  us  inquinr  what  elli-ct  ought  such  a  disco- 
very to  have  upon  his  former  eoneliision. 

"The  first  eil'ect  would  be  to  iiicrea.se  his  admiration 
of  the  contrivance,  and  his  conviction  of  the  cuiisum- 
niale  skill  of  the  contriver.  'U'helher  he  regarded  the 
object  of  the  contrivance,  the  disiimi  apjiaralus,  the  in- 
tricate, yet  in  many  )>arts  intelligible,  mechanism,  by 
which  it  was  carried  on,  he  would  pirceive,  in  this  new 
observation,  nothing  but  an  additional  n  a^on  liir  doing 
what  he  had  already  done;  lor  reliTrmg  the  con.struc- 
tion  of  the  watch  to  design  and  to  sui]renie  art.  If  that 
construction  vnt/iout  this  projierty,  or,  which  is  the 
same  thing,  before  this  projierty  had  been  noticed, 
proved  intention  and  art  to  have  been  employed  about 
it ;  still  more  strong  would  the  proof  appear,  when  he 
came  to  the  knowledge  of  this  farther  property,  the 
crown  and  perfection  of  all  the  rest. 

"  He  would  refiect,  that  though  the  watch  before  him 
were,  in  so7ne  siii.se,  the  maker  of  the  watch  which 
was  fabricated  in  the  course  of  its  movements,  yet  it 
was  in  a  very  diflTcrent  sense  from  that  in  which  a  i-ar- 
jienter,  for  instance,  is  the  maker  of  a  chair;  the  author 
of  its  contrivance,  the  cause  of  the  relation  of  its  pans 
to  their  use.  With  ri^spect  to  these,  the  first  watcli 
was  no  cause  at  all  to  the  second  ;  in  no  such  sense  as 
this  was  it  the  author  of  the  constiluiion  and  order, 
either  of  Ihc  parts  which  the  new  watch  conialiied,  or 
of  the  parts  by  the  aid  and  instrumenlalily  of  whicli  it 
was  produced.  We  might  possibly  say,  but  with  great 
latitude  of  expression,  that  a  siream  of  water  ground 
corn:  but  no  latiliide  of  expression  wonlil  allow  us  to 
say,  no  stretch  of  cdiijectiire  could  lead  us  to  think, 
that  the  stream  of  water  built  the  mill,  lliough  it  were 
too  ancient  for  us  to  know  who  I  he  builder  was.  What 
the  stream  of  water  does  in  the  aflUir  is  neither  more 
nor  less  than  this:  by  the  application  of  aii  unintelligeni 
impulse  to  a  mechatiism  jirevionsly  arrangiil,  arranged 
independently  of  it,  and  arranged  by  inlelligence,  an 
eflTect  is  produced,  namely,  the  corn  is  ground.  But 
the  effect  results  fVom  the  arrangement.  The  force  of 
the  stream  cannot  be  said  to  he  the  cause  or  author  of 
theellecl,  HtiU  less  of  the  arrangement.  Understand- 
ing and  jilan  in  the  fonnation  rif  the  mill  were  not  the 
less  necessary,  for  any  share  whii-li  the  water  has  in 
grinding  the  cum  :  yet  is  this  share  the  same,  a.s  that 
which  the  watch  would  have  contributed  lo  the  pro- 


Chap.  I.] 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


115 


duction  of  tlie  new  watch,  upon  the  sapposition  as- 
sumed in  the  Uist  .sectioii.     Therefore, 

"Though  It  l)e  now  no  Ujiigcr  jirobable,  that  the  indi- 
vidual watch  which  our  observer  had  found,  was  made 
immediately  by  the  hand  of  an  artificer,  yet  doth  not 
this  alteration  ni  any  wise  affect  the  inference,  that  an 
artificer  had  been  originally  employed  and  concerned 
in  the  production.  The  argument  from  design  remains 
aa  it  was.  Marks  of  design  and  contrivance  are  no 
more  accounted  lor  now  than  they  were  before.  In  the 
same  thing,  we  may  ask  (or  the  cause  of  different  pro- 
perties. We  may  ask  for  the  cause  of  the  colour  of  a 
body,  of  its  hardness,  of  its  heat;  and  these  causes 
may  be  all  different.  We  are  now  asking  for  the  cause 
of  that  subserviency  to  a  use,  that  relation  to  an  end 
■which  we  have  marked  in  the  watch  before  us.  No 
answer  is  given  to  this  question  by  telling  us  that  a 
preceding  watch  produced  it.  There  cannot  be  design 
without  a  designer ;  contrivance  without  a  contriver ; 
order  without  choice ;  arrangement  without  any  thing 
capable  of  arranging ;  subserviency  and  relation  to  a 
purpose,  without  that  which  could  intend  a  purpose ; 
means  suit;ihle  to  an  end,  and  executing  their  office  in 
accom|ilishiiig  that  end,  without  the  end  ever  having 
been  coMteiii|)lated,  or  the  means  accommodated  to  it. 
Arrangement,  disposition  of  parts,  subserviency  of 
means  to  an  end,  relation  of  instruments  to  a  use,  imjily 
the  presence  of  intelligence  and  mind.  No  one,  there- 
fore, can  rationally  believe,  that  the  insensible,  inani- 
mate watch,  from  which  the  watch  belbre  us  issued, 
was  the  proper  cause  of  the  mechanism  we  so  much 
admire  in  it ;  could  be  truly  said  to  have  constructed  the 
instrument,  disposed  its  part.s,  assigned  their  office,  de- 
termined their  order,  action,  and  mutual  dependence, 
combined  their  several  motions  into  one  result,  and 
that  also  a  result  connected  vvith  the  utilities  of  other 
beings.  All  these  properties,  therefore,  are  as  much 
unaccounted  for  as  they  were  before. 

"  Nor  is  any  thing  gained  by  running  the  ditficulty 
farther  back,  that  is,  by  supposing  the  watch  before  us 
to  have  been  jtroduced  from  another  watch,  that  from  a 
former,  and  so  on  indefinitely.  Our  going  back  ever  so 
far  brings  us  no  nearer  to  the  least  degree  of  satisfac- 
tion upon  the  subject.  Contrivance  is  still  unaccounted 
for.  We  still  want  a  contriver.  A  designing  mind  is 
neither  supplied  by  this  sui)position,  nor  dispensed  with. 
If  the  difficulty  were  diminished  the  farther  we  went 
back,  by  going  back  indefinitely  we  might  exhaust  it. 
And  this  is  the  only  case  to  which  this  sort  of  reasoning 
apjjlies.  Where  there  is  a  tendency,  or,  as  we  increase 
the  number  of  terms,  a  continual  approach  towards  a 
limit,  there,  by  supposing  the  number  of  terms  to  be 
what  is  called  infinite,  we  may  conceive  the  limit  to  be 
attained  :  but  where  there  is  no  such  tendency  or  ap- 
proach, nothing  is  effected  by  lengthening  the  series. 
There  is  no  difference  as  to  the  (loint  in  question  (what- 
ever they  may  be  as  to  many  points),  between  one 
series  and  another ;  between  a  series  which  is  finite, 
and  a  .series  which  is  infinite.  A  chain,  composed  ot" 
an  infinite  number  of  links,  can  no  more  support  it- 
self, than  a  chain  composed  of  a  finite  number  of  links. 
And  of  this  we  are  assured  (though  we  never  can  have 
tried  the  experiment),  because,  by  increasing  the  num- 
ber of  links,  from  ten,  for  instance,  to  a  hundred,  from 
a  hundred  to  a  thou.sand,  &c.,  we  make  not  the  smallest 
approach,  wc  observe  not  the  smallest  tendency  towards 
self-support.  There  is  no  difference  in  this  respect  (yet 
there  may  be  a  great  difference  in  several  respects)  be- 
tween a  chain  of  a  greater  or  less  length,  between  one 
chain  and  another,  between  one  that  is  finite  and  one 
that  is  indefinite.  This  very  much  resembles  the  case 
before  us.  The  macliine  which  we  are  inspecting  de- 
monstrates by  its  construction,  contrivance,  and  design. 
Contrivance  must  have  had  a  contriver;  design,  a  de- 
signer: whether  the  machine  immediately  proceeded 
from  another  macliine  or  not.  That  circumstance 
alters  not  the  case.  That  other  machine  may,  in  like 
manner,  have  proceeded  from  a  former  machine :  nor 
does  that  alter  the  case:  contrivance  nnist  have  had  a 
contriver.  That  former  one  from  one  preceding  it ;  no 
alteration  still;  a  contriver  is  still  necessary.  No  ten- 
dency is  perceived,  no  approach  towards  a  diminution 
of  this  necessity.  It  is  the  same  with  any  and  every 
succession  of  these  machines ;  a  succession  of  ten,  of 
a  hundred,  of  a  thousand ;  with  one  .series  as  with 
another ;  a  series  which  is  finite,  as  with  a  series  which 
is  infinite.    In  whatever  other  respects  they  may  differ, 


in  this  they  do  not.    In  all,  equally,  contrivance  and 
design  are  unaccounted  lor. 

"The  question  is  not  simply,  IIow  came  the  first 
watch  into  existence?  which  question,  it  may  be  pre- 
tended, IS  done  away  by  supposing  the  series  of  watches 
thus  produced  tiom  one  another  to  have  been  infinite, 
and  consequently  to  have  had  no  such>Vs/,  lor  which 
it  was  necessary  to  provide  a  cause.  This  perhaps 
would  have  been  nearly  the  state  of  the  qucsiimi,  if 
nothing  had  been  before  us  but  an  unorganizeil,  un- 
mechanized  substance,  without  mark  or  indication  of 
contrivance.  It  might  be  difficult  to  show  that  such 
substance  could  not  have  existed  from  eternity,  either 
in  succession  (if  it  were  possible,  which  I  think  it  is  not, 
for  unorganized  bodies  to  spring  from  one  another),  or 
by  individual  perpetuity.  But  that  is  not  the  question 
now.  To  suppose  it  to  be  so,  is  to  suppo.se  that  it  made 
no  difference  whether  we  had  found  a  watch  or  a  stone. 
As  it  is,  the  metaphysics  of  that  question  have  no 
place;  lor,  in  the  watch  which  we  are  examining,  are 
seen  contrivance,  design;  an  end,  a  pnrpo.se;  means 
for  the  end,  adaptation  to  the  purpose.  And  the  (jues- 
tion  which  irresistibly  presses  upon  our  thoughts  is, 
whence  this  contrivance  and  design?  The  thing  re- 
quired is  the  intending  mind,  the  adapting  hand,  the  in- 
telligence by  which  that  hand  was  directed.  This 
question,  this  demand,  is  not  shaken  off;  by  increasing 
a  number  or  succession  of  substances,  destitute  of 
these  pro])erties ;  nor  tlie  more,  by  increasing  that  num- 
ber to  infinity.  If  it  be  said,  that,  upon  the  supposition 
of  one  watch  being  produced  from  another  in  the  course 
of  that  other's  movements,  and  by  means  of  the  me- 
chanism within  it,  we  have  a  cause  for  the  watch  in 
my  hand,  viz.  the  watch  from  which  it  proceeded,  I 
deny  that,  for  the  design,  the  contrivance,  the  suitable- 
ness of  means  to  an  end,  the  adaptation  of  instruments 
to  a  use  (all  which  we  discover  in  the  watch),  we  have 
any  cause  whatever.  It  is  in  vain,  therefore,  to  assign 
a  series  of  such  causes,  or  to  allege  that  a  series  may 
be  carried  back  to  infinity ;  for  I  do  not  admit  that  we 
have  yet  any  cause  at  all  of  the  phenomena,  still  less 
any  series  of  causes  either  finite  or  infinite.  Here  is 
contrivance,  but  no  contriver ;  proofs  of  design,  but  no 
designer. 

"  bur  observer  would  fsrther  also  reflect,  that  the 
maker  of  the  watch  before  him  was,  in  truth  and  reality, 
the  maker  of  every  watch  produced  from  it ;  there  being 
no  difference  (except  that  the  latter  manifests  a  more 
exquisite  skill)  between  the  making  of  another  watch 
with  his  own  hands,  by  the  methation  of  files,  lathes, 
chisels,  &c.,  and  the  disposing,  fixing,  and  inserting  of 
these  instruments,  or  of  others  ecjuivalent  to  them,  in 
the  body  of  the  watch  already  made,  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  form  a  new  watch  in  the  course  of  the  move- 
ments which  he  had  given  to  the  old  one.  It  is  only 
working  by  one  set  of  tools  instead  of  another. 

"  The  conclusion  which  Ihejirxt  examination  of  the 
watch,  of  its  works,  construction,  and  movement,  sug- 
gested, was,  that  it  mu.st  have  had,  for  the  cause  and 
author  of  that  construction,  an  artificer  who  under- 
stood its  mechanism,  and  designed  its  use.  This  con- 
clusion is  invincible.  A  secntul  examination  presents 
us  with  a  new  discovery.  The  watch  is  found,  in  the 
course  of  its  movement,  to  produce  another  watch,  si- 
milar to  itself;  and  not  only  so,  but  we  perceive  in  it 
a  system  of  organization,  separately  calculated  for 
that  purpose.  What  eflfect  would  this  discovery  have 
or  ought  it  to  have,  upon  our  former  inference  ?  What, 
as  hath  already  been  said,  but  to  increase  beyond  mea- 
sure our  admiration  of  the  skill  which  had  been  em- 
ployed in  the  formation  of  such  a  machine  ?  Or  shall 
it,  instead  of  this,  all  at  once  turn  us  round  to  an  op- 
liosite  conclusion,  viz.  that  no  art  or  skill  whatever 
has  been  concerned  in  the  business,  although  all  other 
evidences  of  art  and  skill  remain  as  they  were,  and 
this  last  and  supreme  piece  of  art  he  now  added  to  the 
rest?  Can  this  be  maintained  without  absurdity  ■?  Yet 
this  is  Atheism." 

If  the  argument  is  so  powerful,  when  a  work  of  art 
merely  is  made  its  basis  ;  it  is  rendered  much  more 
convincing  when  it  is  transferred  to  the  works  of  na- 
ture ;  because  ends  more  singular  are,  in  an  infinite 
number  of  instances,  there  proposed,  and  are  accom- 
plished by  contrivances  much  more  curious  and  diffi- 
cult. In  the  quotation  above  given  from  Howe,  the 
eye,  the  parts  of  the  body  which  are  dmilile,  and  the 
construction  of  the  si'ine,  are  adduced  among  othcia 


116 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


as  strikins;  instances  of  a  contrivance  superior  to  the 
art  of  man,  and  as  evidently  denoting  forethougtit  and 
plan,  ttie  attritiutes  not  of  intclli^mcc  only,  but  of  an 
intelligence  of  an  infinitely  supirior  order.  'J'hcse  in- 
stances have  been  admirably  \vrouj;lit  up  by  tlie  nias- 
ter-tiand  which  furnished  the  last  quotation. 

We  begin  Willi  the  human  cj/c. 

"The  contrivances  of  nature  surpass  the  contri- 
vances of  art,  in  the  coin|ilexity,  subtilly,  and  curiosity 
of  the  mechanism  ;  and  still  more,  if  possible,  do  they 
po  beyond  them  in  number  and  variety;  yet  in  a  mul- 
titude of  cases  are  not  less  evidently  meclianical,  not 
less  evidently  contrivances,  not  less  evidently  accom- 
modated to  their  end,  or  suited  to  their  office,  than  are 
the  most  perfect  productions  of  human  ingenuity. 

"  I  know  no  better  method  of  introducing  so  large  a 
sutijecl  tlian  tliat  of  comparing  a  single  tiling  with  a 
single  thing ;  an  eye,  for  example,  with  a  telescope. 
As  far  as  the  examination  of  th('  instrument  goes,  there 
is  precisely  the  same  proof  that  the  eye  was  made  for 
vision,  as  there  is  that  the  telescope  was  made  for  as- 
sisting it.  They  are  made  upon  the  same  principles; 
both  being  adjusted  to  the  laws  by  which  the  trans- 
missiun  and  refraction  of  rays  of  light  are  regulated. 
1  spciik  licit  of  the  origin  of  the  laws  themselves;  but 
sncli  laws  licing  fixed,  the  construction,  in  both  cases, 
is  adapted  to  them.  For  instance,  these  laws  reiiuire, 
in  order  to  produce  the  same  effect,  tliat  the  rays  of 
light,  in  passing  from  water  into  the  eye,  should  be 
refracted  by  a  more  convex  surface  than  when  it 
passes  out  of  air  into  the  eye.  Accordingly,  we  find, 
that  the  eye  of  a  fish  in  that  part  of  it  called  the  crys- 
talline lens,  is  much  rounder  than  tlie  eye  of  terrestrial 
animals.  What  plainer  manifestation  of  design  can 
there  be  than  this  difference  ?  What  could  a  mathe- 
matical instrument-maker  have  done  more  to  show 
his  l«iowledge  of  his  principle,  his  application  of  that 
knowledge,  his  suiting  of  his  means  to  his  end  ;  I  will 
not  say,  to  display  the  compass  or  excellence  of  his 
skill  and  art,  for  in  these  all  comparison  is  indecorous, 
but  to  testify  counsel,  choii-e,  consideration,  purpose  ? 

"To  some  it  may  appear  a  diflerence  sufficient  to, 
destroy  all  similitude  between  the  eye  and  the  tele- 
scojie,  that  the  one  is  a  perceiving  organ,  the  other  an 
unperceiving  instrument.  The  fac-t  is  that  they  are  both 
instruments.  And  as  to  the  mechanism,  at  least  as  to 
mechanism  being  employed,  and  even  as  to  the  kind  of 
it,  this  circumstance  varies  not  the  analogy  at  all :  For 
observe  what  the  constitution  of  the  eye  is.  It  is  ne- 
cessary, in  order  to  produce  distinct  vision,  that  an 
image  or  picture  of  the  object  be  formed  at  the  bottom 
of  the  eye.  Whence  this  necessity  arises,  or  how  the 
picture  is  connected  with  the  sensation,  or  contributes 
to  it,  it  may  be  diffi(-ult,  nay,  we  will  confess,  if  you 
please,  impossible  for  us  to  search  out.  But  the  jirtv 
sent  question  is  not  concerned  in  the  inquiry.  It  may 
be  true,  that  in  this,  as  in  other  instances,  we  trace 
mechanical  contrivance  a  certain  way ;  and  that  then 
we  come  to  something  which  is  not  mechanical,  or 
which  is  inscrutable.  But  this  affects  not  the  certainly 
of  our  investigation,  as  far  as  we  have  gone.  The 
difference  between  an  animal  and  an  automatic  statue, 
consists  in  this,— that  in  the  animal  we  trace  the  ine- 
chaiiism  to  a  certain  point,  and  then  we  are  stopped ; 
either  the  mechanism  becoming  too  subtile  for  our  dis- 
cernment, or  something  el.se  besides  the  known  laws  of 
mechanism  taking  place ;  whereas,  in  the  -auloinaton, 
for  the  comparatively  few  motions  of  which  it  is  capa- 
ble, we  trace  the  mechanism  throughout.  But,  uji  lo 
the  limit,  the  reastiniiig  is  as  clear  and  certain  in  the 
one  case  as  the  other.  In  the  example  before  us,  ii 
is  a  matter  of  certainty,  because  it  is  a  matter  which 
experience  and  observation  denionstrate,  that  the  form- 
ation of  an  image  at  the  bottom  of  the  eye  is  neces- 
sary to  perfect  vision.  The  image  itself  can  be  shown. 
Whatever  affects  the  distinctness  of  tlie  image,  affects 
the  distinctness  of  the  vision.  The  formation  then  of 
such  an  image  being  necessary  (no  matter  how)  to  the 
sense  of  sight,  and  to  the  exercise  of  that  sense;,  the 
apparatus  by  which  it  is  formed  is  constructed  and  put 
togi.ltier,  not  only  with  infinitely  more  art,  but  upon 
the  self-same  |)rinciples  of  art  as  in  the  telescope  or 
camera  obscura.  The  pcrceiition  arising  from  the 
image  may  he  laid  out  of  the  question  ;  for  the  produc- 
tion of  the  image,  these  are  instruments  of  the  same 
kind.  The  end  is  the  sairie;  the  means  are  the  same. 
The  purpose  m  both  is  alike  ;  the  coiitrivauco  fur  ac- 


complishing that  purpose  is  In  both  alike.  The  lenses 
01'  the  telcsco]ie,  and  the  humours  of  the  eye,  bear  a 
complete  resemblance  to  one  another,  in  their  figure, 
their  position,  and  in  their  power  over  the  rays  of  light, 
VIZ.  ill  bringing  each  jieiicil  to  a  point  at  the  right  dis- 
tance from  the  lens  ;  namely,  in  the  eye,  at  the  exact 
place  where  the  membrane  is  spread  to  receive  it. 
How  is  it  jiossible,  under  circumstances  of  such  close 
affinity,  and  under  the  operation  of  an  equal  evidence, 
to  exclude  contrivance  from  the  one;  yet  to  acknow- 
ledge the  proof  of  contrivance  having  been  employed, 
as  the  plainest  and  clearest  of  all  propositions  in  the 
other  ? 

"  The  resemblance  between  the  two  cases  is  still 
more  accurate,  and  obtains  in  more  points  than  wo 
have  yet  represented,  or  than  we  are,  on  the  first 
view  of  the  subject,  aware  of.  In  dioptric  telescopes 
there  is  an  imperfection  of  this  nature.  Pencils  of 
light,  in  jiasshig  through  glass  lenses,  are  separated 
into  different  colours,  thereby  tinging  the  object,  espe- 
cially the  edges  of  it,  as  if  it  were  viewed  through  a 
prism.  To  correct  this  inconvenience  had  been  long  a 
desideratum  in  the  art.  At  last  it  came  into  the  mind 
of  a  sagacious  optician,  to  imiuire  how  this  matter  was 
managed  in  the  eye  ;  in  which  there  was  exactly  the 
same  difficulty  to  contend  with  as  in  the  telescope. 
His  observation  taught  him,  that,  in  the  eye,  the  evil  was 
cured  by  combining  together  lenses  composed  of  different 
substances,  i.  e.  of  substances  which  jiossesscd  differ- 
ent rel'racting  powers.  Our  artist  borrowed  from 
thence  his  hint ;  and  jiroduced  a  correction  of  the  de- 
fect by  imitating,  in  glasses  made  from  different  mate- 
rials, the  effects  of  the  diffireiit  humours  through 
which  the  rays  of  light  pass  before  they  reaith  the  bot- 
tom of  the  eye.  Could  this  be  in  the  eye  without  pur- 
pose, which  suggested  to  the  optician  the  only  effect- 
ual means  of  attaining  that  purpose  1 

"  But  farther  ;  there  are  other  points,  not  so  much, 
perhaps,  of  strict  resemblance  between  the  two  as  of 
superiority  of  the  eye  over  the  telescope  ;  yet,  of  a 
superiority  which,  being  founded  in  the  laws  that  regu- 
late both,  may  furnish  topics  of  lair  and  just  compari- 
son. Two  things  were  wanted  to  the  eye,  which  «  ere 
not  wanted,  at  least  in  the  same  degree,  to  the  tele- 
scope; and  these  were  the  adaptation  of  the  organ, 
first,  to  different  degrees  of  light,  and,  secondly,  to  the 
vast  diversity  of  distance  at  which  objects  are  viewed 
by  the  naked  eye,  viz.  from  a  few  inches  to  as  many 
miles.  These  difficulties  present  not  them.selves  to  the 
maker  of  the  telesco|)e.  He  wants  all  the  light  he  can 
get ;  and  he  never  directs  his  instrnment  to  objects 
nt!arat  hand.  In  the  eye,  both  these  cases  were  to  be 
provided  for ;  and  for  the  pur|iose  of  providing  for 
them  a  subtile  and  appropriate  mechanism  is  iniro- 
duceti. 

"  In  order  to  exclude  excess  of  light,  when  it  is  ex- 
cessive, and  to  render  objects  visible  under  obscurer 
degrees  of  it.  when  no  more  can  be  had,  the  hole  or 
ajierture  in  the  eye,  through  which  llie  light  enters,  is 
so  formed  as  to  contract  or  dilate  itself  for  the  purpose 
of  admitting  a  greater  or  less  number  of  rays  at  the 
same  time.  The  chamber  of  the  eye  is  a  camera  ob- 
scura, which,  when  the  light  is  too  small,  can  enlarge 
its  opening ;  when  too  strong,  can  again  contract  it ; 
and  that  without  any  other  assistance  than  that  of  its 
own  cxiiuisite  machinery.  It  is  farther  also,  in  the 
human  subject,  to  he  observed,  that  this  hole  in  the  eye, 
wliuh  we  call  the  jiupil,  under  all  its  dillerent  dimen- 
sions, retains  its  ixact  circular  shape.  This  is  a  struc- 
ture extremely  artihcial.  Let  an  arlisl  only  try  to  exe- 
cute the  same.  He  will  find  that  his  ilireads  and 
strings  must  be  dispcsed  with  gnat  considiralion  and 
contrivance,  to  make  a  circle  wlncli  shall  continually 
change  its  diameter  yet  preserve  its  l<>riii.  This  is 
done  in  the  eye  by  an  ajiplication  of  fibres,  i.  e.  of 
strings,  similar,  in  their  position  and  action,  to  what  an 
artist  would  and  must  employ,  if  he  had  the  same 
piece  of  workmanship  to  perforin. 

"The  second  difficulty  which  has  been  stated,  was 
the  suiting  of  the  same  organ  to  the  perception  of 
objects  that  lie  near  at  hand,  within  a  few  inches,  we 
will  suppose,  of  the  eye,  and  of  objects  which  were 
jilaced  at  a  considerable  distance  iyom  it,  that,  for 
example,  of  as  many  furlongs  (1  speak  in  both  cases 
of  the  distance  at  which  distinct  vision  can  be  exer- 
cised). Now  this,  according  to  the  principlejs  of  optics, 
lluit  is,  according  to  the  laws  by  which  tlic  (raiisinis-^ 


Chap.  I.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


in 


sioti  of  lislit  is  resul.itcd  (and  these  laws  are  fixed), 
could  not  bo  done  without  tlie  organ  itself  undergoing 
an  alteration,  and  receiving  an  adjustment,  that  might 
correspond  with  the  exigency  of  the  case,  that  is  to  say, 
with  the  diflorent  inclination  to  one  another  under 
which  the  rays  of  liglit  reactud  it.  Rays  issuing  from 
points  placed  at  a  small  distance  from  the  eye,  and 
•wiiich  consequently  must  enter  the  eye  in  a  spreading 
or  diverging  order,  cannot,  hy  the  same  optical  instru- 
ment in  the  same  state,  be  brought  to  a  point,  i.  e.  be 
made  to  form  an  image,  in  the  same  place,  with  rays 
proceeding  from  objects  situated  at  a  much  greater 
distance,  and  which  rays  arrive  at  the  eye  in  directions 
nearly,  and  physically  speaking,  parallel.  It  reciuires 
a  rounder  lens  to  do  it.  The  point  of  concourse  beliind 
the  lens  must  fall  critically  upon  the  retina,  or  the 
vision  is  confused ;  yet,  other  things  remaining  the 
same,  this  i)oint,  by  the  immutable  properties  of  light, 
I  is  carried  farther  back,  when  the  rays  proceed  from  a 

near  object,  than  when  they  are  sent  from  one  that  is 
remote.  A  person  who  was  using  an  optical  instru- 
ment, would  manage  this  matter  by  changmg,  as  the 
occasion  required,  his  lens  or  his  telescope ;  or  by  atl- 
justing  the  distances  of  his  glasses  with  Ids  hand  or 
his  screw  ;  but  how  is  it  to  be  managed  in  the  eye  ? 
What  the  alteration  was,  or  in  what  part  of  the  eye  it 
took  place,  or  by  what  means  it  was  effected  (for  if 
the  known  laws  which  govern  the  refraction  of  light 
be  maintained,  some  alteration  in  the  state  of  the 
organ  there  must  be),  had  long  formed  a  subject  of  in- 
quiry and  conjecture.  The  change,  though  sufficient 
for  the  purpose,  is  so  minute  as  to  elude  ordinary  ob- 
servation. Some  very  late  discoveries,  deduced  from 
a  laborious  and  most  accurate  inspection  of  the  struc- 
ture and  operation  of  the  organ,  seem  at  length  to  have 
ascertained  the  mechanical  alteration  which  the  parts 
of  tile  eye  undergo.  It  is  found,  that  by  the  action  of 
certain  muscles,  called  the  straight  muscles,  and  which 
action  is  the  most  advantageous  that  could  be  imagined 
for  the  purpose,— it  is  found,  I  sa> ,  that  whenever  the 
eye  is  directed  to  a  near  object,  three  changes  are  pro- 
duced in  it  at  the  same  time,  all  severally  contributing 
to  the  adjustment  required.  The  cornea,  or  outermost 
coat  of  the  eye,  is  rendered  more  round  and  promi- 
nent ;  the  crystalline  lens  underneath  is  pushed  for- 
wards ;  and  tlie  axis  of  vision,  as  the  depth  of  the  eye 
is  called,  is  elongated.  These  changes  in  the  eye  vary 
its  power  over  the  rays  of  light  in  such  a  manner  and 
degree  as  to  produce  exactly  the  effect  which  is 
wanted,  viz.  the  formation  of  an  image  upofi  the  retina, 
whether  the  rays  come  to  the  eye  in  a  slate  of  diver- 
gency, which  is  the  case  when  the  object  is  near  to  the 
eye,  or  come  parallel  to  one  another,  which  is  the  case 
when  the  object  is  placed  at  a  distance.  Can  any 
thing  be  more  decisive  of  contrivance  than  this  is  .' 
The  most  secret  laws  of  optics  must  have  been  known 
to  the  author  of  a  structure  endowed  with  such  a  ca- 
pacity of  change.  It  is,  as  though  an  optician,  when 
he  had  a  nearer  object  to  view,  should  rectify  his  in- 
strument by  putting  in  another  glass,  at  the  same  lime 
drawing  out  also  his  tube  to  a  different  length. 

"  In  considering  vision  as  aclueved  by  the  means  of 
an  image  formed  at  the  bottom  of  the  eye,  we  can  never 
reflect  without  wonder  ujion  the  smallncss,  yet  correct- 
ness, of  the  picture,  the  subtilty  of  the  touch,  the  fine- 
ness of  the  lines.  A  landscape  of  five  or  six  square 
leagues  is  brought  into  a  space  of  half  an  inch  diame- 
ter; yet  the  multitude  of  objects  which  it  contains  are 
»lt  preserved ;  are  all  discriminated  in  their  magni- 
tudes, positions,  figures,  colours.  The  prospect  from 
Hampstead-hill  is  compressed  into  the  compass  of  a  six- 
pence, yet  circumstantially  represented.  A  stage  coach, 
travelling  at  its  ordinary  speed  for  half  an  hour,  passes, 
in  the  eye,  only  over  one-twelfth  of  an  inch,  yet  is  this 
change  of  place  in  the  image  distinctly  perceived 
throughout  its  whole  progress,  for  it  is  only  by  means 
of  that  perception  that  the  motion  of  the  coach  it.self  is 
made  sensible  to  the  eye.  If  any  thing  can  abate  our 
admiration  of  the  smallness  of  the  visual  tablet  com- 
pared with  the  extent  of  vision,  it  is  a  reflection  which 
the  view  of  nature  leads  us,  every  hour,  to  make,  viz. 
that  in  the  hands  of  the  Creator,  great  and  little  are  no- 
thing." 

On  the  parts  of  the  body  which  are  dnvble,  adduced 
by  IIowc,  as  proofs  of  contrivance,  our  author  farther 
remarks : — 
"  The  human,  or  indeed  the  animal  frame,  considered 


as  a  mass  or  assrmlilago,  exhibits  in  its  composition 
three  pin]H'rtiis,  whnli  have  long  struck  my  mind  as 
indubitable  (evidences,  not  only  of  design,  but  of  a  great 
deal  of  attention  and  accuracy  in  prosecuting  the  design. 
'■  The  first  is,  the  exact  correspondence  of  the  two 
sides  of  the  same  animal ;  the  right  hand  answering  to 
the  left,  leg  to  leg,  eye  to  eye,  one  side  of  the  counte- 
nance to  the  other  ;  and  with  a  precision,  to  imitate 
which  in  any  tolerable  degree  Ibrni.^  one  of  the  difficul- 
ties of  statuary,  and  requires,  on  the  ]iart  of  the  artist, 
a  constant  attention  to  this  property  of  his  work,  dis- 
tinct from  every  other. 

"  It  is  the  most  difficult  thing  that  can  be,  to  get  a 
wig  made  even ;  yet  how  seldom  is  the  face  awry  ! 
And  what  care  is  taken  that  it  should  not  be  so,  the 
anatomy  of  its  bones  demonstrates.  The  upper  part 
of  the  face  is  composed  of  thirteen  bones,  six  on  each 
side,  answering  each  to  each,  and  the  thirteenth,  with- 
out a  fellow,  in  the  middle  ;  the  lower  part  of  the  face 
is  in  like  manner  composed  of  six  bones,  three  on  each 
side,  respectively  correspoding,  and  the  lower  jaw  in 
the  centre.  In  building  an  arch,  cotdd  more  be  done 
in  order  to  make  the  curve  true,  i.  e.  the  parts  equi- 
distant from  the  middle  alike  in  figure  and  position  ? 

"  The  exact  resemblance  of  the  eyes,  considering 
how  compounded  this  organ  is  in  its  structure,  how 
various  and  how  delicate  are  the  shades  of  colour  with 
winch  its  iris  is  tinged,  how  differently,  as  to  effect 
upon  apjiearance,  the  eye  may  be  mounted  in  its  socket, 
and  how  differently  in  different  heads  eyes  actually 
are  set,  is  a  jiroperty  of  aiumal  hodies  much  to  be  ad- 
mired. Of  ten  thousand  eyes,  I  do  n't  know  that  it 
would  be  possible  to  match  one,  except  with  its  own 
fellow ;  or  to  distribute  them  into  suitable  pairs  by  any 
other  selection  than  that  which  obtains. 

"  The  next  circumstance  to  be  remarked  is,  that 
while  the  cavities  of  the  body  are  so  configurated,  as 
externally  lo  exhibit  the  most  exact  correspondence  of 
the  opposite  sides,  the  contents  of  these  cavities  have 
no  such  correspondence.  A  line  drawn  down  the 
middle  of  the  breast  divides  the  thorax  into  two  sides 
exactly  similar ;  yet  these  two  sides  enclose  very  dif- 
ferent contents.  The  heart  lies  on  the  left  side ;  a  lobe 
of  the  lungs  on  the  right ;  balancing  each  other  neither 
in  size  nor  shape.  The  same  thing  holds  of  the  ab- 
domen. The  liver  lies  on  the  right  side,  without  any  si- 
milar viscus  opposed  to  it  on  the  left.  The  spleen,  in- 
deed, is  situated  over  against  tlie  liver ;  but  agreeing  with 
the  liver  neither  in  bulk  nor  form.  There  is  no  equi- 
poUency  between  these.  The  stomach  is  a  vessel, 
both  irregular  in  its  shape,  and  oblique  in  its  position. 
The  foldings  and  doublings  of  the  intestines  do  not 
present  a  parity  of  sides.  Yet  that  symmetry  which' 
depends  upon  the  correlation  of  the  sides,  is  externally 
preserved  throughout  the  whole  trunk  ;  and  is  the  more 
remarkable  in  the  lower  parts  of  it,  as  the  integuments 
are  sort ;  and  the  shape,  consequently,  is  not,  as  the 
thorax  is  by  its  ribs,  reduced  by  natural  stays.  It  is 
evident,  therefore,  that  the  external  proportion  does  not 
arise  from  an  eijuality  in  the  shape  or  pressure  of  the 
internal  contents.  What  is  it  indeed  but  a  correction 
of  inequalities?  an  adjustment,  by  mutual  comjiensa- 
tion,  of  anomalous  forms  into  a  regular  congeries  .'  the 
effect,  in  a  word,  of  artful,  and  if  we  might  be  permitted 
so  to  speak,  of  studied  collocation? 

"  Similar  also  to  this  is  the  third  observation  ;  that  an 
internal  inequality  in  the  feeding  vessels  is  so  managed, 
as  to  produce  no  inequality  in  parts  which  were  intended 
to  correspond.  The  right  arm  answers  accurately  to  the 
left,  both  in  size  and  shape;  but  the  arterial  branches, 
which  su])i)ly  the  two  arms,  do  not  go  ofl'  from  their 
trunk,  in  a  pair,  in  the  same  manner,  at  the  same 
place,  or  at  the  same  angle.  Under  which  want  of  si- 
militude, it  is  very  diflicult  to  conceive  how  the  same 
quantity  of  blood  should  be  pushed  through  each  artery ; 
yet  the  result  is  right;  the  two  limbs  which  are  nou- 
rished by  them,  perceive  no  difference  of  sujiply,  no 
effects  of  excess  or  deficiency. 

"  Concerning  the  difference  of  manner  in  which  the 
subclavian  and  carotid  arteries,  upon  the  different 
sides  of  the  body,  separate  them.selves  from  the  aorta, 
Cheselden  seems  to  have  thought,  that  the  advantage 
which  the  left  gain  by  going  ofi'  at  a  iruicli  acuter  an- 
gle than  the  right,  is  made  uji  to  the  right  by  their  go- 
ing off  together  in  one  branch.  It  is  vwy  possible  that 
this  may  be  the  compensating  contrivance;  and  if  it  be 
so,  how  curious,  how  hydrostatical  1" 


118 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  IL' 


The  construction  of  the  .opine,  another  of  Howe's 
illustrations,  is  thus  cxeinplilied: — 

"  Ttie  spine  or  back-bone  is  a  chain  of  joints  of  very 
wondenul  construction.  Various, dilliciili, and  almost 
inconsistent  otlices  were  to  he  executed  by  the  same 
instrument.  It  was  to  be  (irni,  yet  llexilile :  now  I 
know  of  no  chain  made  by  art,  wliich  is  boili  these; 
for  biC  lirnnie.ss  I  mean,  not  only  strength,  but  stability  ^ 
Jirm,  to  supjKirt  the  erect  position  of  tlie  body  ;^ftexible, 
to  allow  of  the  bendm;:  of  the  trunk  in  all  decrees  of 
curvature.  It  was  farther,  also,  which  is  another  and 
quite  a  distinct  puri)ose  from  the  rest,  to  become  a  pipe 
or  conduit  lor  the  safe  conveyance  from  the  brain  of 
the  most  important  lluid  of  the  anmial  frame,  that, 
namely,  upon  which  all  voluntary  motion  depends,  the 
spinal  marrow;  a  sub.stance,  not  only  of  the  first  ne- 
cessity to  action  if  not  to  life ;  but  of  a  nature  so  deli- 
cate and  tender,  so  susceptible,  and  so  impatient  of  in- 
jur)', as  that  any  unusual  ])ressure  upon  it,  or  any  con- 
siderable obstruction  of  its  course,  is  followed  by  para- 
lysis or  death.  INow,  the  spine  was  not  only  to  furnish 
the  main  trunk  for  the  passage  of  the  medullary  sub- 
stance from  the  brain,  but  to  give  out,  in  the  course  of 
its  progress,  small  pipes  therefrom,  which  being  afler- 
■waril  indefinitely  subdivided,  might,  under  the  name 
of  nerves,  distribute  this  exquisite  supply  lo  every 
part  of  the  body.  The  same  si)ine  was  also  to  serve 
another  use  not  less  wanted  than  the  preceding,  viz.  to 
aflbrd  a  fulcrum,  stay,  or  basis  (or  more  jiroperly 
speaking,  a  series  of  the.se),  lor  the  insertion  of  the 
muscles  which  are  spread  over  the  trunk  of  the  body, 
in  which  trunk  there  tire  not,  as  in  the  limbs,  cylindri- 
cal bones,  to  which  they  can  be  fastened.  And  like- 
wise, which  is  a  similar  use,  to  furnish  a  support  for 
the  ends  of  the  ribs  to  rest  upon. 

"  Bespeak  of  a  workman  a  piece  of  mechanism  which 
ebali  comprise  all  these  purposes,  and  let  him  set 
atxiut  to  contrive  it;  let  him  try  his  skill  upon  it;  let 
him  feel  the  difficulty  of  accomplishing  the  task,  before 
he  be  told  how  the  same  thing  is  effected  in  the  animal 
frame.  Nothing  will  enable  him  to  judge  so  well  of 
the  wisdom  which  has  been  employed;  nothing  will 
dispose  him  to  think  of  it  so  truly.  First,  for  the  firm- 
ness, yet  flexibility,  of  the  spine  :  it  is  composed  of  a 
great  number  of  bones  (in  the  human  suhject  of  twenty- 
four),  joined  to  one  another,  and  compacted  together  by 
broad  bases.  The  breadth  of  the  bases  u))on  which 
the  parts  severally  rest,  and  the  closeness  of  the  junc- 
tion, give  to  the  chain  its  firmness  and  stability ;  the 
number  of  parts,  and  consecpient  frequency  of  joints, 
its  flexibility.  Which  flexibility  we  may  also  observe, 
Talte  in  different  parts  of  the  chain ;  is  least  in  the 
tacK,  where  strength  more  than  flexure  is  wanted ; 
greater  in  the  loins,  wliich  it  was  necessary  should  be 
more  supple  than  the  back ;  and  the  greatest  of  all  in 
the  neck,  tor  the  free  motion  of  the  head.  Then,  se- 
condly, in  order  to  afford  a  passage  for  the  descent  of 
the  medullary  substance,  each  of  these  bones  is  bored 
through  in  the  middle  in  such  a  manner,  as  that,  when 
put  together,  the  hole  in  one  bone  falls  into  a  line,  and 
correspDiids  with  the  holes  in  the  two  bones  conti- 
guous to  It.  Uy  which  means,  the  perforated  jiieces, 
when  joined,  form  an  entire,  close,  uninterrupted 
channel ;  at  least,  while  the  spine  is  upright  and  at  rest. 
But,  as  a  nettled  posture  is  inconsistent  with  its  use,  a 
great  diiriculty  still  reinainerl,  which  was  to  prevent 
the  verti:bra;  shilling  upon  one  another,  so  as  to  break 
the  line  of  the  canal  as  ollen  as  the  body  luiives  or 
twists;  or  the  joints,  gaping  externally,  whcncvrr  the 
body  is  bent  forward,  and  the  spine  tlicrcupuii  made  to 
take  the  form  of  a  bow.  These  dangers,  which  are 
mechanical,  are  mechanically  provided  against.  The 
vertebno,  by  means  of  their  processes  and  projections, 
and  of  the  articulations  which  some  of  these  form  with 
one  another  at  their  extremities,  are  so  locked  in  and 
confined,  as  to  maintain  in  what  are  called  the  bodies 
or  broad  surfaces  of  the  bones,  the  relative  position 
nearly  unaltered  ;  and  to  throw  the  change  of  the  pres- 
sure produced  by  flexion  almost  entirely  upon  llu^  in- 
tervening cartilages,  the  springiness  and  yi.lding  na- 
ture of  whose  suhstance  admits  of  all  tlie  motion  which 
is  necessary  to  be  performed  upon  them,  wilhoui  any 
chasm  being  produced  by  a  separation  of  the  parts.  I 
say,  of  all  the  motion  which  is  nece.ssary ;  for  although 
v/e  bend  our  backs  to  every  degree  almost  of  inclina- 
tion, the  motion  of  each  vertebra  is  very  small;  such 
is  tlic  advantage  which  we  receive  from  the  cliain  being 


comiKised  of  so  many  links,  the  spine  of  so  many  bones. 
Had  it  consisted  of  three  or  four  bones  only,  ni  bending 
the  body,  the  spinal  marrow  must  have  been  bruised 
at  every  angle.  The  reader  need  not  be  told,  that  these 
intervening  carti)ag(!s  are  gri.stles;  and  he  may  see 
them  in  perfection  in  a  loin  of  veal.  Their  form  also 
lavours  the  same  intention.  They  are  thicker  before 
than  behind  ;  so  that,  when  we  stoop  forward,  the  com- 
liressilile  substance  of  the  earlildgc,  yielding  in  its 
thicker  and  anterior  part  to  the  force  which  squeezes 
it,  brings  the  surfaces  of  the  adjoining  vertebrie  nearer 
to  the  being  parallel  with  one  another  than  they  were 
before,  instead  of  increasing  the  inclination  of  their 
planes,  which  must  have  occasioned  a  fissnre  or  open- 
ing between  them.  Thirdly,  for  the  medullary  canal 
giving  out  in  its  course,  and'  in  a  convenient  order,  a 
supjily  of  nerves  to  different  parts  of  the  body,  notches 
are  made  in  the  ujijier  and  lower  edge  of  everj'  verte- 
bra ;  two  on  each  edge ;  equidistant  on  each  side  from  ■ 
the  middle  line  of  the  back.  When  the  vertebra>  are 
jiut  together,  these  notches,  exactly  fitting,  form  small 
holes,  through  which  the  nerves,  at  each  articulation, 
issue  out  in  pairs,  in  order  to  .send  their  branches  to 
every  part  of  the  body,  and  with  an  equal  bounty  lo 
both  sides  of  the  body.  The  fourth  purpose  assigned 
to  the  same  instrument  is  the  insertion  of  the  bases  of 
the  muscles,  and  the  support  of  the  ends  of  the  ribs ; 
and  tor  this  fourth  jiurpo.si^,  especially  the  fonner  part 
of  it,  a  figure,  specifically  suited  to  the  design,  andjun- 
necessary  for  the  other  jiurposes,  is.given  to  the  con- 
stituent bones.  While  they  are  plain,  and  round,  and 
smooth  towards  the  front,  where  any  roughness  or  pro- 
jection might  have  wounded  the  adjacent  viscera,  they 
run  out,  behind,  and  on  each  side,  into  long  processes, 
to  which  processes  the  niuscks  necessur)  to  the  mo- 
tions of  the  trunk  are  fixed;  and  fixed  wilh  such  art, 
that,  while  the  vertebra"  su|i)ily  a  basis  for  the  muscles, 
the  muscles  help  to  kee]i  ibesc  bones  in  their  ]>os:tion, 
or  by  their  tendons  to  tie  them  together. 

"  That  rno.st  important,  however,  and  general  pro- 
perty, viz.  the  strength  of  the  compages,  and  the  secu- 
rity again.st  lu-xation,  was  to  be  still  more  specialty 
consulted;  for  where  so  many  joints  were  concerned, 
and  where,  in  every  one,  derangement  would  have 
been  fatal,  it  became  a  subject  of  studious  precaution. 
For  this  purpose,  the  vertelira:  are  articulated,  that  is, 
the  moveable  joniis  between  them  are  formed,  by 
means  of  those  jiripjeciioMs  of  their  substance,  which 
we  have  mentioiie<l  under  the  name  of  processes  ;  and 
these  so  lock  in  with,  and  overwraji  one  another,  as 
to  secure  the  body  of  the  vertebra;,  not  only  from  acci- 
dentally slipping,  bttt  even  from  being  pushed  out  of 
its  place  by  any  violence  short  of  that  which  would 
break  the  bone." 

Instances  of  design  and  wonderful  contrivance  are  as 
numerous  as  there  are  organized  bodies  in  nature,  and 
as  there  are  relations  between  bodies  which  are  not  or- 
ganized. The  subjeit  is,  therefore,  inexhaustible.  The 
cases  stated  are  suflicient  for  the  illustration  of  this 
species  of  argument  lor  the  existence  of  an  intelligent 
l<'irst  Cause.  Many  others  are  given  with  great  force 
and  interest  in  the  Natural  Theology  of  Paley,  from 
which  the  above  ijuotal  ions  have  been  made ;  but  his 
<-hapter  on  the  personality  of  the  Deity  contains  appli- 
cations of  the  urgunieiit  from  design,  too  important  to 
be  overlooked.  The  same  course  of  reasoning  may  be 
traced  in  many  other  writers,  but  by  none  has  it  been 
expressed  with  so  much  clearness  and  lelicily. 

"  Contrivance,  if  estalilished,  ajijiears  to  me  to  provo 
every  thing  which  we  wish  to  prove.  Among  other 
things  it  proves  the  jk  rsmnihlii  of  the  Deity,  as  distin- 
guished f^rom  what  is  soiiietiincs  called  nature,  some- 
times called  aprinii|ile  ;  which  terms,  in  ihemoutliH  of 
those  who  use  them  phile.sophically,  seem  to  be  in- 
tended to  admit  and  to  express  an  ellicacy,  but  to  ex- 
clude and  to  deny  a  iier.sonal  agent.  Now,  that  which 
can  contrive,  which  can  design,  must  be  a  person. 
These  capacities  constitute  piTsonality,  ftir  Ihey  imply 
consciousness  and  thought.  They  recjuire  that  which 
can  perceive  an  end  or  ])urpose;  as  well  as  the  power 
of  providing  means,  and  oi'directiiiglhein  to  their  end. 
They  require  a  centre  in  which  jiercejitions  unite,  and 
from  winch  volitions  flow  ;  which  is  mind.  The  acts 
of  a  mind  prove  the  existence  of  a  mind;  and  in  what- 
ever a  mind  resides,  is  a  person. 

"  Of  this  we  are  certain,  that  whatever  the  Deity  bn, 
nt  iilier  the  universe,  nor  any  part  of  it  which  wc  see, 


Chap.  I.] 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


119 


can  be  he.  The  universe  itself  is  merely  a  collective 
name :  its  parta  are  all  which  are  real,  or  which  are 
thinss.  Now,  inert  matter  is  out  of  the  question ;  and 
organized  substances  include  marks  of  contrivance. 
But  whatever  includes  marks  of  contrivance,  wliat- 
ever,  in  its  constitution,  testifies  design,  necessarily 
carries  us  to  somcthina;  beyond  itself,  to  some  other 
being,  to  a  designer  prior  to,  and  out  of,  itself  No 
aniinal,  for  instance,  can  have  contrived  its  own  limbs 
and  .senses  ;  can  have  been  the  author  to  itself  of  the 
design  with  which  they  were  constructed.  That  suj)- 
position  involves  all  the  absurdity  of  self-creation,  i.  e. 
of  acting  without  e.\isting.  Nothing  can  be  God  which 
is  ordered  by  a  wisdom  and  a  will  wliich  itself  is  void 
of;  which  is  indebted  for  any  of  its  properties  to  con- 
trivance ab  extra.  The  not  having  tliat  in  his  nature 
which  requires  the  exertion  of  another  prior  being 
(which  property  is  sometimes  called  self-suilicicncy, 
and  sometimes  self-coini)relicnsion)  appertains  to  the 
Deity,  as  his  essential  distinction,  and  removes  his  na- 
ture'from  that  of  all  things  which  we  see.  Which 
consideration  contains  the  answer  to  a  question  that 
has  sometimes  been  asked,  namely.  Why,  since  some- 
thing or  other  must  have  existed  from  eternity,  may 
not  the  present  universe  be  that  something  .'  The  con- 
trivance perceived  in  it  proves  that  to  be  impossible. 
Nothing  contrived  can,  in  a  strict  and  proper  sense, 
be  eternal,  forasmuch  as  the  contriver  must  have  ex- 
isted belbre  the  contrivance. 

"  We  have  already  noticed,  and  we  inust  here  notice 
again,  the  misapplication  of  the  term  '  law,'  and  the 
mistake  concerning  the  idea  which  that  term  expresses 
in  physics,  whenever  such  idea  is  made  to  take  the 
place  of  power,  and  still  more  of  an  intelligent  power, 
and,  as  such,  to  be  assigned  for  the  cause  of  any  thing, 
or  of  any  property  ;if  any  thing,  that  exists.  This  is  what 
we  are  secretly  apt  to  do  when  we  speak  of  organized 
bodies  (plants,  for  instance,  or  animals)  owing  their  pro- 
duction, their  form,  tlieir  growth,  their  qualities,  their 
beauty,  their  use,  to  any  law  or  laws  of  nature  ;  and 
when  we  are  contented  to  sit  down  with  that  answer 
to  our  imjuiries  concerning  litem.  I  say  once  more, 
that  it  is  a  perversion  of  language  to  assign  any  law,  as 
the  efficient  operative  cause  of  any  thing.  A  law  pre- 
supposes an  agent,  for  it  is  only  the  mode  according  to 
which  an  agent  proceeds:  it  implies  a  power,  for  it  is 
the  order  according  to  which  that  power  acts.  Witli- 
out  this  agent,  without  this  power,  which  are  both  dis- 
tinct from  itself,  tlie  '  law'  does  nothing  ;  is  nothing. 

"  What  has  been  said  concerning  '  law,'  holds  true 
of  mechanixin.  Mechanism  is  not  itself  power.  Me- 
chanism without  i)Ower  can  do  nothing.  Let  a  watch 
be  contrived  and  constructed  ever  so  ingeniously ;  be 
its  parts  ever  so  many,  ever  so  complicated,  ever  so 
finely  wrought  or  artificially  put  together,  it  cannot  go 
without  a  weight  or  spring,  i.  e.  without  a  force  inde- 
pendent of,  and  ulterior  to,  its  mechanism.  The  spring 
acting  at  the  centre,  will  produce  different  motions 
and  dtfTerent  results,  according  to  the  variety  of  the  in- 
termediate mechanism.  One  and  the  self-same  spnng, 
acting  in  one  and  the  same  manner,  viz.  by  simply  ex- 
panding itself,  may  be  the  cause  of  a  hundred  different 
and  all  useful  movements,  if  a  hundred  different  and 
well-devised  sets  of  wheels  be  placed  between  it  and 
the  final  effect,  e.  g.  may  point  out  the  hour  of  the  day, 
the  day  of  the  month,  the  age  of  the  moon,  the  position 
of  the  planets,  the  cycle  of  the  years,  and  many  other 
serviceable  notices ;  and  these  movements  may  fulfil 
their  purposes  with  more  or  less  perfection,  according 
as  the  mechanism  is  better  or  worse  contrived,  or  bet- 
ter or  worse  executed,  or  in  a  better  or  worse  state  of 
repair;  but  in  all  cases,  it  is  necessary  that  the  spriii:^ 
act  at  the  centre.  The  course  of  our  reasoning  upon 
such  a  subject  would  be  this.  By  inspecting  the  watch, 
even  when  standing  still,  we  get  aproof  of  contrivance, 
and  of  a  contriving  mind  having  been  employed  about 
it.  In  the  form  and  obvious  relation  of  its  parts  we 
see  enough  to  convince  us  of  this.  If  we  pull  the 
works  in  pieces,  for  the  purpose  of  a  closer  examina- 
tion, we  are  still  more  fully  convinced.  But  when  we 
see  the  watch  going,  we  see  proof  of  another  point, 
viz.  that  there  is  a  power  somewhere,  and  somehow  or 
other,  applied  to  it ;  a  power  in  action ;  that  there  is 
more  in  the  subject  than  the  mere  wheels  of  the  ma- 
chine; that  there  is  a  secret  spring  or  a  gravitating 
plummet ;  in  a  word,  that  there  is  force  and  energy  as 
well  as  mechanism. 


"  So,  then,  the  watch  in  motion  establishes  to  the  ob- 
server two  conclusions:  one,  that  thought,  contriv- 
ance, and  design  have  been  employed  in  the  forming, 
Iiroportioning,  ana  arranging  of  its  parts;  and  that 
whoever  or  wherever  he  be,  or  were,  such  a  contriver 
there  is,  or  was  :  the  other,  that  force  or  power,  dis- 
tinct from  mechanism,  is,  at  this  present  time,  acting 
upon  it.  If  I  saw  a  hand-mill  even  at  rest,  I  should 
see  contrivance  ;  but  if  1  saw  it  grinding,  I  should  be 
assured  that  a  hand  was  at  the  windlass,  though  in 
another  room.  It  is  the  same  in  nature.  In  the  works 
of  nature  we  trace  mechanism ;  and  this  alone  proves 
contrivance  ;  but  livirig,  active,  moving,  productive  na- 
ture proves  also  the  e.xertion  of  a  jiower  at  the  centre ; 
for  wherever  the  power  resides,  may  be  denominated 
the  centre. 

"  The  intervention  and  disposition  of  what  are  called 
'  second  causes^  fall  under  the  same  observation.  This 
disposition  is  or  is  not  mechanism,  according- as  we 
can  or  cannot  trace  it  by  our  senses,  and  means  of  ex- 
amination. That  is  all  the  difference  there  is ;  and  it 
is  a  difference  which  respects  our  faculties,  not  the 
things  themselves.  Now  where  the  order  of  second 
causes  is  mechanical,  what  is  here  said  of  mechanism 
strictly  applies  to  it.  But  it  would  be  always  mecha- 
nism (natural  chemistry,  for  instance,  would  be  me- 
chanism), if  our  senses  were  acute  enough  to  descry  it, 
Neither  mechanism,  therefore,  in  the  works  of  nature, 
nor  the  intervention  of  what  are  called  second  causes 
(for  I  think  that  they  are  the  satne  thing),  excuses  the 
necessity  of  an  agent  distinct  from  both. 

"  If,  in  tracing  those  causes,  it  be  said,  that  we  find 
certain  general  properties  of  matter,  which  have  no- 
thing in  them  that  bespeaks  intelligence,  I  answer,  that 
still,  the  ynanaging  of  these  properties,  the  pointing 
and  directing  them  to  the  uses  which  we  see  made  of 
them,  demands  intelligence  in  the  highest  degree  For 
e.xample,  suppose  animal  secretions  to  be  elective  at- 
tractions, and  that  such  and  such  attractions  univer- 
sally belong  to  such  and  such  substances  ;  in  all  which 
there  is  no  intellect  concerned;  still  the  choice  and 
collocation  of  these  substances,  the  fixing  upon  right 
substances  and  disjKj.sing  them  m  right  places,  must 
be  an  act  of  intelligence.  What  mi-schief  would  follow, 
were  there  a  single  transposition  of  the  secretory  or- 
gans ;  a  single  mistake  in  arranging  the  glands  which 
compose  them  1 

"  There  may  be  many  second  causes,  and  many 
courses  of  second  causes,  one  behind  another,  between 
what  we  observe  of  nature  and  the  Deity;  but  there 
must  be  intelligence  somewhere  ;  there  must  be  more 
in  nature  than  what  we  see ;  and  among  the  thing>' 
unseen,  there  must  be  an  intelligent,  designing  author. 
The  philosoi>her  beholds  with  astonishment  the  pro- 
duction of  tilings  around  him.  Unconscious  particles 
of  matter  take  their  stations,  and  severally  range  them- 
selves in  an  order,  so  as  to  become  collectively  plants 
or  animals,  i.  e.  organized  bodies,  with  parts  bearing 
strict  and  evident  relation  to  one  another,  and  to  the 
utility  of  the  whole  :  and  it  should  seem  that  these 
particles  could  not  move  in  any  other  way  than  as  they 
do  ;  for  they  testify  not  the  smallest  sign  of  choice,  or 
liberty,  or  discretion.  There  may  be  particular  intelli- 
gent beings  guiding  these  motions  in  each  case :  or 
they  may  be  the  result  of  trains  of  mechanical  dispo- 
sitions, fixed  beforehand  by  an  intelligent  appointment, 
and  kept  in  action  by  a  power  at  the  centre.  But,  in 
either  case,  there  must  be  intelligence." 

The  above  arguments,  as  they  irresistibly  confirm 
the  Scripture  doctrine  of  the  existence  of  an  intelligent 
First  Cause,  expose  the  extreme  folly  and  absurdity  of 
Atheism,  The  first  of  the  leading  theories  which  it  has 
assumed,  is  the  etemitij  of  matter.  When  this  means 
the  eternity  of  the  world  in  its  present  form  and  consti- 
tution, it  is  contradicted  by  the  changes  which  are  ac- 
tually and  every  moment  taking  place  in  it ;  and,  as 
above  argued,  by  the  contrivance  which  it  every  where 
presents,  and  which,  it  has  been  proved,  necessarily 
supposes  that  designing  intelligence  we  call  God. 
When  it  means  the  eternity  of  unorganized  matter 
only,  the  subject  which  has  received  those  various 
forms,  and  oi-derly  arrangements,  which  imply  con- 
trivance and  final  causes,  it  leaves  untouched  the  ques- 
tion of  an  intelligent  cause,  the  author  of  the  forms 
with  which  it  has  been  impressed.  A  creative  cause 
may,  and  must,  nevertheless,  exist ;  and  this  was  the 
opinion  of  many  of  the  ancient  theislical  philosophers, 


120 


THEOLOGICAl.  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


who  asoribeil  rtornity  bnlh  to  fiod  aiiil  to  iiiHlttr;  and 
considtTod  croiilioii,  not  as  the  brin^'ing  of  KomcthiiiK 
out  of  nothing',  biu  as  the  training  of  wbat  actuully  ex- 
isted without  order  and  williout  end.  Hut  though  this 
tenet  was  hchi,  in  conjunction  witli  a  heliif  in  the 
Deity,  by  many  who  had  not  the  lis;ht  of  the  Scripture 
revelation,  yet  its  manifest  tendency  i.s  to  Atheism, 
because  it  supposes  the  impossibility  of  creation  in  the 
absolute  sense;  and  thus  produces  limited  notions  of 
God,  from  which  the  transition  to  an  entire  denial  of 
hiin  is  an  easy  step.  In  modern  timc^s,  therelbre,  the 
opinion  of  the  eternity  of  matter  has  been  held  by  few 
but  absolute  Atheists. 

What  seems  to  have  led  to  the  notion  of  a  pro-cxist- 
ont  and  eternal  matter  out  of  whu-h  the  world  waa 
formed,  was  the  sii|i|ioscil  impossil)i!ity  of  a  creation 
from  nothing,  according  to  the  ma\im,  "  r.v  niliili)  nihil 
Jit."  The  philoso|iliy  was  however  bad,  because  as 
no  contradiction  was  implied  in  tlius  ascribiiii^  lo  God 
the  power  to  cniale  out  of  nothing,  it  was  a  matter  of 
choice,  whether  to  .allow  what  was  merely  not  compre- 
hensible by  man,  or  to  put  limitations  without  reason 
to  the  power  of  God.     Thus  Cndworth : 

"  IJecause  it  is  undeniably  certain,  concerning  our- 
selves, and  all  imjierfect  beings,  that  none  of  these  can 
create  any  /tcic  ntLhslance,  men  arc  ajit  to  measure  all 
things  by  their  own  scantling,  anil  to  suppose  it  uni- 
versally impossible  for  any  power  whatever  thus  to 
create.  But  since  it  is  certain,  that  imperfect  beings 
can  themselves  produce  some  things  out  of  nothing 
pre-existing,  as  new  cnsitations,  nav  lornl  niolnni, 
and  nnr  mudijiriiti<>ii.<!  of  things  (■orjioreal,  it  is  surely 
reasonalile  to  thiiili  Ihal  an  ahsolulely  |ierti!cl  lieing  can 
do  somrtliing  nicire,  /.  <.  create  /a w  xuhstari.an,  or  give 
them  their  whole  being.  And  it  may  well  be  thought 
as  easy  for  God  or  an  Omnijiotent  Being,  to  make  a 
whole  world,  matter  and  all,  ti,  kk  oitwi/,  as  it  is  for 
us  to  create  a  lliini!>ht  or  to  move  a  finger,  or  for  the 
sun  to  send  out  rays,  or  a  candle  light,  or  lastly,  for  an 
opaque  body  to  produce  an  image  of  itself  in  a  glass  or 
water,  or  to  ])nijeit  a  shadow :  all  these  imperfect 
things  being  but  the  encr/fies,  rays,  images,  or  sha- 
dows of  the  Deity.  For  a  substance  to  be  made  out 
of  nothing  by  (Jod,  or  a  Being  inlhiitely  perfect,  is  not 
for  it  to  be  made  out  of  nothing  in  the  imjiossible  sense, 
because  it  comes  from  him  who  is  all.  Nor  can  it  b(; 
said  lo  he  impossible  for  any  thing  whatever  to  bo  made 
by  that  wliiih  li.ilh  not  only  iiifiiutely  greater  perfer.- 
tidii.  lull  also  'iiifiiiile  actire  jmwer.  It  is  indeed  true, 
that  iiiliiiile  power  itself  cannot  do  things  in  their  own 
nature  impossible;  and,  therefore,  Ihnsr  who  deny  crea- 
iion  ought  to  prove,  that  it  is  aliscilutcly  impossilile  for 
a  substance,  though  not  for  an  accident  or  modilication, 
to  be  brought  from  non-existence  into  being.  But  no- 
thing is  in  itself  impossible  which  does  not  imply  a 
contradiction ;  and  though  it  be  a  contradiction  for  a 
thing  to  be  and  not  to  be  at  the  same  time,  there  is 
surely  no  contrailiction  in  conceiving  an  imperfect 
being  which  before  was  not,  afterward  to  be." 

It  is  not  necessary  to  refer  to  the  usual  metaphysical 
arguments  to  show  the  non-eternity  of  matter,  by 
proving  that  its  exi.stenco  must  be  necessary  if  it  be 
eternal ;  and,  if  necessary,  that  it  must  be  infinite,  <kc. 
They  are  not  of  much  value.  Every  man  bears  in 
himself  the  proof  of  a  creation  out  of  nothing,  so  that 
the  objection  from  the  impossibility  of  the  thing  is  at 
once  removed. 

"  Tliat  sensation,  intel'igence,  consciousness,  and 
volition  are  not  the  result  of  any  mollifications  olligure 
and  motion,  is  a  truth  as  evident  as  that  coiisiionsness 
is  not  swifl,  nor  volition  sipiare.  If  then  these  be  the 
powers  or  properties  ol  a  being  disiinct  from  matter, 
which  we  think  capable  of  ilie  ciiiiiiilelest  proof,  every 
man  who  does  not  believi:  that  his  mind  has  existed 
and  been  conscious  from  eternity,  must  be  convinced 
that  the  power  of  creation  has  been  existed  on  himself 
If  it  be  denied  that  there  is  any  immaterial  substance 
in  man,  still  it  must  be  confesst^d,  that,  as  matter 
is  not  i*si:nlially  iniiscious,  and  cannot  be  made  so 
by  any  particular  orgaiii/.ation,  there  is  some  real  thing 
or  entity,  call  it  what  you  jileasi!,  which  has  either  ex- 
isted and  been  coiisciniis  from  eternity,  or  been  in  time 
brought  from  noii-itntiiy  into  ixistence  by  an  exertion 
of  infinite  power." 

The  fonner  no  sober  person  will  conlt'nd  for,  and  the 
latter  therefore  must  be  admitted. 
On  these  grounds  the  absurdity  of  Atheism  is  mani- 


fest. If  it  attrilintco  the  varions  an-angcinents  of 
material  things  lo  chance,  that  is,  to  nothing,  it  rests  in 
destgn  without  a  designer ;  in  effects  without  a  cause. 
If  it  allow  an  intelligent  cause  operating  to  produce 
these  effects,  but  denies  llim  to  be  almighty,  by  as- 
cribing eternity  to  matter,  and  placing  its  creation 
beyond  his  power,  it  acknowledges  with  us  indeed  a 
Cud ;  but  makes  him  an  imiierlect  being,  limited  in  his 
power;  and  it  chooses  to  acknowledge  this  limited 
and  imiierfect  being  not  only  without  reason,  for  we 
have  ju,«t  seen  that  creation  out  of  iiotliing  implies 
no  contradiction,  but  even  against,  retutan,  fir  the  ac- 
knowledgment of  a  creation  out  of  nothing  must  be 
forced  from  him  by  his  own  experience,  unless  he  will 
contend  Ihat  that  conscious  being  hnnsei/nvdy  have  ex- 
isted from  eternity  without  being  conscious  of  existence, 
exceiit  for  the  space  of  a  li-w  ])ast  years. 

On  some  modtrn  schemes  of  Atheism,  Paley  justly 
remarks  : 

"  I  much  doubt,  whetlicr  the  new  schemes  have  ad- 
vanced any  thing  upon  the  old,  or  done  more  than 
changed  the  terms  of  the  nomenclature.  For  instance, 
I  could  liever  see  the  difl'erence  between  the  aniiiiuateil 
system  of  atoms  and  Uuffon's  organic  molecules. 
This  philosopher,  having  made  a  planet  by  knocking 
oll^fromthesuna  piece  of  melted  glass,  in  consequence 
of  the  stroke  of  a  comet ;  and  having  set  it  in  motion 
by  the  same  stroke,  both  round  its  own  axis  and  the 
sun,  finds  his  ne.vt  difficulty  to  be,  how  to  bring  plants 
and  animals  upon  it.  In  order  lo  solve  this  dilliciilty, 
wearetosupiio.se  the  universe  replenished  with  ]iar- 
ticles  endowed  with  lite,  but  without  organization  or 
senses  of  their  own ;  and  endowed  also  with  a  ten- 
dency to  marshal  themselves  into  organized  forms. 
The  concourse  of  these  particles,  by  virtue  of  Ibis  ten- 
dency, but  without  iiilelliL'eiice,  will,  or  direction  (for 
I  do  not  find  that  any  ol  these  (pialities  are  ascribed  lo 
them),  has  produced  the  living  forms  which  we  now 
see. 

"  Very  few  of  the  conjectures,  which  philosophers 
hazard  upon  these  subjects,  have  more  of  pretension  in 
them,  than  the  challenging  you  to  show  the  direct  iin- 
possibility  of  the  hypothesis.  In  the  iiresent  example 
there  seemed  to  be  a  positive  objei;tion  to  the  whole 
scheme  upon  the  very  face  of  it ;  which  was,  that  if 
the  case  were  as  here  represented,  new  combinations 
ought  to  be  perpetually  taking  place;  new  ]>lanls  and 
animals,  or  organized  bodies  winch  were  neither, 
ought  to  be  starting  up  before'  otir  eyes  every  day.  For 
this,  however,  our  philosopher  has  an  answer.— 
While  so  many  forms  of  plants  aiid  animals  are  al- 
ready in  existence,  and,  consequently,  so  many  '  inter- 
nal mouUls,'  as  he  calls  them,  are  prepared  and  at 
hand,  the  organic  jiarticles  run  into  these  nionlds,  and 
are  employed  in  sujiplying  an  accession  of  substance 
to  them,  as  well  for  their  growth  as  for  their  propa- 
gation. By  which  means  things  keep  their  aiicu  nt 
course.  But,  says  the  same  philosopher,  should  any 
general  loss  or  destruction  of  the  present  conslitullon 
of  organized  liodies  take  place,  the  particles,  for  want 
of  '  moulds'  into  which  they  micht  enter,  would  run 
into  different  combinations,  and  replenish  the  wasto 
with  new  specie's  of  org:llli/,ed  substances. 

"  Is  there  any  liisiory  to  coiiiiieii.-inre  this  notion  ?  Is 
it  known,  that  any  destrnclion  has  been  so  repaired? 
any  desert  llius  repeopled  ' 

"  But  these  wonder-working  instruments,  these  'in- 
ternal moulds,'  what  are  they  aOer  all  ?  what,  when 
examined,  but  a  name  without  signification?  unintelli- 
gible, if  not  self-contradictory;  at  the  best,  difl'ering  in 
nothing  from  ttie  'essential  forms'  of  the  Greek  phiUn 
sophy?  One  short  sentence  of  BulTon's  works  exhi- 
bits his  scheme  .as  follows:  'When  this  nutritious  and 
prolific  matter,  which  is  diflTused  throughout  all  nature, 
passes  through  the  intirnal  mnnid  of  an  animal  or  ve- 
getable, and  finds  a  jiroper  matrix  or  receptucle,  it  gives 
rise  to  an  animal  or  vegetable  of  the  same  .s|iccies.' 
Does  any  reader  annex  a  meaning  to  the  expression 
•internal  mould,' in  this  seiiteni-e  ?  Ought  it  then  to 
be  said,  that  though  we  have  little  notion  i.f  an  internal 
mould,  we  have  not  much  more  of  a  desiL'iiiiig  mind? 
The  very  contrary  of  this  as.sertion  is  the  iinili.  When 
wespeak  of  an  artificer  or  an  anhiteil,  we  talk  ol  what 
is  comprehensible  loour  understanding,  ami  lamiliarto 
our  experience.  We  use  no  other  linns,  than  what  re- 
fer us  for  their  meaning  lo  our  loiiscioiisiiess  and  ob- 
servation :  what  express  the  constant  objects  of  boiti; 


Chap.  I.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


121 


whereas,  nariica  like  that  we  have  mentioned,  refer  us 
to  nothing;  exeite  no  idea;  i-onvey  ;i  sound  to  tlie  ear, 
but  1  think  do  no  more.  "  Anotlicr  system,  whielilias 
lately  been  brought  Ibrvvard,  and  witli  much  ingenuity, 
is  that  of  ajijitU'iicies.  The  principle,  and  the  sliorl  ac- 
count of  the  theory,  is  tltis :  Pieces  of  soft,  ductile 
matter,  being  endued  with  propensities  or  appetencies 
for  particular  actions,  would,  by  continual  endeavours, 
carrieil  on  through  a  long  series  of  generations,  work 
themselves  gradually  into  suitable  forms ;  and  at  length 
accpiire,  tlKnl^'h  jifrhaps  by  obscure  and  almost  iinjier- 
ceptililf  iiri|irovfiiRMits,  an  organization  fitted  to  the  ac- 
tion wliicii  thfir  respective  propensities  led  them  to  ex- 
ert.— A  piece  ol'  animated  matter,  lor  example,  that  was 
endued  with  a  jiropensity  to  ////,  tlidugh  ever  so  shape- 
less, tliongh  no  other  we  will  suppose  than  a  round  ball, 
to  begin  with,  would,  in  a  course  of  ages,  if  not  in  a 
iiiillioii  of  years,  jierhaps  in  a  hundred  million  of  years 
(lijr  our  theorists,  having  eternity  to  dispose  of,  are  ne- 
ver sparing  in  time),  ai-i|iiu-e  viniis.  The  same  ten- 
dency to  locomotion  in  an  ai]uatic  animal,  or  rather  in 
an  animated  lump  wliicli  might  luippen  to  be  surrounded 
by  water,  would  end  in  the  production  oi'Ji)is :  in  a 
living  substance,  confined  to  the  solid  earth,  would  put 
out  legs  smd/eet;  or,  if  it  took  a  dilferent  turn,  would 
break  the  body,  into  ringlets  and  conclude  by  cruwltiig 
upon  the  ground. 

■'  The  scheme  under  consideration  is  open  to  the  same 
objection  with  other  conjectures  of  a  similar  ten- 
dency, viz.  a  total  delect  of  evidence.  No  changes, 
like  those  which  the  theory  requires,  have  ever  been  ob- 
served. All  the  changes  in  Ovid's  Metamorphoses 
might  have  been  effected  by  these  appetencies,  if  the 
theory  were  true :  yet  not  an  example,  nor  the  pretence 
of  an  example,  is  oll'ered  of  a  single  change  being 
known  to  have  taken  place. 

"  The  solution,  when  applied  to  the  works  of  nature 
generally,  is  contradicted  by  many  of  the  phenomena, 
and  totally  inadei|uate  to  others.  The  ligamnitu  or 
strictures,  by  which  the  tendons  are  tied  down  at  the 
angles  of  the  joints,  could  by  no  possibility  be  formed 
by  the  motion  or  exercise  of  the  tendons  themselves ; 
by  any  apjietency  exciting  these  parts  into  action  :  or 
by  any  tendency  arising  therefrom.  The  tendency  is 
all  the  other  way ;  the  conatus  in  constant  opposition 
to  them.  Length  of  time  does  not  help  the  case  at  all, 
but  the  reverse.  The  valves,  also,  in  the  blood-vessuls 
could  never  be  formed  in  the  manner  which  our  theo- 
rist proposes.  The  blood,  in  its  right  and  nal  ural  course 
lias  no  tendency  to  form  them.  When  obstructed  or 
relluent,  it  has  the  contrary.  These  parts  could  not 
grow  out  of  their  use,  though  they  had  eternity  to 
grow  in. 

"  The  senses  of  animals  appear  to  me  altogether  in- 
capable of  receiving  the  explanation  of  their  origin 
which  this  theory  affords.  Including  under  the  word 
'sense'  the  organ  and  the  perception,  we  have  no  ac- 
count of  either.  How  will  our  philosopher  get  at  vision 
or  make  an  eye  ]  How  should  the  blind  animal  alTecl 
sight,  of  which  blhid  animals,  we  know,  have  neither 
conception  nor  desire  .'  Afl'ecting  it,  by  what  operation 
of  its  will,  by  what  endeavour  to  see,  could  it  so  deter- 
mine the  fluids  of  its  body,  as  to  inchoate  the  formation 
of  an  eye  1  or  suppose  the  eye  formed,  would  the  per- 
ception follow?  The  same  of  the  other  senses.  And 
this  objection  holds  its  force,  ascribe  what  you  will  to 
the  hand  of  time,  to  the  power  of  habit,  to  changes 
too  slow  to  be  observed  by  man,  or  brought  within  any 
comparison  which  he  is  able  to  make  of  past  things 
with  the  present :  concede  what  you  please  to  these  ar- 
bitrary and  unattested  suppositions,  how  will  they  help 
you?  Here  is  no  inception.  No  laws,  no  course,  no 
powers  of  nature  which  prevail  at  present,  nor  any  ana- 
logous to  these,  could  give  coninjencement  to  a  new 
sense.  And  it  is  in  vain  to  inquire,  how  that  might 
proceed  which  could  never  begin. 

"  In  the  last  place,  What  do  these  appetencies  mean 
when  apphed  to  plants  ?  I  am  not  able  to  give  a  signi- 
fication to  the  term,  which  can  be  transferred  from  ani- 
mals to  plants  ;  or  which  is  common  to  both.  Vet  a 
no  less  successful  organization  is  found  in  jilants,  than 
what  obtains  in  animals.  A  solution  is  wanted  for  one 
as  well  as  the  other. 

"  Ujion  the  whole,  after  all  the  schemes  and  strug- 
gles of  a  reluctant  philosophy,  the  necessary  resort  is  a 
Deity.  The  marks  of  design  are  too  strong  to  be  got 
over.    Design  must  have  bad  a  designer.    That  de- 


signer must  have  been  a  person.     That  person  is 
God." 

Well  has  it  been  said,  that  Atheism  is,  in  all  its  theo- 
ries, a  credulity  o(  the  grossest  kind,  eipially  degrading 
to  the  understanding  and  to  the  heart :  lor  what  reflect- 
ing and  honest  mind  can  for  a  moment  put  these  theo- 
ries into  competition  with  that  revealed  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, at  once  so  sublime  and  so  convincing  ;  and  which 
instead  of  shunning,  like  those  just  mentioned,  an  ap- 
peal to  facts,  bids  us  look  to  the  heavens  and  to  the  earth  ; 
assemble  the  aggregate  of  beings,  great  and  small ;  and 
examine  their  structure,  and  mark  their  relations,  in 
proof  that  there  must  exist  an  All-wise,  and  an  Al- 
mighty Creator  ? 

Such  is  the  evidence  which  the  doctrine  of  a  Deity 
receives  from  experience,  observation,  and  a  rational 
induction,  a  posteriori.  The  argument  thus  stated  has 
an  overwhelming  force,  and  certainly  needs  no  other, 
thoughattempts  have  been  made  to  obtain  proof  <i  priori, 
and  thus  to  meet  and  rout  the  forces  of  the  enemy  in 
both  directions.  No  instance  is,  however,  I  believe,  on 
record,  of  an  atheistic  conversion  having  been  pro- 
duced by  this  process,  and  it  may  be  ranked  among  the 
over-zealous  attempts  of  the  advocates  of  truth.  It  is 
well  intentioned,  but  unsatisfactory,  and  so  far  as  on 
the  one  hand  it  has  led  to  a  neglect  of  the  more  con- 
vincing, and  powerful  course  of  argument  drawn  from 
"ZAe  things  which  do  appear  ;"  and,  on  the  other,  has 
encouraged  a  dependence  upon  amodeofinvestiiiatinn, 
to  which  the  human  mind  is  inadequate,  which  in  in;iny 
instances  is  an  utter  mental  delusion,  and  whuh 
scarcely  two  minds  will  conduct  in  the  same  manner; 
it  has  probably  been  mischievous  in  its  effects,  by  in- 
ducing a  skepticism  not  arising  out  of  the  nature  of  the 
case,  but  from  the  imperfect  and  unsatisfactory  investi- 
gations of  the  human  understanding,  pushed  beyond  the 
limit  of  its  powers.  In  most  instances  it  is  a  sword 
which  cuts  two  ways ;  and  the  mere  imaginary  assump- 
tions of  those  who  think  they  have  found  out  a  new 
way  to  demonstrate  truth,  have  in  many  instances 
either  done  di.s.service  to  it  by  absurdity,  or  yielded  prin- 
ciples which  unbelievers  have  connected  with  the 
most  injurious  conclusions.  We  need  only  instance  the 
doctrine  of  ihe  necessary  existence  of  the  Deity,  when 
reasoned  a  priori.  Some  acute  infidels  have  thanked 
those  for  the  discovery  who  intended  nothing  so  little 
as  to  encourage  error ;  and  have  argued  from  that  no- 
tion, that  the  Supreme  Being  cannot  be  a  free  agent,  and 
have  thus  set  the  first  principles  of  religion  at  variance 
with  the  Scriptures.  The  fact  seems  to  be,  that  though, 
when  once  the  existence  of  a  first  and  intelligent  cause 
is  established,  some  of  his  attributes  are  capable  of 
proof  u  priori  (how  much  that  proof  is  worth,  is  an- 
other question),  yet  that  his  existence  itself  admits  of  no 
such  demonstration,  and  that  in  the  nature  of  the  thing 
it  is  impossible. 

Tlie  reason  of  this  is  drawn  from  the  very  nature  of 
an  argument  a  priori.  It  is  an  argument  from  an  an- 
tecedent to  a  consequent,  from  cause  to  effect.  I^ 
therefore,  there  be  any  thing  existing  in  nature,  or 
could  have  been,  from  which  the  being  and  attributes 
of  tied  might  have  been  derived,  or  any  thing  which 
can  be  justly  considered  as  prior  in  order  of  nature  or 
conception  to  the  first  cause  of  all  things ;  then  may 
the  argument  from  such  prior  thing  or  principle  be 
good  and  valid.  But  if  there  is  in  reality  nothing  prior 
to  the  being  of  God,  considered  as  the  first  cause  and 
casuality,  nothing  in  nature,  nothing  in  reason,  then 
the  attempt  is  fruitless  to  argue  from  it ;  and  we  im- 
properly pretend  to  search  into  the  grounds  or  reasons 
of  the  first  cause,  of  whom  antecedently  we  neither  do 
nor  can  know  any  thuig. 

As  the  force  of  the  argument  d  priori  has,  however, 
been  much  debated,  it  may  not  be  useless  to  enter  some- 
what more  fully  into  the  subject. 

One  of  the  earliest,  and  ablest  advocates  of  this  mode 
of  demonstrating  the  existence  of  God,  was  Dr.  Samuel 
C;iarke.  He  however  first  proceeds  d  posteriori  to 
prove,  from  the  actual  existence  of  dependent  beings, 
the  existence  from  eternity  of  "one  unchangeable  and 
independent  being;"  and  thus  makes  himself  debtor  to 
this  obvious  and  plain  demonstration  before  he  can 
prove  that  this  being  is,  in  his  sense,  necessarily  exist- 
ent. Necessity  of  existence  is  therefore  tacitly  ac- 
knowledged, not  to  be  a  tangible  idea  in  the  first  in- 
stance ;  and  the  weight  of  the  proof  is  tacitly  confessed 
to  rest  upon  the  argument  from  e//'ect  to  cause,  which 


nz- 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  IL 


if  admitted  needs  no  assistance  from  a  moro  ahsiract 
course  of  ar^-oiiig.  For  if  the  lirst  arfjiiiuont  l)o  al- 
lowed, every  Ihiuf;  else  follows ;  and  it  nmsl  be  allowed 
bel'ore  llic  liiglier  {{round  of  denionstrutioii  can  ljei;ikeii. 
We  have  seen  the  guarded  manner  in  wliirli  Howe, 
in  tUe  quotation  belbre  given,  lias  stated  llie  notion  of 
the  necessary  existenee  of  the  Uiviue  JJeuis-  i>r.  S. 
Clarke  and  his  followers  have  relined  ujiou  this,  and 
given  a  view  of  the  subject  which  is  liable  to  the 
strongest  objections.  His  words  are,  "To  be  self-ex- 
istent is  to  exist  by  an  absolute  necessity,  originally  in 
the  nature  of  the  thing  itself;"  and  "this  necessity 
must  not  be  barely  conseijuent  upon  our  supposition  of 
the  existence  of  such  a  being,  for  then  it  would  not  be 
a  necessity  absolutely  such  in  itself,  nor  be  the 
ground  or' foundation  of  the  existence  of  any  thing, 
heing  on  the  contrary  only  a  conse(inent  of  it ;  but  it 
must  antecedently  force  itself  upon  us  whether  we  will 
or  not ;  even  when  we  are  endeavouring  to  suppose  that 
no  such  being  exists."('^) 

One  of  the  reasons  given  for  this  opinion  is,  "  there 
must  be  in  nature  a  jiermanent  ground  or  reason,  lor 
the  existence  of  the  lirst  cause,  otherwise  its  being 
would  be  owing  to  mere  chance."  But  to  this  it  has 
been  well  replied,  "  Why  must  we  say  that  God  has 
his  existence  from,  or  that  he  does  exist  for  some  prior 
cause  or  reason  .'  Why  may  we  not  say  that  Cod  ex- 
ists as  the  first  cause  of  all  things,  and  tliereujion 
surcease  from  all  farther  inquiries?  God  hiniselfsaid 
'  I  am,'  and  he  had  done,  but  the  argument,  if  it  did 
prove  any  thing,  would  prove  too  much.  To  evince 
■which,  let  the  same  way  of  reasoning  be  applied  to 
what  you  call  the  ground  or  the  reason  of  the  exist- 
ence of  the  lirst  cause,  and  then  with  very  little  varia- 
tion, I  retort  upon  you  in  your  own  words.  If  this 
ground  or  reason  be  itself  any  thing,  or  any  property 
of  any  thing,  of  what  nature,  kind,  or  degree  soever, 
there  must,  according  to  your  way  of  reasoning,  be  in 
nature  a  ground  or  reason  of  the  existence  of  such 
your  antecedent  necessity,  '  a  reason  why  it  is,  rather 
than  why  it  is  not,  otherwise  its  existence  will  be  owing 
to,  or  dependent  on  mere  chance.'  You  observe  else- 
where that  '  nothing  can  be  more  absurd  than  to  sup- 
pose that  any  thing,  or  any  circumstance  of  any  thing, 
is,  and  yet  that  there  is  absolutely  no  reason  why  it  is, 
rather  than  why  it  is  not.'  This  consideration  you  al- 
lege as  a  vindication  of  your  assigning  a  reason,  (iprwn 
for  the  existence  of  the  lirst  cause.  If,  therefore,  your 
sujiposcd  reason,  ground,  or  necessity  be  'any  thing  or 
any  supposable  circumstance  of  any  thing,'  as  surely 
it  must  be,  if  not  mere  nothing,  then  by  the  same  rule, 
such  'ground,'  'necessity,' &c.,  must  have  a  reason, 
a  priori,  why  it  is,  rather  than  why  it  is  not,  and  after 
that  another,  and  then  a  third,  and  so  on  in  infinitum. 
And  thus  in  your  way  we  may  be  always  seeking  a 
first  cause,  and  never  be  able  to  find  one,  whereon  to 
fix  ourselves,  or  such  our  restless  and  unprofitable  in- 
quiries. While  indeed  we  consider  only  inferior  ex- 
istences and  second  causes,  there  will  always  be  room 
left  for  inquiring  why  such  things  are,  and  how  such 
things  came  to  be  as  they  are;  because  this  is 
only  seeking  and  investigating  the  initial,  the  ellicient, 
or  the  final  cause  of  their  existence.  Hut  when  we 
are  advanced  beyond  all  causes,  procatarctical  and  final, 
it  remains  only  to  say,  that  such  is  our  lirst  cause  and 
causality,  tlial  we  know  it  exists,  and  without  prior 
cause ;  and  with  this  you  yourself  will  be  obliged  to 
fall  in,  the  lirst  stei)  >""  farther  lake;  for  if  we  ask 
you  of  th(^  antecedent  neecxsUy,  whence  it  is,  and  what 
jirior  ground  there  was  for  it,  you  must  yourself  be 
content  to  say — so  it  is,  you  know  not  why,  you  know 
not  how.''(3) 

The  necessary  existence  of  the  first  cause,  consi- 
dered as  a  logical  necessiti/,  may  be  made  out  without 
dilliculty,  and  is  indeed  demonstrated  in  the  argu- 
ments given  above;  but  the  niUnral  necesxity  of  his 
exislence  is  a  subject  too  subtle  for  human  grasp,  and, 
from  its  obscurity,  is  calculated  U)  mislead.  Every 
thing  important  in  the  Idea,  so  far  as  it  is  unexception- 
able, is  well  and  safely  expressed  by  Baxter.  ''That 
which  ciHild  be  eternally  without  a  cause,  aud  itself 
cause  all  tilings,  is  sclf-sullicirnt  and  mdependenl."(-l) 
'i'his  seems  ilie  only  true  notion  oC  necessary  existence, 


(2)  Demonstration  1 . 

(;t)  Grelton's  Review  of  the  Arguments  j)rj«n. 

('I)  Reasons  of  the  C'lirislian  Ueligiou. 


and  care  should  be  taken  to  use  the  term  in  a  definite 
and  coiM|irclieiisible  sense.  'J'lie  word  nn  essity,  when 
ajiplied  to  existence,  maybe  taken  in  two  acceptations, 
either  lis  It  arises  from  the  relation  which  the  existence 
of  thai  of  which  it  is  allirmed  has  to  the  existence  of 
other  tilings,  or  from  the  relation  which  the  actual  ex- 
i-stencc  of  that  thing  has  to  the  manner  of  its  own  ex- 
istence. In  the  former  sense,  it  denotes  that  the  sup- 
position of  the  non-existence  of  that  of  xvhich  the  ne- 
cessity is  alhrmed,  implies  the  non-existence  of  things 
wc  know  to  exist.  Thus  some  independent  being  does 
necessarily  exist ;  because,  to  suppose  no  independent 
being  implies  that  there  are  no  dependent  beings,  the 
contrary  of  which  we  knoxv  to  be  true.  In  the  second 
sense,  necessity  means  that  the  being  of  xvhich  it  ia 
affirmed,  exists  after  such  a  manner  as  that  it  never 
could  in  time  past  have  been  non-existent,  or  can  in 
future  time  cease  to  be.  Thus  every  independent 
being,  as  it  exists  xvithout  a  cause,  is  necessarily  exist- 
ing, because  existence  is  essential  to  such  a  being ;  so 
that  it  never  could  begin  to  exist,  and  never  can  cease 
to  be ;  for  to  suppose  a  being  to  begin  to  exist,  or  to 
lose  its  existence,  is  to  suppose  a  change  from  nonentity 
to  entity,  or  tuce  versa  ;  and  to  supjiose  such  a  change 
is  to  supposes  cause  ujion  xvhich  that  being  depends. 
Kvery  being,  therefore,  which  is  indejnndent,  that  is, 
xvhich  had  no  cause  of  its  existence,  must  enst  neceS' 
sarily,  and  cannot  possibly  have  begun  to  exist  in  time 
past,  or  cease  to  be  in  lime  future. 

Still  farther  on  Ur.  S.  Clarke's  view  of  the  necessary 
existence  of  the  Supreme  Being,  it  has  been  observed, 

"  But  what  is  this  necessity  xvhich  proves  so  much? 
It  is  the  ground  of  existence  (he  saj's)  of  that  xvliich  ex- 
ists of  itself ;  and  if  so,  it  must,  in  the  order  of  nature 
and  in  our  conceptions,  be  antecedent  to  that  Being  of 
whose  existence  it  is  the  ground.  Concerning  such  a 
principle,  there  are  but  three  sui)iiositions  which  can 
possibly  be  made  ;  and  all  of  them  may  be  shown  to  be 
absurd  and  contradictory.  We  may  suppose  either 
the  substance  it.self,  some  property  of  that  substance, 
or  soineihing  extrinsic  to  both,  to  be  this  antecedent 
ground  of  existence  prior  in  the  order  of  nature  to  the 
lirst  cause. 

"  One  would  think,  from  the  turn  of  the  argument 
xvhich  here  represents  this  antecedent  necessity  as 
efficient  and  casual,  that  it  xvere  considered  as  some- 
thing extrinsic  to  the  lirst  cause.  Indeed,  if  thexvords 
have  any  meaning  in  them  at  all,  or  any  force  of  argu- 
ment, they  must  be  so  understood,  just  as  xve  under- 
stand them  of  any  external  cause  ]iroducing  its  effect. 
But  as  an  extrinsic  principle  is  absurd  in  it.self,  and  is 
besides  rejected  by  i)r.  S.  Clarke,  xvho  says  expressly, 
that,  'ofttie  thing  which  derives  not  its  being  from  any 
other  thing,  this  necessity  or  ground  of  existence  must 
be  in  the  thing  itself;'  xv(?  need  not  say  a  word  more  of 
the  last  of  these  sniipositions. 

"  Let  us  then  consider  the  fir.st ;  let  us  take  the  sub- 
stance itself,  and  try  whether  it  can  be  conceived  as 
prior  or  antecedent  to  itself  in  our  conce))tions,  or  in 
the  order  of  nature.  Surely  wc  need  not  observe  that 
nothing  can  be  more  absurd  or  contradictory  than  such 
a  su|)position.  Ur.  S.  Clarke  himself  re])eatedly 
allirms,  and  it  xvould  be  strange  indeed  if  he  did  not 
allirin.  that  no  being,  no  thing  whatever,  can  be  con- 
leived  as  in  any  respect  prior  to  the  first  cause. 

"The  only  remaining  supposition  is,  that  some  at- 
tribute or  property  ol'  the  self-<'xistent  being  may  be 
conceix'ed  as  in  the  onler  of  nature  antecedent  to  that 
being.  But  this,  it  \iossible,  is  more  absurd  than  either 
of  the  two  preceding  siqiposilions.  An  attribute  is 
attributed  to  its  subji'ct  as  its  ground  or  support,  and 
not  the  subject  to  its  attribute.  A  properly,  in  the  very 
notion  of  it,  is  proper  to  the  substance  to  which  it  be- 
longs, and  subsequent  to  it  both  in  our  conceptions  and 
in  the  order  of  nature.  An  antecediMit  attribute,  or 
antecedent  property,  is  a  solecism  as  great,  and  a  con- 
tradiction as  flat,  as  an  antecedent  subsequent  or  a 
subsequent  antecedent,  underslcKhl  in  the  same  sense 
and  in  the  same  syllogism.  Every  iiroperiy  or  attri- 
bute, as  such,  presupposes  its  subject,  and  cannot  othcr- 
wi.se  be  uiidi'rstood.  This  is  a  truth  so  obvious  and  so 
forcible,  that  it  sometimes  extorts  the  assent  e^n  of 
those  who,  upon  other  occasions,  labour  to  obscure  it. 
It  is  confessed  by  Dr.  S.  Clarke,  that  '  the  scholastic 
xvay  of  jiroving  the  existence  of  a  self-existent  being 
from  the  absolute  perfection  of  his  nature,  is  varcpnv 
^fiorepov.    For  all  or  any  perlections  (stiys  he)  pre- 


Chap.  II.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


123 


suppose  existencR,  which  is  a  petilio  jirincipii.'  If, 
therefore,  proiiiTtits,  modi's,  or  iitlributes  in  God  lie 
considered  a-j  perlbiiiorifi  (mid  it  is  impossible  to  con- 
sider them  as  any  thing  else),  then,  hy  this  conO'ssion 
of  the  great  author  hiiiisolf,  they  must  all  or  any  of 
them  pre.snpiio.se  existence.  It  is  indeed  inmiediately 
added  in  the  same  place,  'that  bare  necessity  of  exist- 
ence docs  not  prcsujipose,  hut  infer  existence  ;'  which 
is  true  only  if  such  necessity  be  supposed  to  be  a  prin- 
ciple extrinsic,  the  absurdity  of  which  has  been  already 
shown,  and  i.s  indeed  universally  confessed.  If  it  be 
a  mode  or  projierty,  it  must  presuppose  the  existence 
of  its  subject  as  certainly  and  as  evidently  as  it  is  a 
mode  or  a  property.  It  might,  perhaps,  a  posteriori 
infer  the  existence  of  its  subject,  as  effects  may  infer  a 
cause  ;  but  that  it  should  infer  in  the  other  way  fi  jiriori 
is  altogether  as  impossible  as  that  a  triangle  should  be 
a  square,  or  a  globe  a  parallelograni."(5) 

The  true  idea  of  the  necessary  existence  of  God  is, 
that  he  thus  exists  because  it  is  his  nature,  as  an  inde- 
pendent and  uncaused  being,  to  be ;  his  being  is  necm- 
sary  because  it  is  uiiderived,  not  underiwd  because  it 
is  necessary.  The  first  is  the  sober  sense  of  the  word 
among  our  old  divines;  the  latter  is  a  theory  of  modern 
date,  and  leads  to  no  practical  result  whatever,  except 
to  entangle  the  mind  in  diliiculty,  and  to  give  a  colour 
to  some  very  injurious  errors. 

Equally  linsatisfactory,  and  therefore  quite  as  little 
calculated  to  serve  the  cause  of  truth,  is  the  argument 
from  space;  which  is  represented  by  Newton,  Clarke, 
and  others,  as  an  iiijimte  mode  of  an  injiiiitesnbstaiice, 
and  that  snbstmice,  God  ;  so  that  from  the  existence  of 
space  itself  may  be  argued  the  existence  of  one  Su- 
preme and  Infinite  Being.  Berkeley,  Law,  and  others, 
have  however  shown  tfie  fallacy  of  considering  space 
either  as  a  s^ibst.aiir.e  or  a  mode,  and  have  brought  these 
speculations  under  the  dominion  of  common  sense,  and 
rescued  them  from  metaphysical  delusion.  They  have 
rightly  observed,  that  space  is  a  mere  negation,  and 
that  to  suppose  it  to  have  existence  because  it  has  some 
properties,  for  instance,  of  penetrability,  or  the  capa- 
city of  receiving  body,  is  the  same  thing  as  to  aflirm 
that  darkness  iTinst  be  something  because  it  has  the 
capacity  of  receiving  light,  and  silence  something  be- 
cause it  has  the  property  of  admitting  sound,  and  ab- 
sence the  property  of  being  supplied  by  presence.  To 
reason  in  this  manner  is  to  assign  absolute  negations, 
and  such  as  in  the  same  way  may  be  applied  to  no- 
thing, and  then  call  them  positive  properties,  and  so 
infer  that  the  chimera  thus  clothed  with  them  must 
needs  be  something.  The  arguments  in  favour  of  the 
real  existence  of  space  as  something  positive,  have 
failed  in  the  hands  of  their  first  great  authors,  and  the 
attempts  since  made  to  uphold  them  have  added  nolhing 
but  what  is  exceedingly  futile,  and  indeed  often  obvi- 
ously absurd.  The  whole  of  this  controversy  has  left 
us  only  to  lament  the  waste  of  labour  which  has  been 
employed  in  erecting  around  the  impregnable  ramparts 
of  the  great  arguments  on  which  the  cause  rests  with 
60  much  safety,  the  useless  encumbrances  of  mud  and 
straw. 

The  proof  of  the  being  of  a  God  reposes  wholly  then 
upon  arguments  d  posteriori,  and  it  needs  no  other ; 
ttiougli  we  shall  see  as  we  proceed,  that  even  these  ar- 
guments, strong  and  irrefutable  as  they  are  when 
rightly  applied,  have  been  used  to  prove  more  as  to 
some  of  the  attributes  of  God,  than  can  satisfactorily 
be  drawn  from  them.  Even  with  this  safe  and  con- 
vincing process  of  reasoning  at  our  command,  we  shall 
find  at  every  step  of  an  inquiry  into  the  Divine  Nature 
our  entire  dependence  upon  divine  revelation  for  our 
primary  light.  That  must  both  originate  our  investi- 
gations, and  conduct  ttiem  to  a  satisfactory  result. 


CHAPTER  II. 

Attributes  of  God. (ft)  Unity,  Spirituality 
The  existence  of  a  Supreme  Creator  and  First  Cause 
of  all  things,  himself  uncaused  and  independent,  and 


(5)  Law's  Inquiry. 

(6)  "  They  are  called  attributes,  because  God  attri- 
butes them  to,  and  afHrms  them  of,  himself.  Proper- 
ties, because  we  conceive  them  proper  to  God,  and  such 
as  can  be  predicated  only  of  liini,  so  that  by  them  we 


therefore  self-existent,  liaving  been  proved,  the  next 
iiuestioii  is,  whether  there  exists  more  than  one  such 
Being,  or,  in  oilier  words,  wliclher  wc  are  to  ascribe 
to  him  an  absolute  unity  or  sotctiess.  l)n  this  point 
the  testimony  of  tlio  Scriptures  is  express  and  unequi- 
vocal. "The  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord."  Dent.  vi.  4. 
"  The  Lord  he  is  God,  there  is  none  else  beside  him." 
Deut.  iv.  35.  "  Tliou  art  God  alone."  Psalm  Ixxxvil 
10.  "  Wc  know  that  an  idol  is  nothing  in  the  world, 
and  there  is  none  other  God  but  one."  Nor  is  this 
stated  ip  Scripture  merely  to  exclude  all  other  creators, 
governors,  and  deities,  in  connexion  witli  men,  and  the 
system  of  created  things  which  we  behold;  but  abso- 
lutely, so  as  to  exclude  the  idea  of  the  existence,  any 
where,  of  more  than  one  Divine  nature. 

Of  this  Unity,  the  proper  Scriiiture  notion  may  be  thug 
expressed.  Some  things  are  one  by  virtue  of  composi- 
tion, but  God  hath  no  parts,  nor  is  compounded  ;  but  is 
a  pure,  simple  Being.  Some  are  one  in  kind,  but  admit 
many  individuals  of  the  same  kind,  as  men.  angels, 
and  other  creatures ;  but  God  is  so  one  that  there  are 
no  other  Gods,  though  there  are  other  beings.  Some 
things  are  so  one,  as  tha.t  there  exists  no  other  of  the 
same  kind,  as  are  one  sun,  one  moon,  one  world,  one 
heaven ;  yet  lliere  might  liave  been  more,  if  it  had 
pleased  God  so  to  will  it.  But  God  is  so  one,  that 
there  is  not,  there  cannot  be  another  God.  He  is  one 
only,  and  takes  up  the  Deity  so  fully,  as  to  admit  no 
fellow.(7) 

The  proof  of  this  important  doctrine  from  Scripture 
is  short  and  simple.  We  have  undoubted  proofs  of  a 
revelation  from  the  Maker  and  Governor  of  this  present 
world.  Granting  him  to  be  wise  and  good,  "  it  is  im- 
possible that  God  should  lie,"  and  his  own  testimony 
assigns  to  him  an  exclusive  Deity.  If  we  admit  the 
authority  of  the  Scriptures,  we  admit  a  Deity;  if  we 
admit  one  God,  we  exclude  all  others.  The  truth  of 
Scripture  resting,  as  we  have  seen,  on  proofs  which 
cannot  be  resisted  without  universal  skepticism,  and 
universal  skepticism  being  proved  to  be  impossible  by 
the  common  conduct  of  even  the  most  skeptical  men, 
the  proof  of  the  Divine  Unity  rests  precisely  on  th«^ 
same  basis,  and  is  sustained  by  the  same  certain  evi- 
dence. 

On  this,  as  on  the  former  point,  however,  there  is 
much  rational  confirmation,  to  which  revelation  has 
given  us  the  key  ;  fliough  without  that,  and  even  in  its 
.strongest  form,  it  may  be  concluded  from  the  prevalence 
of  polytheism  among  the  generality  of  nations,  and  of 
dualism  among  others,  that  the  human  mind  would 
have  had  but  too  indistinct  a  view  of  this  kind  of  evi- 
dence to  rest  in  a  conclusion  so  necessary  to  true  reli- 
gion and  to  settled  rules  of  morals. 

To  prove  the  unity  of  God,  several  arguinents  A,pri 
ori  have  been  made  use  of;  to  which  mode  of  jiroof, 
provided  the  argument  itself  be  logical,  no  objection 
lies.  For  though  it  ajipears  absurd  to  attempt  to  prove 
d  prion  the  existence  ofa  first  cause,  seeing  that  nothing 
can  eitlier  in  order  of  time  or  order  of  nature  be  prior 
to  him,  or  be  conceived  prior  to  him  ;  yet  the  exist- 
ence of  an  independent  and  self-existent  cause  of  all 
things  being  made  knowni  to  us  by  revelation,  and  con- 
firmed by  tlie  phenomena  of  actual  and  dependent  ex- 
istence, a  ground  is  laid  lor  considering  from  this  fact, 
which  is  antecedent  in  order  of  nature,  tliough  not  in 
order  of  time,  the  consequent  attributes  with  which 
such  a  Being  must  be  invested. 

Among  the  arguments  of  this  class  to  prove  the  Di- 
vine Unity,  the  tbllowing  are  the  principal. 

Dr.  S.  Clarke  argues  from  his  view  of  the  necessary 
existence  of  the, Divine  Being.  "Necessity,"  he  ob- 
serves, "absolute  in  itself,  is  simple,  and  uniform, 
and  universal,  without  any  possible  diflereuce,  dif- 
formity,  or  variety  whatsoever ;  and  all  variety  or  dif- 
ference of  existence  must  needs  arise  from  some  ex- 
ternal cause,  and  be  dependent  upon  it."  And  again, 
"To  suppose  two  or  more  (<ii-<mc<  beings  existing  of 
themselves  necessarily,  and  independent  of  each  other. 


distinguish  him  from  all  other  beings.  Perfectiotis, 
because  they  are  the  several  representations  of  that 
one  perfection,  which  is  himself.  JS'ames  and  terms, 
because  they  express  and  signify  something  of  his 
essence.  Notions,  because  they  are  so  many  appre- 
hensions of  Ills  being  as  we  conceive  of  him  in  our 
minds."— Lawson's  Thco-Politica.  ' 
(j)  Ibid. 


124 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  IL 


implies  this  contradiction— that  each  nf  thorn  being  in- 
dependent of  each  other,  they  may  either  of  theiii  bo 
supposed  to  exist  alone ;  so  that  it  will  be  no  eoiitra- 
dictioii  to  suppose  the  other  not  to  exist,  and  eons(^ 
quently  neither  of  them  will  be  necessarily  oxistiiij:."(S) 
These  arguments  being,  however,  wholly  limndeil 
upon  that  peeuliar  notion  of  necessary  existence  which 
is  advocated  liy  the  author,  derive  their  whole  aiitliority 
from  the  prijiciplo  itself,  to  which  some  objections 
have  been  offered. 

The  aruumeni  from  space  must  share  the  same  fate. 
If  space  bean  irilinite  attribute  of  an  infinite  substance, 
and  an  essential  aitritmte  of  Deity,  then  the  existence 
of  one  infiiiile  sulistniice,  and  one  only,  may  probably 
be  argued  from  the  existence  of  this  infinite  jiroperly ; 
but  if  space  be  a  mere  negation,  and  neither  substance 
nor  attribute,  which  has  been  sufficiently  proved  by 
the  writers  before  referred  to,  then  it  is  worth  nothing 
as  a  proof  of  the  unity  of  God. 

Wollaston  argues,  that  if  two  or  more  independent 
beings  exist,  their  natures  must  be  the  same  or  difler- 
ent ;  if  different,  either  contrary  or  various.  If  con- 
trary, each  must  destroy  the  operations  of  the  othi^r  ; 
if  various,  one  must  have  what  the  other  wants,  and 
both  cannot  he  perfect.  If  their  nature  be  perfeclly  the 
same,  then  they  would  coiucide  and  indeed  be  but  one, 
though  called  two.(9) 

Bishop  Wilkins  says,  if  God  be  an  infinitely  perfect 
Heing,  it  is  impossible  to  imagine  two  such  Beings  at 
the  same  time,  because  they  must  have  several  perfec- 
tions, or  the  same.  If  the  former,  neither  of  them  can 
be  God,  because  neither  of  them  has  all  possible  per- 
fections. If  they  have  both  ecpial  perfections,  neither 
of  them  can  be  absolutely  perfect ;  because  it  is  not  so 
great  to  have  the  same  equal  perfections  in  common 
with  another  as  to  be  superior  to  all  others  (1) 

"  The  nature  of  God,"  says  Bisliop  Pearson,  "  con- 
sists in  this,  that  he  is  the  prime  and  original  cause  of 
all  things,  as  an  independent  Being,  upon  whom  all 
things  else  depend,  and  lilsewise  the  ultimate  end  or 
final  cause  of  all ;  but  in  this  sense,  two  prime  causes 
are  unimaginable  :  and  for  all  things  to  depend  on  one, 
and  yet  for  there  to  be  more  independent  beings  than 
one,  is  a  clear  contradiction."{2) 

The  best  argument  of  this  kind  is,  however,  that 
which  arises  from  ahsulute  perfection;  the  idea  of 
which  forces  itself  upon  our  mindS,  when  we  refiei't 
upon  the  nature  of  a  self-existent  and  independent 
Being.  Such  a  Being  there  is,  as  is  sufficiently  proved 
from  the  existence  of  beings  dependent  and  derived ;  and 
it  is  impossible  to  admit  that  without  emicluding,  that 
lie  who  is  independent  and  underivtul,  who  subsists 
wholly  and  only  of  himself,  without  depending  on  any 
other,  must  owe  this  absoluteness  to  so  peculiar  an 
excellence  of  his  own  natun;,  as  we  cannot  well  con- 
ceive to  be  less  than  that  by  which  it  comprehends  in 
itself  the  most  boundless  and  unlimited  fulness  of  being, 
life,  power,  or  whatsoever  can  be  conceived  under  the 
name  of  a  perfection.  "To  such  a  Being,  infinity  may 
be  justly  ascribed;  and  infinity,  not  extrinsically  con- 
Bidered  with  respect  to  time  and  place,  but  intrinsi- 
cally, as  imparting  bottomless  jirofundity  of  essence, 
and  the  full  confluence  of  all  kinds  and  degrees  of  per- 
fection without  bound  or  limit.'"(3)  "  Limitation  is  the 
effect  of  some  superior  cause,  which,  in  the  present 
instance,  there  cannot  be ;  consciiuently,  to  sui)pose 
limits  where  there  can  be  no  limiter,  is  to  suppose  an 
efTect  without  a  cause.  For  a  being  to  be  limited  or 
deficient  in  any  respect,  is  to  be  dependent  in  that 
respect  on  some  other  being,  which  gave  it  just  so 
much  and  no  mon; ;  coiisecjuently,  that  being  which  in 
no  respeil  d(|iirids  upon  any  oilier.  Is  in  no  respect 
limited  iir  dilieieiit.  In  all  beings  capable  of  inerea.se 
or  diniinulion,  and  coiise(|Uenlly  incapable  of  perfection 
or  absolute  infinity,  limilalion  or  defect  is  indexed  a  ne- 
cessary eonseipience  of  exisleiire,  and  is  only  a  nega- 
tion of  tliat  perfection  which  is  wholly  incompatible 
with  their  nature  ;  and  therefore,  in  these  beings,  it  re- 
quires no  farther  cause.  But  in  a  being  naturally 
capable  of  perfection  or  absolute  infinity,  all  imperfec- 
tion or  finiteness,  as  it  cannot  flow  from  the  nature  of 


(8)  Demonstration,  prop.  7. 

(9)  Religion  of  Nature. 

(1)  PriniMples  of  iVatural  Religion. 

(2)  Exposition  of  the  Creed. 

(3)  IIowk's  Living  Temple. 


that  being,  seems  to  require  some  ground  or  reason ; 
which  reasiiii,  as  it  is  t()j-eiL'n  from  llie  being  itself,  niusi 
be  the  effect  of  some  oilur  exlcrinil  cause,  and  conse- 
cjucntly  cannot  have  place  in  the  first  cause.  That  Ibe 
Keif-exislent  being  is  capable  of  perfection,  or  absolute 
infinity,  must  be  granted  ;  because  he  is  manifestly  the 
subject  of  one  infinite  or  perfect  attribute,  namelv,  eter- 
nity, or  ab.solute  invariable  existence.  In  tins  respect 
Ins  existence  is  perfect,  and  therilbre  it  may  be  perfect 
in  every  other  respei:t  also.  Aow,  that  which  is  the 
subject  of  one  infinite  altribute  or  perfection  must  have 
all  its  attributes  infinitely  or  in  perfection ;  since  to 
have  any  jierl'ections  in  a  finite,  limited  manner,  when 
the  subject  and  these  perfections  are  both  cajiable 
of  strict  infinity,  would  be  the  fore-mentioned  ab- 
surdity of  positive  limilation  without  a  cau.se.  To  sup- 
pose this  eternal  and  independent  being  limited  in  or 
by  its  own  nature,  is  to  suppose  some  antecedent  na- 
ture or  limiting  quality  superior  to  that  being,  to  the 
existence  of  which  no  thing,  no  quality,  is  in  any 
respect  antecedent  or  sujierior.  The  same  method  of 
reasoning  will  prove  knowledge  and  every  other  per- 
fection til  be  infinite;  in  the  Deily,  when  once  we  have 
proved  ihal  perlection  to  belong  to  him  at  all ;  at  least, 
it  will  show  tliat  to  suppose  it  limited  is  unrea.sonable, 
since  we  can  find  no  manner  of  ground  for  limitation  in 
any  resjicct ;  and  this  is  as  far  as  we  need  go,  or  per- 
haps as  natural  light  will  lead  us.''(4) 

The  connexion  between  the  steps  of  the  argument 
from  the  self-existence  and  infinity  of  the  Deity  to  his 
unity,  may  be  thus  traced.  There  is  actually  existing 
an  absolute,  entire  fulness  of  wisdom,  power,  and  of  all 
other  perfection.  This  absolute,  entire  fiiliiess  of  per- 
fection is  infinite.  This  infinite  perfection  must  have 
its  seat  somewhere.  Its  primary,  original  seal  can  be 
nowhere  but  in  necessary  self-subsisiiiig  being.  If 
then  we  suppo.se  a  plurality  of  sell'-originate  beings 
concurring  to  make  uji  the  seat  or  subject  of  this  infi- 
nite perfection,  each  one  must  cither  be  of  finite  and 
partial  perfection,  or  infinite  and  absolute.  Infinite  and 
absolute  it  cannot  be,  because  one  self-originate,  infi- 
nitely and  absolutely  perfect  being  will  necessarily 
comprehend  all  perfection,  and  leave  nothing  to  the 
rest.  Nor  finite,  because  many  finiles  can  never  make 
one  infinite  ;  nor  many  broken  parcels  or  Iragnionis  of 
perfection  ever  make  infinite  and  absolute  jierlection, 
even  though  their  number,  if  that  were  jiossible,  were 
infinite. 

To  these  arguments  from  the  Divine  Nature,  proofs 
of  his  unity  are  to  be  drawn  from  his  xeorks.  While  we 
liave  no  revelation  of  or  from  any  other  being  than 
from  him  wliom  we  worship  as  God  :  so  the  frame 
and  constitution  of  nature  jiresent  us  with  a  harmony 
and  order  which  show,  that  their  Creator  and  Preserver 
is  but  one.  We  see  but  one  will  and  one  intelligence, 
and  therefore  there  is  but  one  Being.  The  light  of  this 
truth  must  have  been  greatly  obscured  to  heathens.  %vho 
knew  not  how  to  account  for  the  admixture  of  good 
and  evil  which  are  in  the  world,  and  many  of  them 
therefore.  siippiLsed  both  a  good  and  an  evil  deity.  To 
us,  however,  who  know  how  to  account  lor  this  fact 
from  the  relation  in  which  man  stands  to  the  moral 
government  of  an  offended  Deity,  and  the  connexion  of 
this  present  state  with  another ;  and  that  it  is  to  man 
a  state  of  correction  and  discipline;  not  only  is  this 
difliculty  removed,  hot  addilional  proof  is  afforded,  that 
the  Creator  and  the  Kiiler  ol  the  world  is  but  one  Be- 
ing. If  two  independent  beings  of  eijual  jiower  con- 
curred to  make  the  world,  the  good  anil  the  evil  would 
be  equal ;  but  the  good  predominates. — Between  the 
good  and  the  evil  there  could  also  be  no  harmony  or 
connexion  ;  but  we  plainly  see  evil  subjecled  to.  the 
purposes  of  benevolence,  and  so  to  accord  with  it,  which 
at  once  removes  the  objection. 

"  Of  the  Unity  of  the  Deity,"  says  Paley,  "the  proof 
is,  the  uniformity  of  plan  observable  in  the  liiiverse. 
The  Universe  iiself  is  a  system;  each  part  oilher  de- 
pending upon  oilier  jiarts,  or  being  connected  with  other 
parts  by  some  cm >ii  law  of  motion,  or  by  the  pre- 
sence of  some  common  substance.— One  principle  of 
gravitation  causes  a  stone  to  drop  towards  the  earth, 
and  the  moon  to  wheel  round  it.  One  law  of  atlrnc- 
tion  carriers  all  the  diflerent  planets  about  the  sun. 
This  philosophers  denionsi  rate.  There  are  also  other 
points  of  agreement  among  them,  which  may  be  con- 

^4)  Dr.  GLBlti . 


Chap.  II.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


125 


sidcrod  as  marks  of  the  identity  of  tlieir  origin,  and  of 
tlieir  iiitflliyeiit  author.  In  all  are  found  the  con- 
venience and  stability  derived  from  gravitation.  Tlmy 
all  experience  vicissitudes  of  days  and  nights,  and 
changes  of  season.  They  all,  at  least  .lupiter.  Mars, 
and  Venus,  have  the  same  advantages  from  their  at- 
mospheres as  we  have.  In  all  the  planets,  the  a.\es  of 
rotation  are  permanent.  Nothing  is  more  probable, 
than  that  the  same  attracting  influence,  acting  accord- 
ing to  the  same  rule,  reaches  to  the  lixed  stars  ;  but  if' 
this  be  only  probable,  another  thing  is  certain,  namely, 
that  the  same  element  of  light  does.  The  light  from  a 
fixed  star  affects  our  eyes  in  the  same  manner,  is  re- 
frac-ted  and  reflected  according  to  the  same  laws,  as 
the  light  of  a  candle.  The  velocity  of  the  light  of  the 
fixed  stars  is  also  the  same  as  the  velocity  of  the  light 
i)f  the  sun,  reflected  from  the  satellites  of  Jupiter.  The 
heat  of  the  sun,  in  kind,  differs  nolliing  from  the  lieat 
of  a  coal  tire. 

"  In  our  own  globe  the  case  is  clearer.  New  coun- 
tries are  continually  discovered,  but  the  old  laws  of 
nature  are  always  found  in  them  ;  new  ])lants  perhaps, 
or  animals,  but  always  in  company  with  plants  and 
animals  which  we  already  know  ;  and  always  possess- 
ing many  of  the  same  general  properties.  We  never 
get  among  sUch  original  or  totally  different  modes  of 
existence,  as  to  indicate,  that  we  are  come  into  the 
province  of  a  different  Creator,  or  under  the  direction 
of  a  different  will.  In  truth,  the  same  order  of  things 
attends  us  wherever  we  go.  The  elements  act  upon 
one  another,  electricity  operates,  tlie  tides  rise  and  fall, 
the  magnetic  needle  elects  its  position  in  one  region  of 
the  earth  and  sea  as  well  as  in  another.  One  atmos- 
phere invests  all  parts  of  the  globe,  and  connects  all ; 
one  sun  illuminates  ;  one  moon  exerts  its  specific  at- 
traction upon  all  parts.  If  there  be  a  variety  hi  natural 
effects,  as,  for  example,  in  the  tides  of  different  seas, 
that  very  variety  is  the  result  of  the  same  cause,  acting 
under  different  circumstances.  In  many  cases  tliis  is 
proved  ;  in  all,  is  probable. 

"  The  inspection  and  comparison  of  living  forms  add 
to  this  argument  examiiles  without  number.  Of  all 
large  terrestrial  animals,  the  structure  is  very  much 
alike  ;  their  senses  nearly  the  same  ;  their  natu- 
ral functions  and  passions  nearly  the  same ;  their 
viscera  nearly  the  same,  both  in  substance,  shape, 
and  oflice ;  digestion,  nutrition,  circulation,  secre- 
tion, go  on,  in  a  similar  manner,  in  all  ;  the  great 
circulating  fluid  is  the  same  ;  for  I  think  no  difference 
has  been  discovered  in  the  properties  of  blood  from 
whatever  animal  it  be  drawn.  The  experiment  of 
transfusion  proves  that  the  blood  of  one  animal  will 
serve  for  another.  The  skeletons  also  of  the  larger  ter- 
restrial animals  show  particular  varieties,  but  still 
under  a  great  general  aflinity.  The  resemblance  is 
somewhat  less,  yet  sufliciently  evident,  between  quad- 
rupeds and  birds.  They  are  all  alike  iu  five  respects, 
for  one  in  which  they  differ. 

'•  In  fish,  which  belong  to  another  dep!»rtment,  as  it 
were,  of  nature,  the  points  of  comparison  become  fewer. 
But  we  never  lose  sight  of  our  analogy  ;  e.  g.  we  still 
meet  with  a  stomach,  a  liver,  a  spine  ;  with  bile  and 
blood  ;  with  teeth ;  with  eyes,  which  eyes  are  only 
slightly  varied  from  our  own,  and  which  variation,  in 
(ruth,  demonstrates,  not  an  interruption,  but  a  con- 
tinuance of  the  same  exquisite  plan ;  for  it  is  the  adapta- 
tion of  the  organ  to  the  element,  namely,  to  the  dif- 
ferent refraction  of  light  passing  into  the  eye  out  of  a 
denser  medium.  The  provinces,  also,  themselves  of 
water  and  earth,  are  connected  by  the  species  of  ani- 
mals which  inhabit  both  :  and  also  by  a  large  tribe  of 
aquatic  animals,  which  closely  resemble  the  terrestrial 
in  their  internal  structure ;  I  mean  the  cetaceous  tribe, 
which  have  hot  blood,  respiring  lungs,  bowels,  and 
other  essential  parts,  like  those  of  land-animals.  This 
similitude,  surety,  bespeaks  the  same  creation,  and  the 
same  Creator. 

"  Insects  and  shell-fish  appear  to  me  to  differ  from 
other  classes  of  animals  the  most  widely  of  any.  Yet 
even  here,  besides  many  pohits  of  jiarticular  resem- 
blance, there  exists  a  general  relation  of  a  peculiar 
kind.  It  is  the  relation  of  inversion ;  the  law  of  con- 
trariety ;  namely,  that  whereas,  in  other  animals,  the 
bones  to  wliich  the  muscles  are  attached  lie  within  the 
body  ;  in  insects  and  shell-fish  tliey  lie  on  the  outside 
of  it.  The  shell  of  a  lobster  performs  to  the  animal 
tlic  office  of  a  bone,  by  furnishuig  to  the  leudons  that 


fixed  basis  or  immoveable  fiilcrtim,  without  'Which  me- 
chanically they  could  not  act.  The  crust  of  an  insect 
is  its  shell,  and  answers  the  like  purpose.  The  shell 
also  of  an  oyster  stands  in  the  place  of  a  bone ;  the 
bases  of  ihe  muscles  being  fixed  to  it,  in  the'same  man- 
ner as,  in  other  animals,  they  are  fixed  to  the  bones. 
All  which  (under  wonderful  varieties,  indeed,  and  adapta- 
tions of  form)  confesses  an  imitation,  a  remembrance, 
a  carrying  on  of  the  same  plan." 

If  in  a  large  house,  wherein  are  many  mansions  and 
a  vast  variety  of  inhabitants,  there  appears  exact  order, 
all  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest  continually  attending 
their  proper  business,  and  all  lodged  and  constantly 
provided  for  suitably  to  their  several  conditions,  we 
find  ourselves  obliged  to  acknowledge  one  wise  econo- 
my ;  and  if  in  a  great  city  or  commonwealth  there  is  a 
perfectly  regular  administration,  so  that  not  only  the 
whole  society  enjoys  an  undisturbed  peace,  but  every 
member  has  the  station  assigned  him  which  he  is  best 
qualified  to  fill,  the  unenvied  chiefs  constantly  attend- 
ing their  more  important  cares,  served  by  the  busy  in- 
feriors, who  have  all  a  suitable  accommodation,  and 
food  convenient  for  them,  the  very  meanest  ministering 
to  the  public  utility,  and  protected  by  the  public  care  ; 
— if,  I  say,  in  such  a  community  we  must  conclude 
there  is  a  ruling  counsel,  which  if  not  naturally  yet  is 
politically  one,  and  unless  united,  could  not  produce 
such  harmony  and  order  ;  much  more  have  we  reason 
to  recognise  one  governing  intelligence  in  the  earth,  in 
whicli  there  are  so  many  ranks  of  beings  disposed  of  in 
the  most  convenient  manner,  having  all  their  several 
provinces  appointed  to  them,  and  their  several  kinds 
and  degrees  of  enjoyment  liberally  provided  lor,  with- 
out encroaching  upon,  but  rather  being  mutually  useful 
to  each  other,  according  to  a  settled  and  obvious  subor- 
dination. What  else  can  account  for  this  but  a  sove- 
reign wisdom,  a  common  provident  nature  presiding 
over,  and  caring  for  the  whole  ?(5) 

The  importance  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Unity  is 
obvious.  The  existence  of  one  God  is  the  basis  of  all 
true  religion.  Polytheism  confounds  and  unsettles  all 
moral  distinction,  divides  and  destroys  obligation,  and 
takes  away  all  sure  trust  and  hope  from  man.  There 
is  one  God  who  created  us  ;  we  are  therefore  his  pro- 
perly, and  bound  to  him  by  an  absolute  obligation  of 
obedience.  He  is  the  sole  Ruler  of  the  world,  and  his 
one  immutable  will  constitutes  the  one  immutable  law 
of  our  actions,  and  thus  questions  of  morality  are  set- 
tled on  permanent  foundations.  To  him  alone  we  owe 
repentance,  and  confession  of  sin ;  to  one  Being  alone 
we  are  directed  to  look  for  pardon,  in  the  method  he 
has  appointed;  and  if  he  be  at  peace  with  us,  we  need 
fear  the  wrath  of  no  other,  for  he  is  supreme. ;  we  are 
not  at  a  loss  among  a  crowd  of  supposed  deities,  to 
which  of  them  we  shall  turn  in  trouble ;  he  alone  re- 
ceives prayer,  and  he  is  the  sole  and  sufficient  object  of 
tri/st.  When  we  know  Him,  we  know  a  Being  of  ab- 
solute perfection,  and  need  no  other  friend  or  refuge. 

Among  the  discoveries  made  to  us  by  Divine  Revela-* 
tion,  we  find  not  only  declarations  of  the  existence  and 
■unity  of  (iod,  but  of  his  nature  or  siiMstance,  which  is 
plainly  affirmed  to  be  spiritual,  "  Gud  is  a  Spihit." 
The  sense  of  the  Scriptures  in  this  respect  cannot  be 
mi-staken.  Innumerable  passages  and  allusions  in  them 
show,  that  the  terms  spirit  and  body,  or  matter,  are 
used  in  the  popular  sense  for  substances  of  a  perfectly 
distinct  kind,  and  which  are  manifested  by  distinct  and 
in  many  respects  opposite  and  incommunicable  proper- 
ties  :  that  the  former  only  can  perceive,  think,  reason, 
will,  and  act ;  that  the  latter  is  passive,  impcrcipieiit, 
divisible,  and  corruptible.  Under  these  views  and  m 
this  popular  language,  God  is  spoken  of  in  holy  writ. 
He  is  spirit,  not  body ;  mind,  not  matter.  He  is  pure 
spirit,  unconnected  even  with  bodily  farm  or  organs ; 
"  the  invisible  God  whom  no  man  hath  seen  or  can 
see,"  an  immaterial,  incorruptible,  imiiassable  sub- 
stance, an  immense  mind  or  intelligence,  self-acting, 
self-moving,  wholly  above  the  perception  of  bodily 
sense  ;  free  from  the  imjierfections  of  matter,  and  all 
the  inlirniities  of  corporeal  beings  ;  far  more  exiclleiit 
than  any  finite  and  created  spirits,  because  their  (  ria- 
tor,  and  therefore  atyleti,  "  the  Father  of  spirits;' an\l 
'^  the  God  of  the  spirits  if  all  flesh." 

Such  is  ihe  express  testimony  of  Scripture  as  to  the 
Divine  Nature.    That  the  distuiction  which  it  holdd 

(5)  Abkknethv's  Sennons., 


126 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


between  matter  and  spirit  shoald  be  denied  or  disre- 
garded by  infidel  pliilosoptiers,  is  not  a  matter  of  sur- 
prise, siiico  it  is  as  easy  and  as  consistent  in  them  to 
materialize  f;od  as  man.  Hut  that  the  attributes  of 
spirits  should  have  been  ascrihi.-d  to  matter  by  those 
■wlio  nevertheless  profess  to  admit  the  authority  of  the 
biblical  revelation,  as  in  the  case  of  the  modern  Unita- 
rians and  some  others,  is  an  instance  of  singular  incon- 
sistency. It  shows  with  what  daring  an  unhallowed 
philosophy  will  pursue  its  sjicculations,  and  warrants 
the  conclusion,  that  the  Scriptures  in  such  cases  are 
not  acknowledged  upon  their  own  proper  prindjdes, 
but  only  so  far  as  they  are  supposed  to  agree  with  or 
not  to  oppose  the  philo.sophic  system  which  such  men 
may  have  adopted.  For,  hesitate  as  they  may,  to  deny 
the  distinction  between  matter  and  spirit,  is  to  deny 
the  spirituality  of  God;  and  to  contradict  the  distinc- 
tion which,  as  to  man,  is  constantly  kept  up  in  every 
part  of  the  Bible,  the  distinction  between  llesh  and 
spirit.  To  assert  that  consciousness,  thought,  volition, 
<kc.  are  the  results  of  organization,  is  to  deny  also 
■what  the  Scripture  so  expressly  affirms,  that  the  souls 
of  men  e.xist  in  a  disembodied  stale:  and  that  in  this 
disembodied  state,  not  only  do  they  exist,  but  that  they 
think,  and  feel,  and  act  without  any  diminution  of  their 
energy  or  capacity.  The  immateriality  of  the  Divine 
Being  may  therefore  be  considered  as  a  point  of  great 
importance,  not  only  as  it  afiects  our  views  of  his  na- 
ture and  attributes ;  but  because  when  once  it  is  es- 
tablished, that  there  exi.sts  a  pure  Spirit,  living,  intelli- 
gent, and  invested  with  moral  properties,  the  question 
of  the  immateriality  of  the  liuman  soul  may  be  con- 
sidered as  almost  settled.  Those  who  deny  that,  must 
admit  that  the  Deity  is  material ;  or,  if  they  start  at 
this,  they  must  be  convicted  ofahe  unphilosophical  and 
absurd  attempt  to  invest  a  substance  allowed  to  be  ol 
an  entirely  different  nature,  the  body  of  man,  with 
those  attributes  of  intelligence  find  volition  which,  in 
the  case  of  the  Divine  Bi'ing,  they  have  allowed  to  be 
the  properties  of  pure  uncnibodied  spirit.  The  propo- 
sitions are  totally  inconsistent,  for  they  who  believe 
that  God  is  wholly  an  iinnjaierial,  and  that  man  is 
wholly  a  material  being,  admit  that  spirit  is  intelligent, 
and  that  matter  is  intelligent.  Tliey  cannot  then  be  of 
different  essences,  and  if  the  premises  be  followed  onl 
to  their  legitimate  conclusion,  either  that  which  thinks 
in  man  must  be  allowed  to  be  spiritual,  or  a  material 
Deity  must  follow.  The  whole  truth  of  revelation,  both 
as  to  God  and  his  creature  man,  must  be  acknowledged, 
or  the  atheism  ofSpinosaand  Ilobhes  must  be  aiimilted. 

The  decision  of  Scripture  on  this  point  is  not  to  be 
shaken  by  human  reasoning,  were  it  more  plausible  in 
Its  attempt  to  [irove  that  matter  is  capable  of  originating 
thought,  and  that  mind  is  a  mere  result  of  organization. 
The  evidence  from  reason  is  however  highly  confirma- 
tory of  the  absolute  spirituality  of  the  nature  of  God, 
and  of  the  unthinking  nature  of  matter. 

If  we  allow  a  P'irst  Cause  at  all,  we  must  allow  that 
cause  to  be  intelligent.  This  has  already  been  proved, 
tVom  the  desisn  and  contnrnnrc  manifested  in  his 
works.  The  first  argument  for  the  spirituality  of  God  is 
therefore  drawn  from  his  inlclliL'<;nce,aiid  it  rests  upon 
this  principle,  itiui  intelligence  is  not  a  property  of  matter. 

Willi  ni.iii'nal  siibstiincre  we  are  largely  acciuainled  ; 
and  as  to  the  great  mass  of  material  bodies,  we  have 
themeansof  knowing  that  they  are  wholly  unintelligent. 
This  cannot  be  denied  of  every  unori.'aiii/.eil  portion  of 
matter.  Its  essential  properties  are  found  lo  lie  solidity, 
extension,  divisitiility.iiioliillty.  jiassiveiiess,  &c.  In  all 
its  forms  and  niutiitKms,  from  the  graiiile  rock  to  the 
yielding  atmosphere  and  llie  rapid  lighliniig,  these 
essential  pro|)erties  are  discovered  ;  tliey  lake  an  inlinili^ 
variety  of  accidental  modes,  but  give  no  indication  ol 
inlelligence,  or  approach  to  intelligince.  If  then  to 
know  be  a  jiroperty  of  matter,  it  is  clearly  not  an  essen- 
tial property,  inasmuch  as  it  is  agreed  by  all,  that  vast 
masses  of  this  substance  exisi  wiiIkhh  this  jiropcrly, 
and  it  follows,  that  it  must  bean  nrrnl,  ntal  one.  This, 
therefore,  would  be  the  first  absurdity  into  wliiili  those 
would  be  driven  who  suppose  the  Divine  Naturi;  lo  be 
material,  that  as  intelligence,  if  allowed  lo  be  a  pni|ierty 
of  mailer,  is  an  accidental  and  not  an  essential  jirn- 
perlv,  onthis  theory  it  would  he  possible  to  connive 
of  itie  existence  of  a  Deity  williout  any  intelligence  at 
all.  Kor,  take  away  any  propiTty  ft-om  a  subject  which 
18  not  essential  to  it,  and  its  essence  still  remains  :  and 
if  jmelligencc,  which  in  this  view  is  but  an  accidental 


attribute  of  Deity,  were  atuiihilated,  a  Deity  without 
perception,  thought,  or  knowledge  would  .still  remain. 
So  monstrous  a  conclusion  shows,  that  if  a(iud  be  at  all 
allowed,  the  absolute  spirituality  of  his  nature  must 
inevitably  follow.  For  if  we  cannot  suppose  a  Deity 
without  intelligence,  then  do  we  admit  inlilligrnre  to 
be  one  of  his  essential  attributes;  and,  as  it  is  easy  for 
every  one  to  observe  that  this  is  not  an  essential  pro- 
perty of  matter,  the  substance  to  which  it  is  essential 
cannot  be  material. 

If  the  unttiinking  nature  of  unorganized  matter  fur- 
nishes an  argument  in  favour  of  the  spirituality  of  Deity, 
the  atteniiit  lo  prove  from  the  fact  of  intelligence  being 
found  in  connexion  with  matter  in  an  organized  form, 
that  intelligence,  under  certain  modifications,  is  a  pro- 
perty of  matter,  may  from  its  fallacy  be  also  made  to 
yield  its  evidence  in  favour  of  the  truth. 

TlKr  position  assumed  is,  that  intelligence  is  the  result 
of  material  organization.  Tliis  at  least  is  not  true  of 
every  form  of  organized  matter.  Of  the  unintelligent 
character  of  vegetables  we  have  the  same  evidence  as 
of  the  earth  on  which  we  tread.  The  organization, 
therefore,  which  is  assumed  to  be  the  caiiseof  thought, 
is  that  which  is  found  in  animals ;  and  to  use  the  argu- 
ment of  Dr.  Priestley,  "  the  powers  of  sensation,  or 
perception,  and  thought,  as  belonging  lo  man,  not  having 
been  tbund  but  in  conjunction  with  a  certain  organized 
system  of  matter,  the  conclusion  is  that  they  depend 
upon  such  a  system."'  It  need  not  now  be  urged,  that 
constant  connexion  does  not  imidy  necessary  connexion ; 
and  that  sufficient  reasons  may  be  given  lo  prove  the 
connexion  alleged  to  be  accidental  and  arbitrary.  It  is 
sufficient  in  the  first  instance  to  deny  this  supposed 
constant  connexion  between  intellectual  properties  and 
systems  of  animal  organization  ;  and  thus  to  take  away 
entirely  the  Ibundaliofi  of  the  argument. 

Man  is  to  he  considered  in  two  slates,  that  of  li/c, 
and  that  of  death.  In  one  he  thinks,  and  in  the  otiier 
he  ceases  to  think  ;  and  yet  lor  some  time  after  death, 
in  many  cases,  the  organization  of  the  human  fi-ame 
continues  as  perfect  as  before.  All  ilo  not  die  of  organic 
di.sease.  Death  by  suffocation,  and  other  causes,  is  often 
eflected  without  any  visible  violence  being  done  to  the 
brain,  or  any  other  of  the  most  delicate  organs.  This 
is  a  well-established  fact ;  for  the  most  accurate  ana- 
tomical observation  is  not  able  to  discover,  in  such  cases 
as  we  have  refernMi  to,  the  .slightest  organic  derange- 
ment, 'i'he  machine  has  been  stopped,  but  the  machine 
itself  has  sufiercd  no  injury:  and  from  the  period  of 
death  to  the  time  w-hen  the  matter  of  the  body  begins  lo 
submit  to  the  laws  of  chemical  decomposition,  its 
organization  is  as  perfect  as  during  life.  If  an  opjioneiit 
repli<!s,  tliat  organic  violence  ynust  have  been  snslained, 
though  it  is  indiscernible,  he  begs  the  question,  and 
assumes  tliat  thought  must  depend  upon  organization, 
the  very  point  in  dispute.  If  more  modest,  he  says, 
that  the  organs  may  have  suffered,  he  can  give  no  proof 
of  it:  ap]iearances  are  all  against  him.  Andif  he  argues 
from  the  phenomenon  of  the  connexion  of  thought  with 
organization,  groutiiling  himself  upon  wliai  is  visible  to 
oirservation  only,  the  argunu  nl  is  completely  repulsed 
by  an  appeal  in  like  manner  lo  Wiefact,  that  the  organi- 
zalion  of  the  animal  frame  can  be  often  exhibited, 
visibly  unimpaired  by  those  causes  which  have  produced 
death,  and  yet  incapable  of  thought  and  inlelligence. 
The  conclusion  therefore  is,  that  mere  organization 
cannot  be  the  cause  of  intelligence,  since  il  is  plain  that 
pntcisely  the  same  state  of  the  organs  shall  olten  be 
found  before  and  after  death  ;  and  yet,  without  any  vio- 
lence having  been  done  to  them,  in  one  moment  man 
shall  be  actuallv  intelligent,  and  in  the  next  incapable 
of  a  thought.  So  far  then  from  the  connexion  between 
menial  ])lienomcna,  and  the  arrangement  of  matter  in 
the  animal  struoture  being  "  f«'i.'''"'i'."  Ihe  ground  of 
Ihc  argument  of  Priestley  and  olher  malirialists,  it  is 
ollen  visibly  broken  ;  lor  a  perfect  organization  of  the 
animal  remains  alter  perception  has  becoim;  extinct. 

In  support  of  this  argument,  we  may  urge  the  repre- 
sentations of  Scripture,  upon  that  chi.ss  of  materialist* 
who  have  not  proceeded  lo  Ihe  lull  length  of  denying  its 
authority.  Adam  was  fnrmeil  Out  o(  \\\v  dust  of  the 
earth,  the  organism  of  his  frame  was  therefore  com- 
plete, before  he  became  "  a  living  soul."  God  breathed 
into  him  "  the  breath  of  lives,"  and  whatever  dlU'erenl 
persons  may  understand  by  that  iiisjiiralion,  ilcerlaiidy 
was  not  an  organizing  oi)cration.  The  man  was  first 
formed  or  organized,  and  then  Ufe  was  inii>artcd.  Uelorfe 


Chap.  II.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


127 


the  animating  breath  was  inspired,  he  was  not  intelli- 
gent, because  lie  lived  not;  yet  the  or^'ani/.irion  \v;is 
complete  betbro  either  life  or  the  power  ul'  inrceptidii 
was  imparted ;  thought  did  not  arise  out  of  his  orgaiiie 
structure,  as  an  effect  from  its  cause. 

The  doctrine  that  mere  organization  is  the  cause  of 
perception,  A:c.  beinj;  clearly  untenable,  we  shall  pro- 
bably he  told,  that  the  subject  supposed  in  the  argument 
is  a  'liriiti,' 0rt1a.m7.eti  being.  If  so,  then  the  proof  that 
matter  can  Hunk  drawn  from  organization  is  given  up, 
and  another  cause  of  the  phenomenon  of  intelligence  is 
introduced.  This  is  life,  and  the  argument  will  be  con- 
siderably altered.  It  will  no  longer  be,  as  we  have 
before  quoted  it  from  Dr.  Priestley,  "  that  the  powers 
of  sensation  or  perception,  and  thought,  never  having 
been  Ibund  but  in  conjunction  with  a  certain  organized 
system  of  matter,  the  conclusion  is  that  they  depend  upon 
such  a  system  ;^'  but  that  these  powers  not  having  been 
found  but  in  conjunction  with  animal  li/e,  they  depend 
upon  that  as  their  cause. 

What  then  is  li/e,  which  is  thus  exhibited  as  the 
cause  of  intelligence,  and  as  the  proof  that  matter  is 
capable  of  perception  and  thought  ?  In  its  largest  and 
conunonly  received  sense,  it  is  that  inherent  activity 
which  distinguishes  vegetable  and  animal  bodies  from 
the  soils  in  whicli  the  former  grow,  and  on  whicli  the 
latter  tread.  A  vegetable  is  said  to  live,  because  it  has 
motion  within  itself,  and  is  capable  of  absorption,  secre- 
tion, nutrition,  growth,  and  the  reproduction  of  itslvind. 
Wuli  all  this  It  exhibits  no  mental  phenomena,  no  sen- 
sation, no  consciousness,  no  volition,  no  reflection,  in  a 
word,  it  is  utterly  unintelligent.  We  have  here  a  proof 
then  as  satisfactory  as  our  argument  from  organization, 
that  h/e,  at  least  life  of  any  kind,  is  not  the  cause  of 
iiuelligence,  for  in  ten  thousand  instances  we  see  it 
existing  in  bodies  to  which  it  imparts  no  mental  pro- 
perties at  all. 

If  then  it  be  said  that  the  life  Intended  as  the  cause 
of  intelligence  is  not  vegetable,  but  animal  life,  the 
next  step  in  the  inquiry  is,  in  what  the  life  of  an  animal 
differs  from  that  of  a  vegetable ;  and  if  we  go  into  tlie 
camp  of  the  enemy  himself,  we  shall  find  him  laying  it 
down,  that  to  animals  a  double  life  belongs,  the  organic 
and  [he  aniynal,\.\xe  former  of  which  animals,  and  even 
man,  has  only  in  common  with  the  vegetable.  One 
modification  of  life,  says  Bichat  (upon  whose  scheme 
our  modern  materialists  have  modelled  tlieir  arguments), 
is  common  to  vegetables  and  animals,  the  other  peculiar 
to  the  latter.  "  Compare  together  two  individuals,  one 
taken  from  each  of  these  kingdoms:  one  exi.sts  only 
within  itself,  has  no  other  relations  to  external  objects 
than  those  of  nutrition  ;  is  born,  grows,  and  perishes, 
attached  to  the  soil  which  received  its  germ.  The  other 
joins  to  this  internal  life,  which  it  possesses  in  a  still 
higher  degree,  an  external  life,  which  establishes  nu- 
merous relations  between  it  and  the  neighbouring 
objects,  unites  its  existence  to  that  of  other  beings,  and 
draws  it  near  to,  or  removes  it  from  them,  according  to 
its  wants  and  fears."(b)  This  is  only  in  other  words  to 
say,  that  there  is  one  kind  of  life  in  man,  which,  as  in 
the  vegetable,  is  the  cause  of  growth,  circulation,  assimi- 
lation, nutrition,  excretion,  and  similar  functions ;  and 
another  on  which  depend  sensation,  the  passions,  will, 
memory,  and  other  attributes  which  we  attribute  to 
spirit.  We  have  gained  then  by  this  distinction  another 
step  in  the  argument.  There  is  a  life  common  to  ani- 
mals and  to  vegetables.  Whether  this  be  simple  me- 
chanism or  something  more,  matters  nothing  to  the 
conclusion;  it  confers  neither  sensation,  nor  volition, 
nor  reason.  That  life  in  men,  and  in  the  inferior  ani- 
mals, which  is  common  to  them  and  to  vegetables, 
called,  by  Bichat  and  his  followers,  organic  life,  is  evi- 
dently not  the  cause  of  intelligence. 

What  then  is  that  higher  species  of  life  called  animal 
life,  on  which  we  are  told  our  mental  powers  depend? 
And  here  the  French  materialist,  whose  notions  have 
been  so  readily  adopted  into  our  own  schools  of  phy- 
siology, shall  speak  Ibrhiiiiself  "  The  functions  of  the 
animal  form  two  distinct  classes.  One  of  these  consists 
of  an  habitual  succession  of  assimilation  and  concretion, 
by  which  it  is  constantly  transforming  into  its  own 
substance  the  particles  of  other  bodies,  and  then  reject- 
hig  them  when  they  have  become  useless.  By  the 
other  he  perceives  surrounding  objects ;  reflects  on  his 
sensations,  performs   voluntary  motions   under  their 


(6)  Recherches  sur  la  vie  et  la  mori. 


influence,  and  generally  communicates,  by  the  voice,  his 
pleasures  or  pains ;  his  desin  s  or  tears."—"  The  asscm- 
lihil  functions  of  the  secouil  chix^.-  form  the  animal  life:' 

This  strange  definition  of  lilb  has  been  adopted  by 
Lawrence,  and  other  disciiiles  of  the  French  school  of 
materialism  ;  but  its  absurdity  as  a  definition  is  obvious, 
and  could  only  have  been  adopted  as  a  veil  of  words  to 
hide  a  conclusion  fatal  to  the  favourite  system.  So  far 
from  being  a  definition  of  life,  it  is  no  more  than  a  de- 
scription of  the  "  functions"  of  a  vital  principle  or 
power,  whatever  that  power  or  principle  may  be. 
Function  is  a  manner  in  which  any  power  developea 
itself,  or  as  Lawrence,  the  disciple  of  Bichat,  has  pro- 
perly expressed  it,  '■^  a  mode  of  action  f  and  to  say  that 
an  assemblage  of  the  modes  in  which  any  thing  acts, 
is  that  which  acts  or  "  forms"  that  which  acts,  is  the  ' 
greatest  possible  trifling  and  folly. 

But  Bichat  is  not  the  only  one  of  modern  materialista 
who  refuse  honestly  to  pursue  the  inquiry,  "  what  is 
life  V  when  even  affecting  to  describe  or  defend  it. 
Cuvier,  another  great  authority  in  the  same  school,  at 
one  time  says,  that,  bo  life  what  it  may,  it  cannot  be 
what  the  vulgar  suppose  it,  a  particular  principle 
(principe  particulier.)  In  another  place  he  acknow- 
ledges that  life  can  proceed  only  from  life  (la  vie  nait 
que  de  la  vie).  Then  again  he  considers  it  an  internal 
principle  (un  principe  interieur  d'entretien  et  de  repa- 
ration) ;  and  last  of  all  says,  what  Mr.  Lawrence  has 
since  repeated  i'er6n<//«,  that  life  consists  in  the  sum 
total  of  all  the  functions  (il  consiste  dans  I'ensembie 
des  functions  quiservent  a  nourir  !e  corps,  c'est  a  dire 
la  digestion,  I'absorption,  la  circulation,  &c.)  Thus  he 
makes  life  a  cause  which  owes  its  existence  to  its  own 
operations,  and  consecpiently  a  cause,  which,  had  it  not 
operated  to  produce  itself,  had  never  operated  nor  existed 
at  all  !(7)  "It  is  triDy  pitiful,"  says  a  physiologist  of 
other  opinions,  "  to  think  of  anian  with  so  many  endow- 
ments, natural  and  acquired,  driven  as  if  blind  told  by 
the  fashion  of  the  times,  a  contemptible  vanity,  or  sonee 
wretched  inclination,  endeavouring  to  support  with  all 
his  energy  the  extravagant  idea  that  tlie  phenomena  of 
design  and  intelligence  displayed  in  tlielbrm  and  struc- 
ture of  his  species  might  have  been  the  eflects  of  some 
impulse  or  motion,  or  of  some  group  of  functions  as  di- 
gestion, circulation,  respiration,  &:c.,  wliich  have  acci- 
dentally hajipened  to  meet  without  any  assignable  cause 
to  bring  them  together,  to  hold  them  together,  or  to 
direct  them."(8) 

These  and  many  other  examples  are  in  proof,  that  the 
cause  of  vital  properties  cannot,  we  do  not  say  be  ex- 
plained, but  cannot  even  be  indicated  on  the  material 
system ;  and  we  are  no  nearer,  for  any  thing  which 
these  physiologists  say,  to  any  satisfacton.'  a(-count  of 
that  life  which  is  peculiar  to  animals,  and  which  has 
been  distinguished  from  the  organic  life  that  is  com- 
mon to  them  and  to  vegetables.  It  is  not  the  result  of 
organization,  for  that  "  is  no  living  principle,  no  active 
cause."  "  An  organ  ig  an  instrument.  Organiza- 
tion, therefore,  is  nothing  more  than  a  system  of  parts 
so  constructed  and  grrangcd,  as  to  co-operate  to  one 
common  purpose.  It  is  an  arrangement  of  instruments, 
and  there  must  be  something  beyond  to  bring  these  in- 
struments into  action."('.))  If  life  cannot,  therefore,  be 
organization  or  the  efl'ect  of  it,  it  is  not  that  inherent, 
mechanical,  and  chemical  motion  whicli  is  ciir.cil  \\U-  in 
vegetables,  and  which  the  physiologists  have  I  Irn  I  Ic.lio  lie 
the  same  kind  of  life  which  they  call  organic  in  ;iiiipii:ils; 
for  even  the  materialist  acknowledges  that  to  be  a  dif- 
ferent species  of  life  in  animals,  on  which  sensation,  vo- 
lition, and  passion  depend.  What  then  is  it  ?  It  is  not 
a  material  substance;  in  that  all  agree.  It  is  not  the 
material  effect  of  the  material  cause,  organization  ;  that 
has  been  shown  to  be  absurd.  It  is  not  that  mechani- 
cal and  chemical  inherent  motion  which  performs  so 
many  functions  in  vegetables  and  in  animals,  so  far  as 
they  have  it  in  common  with  them;,  for  no  sensation, 
or  other  mental  phenomena  are  allowed  to  result  from 
the.se.  It  is  therefore  plainly  no  material  cause  and  no 
effect  of  matter  at  all ;  forno  other  hypothesis  remains  but 
that  which  places  its  source  in  an  immaterial  subject, 
operating  upon  and  by  material  organs.  For,  to  quote 
from  a  writer  just  mentioned,  "that  there  is  some  invi- 
sible agent  in  every  living  organized  system,  seems  to 


(7)  Vide  Medical  Review,  .Sept.  1822,  Art.  1. 

(8)  Dr.  Barclay  on  Life  and  Organization. 
(0)  Rennell's  Remarks  on  Skepticism. 


128 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part IL 


be  an  infprcrific  to  which  we  are  U^il  almost  irresistibly. 
Wlieii  \vt:  set  an  aiiiniul  starliii!,'  Iroiii  \M  sleep,  contrary 
to  the  Uiiowii  laws  ol'  gravitation,  without  an  external 
or  elastic  iinimlsc,  without  llie  a]i])earaucc  of  electricity, 
galvauisni,  niacnetisin,  or  chenMial  attraction ;  when 
we  see  it  alterward  niovinj!;  its  linihs  in  various  ilirec- 
tions,  with  dillerent  dei^rees  of  force  and  velocity,  some- 
times suspending  and  soinetinies  renewing  the  same 
motions,  at  the  sound  ol'  a  word  or  the  sight  of  a  shadow, 
can  we  refrain  a  moment  from  thinking  hat  the  cause 
of  these  phenomena  is  internal,  that  it  is  something  dif- 
ferent from  the  body,  and  that  the  several  bodily  organs 
are  nothing  more  than  the  mere  instruments  which  it 
employs  ni  its  operations?  Not  instruments,  indeed, 
that  can  be  manufactured,  purchased,  or  exchanged,  or 
that  can  at  |)leasure  be  varied  in  Ibriii,  position,  num- 
ber, proportion,  or  magnitude  ;  not  iiistnimonts,  whose 
motions  are  dependent  upon  an  external  impulse,  on 
gravity,  elasticity,  magnetism,  galvanism,  on  electricity 
or  chemical  attraction  ;  but  instruments  of  a  peculiar 
nature,  instruments  that  grow,  that  are  moved  by  the 
will,  and  which  can  be  regulated  and  kept  in  repair  by 
no  agent  but  the  one  for  which  they  were  primarily  des- 
tined;  instruments  so  closely  related  to  that  agent,  that 
they  cannot  be  injured,  handled,  or  breathed  upon,  ap- 
proached by  cold,  by  wind,  by  rain,  without  exciting  in 
it  certain  sensations  of  pleasure  or  of  pain  ;  sensations 
which,  if  either  unusual  or  excessive,  are  generally  ac- 
companied with  joy  or  grief,  hopes  or  alarms :  instru- 
ments, in  short,  that  exert  so  constant  and  power- 
ful reaction  on  the  agent  that  employs  them,  that  they 
modify  almost  every  phenomenon  wlnrU  it  exhibits,  and 
to  such  an  extent,  that  no  person  can  cDiilideiitly  say, 
what  would  be  the  effect  of  its  energies  if  deprived  of 
instruments ;  or  what  would  be  the  elfect  of  its  energies 
if  furnished  with  instruments  of  a  ditferent  species,  or 
if  furnished  with  instruments  of  different  materials,  less 
dependent  on  external  circumstances,  iind  less  subject 
to  the  laws  of  gross  and  inert  matter."(l) 

Life,  then,  whether  organic  or  animal,  is  not  the 
cause  of  intelligence ;  and  thus  all  true  reasoning  upon 
these  phenomena  brings  us  to  the  philosophy  of  the 
Scriptures,  that  the  presence  of  an  iminaterial  soul  with 
the  body  is  the  source  of  animal  life  ;  and  that  the  se- 
paration of  the  soul  from  the  body  is  that  circumstance 
which  causes  death. (2)  Farther  proofs,  however,  are 
not  wanting,  that  matter  is  incapable  of  thought,  and 
that  its  various  (jualities  are  inconsistent  with  mental 
phenomena. 

"  Kxtensinn  is  a  universal  quality  of  matter ;  being 
that  cohesion  and  continuity  of  its  parts  by  which  a  body 
occupies  space.  The  idea  of  extension  is  gained  by  our 
external  senses  of  sight  and  of  touch.  But  thought  is 
neither  visible  nor  tangible,  it  occupies  no  external 
space,  it  has  no  contiguous  or  cohering  parts.  A  mind 
enlarged  by  education  and  science,  a  memory  stored 
with  tlie  richest  treasures  of  varied  knowledge,  occu- 
pies no  more  space  than  that  of  the  meanest  and 
most  illiterate  rustic. 

"  In  body  again  we  find  a  vis  inertia;,  that  is,  a  certain 
quality  In  which  it  resists  any  change  in  its  present  state. 
We  know  by  experiment,  that  a  body,  when  it  has  re- 
ceived an  impulse,  will  ))ersevere  in  a  direct  course  and  a 
uniform  velocity,  until  its  motion  shall  be  either  disturbed 
or  retarded  by  some  external  jiower;  and  again,  lliat,  be- 
ing at  rest,  it  will  remain  so  forever,  unless  motion  shall 
have  been  commimicated  to  it  from  without.  Siiiee  mat- 
ter, therefore,  necessarily  resists  all  changeof  its  l)r(^sent 
state,  its  motion  and  its  rest  are  purely  passive ;  sponta- 


(1)  Barclay  on  Life  and  Organization. 

(2)  The  celebrated  Hunter,  "  in  searching  for  the  prin- 
ciple of  life,  on  the  supiiosition  that  it  was  something 
visible,  fruitlessly  enough  looked  for  it  in  the  blood,  the 
chyle,  the  brain,  the  lungs,  and  other  parts  of  ilie  hoily  ; 
but  not  finding  it  in  any  of  them  exclusivily,  conilndrd 
that  It  must  be  a  consequence  of  the  union  of  the  whole, 
and  depend  upon  organism.  But  to  this  conclusion  he 
could  not  long  adhere,  after  observing  that  the  composi- 
tion of  matter  does  not  give  life;  and  that  a  dead  boily 
may  have  all  the  composition  it  ever  had.  Last  of  ali, 
he  drew  the  true,  or  at  least  the  candid  conclusion,  thnt 
hikiinr  nnlliiiii:  iiIkhiI  the  mattery  Mcdico-rinrurgi- 
i-al  Iteview,  Scpi.  XX'i'i.  Tliis  is  the  conclusion  to 
wliirli  nil  ic  philosophy  comes,  and  the  only  one  at 
which  It  can  arrive,  Idl  it  sloops  to  believe  that  there  is 
true  ])hiloaophy  m  the  Scriptures. 


neous  motion,  therefore  mnst  have  some  other  origin. 
Nor  is  this  spontaneous  motion  to  be  attributed  to  the 
simple  powers  of  life,  for  we  have  seen  that  in  the  life  of 
vegetation  there  is  no  sjiontaneous  motion  ;  the  plant  has 
no  power  either  to  remove  itself  out  of  the  position  in 
which  it  is  fixed,  or  even  to  accelerate  or  retard  the  mo- 
tion which  takes  place  within  it.  Nor  has  man  him- 
self, in  a  sleep  ]ierfectly  sound,  the  power  of  locomotion 
any  mon;  than  a  plant,  nor  any  command  over  the  va- 
rious active  processes  which  arc  going  on  within  his 
own  body.  But,  when  he  is  awake,  he  wll  rise  from 
his  resting-place — if  mere  matter,  whether  living  or 
deail  were  concerned,  he  would  have  remained  there 
like  a  jilant  or  a  stone  lor  ever,  lie  will  walk  forward 
—he  will  change  his  course — he  will  stop.  Can  mat- 
ter, even  though  endowed  with  the  life  of  vegetation, 
))erfonn  any  su<!h  acts  as  these  ?  Here  is  motion  fairly 
begun  without  any  external  impulse,  and  stopped  with- 
out any  external  obstacle.  The  activity  of  a  plant,  on 
the  contrary,  is  neither  spontaneous  nor  locomotive  ;  it 
is  derived  in  regular  succession  from  parent  substances, 
and  it  can  be  stopjied  only  by  external  obstacles,  such 
a.s  the  disturbance  of  the  organi/.ation.  A  mass  even 
of  living  matter  requires  soniethinu  beyond  its  own  pow- 
ers to  overcome  the  vis  tnerlnE  which  still  distiinrnishea 
it,  and  to  produce  active  and  spontaneous  molion. 

'^Hardnexsand  («(;j(7M'/r«/)i/)^_i/areqiialiiiesol matter; 
but  no  one  of  common  sense,  without  a  very  jialjiablo 
metaphor,  could  ever  consider  them  as  the  properties  of 
thouiiht. 

"  There  is  another  property  of  matter,  which  is,  if  pos- 
sible, still  more  inconsistent  with  tlKUight  than  any  of 
the  former ;  1  mean  its  dirK---ibility.  Let  us  take  any 
material  substance,  the  brain,  the  heart,  or  any  oiher 
body,  which  we  would  have  endowed  with  thought,  and 
inquire  of  %vhat  is  this  substance  comiio.scd.  It  is  the 
aggregate  of  an  indefinite  number  of  separable  and  se- 
parate parts.  Now  the  experience  of  what  jiasses 
within  our  minds  will  inform  us,  that  unity  is  e.ssenlial 
to  a  thinking  being.  That  consciousni'ss  which  esta- 
blishes the  one  individual  being,  which  every  man  knows 
himself  to  he,  cannot,  without  a  contradict  ion  m  terms, 
be  separated,  or  divided.  No  man  can  think  in  two  se- 
parate places  at  the  same  time  :  nor,  again,  is  his  con- 
sciousness made  up  of  a  number  of  separate  conscious- 
nesses; as  the  solidity,  the  colour,  and  motion  of  the 
whole  body  is  made  up  of  the  distinct  solidities,  colours, 
and  motions  of  its  parts.  As  a  thinking  and  a  conscious 
being,  then,  man  must  be  es.sentially  one.  As  a  jiar- 
taker  of  the  lite  of  vegetation,  he  is  separable  into  ten 
thousand  dillerent  parts.  If  then  it  is  the  brain  of  a 
man  which  is  conscious  and  thinks,  his  consciousness 
and  thought  must  be  made  up  of  as  many  separate  i>arts 
as  there  are  particles  in  its  material  substance,  which 
is  contrary  to  common  sense  and  exi«'rience.  What- 
ever, therefore,  our  thought  may  be,  or  in  whatever  it 
may  reside,  it  is  essentially  indivisible;  and,  then-forr, 
wholly  inconsistent  with  the  divisibility  of  a  material 
substance. 

"  From  every  quality,  therefore,  of  matter,  with  which 
we  are  acquainted,  we  shall  be  warranted  in  conclu- 
ding, that  without  a  contradiction  in  terms,  it  cannot  be 
pronounced  capable  of  thought.  A  thinking  .substance 
may  be  combined  with  a  stone,  a  tree,  or  an  animal 
body  ;  but  not  one  of  the  three  can  of  itself  become  a 
thinking  beiiig.''(3) 

"The  notions  we  annex  to  the  wor<ls  matter  and 
MIND,  as  is  well  remarked  by  Dr.  Reid,  are  merely  re- 
lative. If  I  am  asked,  what  I  mean  by  matter?  I  can 
only  explain  myself  by  sa\iiig,  it  is  that  which  is  ex- 
tended, figured,  coloured,  liioveable,  hard  or  soft,  rough 
or  smooth,  hot  or  cold;  that  is,  I  can  define  it  in  no  other 
way  than  by  enumerating  its  sensible  iiualities.  It  is 
not  niattt'r  or  body,  which  I  perceive  by  my  senses ; 
but  only  extension,  figure,  colour,  and  certain  other 
qualities,  which  the  constilution  of  my  nature  leads 
me  to  rtfer  to  something  which  is  extended,  figured, 
and  coloured.  The  case  is  precis,  ly  similar  wilh  re- 
spect to  mind.  We  are  not  inimediately  conscious  of 
its  existence,  but  we  are  conscious  of  sensation,  thought 
and  volilioii ;  operations  which  imply  the  existence  of 
somithing  which  feels,  thinks,  and  wills.  Everyman 
too  is  impressed  wilh  an  irresistible  conviction,  that 
all  these  sen.salions,  thoughts,  and  volitions,  belong  to 
one  and  the  same  being  ;  to  that  being,  which  he  calls 
kimsclf ;  a  being  which  he  is  led,  by  the  constilution 


(3)  Reknkll  on  Skepticism. 


Chap.  III.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


129 


of  his  nature,  to  consider  as  soinclliinc  (li.stiiul  frotn 
his  body,  mid  us  not  liable  to  be  impaired  by  ttio  lOiis 
or  iiiuiilatioii  ot"  any  of  bis  organs. 

"  From  these  considerations,  it  appears,  that  we  have 
the  same  evidence  for  the  existence  of  mind,  tliat  we 
have  for  tlie  existence  of  body ;  nay,  if  tliere  be  any 
diUerence  between  the  two  cases, that  we  have  stronger 
evidence  for  it;  inasmuch  as  the  one  is  suggested  to 
us  by  the  subjects  of  our  own  consciousness,  and  the 
other  merely  by  the  objects  of  our  perceptions.'"(-l) 

Fartlier  observations  on  the  imniateriality  of  the 
human  soul  vvUl  be  adduced  in  their  proper  place. 
The  reason  why  the  preceding  argument  on  tliis  sub- 
ject has  been  here  introduced,  is  not  only  that  the  spi- 
rituality of  the  i)ivine  Nature  nught  be  e.stablishcd  by 
proving  that  intelUgcace  is  not  a  material  attribute; 
but  to  keep  in  view  the  connexion  between  the  spiritu- 
ality of  God,  and  that  of  man,  who  was  made  in  his 
image  ;  and  to  show  the  relation  which  also  exists  be- 
tween the  doctrineof  the  materialism  of  the  human  soul, 
and  absolute  Atlieism,  and  thus  to  hold  out  a  warning 
against  such  speculations.  There  is  no  middle  course, 
in  fact,  though  one  may  be  allected.  If  we  material- 
ize man,  we  must  materialize  God,  or,  in  other  words, 
deny  a  First  Cause,  one  of  whose  exxctUial  attributes 
is  intelligence.  It  is  then  of  little  conseciuence  what 
scheme  of  Atheism  is  adopted.  On  the  other  hand,  if 
we  allow  spirituality  to  (iod,  it  follows  as  a  necessary 
corollary,  that  we  must  allow  it  to  man.  These  doc- 
trines stand  or  fall  together. 

On  a  subject  which  arises  out  of  the  foregoing  dis- 
cussion, a  single  observation  will  be  sulticient.  It  is 
granted,  that,  on  the  premises  laid  down,  not  only  must 
an  immaterial  principle  be  allowed  to  man,  but  to  all 
animals  possessed  of  volition ;  and  few,  perhaps  none, 
are  found  without  this  properly.  But  though  this  has 
often  been  urged  as  an  objection,  it  can  cost  the  believer 
in  revelation  iioi  lung  to  admit  it.  It  strengthens  and  does 
not  weakpn  his  argument,  and  it  is  perfectly  in  accord- 
ance with  sScripiure,  which  speaks  of  "  the  soul  of  a 
beast,"  as  well  as  of  "  the  soul  of  man."  Vastly,  nay, 
we  might  say  inlinitely,  difterent  are  they  in  the  class 
and  degree  of  their  powers,  though  of  the  same  spiritual 
essence ;  but  they  have  both  properties  which  cannot 
be  attributed  to  matter.  It  does  not,  however,  follow 
that  they  are  immortal  because  they  are  immaterial. 
The  truth  is,  that  God  only  hath  independent  immortal- 
ity, because  he  only  is  self'existent,  and  neither  human 
nor  brute  souls  are  of  necessity  immortal.  God  hath 
given  this  privilege  to  man,  not  by  a  necessity  of  na- 
ture, which  would  be  incomj>atible  with  dependence, 
but  by  his  own  will,  and  the  continuance  of  his  sus- 
taining power.  But  he  seems  to  have  denied  it  to  the 
inferior  animals,  and  according  to  the  language  of 
Scripture,  "  the  spirit  of  a  beast  goeth  downward." 
The  doctrine  of  the  natural  immortality  of  man  will, 
however,  be  considered  in  its  proper  place. 


CHAPTER  III. 

Attributes  of  God — Eternity — Omnipotence — 
XJbiquity. 

From  the  Scriptures  we  have  learned,  that  there  is 
one  God,  the  Creator  of  all  things,  and  consequently 
living  and  intelligent.  The  demonstrations  of  this 
truth,  which  surround  us  in  the  works  of  nature,  have 
been  also  adverted  to.  By  the  same  sacred  revelations, 
we  have  also  been  taught,  that,  as  to  the  Divine  essence, 
God  is  a  Spirit;  and  in  the'farther  manifestations  they 
have  made  of  him,  we  learn,  that  as  all  things  were 
made  by  him,  he  was  before  all  things  :  that  their  being 
is  dependent,  his  independent ;  that  he  is  eminently 
Being,  according  to  his  own  peculiar  appellation,  "  I 
am;"  self-existent  and  Eternal.  In  the  Scripture 
doctrine  of  God,  we,  however,  not  only  find  it  asserted 
that  God  had  no  beginning,  but  that  he  shall  have  no 
end.  Eternity  ad  partem  post  is  ascribed  to  hiin,  for, 
in  the  most  absolute  sense,  he  hath  "  iniinnrtality,"  a.n<i 
he  "  only"  hath  it,  by  virtue  of  the  inherent  perfection 
of  his  nature.  It  is  this  which  completes  those  sub- 
lime and  impressive  views  of  the  eternity  of  God,  with 
which  the  revelation  he  has  been  pleased  to  make  of 
hhnself  abounds.    '^  FVom.  everlasting  to  everla.iting 


(4)  Stbwart'3  Essays. 


lliou  art  God.  Of  old  hast  thou  laid  the  foundation 
of  the  earth  ;  and  the  heavens  arc  the  work  of  thine 
hand.  They  shall  perish,  but  thou  slialt  endure  ;  j«a, 
all  of  them  shall  wax  old  like  a  garment ;  as  a  vesture 
Shalt  tlu)n.*liange  them,  and  I  bey  shall  bi- changed;  but 
thou  art  the  same,  aiid  thy  years  shall  have  no  end." 
He"  inhabiteth  cternit>,"  fills  and  occupies  the  whole 
round  of  boundless  duration,  and  "is  llu.'  fiist  and  the 
la.s-t." 

In  these  representations  of  the  eternal  existence  and 
absolute  immortality  of  the  Divine  Being,  something 
more  than  the  mere  idea  oi'  infinite  duration  is  con- 
veyed. No  creature  can,  without  contradiction, be  sup- 
posed to  have  been  from  eternity  ;  but  even  a  creature 
may  be  sujiposed  to  continue  to  exist  for  ever,  in  as  strict 
asense  as  (iod  himself  will  continue  to  exist  forever.  Its 
existence,  however,  being  originally  dependent  and  de- 
rived, must  continue  so.  It  is  not,  so  to  speak,  in  its 
nature  to  live,  or  it  would  never  have  been  non-exist- 
ent ;  and  wli.at  it  has  not  from  itself,  it  has  received, 
and  must,  through  every  moment  of  actual  existence, 
receive  from  its  Maker.  But  the  very  phrase  in  which 
the  Scriptures  speak  of  the  eternity  of  God,  suggests 
a  meaning  deeper  than  that  of  mere  duration,  'i'liey 
contrast  the  stability  of  the  Divine  Existence  with  the 
vanishing  and  changing  nature  of  all  his  works,  and 
represent  them  as  reposing  upon  him  tor  supjiort, 
while  he  not  only  depends  not  Ujion  any,  but  rests  upon 
himself.  He  lives  by  virtue  of  his  nature,  and  is  cv- 
scntidlly  unchangeable.  For  to  the  nature  of  that 
which  exists  without  cause,  life  must  be  essential.  In 
him  who  is  "the  fountain  of  life"  there  can  he  no 
principle  of  decay.  There  can  be  no  desire  to  cease  to 
be,  in  him  who  is  perfectly  blessed,  because  of  the  un- 
bounded excellence  of  his  nature.  To  him  exittence 
must  be  the  source  of  infinite  enjoyment,  both  from  the 
contemplation  of  his  own  designs,  and  the  manitesta- 
tion  of  his  glory,  purity,  and  benevolence,  to  the  intel- 
ligent creatures  he  has  made  to  know  and  to  be  beati- 
fied by  such  discoveries  and  benefits.  No  external 
power  can  control,  or  in  any  way  affect  his  felicity,  his 
perfection,  or  his  being.  Such  are  the  depths  of  glory 
and  peculiarity  into  which  the  Divine  eternity,  as  stated 
in  the  Scriptures,  leads  the  wondering  mind ;  and  of 
which  the  wisest  of  heathens,  who  ascribed  immortal- 
ity to  one  or  to  many  Gods,  had  no  conception.  They 
were  ever  fancying  something  oiit  of  God,  as  the  cause 
of  their  immortal  being ;  fate,  or  external  necessity, 
or  some  similar  and  vague  notion,  which  obscured,  as 
to  thein,  one  of  the  peculiar  glories  of  the  "  eternal 
power  and  Godhead,"  who  of  and  from  his  own  essen- 
tial nature,  is,  and  was,  and  shall  bk. 

Some  apprehensions  of  this  great  truth  are  seen  in 
the  sayings  of  a  few  of  the  Greek  sages,  though  niucli 
obscured  by  their  other  notions.  Indeed,  that  appro- 
priate name  of  God,  so  venerated  among  the  .Tews,  the 
nomen  tetragrammaton,  which  we  render  .ImiovAri, 
was  known  among  the  heathens  to  be  the  name  under 
which  the  .Tews  worshipped  the  Supreme  God ;  and 
"  from  this  divine  name,"  says  Parkhurst,  sub  voce, 
"  the  ancient  Greeks  had  their  1j;,  I/;  in  their  invocation 
of  the  (iods.(5)    It  expresses   not    the   attributes,  but 


(5)  A  curious  instance  of  the  transmission  of  this 
name,  and  one  of  the  peculiarities  of  the  Hebrew  faith, 
even  into  China,  is  mentioned  in  the  following  extract 
of  "A  Memoir  of  Lao-tseu,  a  Chinese  phUosopher,  who 
flourished  in  the  sixth  century  before  our  era,  and  who 
professed  tlie  opinions  ascribed  to  Plato  and  to  Pyth.a- 
goras."  (By  M.Abel  Riimisat.)— "The  metaphysics 
of  Lao-tseu  have  many  other  remarkable  features, 
which  I  have  endeavoured  to  develope  in  my  nienioir, 
and  which  for  various  reasons  I  am  obliged  to  jiass 
over  in  silence.  How,  in  fact,  should  I  give  an  idea  of 
those  lofty  abstractions,  of  those  inextricable  subtleties, 
in  which  the  oriental  imagination  di.sports  and  goes 
astray?  It  will  sulTice  to  .say  here,  that  the  opinions 
of  thi'  Chinese  plilliisiiphcr  on  the  origin  and  constitu- 
tion of  the  uHivcrsc,  li:ivc  neither  ridiculous  fables  nor 
offensive  absurdities;  that  they  bear  the  stamp  of  a 
noble  and  elevated  mind  ;  and  that,  in  the  sublime  reve- 
ries which  distinguish  them,  they  exhibit  a  strikin?  rmd 
incontestable  conformity  with  the  doctrine  which  was 
professed  a  little  later  by  ihcschoolsof  Patiiagorasand 
Plato.  Like  the  Pylhagoreaiis  ami  the  Stoics,  our  au- 
thor admits,  as  the  First  <'auso,  Keason,  an  inefrabl<', 
uncreated  Being,  thai  is  the  type  of  the  universe,  and 


130 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Pabt IL 


the  essence  of  God,  which  was  the  reason  why  the 
Jews  deemed  it  iwffabie.  The  Septuagiiit  translators 
preserved  tlie  same  idea  in  tlie  word  Ku(j<os,  l)y  whicli 
they  translated  it,  from  Kvpiji,  sum,  I  am.  Tins  word 
is  said  by  critics  not  to  be  classically  used  to  signify 
God,  which  would  mark  the  peculiarity  of  this  appella- 
tion in  the  Septuagint  version  more  stronf,'Iy,  and  con- 
vey something  of  the  great  idea  of  Ihe  .'.■(7/  or  ahsotiile 
existence  ascribed  to  tlie  Uiviiie  ^alure  in  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  to  those  of  the  heathen  jiliilosopliers  who 
met  with  that  translation.  That  it  could  not  be  passed 
over  unnoticed,  we  may  gather  from  !<t.  Hilary,  who 
says,  that  before  his  conversion  to  (.lirislianity,  meet- 
ing with  this  appellation  of  (;od  in  the  reiuateuch,  he 
was  struck  with  admiration,  nothing  being  .so  projier 
to  God  as  to  be.  Among  the  .lews,  however,  tlie  iiiii)ort 
of  this  stupendous  name  was  preserved  uiiiiiijiaired  by 
metaphysical  speculations.  It  was  registered  in  tlieir 
sacred  books  ;  from  the  fulness  of  its  meaning  the  lofti- 
est thoughts  are  .seen  to  spring  U]i  in  the  minds  of  the 
prophets,  which  aniiilify  with  an  awliil  and  mysterious 
grandeur  their  descripHons  of  Ins  peculiar  glories,  in 
contrast  with  the  vain  gods  of  the  heathen,  and  \vitli 
every  actual  existence,  however  exalted,  in  heaven  and 
in  earth. 

On  this  subject  of  the  eternal  duration  of  the  Divine 
Being,  many  have  held  a  metaphysical  refinement. 
"  The  eternal  existence  of  (iod,"  it  i.s  said,  "  is  not  to 
be  considered  as  succexsive ;  the  ideas  we  gain  from 
time  are  not  to  be  allowed  in  our  conceptions  of  his 
duration.  As  he  fills  all  space  with  his  imnien.sity,  he 
fills  all  duration  with  his  eternity;  and  with  him 
eternity  is  nunc  stans,  a  permanent  noir,  incapable  of 
the  relations  iif  past,  present,  and  future."  Such  cer- 
tainly is  not  the  view  given  us  of  this  mysterious  sub- 
ject in  the  Scriiilures  ;  and  ii  it  should  be  said  that  they 
speak  ptijnUuTiy,  and  are  accommodated  to  the  infirmity 
of  the  thoughts  of  the  body  of  mankind,  we  may  reply, 
that  iihilosophy  has  not,  with  all  its  boasting  of  supe- 
rior light,  carried  our  views  on  this  attribute  of  the 
Divine  Nature  at  all  beytvid  the  revelation  ;  and,  in 
attempting  it,  has  only  obscured  the  conceptions  of  its 
disciples.  "  Fdling  duration  with  his  eternity"  is  a 
phrase  without  any  meaning ;  "  For  how  can  any  man 
conceive  a  permanent  instant,  which  coexists  with  a 
perpetually  (lowing  duration '!  One  might  as  well 
apprehend  a  mathematical  ])Oint  coexlendcd  with  a 
line,  a  surface,  and  all  dimensions."(f))  As  this  notion 
has,  however,  been  made  the  basis  of  some  opinions, 
which  will  be  remarked  upon  in  their  proper  place,  it 
may  be  proper  brielly  to  examine  it. 

Whether  we  get  our  idea  of  time  from  the  motion 
of  bodies  without  us,  or  from  the  consciousness  of  the 
succession  of  our  own  ideas,  or  both,  is  not  important 


has  no  type  but  itself.  Like  Pythagoras,  he  takes 
human  souls  to  be  emanations  of  the  ethereal  substance, 
which  are  reunited  with  it  alter  death  ;  and,  like  Plato, 
he  refuses  to  the  wicked  the  faculty  of  returning  into 
the  bosom  of  the  universal  .soul,  l.ikc  Pythagoras,  he 
gives  to  the  first  iiriiiciples  of  things  the  names  of  num- 
bers, and  hiscosniogonv  is,  in  some  degree,  algebraical. 
He  attaches  the  chain  ufhciNL's  to  that  which  he  calls 
One,  then  to  Tu>ii,\.\ii-i\  to  Tlinr,  which  have  made  all 
things.  Thedivine  Plato,  wiici  bad  aduptrd  this  mysteri- 
ous dogma,  seems  to  be  afraid  iil  r.vraling  ii  to  the  pro- 
fane. Heenvelopesitinchnidsiiiliis  laiMciiis  litter  tothe 
three  friends  ;  he  teaches  it  to  ilioiiysiiis  i>l  S)  racuse  ; 
but  by  eniginiis,  as  he  says  himself,  lest  bis  tablets  fall- 
ing into  the  hands  of  some  stranger,  tlicy  sluiuld  be  read 
and  understood.  Perhaps,  the  recollection  of  the  recent 
death  of  Socrates  imposed  this  reserve  ujion  him.  Lao- 
tseu  does  not  make  use  of  these  indirect  ways;  and 
what  is  most  clear  in  his  book  is,  that  a  Trivnc  Heing 
Ibrmed  the  universe.  To  compUae  Ihe  singularity,  he 
gives  to  his  being  a  Hebrew  name  hardly  changed,  the 
very  name  which  in  our  book  designates  Inm,  wiin  vv.\s, 
AND  IS,  ANO  SHALL  UK.  Tliis  last  circnnistaiice  con- 
firms all  that  the  tradition  indicated  of  a  journey  to  the 
west,  and  leaves  no  doubt  of  the  origin  ol  bis  doctrine. 
Probably  he  received  it  either  Vrom  the  .hws  of  the  ten 
tribes,  whom  the  conquest  of  Sulmana/.an  had  just  di.s- 
persed  throughout  Asia,  or  from  the  apostles  ol  some 
Phenician  t^ect,  to  which  those  philosophers  also  be- 
1-onged,  who  were  the  masters  and  precufbors  of  Py- 
thagoras and  Plato." 
(b)  ABERNETUY'ti  Scrntuua. 


to  this  incjuiry.  Time,  in  our  conceptions,  is  divisible. 
The  artificial  divisions  are,  years,  months,  days, 
minutes,  seconds,  &c.  We  can  conceive  of  yet  smaller 
jionioiis  of  duration,  and  whether  we  have  givt'ii  to 
them  artificial  names  or  not,  we  can  conceive  no  other- 
wise of  duration,  than  continuance  of  being,  estimated 
as  to  degree,  by  this  artificial  admeasurement,  and 
therefore  as  substanlially  answering  to  it.  It  is  not 
denied  but  that  duration  is  something  djstinct  from  these 
its  artificial  measures ;  yet  of  this  every  man's  con- 
sciousness will  assure  him,  that  we  can  form  no  idea 
of  duration  except  in  this  successive  manner.  But  we 
are  told,  that  the  eternity  of  God  is  a  fixed  eternal  now, 
from  which  all  ideas  of  succession,  of  past  and  future, 
are  to  be  excluded  ;  and  we  are  caFled  upon  to  conceive 
of  eternal  duration  witnout  reference  to  past  or  future, 
and  to  the  exclusion  of  the  idea  of  that  Jlcnc  under 
which  we  conceive  of  lime.  The  proper  ai.v/r«(-Mdea 
of  duration  is,  however,  simple  emit  inn  mice  of  being, 
without  any  reference  to  the  exact  degree  or  extent  of 
it,  because  in  no  other  way  can  it  be  equally  ajiplicable 
to  all  the  substances  of  which  it  is  tlie  attribute.  It 
may  be  finite  or  infinite,  momentary  or  eternal,  but 
that  depends  upon  the  substance  of  which  it  is  the 
quality,  and  not  upon  its  o^vn  nature.  Our owti  obser- 
vation and  exjierience  teach  u.s  how  to  apply  it  to  our- 
selves. As  to  us, duration  is  dependent  and  finite;  as 
to  God,  it  is  infinite;  but  in  both  cases  the  originality 
or  dependence,  the  finity  or  infinity  of  it,  arises  not  out 
of  the  nature  of  duration  itself,  but  out  of  other  qua- 
lities of  the  subjects  respectively. 

Duration,  then,  as  applied  to  God,  is  no  more  than 
an  extension  of  the  idea  as  applied  to  ourselves  ;  and 
to  exhort  us  to  conceive  of  it  as  something  essentially 
difl'erent,  is  to  require  us  to  conceive  what  is  incon- 
ceivable. It  is  to  demand  of  us  to  think  without  ideas. 
Duration  is  continuance  of  existence  ;  continuance  of 
existence  is  capable  of  heing  longer  or  shorter,  and 
hence  necessarily  arises  the  idea  of  the  succession  of 
the  minutest  points  of  duration  into  which  we  can  con- 
ceive it  divided.  Beyond  this  the  mind  cannot  go,  it 
forms  the  idea  of  duration  no  other  way  ;  and  if  what 
we  call  duration  be  any  thing  different  from  this  in 
God,  it  is  not  duration,  projierly  so  called,  according  to 
human  ideas ;  it  is  something  else,  for  which  there  is 
no  name  among  men,  because  there  is  no  idea,  and 
therefore  it  is  impossible  to  reason  about  it.  As  long 
as  metaphysicians  use  the  term,  they  must  take  the 
idea:  if  they  spurn  the  idea,  they  have  no  right  to  the 
term,  and  o\iglit  at  once  to  confess  that  they  can  go  no 
farther.  Dr.  Cud  worth  defines  infinity  of  duration  to 
be  nothing  else  but  perfection,  as  including  in  it  neces- 
sary existence  and  iininutabihty.  This,  it  is  true,  is 
as  much  a  definition  of  the  moon,  as  of  infinity  of  dura- 
tion ;  but  it  is  valuable,  as  it  shows,  that  in  the  view  of 
this  great  man,  though  an  advocate  of  the  nunc  stans, 
the  standing  now  of  eternity,  we  must  abandon  the 
term  duration,  if  we  give  up  the  only  idea  under  which 
it  can  be  conceived. 

It  follows  from  this,  therefore,  that  either  we  must 
apjily  the  term  duration  to  the  Divine  Being  in  the 
same  sense  in  which  we  apply  it  to  creatures,  with  the 
extiMisioii  of  the  idea  to  a  duration  which  has  no  hounds 
anil  limits,  or  blot  it  nut  of  our  creeds,  as  a  word  to 
which  our  minds,  with  all  the  aid  they  may  derive 
from  the  labours  of  nietapliysicians,  can  attach  no  mean- 
ing. The  only  notion  which  has  the  appearance  of  an 
objection  to  this  successive  duration  as  apidied  to  him, 
appears  wholly  to  arise  from  conlbuiiding  two  very  dis- 
tinct things ;  succession  in  the  duration,  and  change 
in  the  substance.  Dr.  C'udworlh  ajipears  to  have  fallen 
into  this  error.  He  sjieaks  of  the  duration  of  an 
imperfect  nature,  as  sliding  from  the  present  to  the 
future,  expecting  something  of  itself  which  is  not  yet 
in  being,  and  of  a  perfect  nature  being  essentially 
immutable,  having  a  permanent  and  unchanging  dura- 
tion, never  losing  any  thing  of  itself  once  jire.sent,  nor 
yet  running  I'orwards  to  meet  something  of  itself  w  hich 
is  not  yet  in  being.  Now,  though  this  is  a  good  de- 
scription of  a  perfect  and  immutable  nature,  it  is  no 
description  at  all  of  an  eteniall)  enduring  nature.  Du- 
ration implies  no  lo.ss  in  the  substance  of  any  being, 
nor  addition  to  it.  A  perfect  nature  never  lo.ses  any 
thing  of  itself,  nor  expects  more  of  itself  than  is  pos- 
sessed ;  but  this  dops  not  arise  from  the  attribute  of 
its  duration,  however  that  attribute  may  be  conceived 
of,  but  rroni  its  perfection,  and  consequent  imniuta- 


Chap.  III.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


131 


bility.  These  attributes  do  not  flow  from  the  duration, 
but  the  extent  of  the  duration  from  them.  Tlie  argu- 
ment is  clearly  good  lor  nothing,  unless  it  could  he 
proved,  that  successive  duration  necessarily  implies 
change  in  the  nature  ;  but  that  is  contradicted  hy  the 
experience  of  finite  beings — their  natures  are  not  at  all 
determined  by  their  duration,  but  their  duration  by 
their  natures  ;  and  they  exist  for  a  moment,  or  forages, 
according  to  the  nature  which  their  Maker  has  impressed 
upon  them.  If  it  be  said  that,  at  least,  successive 
duration  imports  that  a  being  loses  past  duration,  and 
cxpect.s  the  arrival  of  future  existence,  we  reply,  that 
this  is  no  imperfection  at  all.  Even  finite  creatures  do 
not  feel  it  to  be  an  imperfection  to  have  existed,  and  to 
look  for  continued  and  tntermntable  being.  It  is  true, 
with  the  past,  we  lose  kuowledge  and  pleasure  ;  and 
expecting  in  all  future  periods  an  increase  of  knowledge 
and  happiness,  we  are  reminded  by  that  of  our  present 
imperfection  ;  but  this  imperfection  does  not  arise  from 
our  successive  and  flowing  dumtion,  and  we  never 
refer  it  to  that.  It  is  not  the  past  which  takes  away 
our  knowledge  and  pleasure  ;  nor  future  duration,  sim- 
ply considered,  which  will  confer  the  increase  of  both. 
Our  imperfections  arise  out  of  Uie  essential  nature  of  our 
being,  not  out  of  the  manner  in  which  our  being  is  con- 
tinued. It  is  not  the  flow  of  our  duration,  but  the  flow 
of  our  natures  which  produces  these  elfecls.  On  the 
contrary,  we  think  that  the  idea  of  our  successive  du- 
ration, that  is,  of  continuance,  is  an  excellence,  and 
not  a  defect.  Let  all  ideas  of  continuance  be  banished 
from  the  mind,  let  these  be  to  us  a  mmc  semper  stans, 
during  the  whole  of  our  being,  and  we  ap])ear  to  gain 
nothing— our  pleasures  surely  are  not  diminished  by 
the  idea  of  long  continuance  being  added  to  present 
enjoyment ;  that  they  have  been,  and  still  remain,  and 
will  continue,  on  the  contrary,  greatly  heightens  them. 
Without  the  idea  of  a  flowing  duration,  we  could  have 
no  such  measure  of  the  continuance  of  our  pleasures, 
and  this  we  should  consider  an  abatement  oi'  our  hap- 
piness. What  is  so  obvious  an  excellence  in  the  spirit 
of  man,  and  in  angelic  natures,  can  never  be  tliought 
an  imperfection  in  God,  when  joined  with  a  nature 
essentially  perfect  and  immutable. 

But  it  may  be  said,  that  eternal  duration,  considered 
as  successive,  is  only  an  artificial  manner  of  measur- 
ing and  conceiving  of  duration;  and  is  no  more  eternal 
duration  itself  than  minutes  and  moments  the  artifi- 
cial measures  of  time,  are  time  itself.  Were  this  granted, 
the  question  would  still  be,  whether  there  is  any  thing 
in  duration,  considered  generally,  or  in  time  considered 
especially,  which  corresponds  to  these  artificial  methods 
of  measuring,  and  conceiving  of  them.  The  ocean  is 
measured  by  leagues  ;  but  the  extension  of  the  ocean, 
and  the  measure  of  it,  are  distinct.  They,  neverthe- 
less, answer  to  each  other.  Leagues  are  the  nominal 
divisions  of  an  e.xtended  surface,  but  there  is  a  real  ex- 
tension, which  answers  to  the  artificial  conception  and 
admeasurement  of  it.  In  like  manner,  days,  and  hours, 
and  moments,  are  the  measures  of  time  ;  but  there  is 
either  something  in  time  which  answers  to  these  mea- 
sures, or  not  only  the  measure,  but  the  thing  itself  is 
artificial — an  imaginary  creation.  If  any  man  will 
contend,  that  the  period  of  duration  which  we  call 
time,  is  nothing,  no  farther  dispute  can  be  held  with 
him,  and  he  may  be  left  to  deny  also  the  existence  of 
matter,  and  to  enjoy  his  philosophic  revel  in  an  ideal 
world.  We  apply  the  same  argument  to  duration 
generally,  whether  finite  or  infinite.  Minutes  and  mo- 
ments, or  smaller  portions  for  wliich  we  have  no  name, 
may  be  artificial,  adopted  to  aid  our  conceptions ;  but 
conceptions  of  what  ?  Not  of  any  thing  standing  still, 
but  of  something  going  on.  Of  duration  we  have  no 
other  conception  ;  and  if  there  be  nothing  in  nature 
which  answers  to  this  conception,  then  is  duration 
itself  imaginary,  and  we  discourse  about  nothing.  If 
the  duration  of  the  Divine  Being  admits  not  of  past, 
present,  and  future,  one  of  these  two  consequences 
must  lOUow, — that  no  such  attribute  as  that  of  eter- 
nity belongs  to  him, — or  that  there  is  no  power  in  the 
human  mind  to  conceive  of  it.  In  either  case  the 
Scriptures  are  greatly  impugned  ;  for  "  He  who  was, 
and  is,  and  is  to  come,"  is  a  revelation  of  the  eternity 
of  God,  which  is  then  in  no  sense  true.  It  is  not  true 
if  used  literally  ;  and  it  is  as  little  .so  if  the  language  be 
figurative,  for  the  figure  rests  on  no  basis,  it  illustrates 
nothing.  It  misleads. 

God  is  O.MNU'OfgNT  :  Of  this  attribute  also  we  have 
1  2 


the  most  ample  revelation,  and  in  the  most  impressive 
and  sublime  language.  Krom  the  annunciation  in  the 
Scriptures  of  a  Divme  existence  who  was  "  in  the  be- 
ginning" before  all  things,  the  very  first  step  is  the 
display  of  his  almighty  power  in  the  creation,  out  of 
nothing,  and  the  immediate  arrangement  in  order  and 
perfection,  of  the  "  heaven  and  the  earth  ;"  by  which 
is  meant  not  tins  globe  only  with  its  atmosphere,  or 
even  with  its  own  celestial  system,  but  the  universe 
Itself;  for  '^ lie  made  the  stars  also."  We  are  thus 
placed  at  once  in  the  presence  of  an  agent  of  un- 
bounded power,  "the  strict  and  correct  conclusion 
being,  that  a  power  which  could  create  such  a  world  as 
this,  must  be  beyond  all  comparison  greater  than  any 
wliich  we  experience  in  ourselves,  than  any  which  we 
observe  in  other  visible  agents,  greater  also  than  any 
which  we  can  want  for  our  individual  protection  and 
preservation,  in  the  Being  upon  whom  we  depend;  a 
jiower  likewise  to  which  we  are  not  authorized  by  our 
observation  or  knowledge  to  assign  any  limits  of  space 
or  duration. "(7) 

That  the  .sacred  writers  should  so  frequently  dwell 
upon  the  omnipotence  of  God,  has  an  important  reason 
which  arises  out  of  the  very  design  of  that  revelation 
which  they  were  the  instruments  of  communicating  to 
mankind.  Men  were  to  be  reminded  of  their  obliga- 
tions to  obedience,  and  God  is  therefore  constantly  ex- 
hibited as  the  Creator,  the  Preserver,  and  Lord  of  all 
things.  His  reverent  worship  and  fear  were  to  be  en- 
joined upon  them,  and,  by  the  manifestation  of  his 
works  the  veil  was  withdrawn  from  his  glory  and  ma- 
jesty. Idolatry  was  to  be  checked  and  reproved,  and 
the  true  God  was  thus  placed  in  contrast  with  the 
limited  and  powerless  gods  of  the  heathen.  "  Among 
the  gods  of  the  nations,  is  there  no  god  like  unto  thee, 
neither  are  there  any  works  Uke  thy  works."  Finally, 
he  was  to  be  exhibited  as  the  object  of  trust  to  crea- 
tures, constantly  reminded  by  experience  of  their  own 
infirmity  and  dependence,  and  to  whom  it  was  essen- 
tial to  know,  that  his  power  was  absolute,  unlimited, 
and  irresistible. 

In  the  revelation  which  was  thus  designed  to  awe 
and  control  the  bad,  and  to  aflbrd  strength  of  mind  and 
consolation  to  the  good  under  all  circumstances,  the 
omnipotence  of  God  is  therefore  placed  in  a  great  va- 
riety of  impressive  views,  and  connected  with  the 
most  striking  illustrations. 

It  is  presented  by  the  fact  of  creation,  the  creation 
of  beings  out  of  nothing,  which  itself,  though  it  had 
been  confined  to  a  single  object,  however  minute,  ex- 
ceeds finite  comprehension,  and  overwhelms  the  facul- 
ties. This  with  God  required  no  effort—"  lie  spake 
and  it  was  done,  he  commanded  and  it  stood  fast." 
The  vastness  and  variety  of  his  works  enlarge  the  co!i- 
ception.  "  The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God,  and 
the  firmament  showeth  his  handy  work."  "  He  spread- 
eth  out  the  heavens,  and  treadeth  upon  the  waves  of  the 
sea;  he  maketh  Arcturus,  Orion,  and  Pleiades,  and  the 
chambers  of  the  south ;  he  doeth  great  things,  past 
finding  out,  yea,  and  wonders  without  number.  He 
stretcheth  out  the  north  over  the  empty  place,  and 
hangeth  the  earth  upon  nothing.  He  bindeth  up  the 
waters  in  tlie  thick  clouds,  and  the  cloud  is  not  rent 
under  them ;  he  hath  compassed  the  waters  with 
bounds  until  the  day  and  night  come  to  an  end."  The 
ease  with  which  he  sustains,  orders,  and  controls  the 
most  powerful  and  unruly  of  the  elements  presents 
his  omnipotence  under  an  aspect  of  ineffable  dignity 
and  majesty.  "  By  him  all  things  consist."  He  brake 
up  for  the  sea  "  a  decreed  place,  and  set  bars  and 
doors,  and  said.  Hitherto  shalt  thou  come  and  no  far- 
ther, and  here  shall  thy  proud  waves  be  stayed."  "  He 
looketh  to  the  end  of  the  earth,  and  seeth  under^the 
whole  heaven,  to  make  the  weight  for  the  winds,  to 
weigh  the  waters  by  measure,  to  make  a  decree  for  the 
rain,  and  a  way  for  the  lightning  of  the  thunder." 
"  Who  hath  measured  the  waters  in  the  hollow  of  his 
hand,  meted  out  heaven  with  a  span,  coijiprchended 
the  dust  of  the  earth  in  a  measure,  and  weighed  the 
mountains  in  scales,  and  the  hills  in  a  balance  V 
The  descriptions  of  the  Divine  power  are  often  ter- 
rible. "Tlie  pillars  of  heaven  tremble,  and  are  asto- 
nished at  his  reproof;  he  divideth  the  sea  by  his 
power."  He  removeth  the  mountains,  and  they  know 
it  not ;  he  ovcrturneth  them  in  his  anger,  he  shaketh 


(7)  Palev. 


132 


THEOLOGICAL  LXSTITUTES. 


[Part  Ih 


the  earth  out  of  her  place,  'and  the  pillars  thereof 
tremble ;  he  coriimaiideth  the  sun  anil  it  riseth  not, 
and  scaleth  up  the  stars."  The  same  absolute  subjec- 
tiwi  of  creatures  to  his  dominion  is  seen  among  the 
intelligent  inhabitants  of  the  material  universe,  and 
angels,  men  the  most  exalted,  and  evil  sjiirils,  are 
swayed  with  as  much  case  as  the  least  resistless  ele- 
ments. "  He  maketh  his  angels  s|)irits,  and  his  minis- 
ters a  flame  of  fire."  They  veil  their  laces  before  his 
throne,  and  acknowledge  themselves  his  servants. 
"  It  is  he  that  sittuth  ujion  the  circle  of  the  earth,  and 
the  inhabitants  thereof  are  as  grasshopjiers,"  "as  the 
dust  of  the  balance,  less  than  nothing  and  vanity." 
"  llebringeth  princes  to  nothing."  "He  setleth  up  one 
and  putteth  down  another,"  "  for  the  kingdom  is  the 
Lord's,  and  he  is  governor  among  the  nations."  "  The 
angels  that  sinned  he  cast  down  to  hell,  and  delivered 
them  into  chains  of  darkness,  to  be  reserved  unto 
judgment."  The  closing  scenes  of  tliis  world  com- 
plete these  transcendent  conceptions  of  the  majesty 
and  power  of  God.  The  dead  of  all  ages  shall  rise 
from  their  graves  at  his  voice ;  and  the  sea  shall  give 
uji  the  dead  which  are  in  it.  Jlefore  his /ace  heaven 
and  earth  llec  away,  the  stars  fall  from  heaven,  and  the 
powers  of  heaven  are  shaken.  The  dead,  small  and 
great,  stand  belbre  God,  and  are  divided  as  a  shepherd 
divideth  the  sheep  from  the  goats  ;  the  wicked  go  away 
intoeverl?.sting  punishment,  but  the  righteous  into  life 
eternal. 

Of  these  atnazing  views  of  the  omnipotence  of  God, 
spread  almost  through  every  page  of  the  Scripture,  the 
power  lies  in  their  truth.  They  are  not  eastern  exag- 
gerations, inistaken  for  sublimity.  Every  thing  in  na- 
ture answers  to  them,  and  renews  from  age  to  age  the 
energy  of  the  impression  which  they  cannot  but  make 
upon  the  reriecting  mind.  The  order  of  the  astral  re- 
volutions indicates  the  constant  presence  of  an  invi- 
sible but  incomprehensible  power  : — the  seas  hurl  the 
weight  of  their  billows  upon  the  rising  shores,  but 
every  where  find  a  "  bound  fixed  by  a  perpetual  de- 
cree;"— the  tides  reach  their  heights ;  if  they  flowed  on 
for  a  few  hours,  the  earth  would  change  places  with 
the  bed  of  the  sea;  but  under  an  invisible  control  they 
become  •  duent.  "Iletouchelh  the  mountains  and 
they  smoKe,"  is  ncit  mere  imagery.  Every  volcano  is 
a  testimony  of  that  truth  to  nature  which  we  find  in 
the  Scriptures ;  and  earthiiuakes  teach,  that,  before 
him,  "the  pillars  of  the  world  tremble."  Men  col- 
lected intu  armies,  and  populous  nations,  give  us  vast 
ideas  of  human  poinr:  but  let  ati  army  be  jdaced  amid 
the  sand  storms  and  burning  winds  of  the  desert,  as  in 
the  East  has  frcijuently  ha|)i)uned ;  or  before  "  his 
frost,"  as  in  our  own  day,  in  llussia,  where  one  of  the 
inigtitiest  armaments  was  seen  retreating  before,  or 
perishing  under,  an  unexpected  visitation  of  snow  and 
•storm  ;  or  let  the  utterly  lirljili'ss  stale  ol'  a  ixiimhiiis 
country  which  has  been  visited  hy  l.urimc,  or  by  a  re- 
sistless pestilential  disease,  bt;  retlitcteil  upon,  and  it  is 
no  figure  of  speech  to  .say,  that  "all  luitious  are  before 
liiin  les.s  than  nothing  and  vanity." 

Nor  in  reviewing" this  doctrine  of  Scripture,  ought 
the  line  practical  uses  made  of  the  oiiiiiipoteiice  of  (;od, 
by  the  S&cred  writers,  to  be  overlooked.  In  lliem,  there 
is  nothing  said  lor  the  disjilay  ol  Knowledge,  as,  too 
ollen,  in  heathen  writers;  no  speculation,  wiilmnt  a 
7noral  subservient  to  it,  and  that  by  evident  (/<x/ir;i. 
To  excite  and  keep  alive  in  man  the  fear  ami  worship 
lit  God,  and  to  bring  him  to  a  felicitous  coiifiilcnce  in 
that  Almighty  power  which  pervades  and  controls  all 
things,  we  have  observed,  are  the  reasons  lor  those 
ample  disjilays  of  tlie  omnipotence  of  (iod,  which  roll 
through  the  sacred  volume  with  a  sublimity  that  in- 
spiration only  could  supply.  "Declare  his  glory 
among  the  heathen,  liis  marvellous  works  among  all 
nations;  for  great  is  the  Lord,  and  greatly  to  be 
praised.— Glory  and  honour  are  in  his  presence,  and 
strength  and  gladness  in  his  place.— Give  unto  the 
Lord,'  ye  kindreds  of  the  people,  give  unto  the  Lord 
glory  and  strength ;  give  unto  the  Lord  tlie  glory  ilue 
uiilo  his  name.— The  Lord  is  my  light  and  my  salva- 
tion ;  whom  shall  I  fear?  The  Lord  is  the  strength 
of  my  life  ;  of  whom  shall  1  be  afraid  !— If  God  be  for 
us,  who  then  can  be  against  us  f— Our  help  stamlcah 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  who  maile  lieaven  and  earth. 
—What  time  I  am  afraid,  I  will  trust  in  iliee."  -Thus, 
as  one  observes,  "our  natural  fears,  of  which  we  must 
have  many,  remit  us  to  t!od,  and  itnmid  ua,  t>intu  we 


know  what  God  is,  to  lay  hold   on   his  Alinigliiy 
jiower." 

Ample,  however,  as  are  the  views  afibrded  us  in 
Scripture  of  the  power  of  God,  we  are  not  to  consider 
the  subject  as  bounded  by  them.  As  when  the  Scrip- 
tures declare  the  eternity  of  God,  they  declare  it  so  as 
to  unveil  to  us  something  of  that  fearlul  peculiarity  of 
the  Divine  Nature,  that  he  is  the  fountain  of  being  to 
himself,  and  that  he  is  eternal,  becau.se  he  is  the  "  I 
AM  ;"  so  we  are  taught  not  to  measure  Ids  omnipo- 
tence by  the  actual  displays  of  it  which  have  been 
made.  They  are  the  man ijestatioris  of  the  principle, 
but  not  the  mfa,«(re  of  its  capacity;  and  slmuUI  wo 
resort  to  the  discoveries  of  modern  philosophy,  wliieli, 
by  the  help  of  instruments,  has  so  greatly  enlargi  d 
the  known  boundaries  of  the  visible  universe,  and  add 
to  the  stars,  visible  to  the  naked  eye,  ii<  w-  exiiilpilioiis 
of  the  Divine  power  in  those  nebulous  apjiearaiKes  of 
the  heavens  which  are  resolvable  into  myriads  of  dis- 
tinct celestial  luminaries,  whose  immense  di.stances 
commingle  their  light  before  it  rcac ties  our  eyes;  wc 
thus  almost  infinitely  expand  the  circle  of  created  ex- 
istence, and  enter  upon  a  Ibrmerly  unknown  and  over- 
whelming range  of  Divme  operation  ;  but  we  are  still 
reminded,  that  his  power  is  truly  AlnuglUy  and  mea- 
sureless— "  Lo,  all  these  are  parts  of  his  ways,  but 
how  little  a  portion  is  known  ol  him,  and  the  tlmnder 
of  his  power  who  can  understand!"  It  is  a  mighty 
conception  to  think  of  a  power  from  which  all  other 
power  is  derived,  and  to  which  it  is  subordinate ; 
which  nothing  can  oppose  ;  which  can  beat  down  and 
anmliilate  all  other  powers  whatever;  a  power  which 
operates  in  the  most  perfect  manner ;  at  once,  in  an 
instant,  with  the  utmost  ease:  but  the  Scriptures  lead 
us  to  the  conteiTiplation  of  greater  depths,  and  those 
unfathomable.  'I'he  omnipotence  of  God  is  meoni-eiv- 
able  and  boundless.  It  arises  from  the  infinite  perlec- 
tioii  of  (;iiil,  that  his  power  can  never  be  actually  ex- 
hausted ;  and,  in  every  imaginable  instant  in  eternity, 
that  inexhaustible  power  Of  God  can  if  it  please  him  be 
adding  either  more  creatures  to  those  in  existence,  or 
greater  perlection  to  them ;  since  "  it  belongs  to  self- 
existent  being,  to  be  always  full  and  communicative, 
and,  to  the  communicated  contingent  being,  to  be  ever 
empty  and  craving."(8) 

One  limitation  only  we  can  conceive,  which  how- 
ever detracts  uotlnng  from  this  jierfection  of  the  Di- 
vine Nature. 

"  Where  things  in  themselves  imply  a  contradiction, 
as  that  a  body  may  be  extended  and  not  extended,  in  a 
place  and  not  111  a  place,  at  the  same  time  ;  smli  tilings,  I 
say,  cannot  bo  done  by  God,  because  contradietiuns  are 
impossible  in  their  own  nature :  nor  is  it  any  deroga- 
tion from  the  Divine  power  to  say,  they  cannot  be 
done ;  (or  as  the  object  of  the  understanding,  of  the 
eye,  and  the  ear,  is  that  wliich  is  intelligible,  visible, 
and  audible;  so  the  object  of  power  must  be  that 
which  is  possible ;  and  as  it  is  no  prejudice  to  the  most 
perfect  understanding,  or  sight,  or  hearing,  that  it  does 
not  understand  what  is  not  intelligible,  or  see  what  is 
not  visible,  or  hear  what  is  not  audible  ;  so  neither  is 
it  any  dindnution  to  the  mo-st  perfect  power,  that  it 
does  not  <lo  \\\\M  is  not  possible. (,9)  In  like  manner, 
God  cannot  do  any  thing  that  is  repugnant  to  his  other 
perfections :  he  cannot  lie,  nor  deceive,  nor  deny  him- 
self; for  this  would  be  inpirious  to  hi.s  truth.  He  ciin- 
not  love  sin,  nor  punish  innoieiice  ;  li>r  this  would  de- 
stroy his  holiness  and  goodness:  and  thereliire  to 
ascribe  a  power  to  him  that  is  inconsistent  wiili  the 
rectitude  of  his  nature,  is  not  to  magnify  but  dfba.st! 
him;  for  all  unrighteousness  is  weakness,  a  defection 
Irom  right  reason,  a  deviation  from  the  perfect  rule  of 
action,  and  arises  from  a  defect  of  goodness  and 
power.  In  a  word,  since  all  the  attributes  of  (;od  are 
essentially  the  same,  a  power  in  him  which  tends  to 
di^stroy  any  other  attribute  of  the  Divine  Nature,  must 
be  a  power  destructive  of  itself  Well,  thereliire,  may 
we  conclude  him  absolutely  oiiiiiipolent,  who,  by  being 
able  to  ellect.!!!  Ihiims  consistent  wilh  his  perfections, 
showeth  infinite  abihiy,  and,  by  not  being  able  to  do  any 
tiling  repugnant  to  the  same  iierfections,  demonstrates 
himself  sul>|ect  tonoinfirmity."(l) 

Nothing  c'ertiiinly  in  the  finest  writings  (Jf  antiquity, 
were  all  their  best  thonghls  collected  as  to  the  majesty 


(H)  IIOWK.  (Vt)  JJlshop  WiLKINS. 

(1)  TkarsoN  onlUe  Creed. 


Chap.  HI.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


133 


and  power  of  God,  can  bear  any  comparison  to  the 
views  thus  presented  to  us  by  Divine  revelation.  Were 
we  to  forget  for  a  niomeut,  what  is  the  faet,  that  their 
noblest  notions  stand  eoiincctcd  with  fancies  and  vaiti 
speculations  which  deprive  them  of  their  lorce,  their 
thought  never  rise-s  so  high,  the  current  of  it  is  broken, 
the  round  of  lollv  conception  is  not  completed ;  and, 
unconnected  as  their  views  of  Divine  power  Were 
with  the  eternal  destiny  of  man,  and  the  very  reason 
of  creation,  we  never  hear  in  them,  as  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, "  the  THUNDER  of  his  power."  One  of  the  best 
specimens  of  heathen  devotion  is  given  below,  in  the 
hymn  of  Cleanthes  the  Stoic ;  and,  though  noble  and 
just,  it  sinks  infinitely  in  the  comparison. 

"  Hail,  O  Jupiter,  most  glorious  of  the  immortals, 
invoked  under  many  names,  always  most  powerful, 
the  first  ruler  of  nature,  whose  law  governs  all  things, 
— hail  I  for  to  address  thee  is  permitted  to  all  mortals. 
For  our  race  we  have  from  thee ;  we  mortals  who 
creep  upon  the  ground,  receiving  only  the  echo  of  thy 
voice.  I,  therefore,  I  will  celebrate  thee,  and  will  al- 
ways sing  thy  power.  All  this  universe  rolling  round 
the  earth,  obeys  thee  wherever  thou  guidest,  and  wil- 
lingly is  governed  by  thee.  So  vehement,  so  fiery,  so 
immortal  is  the  thunder  which  thou  holdesi  subser- 
vient in  thy  mishaken  hands ;  for,  by  the  stroke  of  this, 
all  nature  was  rooted  ;  by  this,  thou  directest  the  com- 
mon reason  wluch  pervades  all  things,  mixed  with  the 
greater  and  lesser  luminaries ;  so  great  a  king  ait  thou, 
supreme  through  all;  nor  does  any  work  take  place 
without  thee  on  the  earth,  nor  in  the  ethereal  sky,  nor 
in  the  sea,  e.xcept  what  the  bad  perform  in  their  own 
folly.  But  do  thou,  O  Jupiter,  gi\jCT  of  all  blessings, 
dwelling  in  the  clouds,  ruler  of  tlie  thunder,  defend 
mortals  frotn  dismal  misfortune  ;  which  dispel,  O  Fa- 
ther, from  the  soul,  and  grant  it  to  attain  that  judg- 
ment, trusting  to  which  thou  governest  all  things  with 
justice;  that,  being  honoured,  we  may  repay  thee 
"With  honour,  singing  continually  thy  works,  as  be- 
comes a  mortal ;  since  there  is  no  greater  meed  to  men  or 
gods,  than  always  to  celebrate  justly  the  universal  law." 
The  O.MMPRESKNCE  Or  UiiiQrtTY  of  God,  is  an- 
other doctrine  of  Scripture ;  and  it  is  corroborated  by 
facts  obvious  to  all  retlectiiig  beings,  though,  to  us  and 
perhaps  to  all  finite  minds,  the  mode  is  incomprehen- 
sible. The  statement  of  this  doctrine  in  the  inspired 
records,  like  that  of  all  the  other  attributes  of  God,  is 
made  in  their  own  peculiar  tone  and  emphasis  of  ma- 
jesty and  sublimity.  "  Whither  shall  1  go  from  thy 
Spirit,  or  whither  shall  I  flee  from  thy  presence  .'  If  I 
ascend  up  to  heaven,  thou  art  there  ;  if  I  make  my  bed 
in  hell,  behold  thou  art  there ;  if  I  take  the  wings  af 
the  morning  and  dwell  in  the  uttermost  parts  of  the 
sea,  even  there  shall  thy  hand  lead  me,  and  thy  right 
hand  shall  hold  me. —Can  any  hide  himself  in  secret 
places  that  I  shall  not  see  him  ?  Do  not  I  fill  heaven 
and  earth,  saith  the  Lord  ?  Am  I  a  God  at  hand,  saith 
the  Lord,  and  not  a  God  afar  olT? — Thus  saith  the  Lord, 
behold  heaven  is  my  throne,  and  the  earth  is  my  foot- 
stool.— Behold,  heaven  and  the  heaven  of  heavens 
cannot  contain  thee. — Though  he  dig  into  hell,  thence 
shall  my  hand  take  him ;  though  he  climb  up  into  hea- 
ven, thence  will  I  bring  him  down ;  and  though  he 
hide  himself  in  the  top  of  Carmel,  I  will  search  and 
take  him  out  from  thence. — In  him  we  live,  and  move, 
and  have  our  being. — He  filleth  all  things." 

Some  striking  passages  on  the  Ubi(piity  of  the  Divine 
presence,  may  be  found  in  the  writings  of  some  of  the 
Greek  philosophers,  arising  out  of  this  notion,  that  God 
was  the  soul  of  the  world  ;  but  their  very  connexion 
with  this  speculation,  notwithstanding  the  imposing 
phrase  occasionally  adopted,  strikingly  marks  the  dif- 
ference between  their  most  exalted  views,  and  those 
of  the  Hebrew  prophets  on  this  subject.  "  To  a  large 
proportion  of  those  who  hold  a  distinguished  rank 
among  the  ancient  theisticnl  phdosophers,  the  idea  of 
the  personality  of  the  Deity  was  in  a  great  measure 
unknown.  The  Deity  by  them  w;ls  considered,  not  so 
much  an  intelligent  Being  as  an  minnntimi  power,  dil- 
fused  throughout  the  world,  and  \s, is  introduc-ed  into 
their  speculative  system  to  acconnl  lor  the  motion  of 
that  passive  mass  of  matter,  which  was  supposed  co- 
eval, and  indeed  coexisenl,  with  himsclf."(2)  These 
defective  notions  are  confessed  by  Gibbon,  a  writer  not 
disposed  to  undervalue  their  attainments 


(2)  SuuNKR's  Records  of  the  Creation. 


"  The  jihilosojihers  of  Greece  deduced  their  morals 
from  the  nature  of  man  rather  than  Irom  that  of  (;od. 
They  ineditatcil,  however,  on  the  Divine  Nature,  as  a 
very  curious  and  important  spccnlation;  and  in  the 
profound  iinpiiry,  they  displaxcd  the  strength  and 
weakness  of  the  liuinan  nndcrstanduig.  (Jf  the  four 
most  considerable  sects,  the  tSuncs  and  tlie  Platoni- 
cians  endeavoured  to  reconcile  the  jarring  interests  of 
reason  and  piety.  Tliey  have  left  us  the  most  sub- 
lime proofs  of  the  existence  and  jierfcctions  of  the  First 
Cause  ;  but  as  it  was  impossible  for  them  to  conceive 
the  creation  of  matter,  the  workman,  in  the  Stoic  phi- 
losophy, was  not  sulliciently  distinguished  from  the 
work ;  while,  on  the  contrary,  the  spiritual  God  of 
Plaio  ancf  his  disciples  resembled  more  an  idea  than  a 
substance."(3) 

Similar  errors  have  been  revived  in  the  infidel  philo- 
sophy of  modern  time,  from  Spinoza  down  to  the  later 
offspring  of  the  (ierman  and  French  schools.  The 
same  remark  applies  also  to  the  Oriental  philosophy, 
which,  as  before  remarked,  presents  at  ttiis  day  a  per- 
fect view  of  the  boasted  wisdom  of  ancient  Greece, 
which  was  •'  brought  to  naughV  by  the  "  foolishness" 
of  apostolic  preaclung.  But  in  the  Scriptures  there  is 
nothing  confused  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Ubi- 
(luity.  God  is  every  where,  but  he  is  not  every  thing. 
All  things  have  their  being  in  him,  but  he  is  distinct 
from  all  things  ;  he  fills  the  universe,  but  is  not  min- 
gled with  it.  He  is  the  intelligence  which  guides,  and 
the  power  which  sustains,  but  his  personality  is  pre- 
served, and  he  is  independent  of  the  works  of  his 
hands  however  vast  and  noble.  So  far  is  his  presence 
from  being  bounded  by  the  universe  itself,  that,  as  in  the 
passage  above  quoted  from  the  I'salms,  we  are  taught, 
that  were  it  possible  for  us  hi  wing  our  way  into  the 
immeasurable  depths  and  breadths  of  space,  God  would 
there  surround  us,  in  as  absolute  a  sense  as  that  in 
which  he  is  said  to  lie  about  our  bed  and  our  path  in 
that  part  of  the  world  where  liis  will  has  placed  us. 

On  this  as  on  all  similar  subjects,  the  Scriptures 
use  terms,  which  are  taken  in  their  common  sense  ac- 
ceptation among  mankind  ;  and  though  the  vanity  of 
the  human  mind  disposes  many  to  seek  a  philosophy 
in  the  doctrine  thus  announced  deeper  than  that  which 
its  pujuilar  terms  convey,  we  are  bound  to  conclude,  if 
we  would  pay  but  a  common  respect  to  an  admitted 
revelation,  that  where  no  manifest  figure  of  speech 
occurs,  the  truth  of  the  doctrines  lies  in  the  tenor  of 
the  terms  by  which  it  is  expres.sed.  Otherwise  there 
would  be  no  revelation,  I  do  not  say  of  the  modus,  for 
that  Is  profes.sedly  incomprehensible ;  but  of  the  fact. 
In  the  case  before  us,  the  terms  presence  and  place 
are  used  according  to  common  notions,  and  must  be  so 
taken,  if  the  Scriptures  are  intelligible.  Metaphysical 
refinements  are  not  Scriptural  doctrines,  when  they 
give  to  the  terms  chosen  by  the  Holy  Spirit  an  accepta- 
tion out  of  their  general  and  proper  use,  and  make 
them  the  signs  of  a  perfectly  distinct  class  of  ideas  ;  if 
indeed  all  distinctness  of  idea  is  not  lost  in  the  attempt. 
It  is  therefore  in  the  popular  and  just,  because  Scrip- 
tural, manner,  that  we  are  to  conceive  of  the  omnipre- 
sence of  God. 

"  If  we  reflect  ttpon  ourselves  we  may  observe,  that 
we  fill  but  a  small  space,  and  that  our  knowledge  or 
power  reaches  but  a  little  way.  We  can  act  at  one 
time  in  one  place  only,  and  the  sphere  of  our  Influence 
is  narrow  at  largest.  Would  we  be  witnesses  to  what 
is  done  at  any  distance  from  us,  or  exert  there  our!lc- 
tive  powers,  we  must  remove  ourselves  thilher.  For 
this  reason  we  are  necessarily  ignorant  of  a  thousand 
things  which  pass  around  us,  inca|)able  of  attending 
and  managing  any  great  variety  of  aflfairs,  or  perlbrm- 
ing  at  the  same  time  any  number  of  actions,  for  our 
own  good,  or  for  the  benefit  of  others. 

"  Although  we  feel  this  to  be  the  present  condition 
of  our  being,  and  the  limited  slate  of  our  intelligent 
and  active  powers,  yet  we  can  easily  conceive,  there 
may  exist  beings  more  perfect,  and  whose  jircsence 
may  extend  far  and  wide.  Any  one  of  whom  present 
in  what  to  us  are  various  places,  at  the  same  time, 
may  know  at  once  what  is  done  in  all  these,  and  act  in 
all  of  them  ;  and  thus  be  able  to  regard  and  direct  a 
variety  of  alliiirs  at  the  same  instant.  And  who  far- 
ther being  quahlied,  by  the  jiurity  and  activity  of  their 
nature,  to  pass  I'rom  one  place  to  another  with  great 

\Z)  Decline  and  Fall,  ic. 


134 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II, 


ease  and  swiftness,  may  thus  fill  a  large  sphere  of 
action,  direct  a  great  variety  of  alTiiirs,  confer  a  great 
number  of  benefits,  and  observe  a  multitude  of  actions 
at  the  same  time,  or  in  so  swill  a  succession,  as  to  us 
would  appear  bul^  one  instant.  Thus  perfect  we  may 
easily  believe  the  angr/s  of  God. 

"  We  can  fanlicr  ((iiiceive  this  extent  of  presence, 
and  of  ability  li)r  kiicuvlidge  and  action,  to  admit  by 
degrees  of  ascciKliii;;i]irli;clion  approaching  to  inlinite. 
And  when  we  have  Ihus  raised  our  thoughts  to  the 
idea  of  a  Being  who  is  not  only  present  throughout  a 
large  empire,  but  thnuigliout  our  world  ;  and  not  only 
in  every  part  of  our  world,  but  in  every  i)art  of  all  the 
numberless  suns  and  worlds  which  roll  in  the  starry 
heavens — who  is  not  only  able  to  enliven  and  actuate 
the  plants,  animals,  and  men  who  live  upon  this  globe, 
but  countless  varieties  of  creatures  every  where  in  an 
immense  universe — yea,  whose  presence  is  not  con- 
fined to  the  universe,  immeasurable  as  that  is  by  any 
finite  rnind,  but  who  Is  jiri^seiit  every  where  in  infinite 
space ;  and  who  is  therclbre  able  to  create  stUl  new 
worlds  and  fill  them  with  proper  inhabitants,  attend, 
supply,  and  govern  them  all — when  we  have  thus  gra- 
dually raised  and  enlarged  our  conceptions,  we  have 
the  best  idea  we  can  form  of  the  universal  presence  of 
the  great  Jehovah,  who  filleth  heaven  and  earth. 
There  is  no  part  of  the  universe,  no  portion  of  space 
uninhabited  by  God,  none  wherein  this  lleing  of  per- 
fect power,  wisdom,  and  benevolence  is  not  essentially 
present.  Could  we  with  the  swillness  of  a  sunbeam 
dart  ourselves  beyond  the  limits  of  the  creation,  and 
for  ages  continue  our  ))rogress  in  inlinite  space,  we 
should  still  be  surrounded  with  the  Divine  Presence; 
nor  ever  be  able  to  reach  that  space  where  (iod  is  not. 

"  His  presence  also  penetrates  every  part  of  our 
world ;  the  most  solid  parts  of  the  earth  cannot  ex- 
clude it ;  for  it  pierces  as  easily  the  centre  of  the  globe 
as  the  empty  air.  All  creatures  live,  and  move,  and 
have  their  being  in  him.  And  the  inmost  recesses  of 
the  human  heart  can  no  more  exclude  his  presence,  or 
conceal  a  thought  from  his  knowledge,  than  the  deep- 
est caverns  of  the  earlli."(4) 

The  illustrations  and  confirmatory  proofs  of  this  doc- 
trine which  the  material  world  furnishes,  are  numerous 
and  striking. 

"  It  is  a  most  evident  and  acknowledged  truth,  that  a 
being  cannot  act  where  it  is  not ;  if  tliorefore  actions 
and  effects,  whicli  manifest  the  highest  wisdom, 
power,  and  goodness  in  the  author  of  them,  are  conti- 
nually produced  every  where,  the  autlior  of  these  ac- 
tions, or  (iod,  must  be  continually  present  with  us, 
aiK^ wherever  he  thus  acts.  The  matter  which  com- 
poses the  world  is  evidently  lifeless  and  thoughtless; 
it  must  therefore  be  incapable  ol  iiioviiig  itself,  or  de- 
signing or  producing  any  t-ficcts  wl;icli  recjuire  wisdom 
or  power.  The  matter  of  our  world,  or  the  small  parts 
which  constitute  the  air,  the  earth,  and  the  waters,  is 
yet  continually  moved,  so  as  to  jirodnce  edicts  of  this 
kind  ;  such  are  the  innumerable  herbs,  anil  trees,  and 
fruits  which  adorn  the  earth,  and  support  the  countless 
ntillions  of  creatures  who  inhabit  it.  There  must 
therelbre  he  constantly  present,  all  over  the  earth,  a 
most  wise,  mighty,  and  good  Being,  Uie  author  and 
director  of  these  motions. 

"  We  cannot,  it  is  true,  see  him  with  our  bodily  eyes, 
becau.so  he  is  a  pure  spirit ;  yet  this  is  not  any  proof 
that  he  is  not  present.  A  judicious  discourse,  a  series 
of  liijul  actions,  convince  us  of  the  presence  of  a  friend, 
a  person  of  iirudence  and  benevolence.  We  cannot 
see  the  present  mind,  the  seat  and  princiiile  of  these 
qualities ;  yet  the  constant  regular  motion  of  the 
tgngue,  tlie  hand,  and  the  whole  body  (which  are  the 
instruments  of  our  .souls,  as  the  material  universe  and 
all  the  various  bodies  in  it  are  the  instruments  of  the 
Deity),  will  not  suffer  us  to  doubt,  that  there  is  an  in- 
telligent and  benevolent  principle  within  the  body, 
which  produces  all  these  skilful  motions  and  kind  ac- 
tions, 'i'hesun,  the  air,  the  earth  and  the  waiters,  are 
no  more  able  to  move  themselves,  anil  jiroduce  all  that 
beautiful  and  useful  variety  of  iilants,  and  fniHs,  and 
trees,  with  which  our  earth  is  covered,  than  the  body 
of  a  man,  when  the  soul  l}ath  lell  it,  is  able  to  move 
itself,  form  an  instrument,  plough  a  field,  or  build  a 
house.  If  the  laying  out  judiciously,  and  well  cultiva- 
ting a  small  estate,  sowing  it  with  projier  grain  at  the 


(1)  A.MORv's  Sermons. 


best  time  of  the  year,  watering  it  in  due  se.t.son  and 
(juantities,  and  gathering  in  the  fruits  when  rijie,  and 
laying  them  up  in  the  best  manner— if  all  tlusc-  el- 
fccts  prove  the  estate  to  have  a  manager,  and  the 
manager  pos.scsscd  of  skill  and  strength — certaiidy 
the  enlightening  and  warming  the  whole  earth  by  the 
sun,  and  .so  directing  its  motion,  and  the  motion  of  the 
earth  as  to  produce  in  a  constant  useful  succession 
day  and  night,  summer  and  winter,  seed-time  and  har- 
vest ;  the  watering  the  earth  continually  by  the  clouds, 
and  thus  briiigmg  Ibilii  iMiiiicMise  iiuautities  of  herbage, 
grain,  and  fruita— certainly  all  lliese  effects  continually 
produced,  must  (iruvu  that  a  Being  of  the  greatest 
|)ower,  wisdom,  and  benevolence  is  continually  pre- 
sent throimhout  our  world,  which  lie  thus  supports, 
moves,  actuates,  and  makes  fruitful. 

" 'I'lie  lire  \\  liich  warms  us  knows  nothing  of  its 
servieeableiiess  lo  this  purpose,  nor  of  the  wise  laws 
according  to  winch  its  particles  are  moved  to  produce 
this  ellect.  And  that  it  is  placed  in  such  a  part  of  the 
house,  where  it  may  be  greatly  beneticial  and  noway 
hurtful,  is  a.scribed  without  iicsitalion  to  the  contri- 
vance and  labour  of  a  person  who  knew  its  proper 
place  and  uses.  And  if  we  i-ame  daily  into  a  house 
wherein  we  saw  this  was  regularly  done,  though  we 
never  saw  an  inhabitant  therein,  we  could  not  doubt 
that  the  house  was  occupied  by  a  rational  iiihabilant. 
That  huge  globe  of  fire  in  the  heavi-ns,  which  we  call 
the  sun,  and  on  the  light  and  iiiHuences  of  which  the 
fertility  of  our  worhi,  and  the  life  and  pleasure  of  all 
animals  depend,  knows  nothing  of  its  serviceableness  to 
these  purposes,  nor  of  tlu!  wise  laws  according  to 
which  its  beams  are  dispensed  ;  luir  wliat  place  or  mo- 
tions were  reciuisite  for  these  beiietii'ial  purposes.  Vet 
its  beams  are  darted  constantly  in  infinite  numbens, 
every  one  according  to  liiose  well  chosen  laws,  and  its 
proper  place  and  motion  are  maintained.  Must  not 
then  its  place  be  appointed,  its  motion  regulated,  and 
beams  darted,  by  almighty  wisdom  and  goodness ; 
which  prevent  the  sun's  ever  wandering  in  the  bound- 
less spaces  of  the  heavens,  so  as  to  leave  us  in  discon- 
solate cold  and  darkness  ;  or  coining  so  near  or  emit- 
ting his  rays  in  such  a  manner  as  to  burn  us  up  ?  Must 
not  the  great  iieiiiL'  who  enlightens  and  warms  us  by 
the  sun,  his  instrument,  who  raises  and  sends  down 
the  vapours,  brings  Ibrth  and  rijiens  the  gniiii  and  fruits, 
and  who  is  thus  ever  acting  around  us  for  our  benefit, 
be  always  present  in  the  sun,  throughout  the  air,  and 
all  oyer  the  earth,  which  he  thus  moves  and  a<iuates? 

"  This  earth  is  in  itself  a  dead  motionless  ma.ss,  and 
void  of  all  counsel ;  yet  proper  parts  of  it  are  continu- 
ally raised  through  the  small  pipes  which  compose  the 
bodies  of  iilants  and  trees,  and  are  made  to  contribute 
to  their  growth,  to  open  and  shine  in  blossoms  and 
leaves,  and  to  swell  and  harden  into  fruit.  Could  blind, 
thoughtless  particles  thus  eoiitiiiually  keep  on  their 
way,  through  numberless  windings,  wiilmiii  once  blun- 
dering, if  they  were  not  guided  by  an  unerring  hand  ' 
Can  the  most  perli'ct  liumaii  skill  from  earth  and  wa- 
ter form  one  gram,  much  more  a  variety  of  beautifVil 
and  relishing  fruits  '  Must  not  the  directing  mind, 
who  does  all  tins  constantly,  he  most  wise,  mighty, 
and  benevolent  !  Must  not  the  Being  who  thus  conti- 
nually exerts  his  skill  and  energy  around  us,  for  our 
benefit,  be  confessed  to  be  always  present,  and  con- 
cerned f(>rour  welfare"! 

"Canibesi'  efii'cts  be  ascribed  to  anything  below 
an  all-wise  and  almighty  cause?  And  must  not  this 
cause  be  present,  wherever  he  acts  ?  Were  God  to 
speak  to  us  every  month  from  heaven,  and  with  a  voice 
loud  as  thunder  declare,  that  b,e  observes,  provides 
lor,  and  govi^rns  us  ;  this  would  not  be  a  proof,  in  the 
judgment  of  sound  reason,  by  many  dcgnes  so  valid. 
Since  much  less  wisdom  and  power  arc  reiinired  to  form 
such  sounds  in  the  air  than  to  iirodue.'  these  elfects; 
and  to  give  not  merely  verbal  declarations,  but  sub- 
stantial evidences  of  his  presence  and  care  over  us.'X.5) 

"  In  everv  part  and  jilace  in  the  universe,  with  which 
we  are  ac(|iiaiiiled,  wepiTcelve  the  exertion  of  a  power, 
which  we  believe  mediaiely  or  immediately  to  i)roceeJ 
from  the  Deity.  I'or  instance  :  In  what  jiart  or  point 
of  space,  that  iias  ever  been  explored,  do  we  not  dis- 
cover attraction  !  Inwliat  regions  do  we  not  find  light  ? 
In  what  accessible  portion  of  otir  globe  do  we  not  meet 
with  gravity,   niagnelism,  electricity  ;  together  wiir» 

(5)  A.MoBV's  Sermons, 


Chap.  IV.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


135 


the  properties  also  and  powers  of  organized  snbstaiu-es, 
of  vegetable  or  of  animated  nature  !  Nay.  farther,  we 
may  ask,  What  kiiiKdoni  is  there  of  nature,  what  corner 
of  space,  in  which  there  is  any  thing  that  can  be  exa- 
mined by  us,  where  we  do  not  fall  upon  contrivance 
and  design  ?  The  only  retlection  perhaps  which  arises 
in  our  minds  from  this  view  of  the  world  around  us  is, 
that  the  laws  of  nature  every  where  prevail ;  that  they 
are  uniform  and  universal  ?  Hut  what  do  we  mean  by 
the  laws  of  nature,  or  by  any  law  ?  Efi'ects  are  pro- 
duced by  power,  not  by  laws.  A  law  cannot  execute 
itself.    A  law  refers  us  to  an  agent."(6) 

The  usual  aricmnent  d  priori,  on  this  attribute  of  the 
Divine  Nature,  has  been  stated  as  follows  ;  but  amid  so 
much  demonstration  of  a  much  higher  kind,  it  caimot 
be  of  much  value. 

I  "  The  First  Cause,  the  supreme  all-perfect  mind,  as 
he  could  not  derive  his  being  from  any  other  cause, 
must  be  independent  of  all  other,  and  therefore  unli- 
mited, lie  exists  by  an  absolute  necessity  of  nature  ; 
and  as  all  the  parts  of  infinite  space  are  exactly  uniform 
and  alike,  for  the  same  reason  that  he  exists  in  any  one 
part,  he  must  exist  in  all.  No  reason  can  be  assigned 
for  excluding  bim  from  one  part,  which  would  not  ex- 
clude liim  from  all.  But  that  he  is  present  in  some 
parts  of  space,  the  evident  effects  of  his  wisdom,  i)ower, 
and  benevolence  continually  produced,  demonstrate 
beyond  all  rational  doubt,  lie  must  therefore  be  alike 
present  every  where ;  and  fill  infinite  space  with  his 
infinite  Being."(7) 

Among  metaphysicians,  it  has  been  matter  of  dis- 
pute, whether  God  is  present  every  where  by  an  infi- 
nite extension  of  his  essence.  This  is  the  opinion  of 
Newton,  Dr.  S.  Clarke,  and  their  followers ;  others 
have  objected  to  this  notion,  that  it  might  then  be  said, 
God  is  neither  in  heaven  nor  in  earth,  but  only  a  part 
of  (Jod  in  each.  The  former  opinion,  however,  appears 
most  in  harmony  with  the  Scriptures ;  though  the  term 
extension,  through  the  inadequacy  of  language,  conveys 
too  material  an  idea.  The  objection  j  ust  stated  is  wholly 
grounded  on  notions  taken  from  material  objects,  and 
is  therefore  of  little  weight,  because  it  is  not  apiilica- 
ble  to  an  immaterial  substance.  It  is  best  to  confess 
with  one  who  had  thought  deeply  on  the  subject,  "  there 
is  an  incomprehensibleness  in  the  vjianiur  of  every 
thing  about  which  no  controversy  can  or  ought  to  be 
concerned. "(8)  That  we  cannot  comprehend  how  God 
is  fully,  and  completely,  and  undividedly  present  every 
where,  need  not  surprise  us,  when  we  reflect  that  the 
manner  in  which  our  own  minds  are  pre.sent  with  our 
bodies  is  as  incomprehensible,  as  tlie  manner  in  which 
the  Supreme  mind  is  present  with  every  tiling  in  the 
universe. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Attributes  of  God. — Omniscieiice. 
The  Omniscience  of  God  is  constantly  connected  in 
Scrijiture  with  his  Omnipresence,  and  forms  a  part  of 
almost  every  description  of  that  attribute ;  for  as  God  is 
a  spirit,  and  therefore  intelligent,  if  he  is  every  where,  if 
nothing  can  exclude  him,  not  even  the  most  solid  bo- 
dies, nor  the  minds  of  intelligent  beings,  then  are  all 
tilings  "  naked  and  open  to  the  eyes  of  him  with  whom 
we  have  to  do."  "  Where  he  acts,  he  is,  and  where  lie 
is,  he  perceives."  "  He  understands  and  considers 
things  absolutely,  and  as  they  are  in  theirown  natures, 
powers,  properties,  differences,  together  with  all  the 
circumstances  belonging  to  them. "(9)  "  Known  unto 
him  are  all  his  works  from  the  beginning  of  the  world," 
rather  av  'aiwvog  from  all  eternity— known,  before 
they  were  made,  in  their  jiosxible,  and  known,  now  they 
are  made,  in  their  actual  existence.  "  Lord,  thou  hast 
searched  me  and  known  me ;  thou  knowest  my  down- 
sitting  and  mine  up-rising,  thou  uiiderstandest  my 
thought  afar  off.  Thou  coinpassest  my  path  and  my 
lying  down,  and  art  acquainted  with  all  my  ways.  For 
there  is  not  a  word  in  my  tongue,  but  lo,  O  Lord,  thou 
knowest  it  altogether.    The  darkness  hideth  not  from 


(6)  Paley.  (7)  Amory. 

(8)  Jackson's  Existence  and  Unity,  <kc.— Vide  also 
Watts's  Philosophical  Essays,  and  Law's  Inquiry  into 
the  Ideas  of  Space,  &c. 

(9)  Bishop  WiLKiNs's  Principles. 


thee;  but  the  night  shineth  as  the  day.— The  ways  of 
man  are  before  the  eyes  of  the  Lord,  and  he  poiulereth 
all  his  goings;  he  scarcht^th  their  hearts,  and  under- 
staiideth  every  imagination  of  tlieir  thoughts."  Nor  is 
this  perfect  knowledge  to  be  confined  to  men  or  angels, 
it  reaches  into  the  state  of  the  dead,  and  penetrates  the 
regions  of  the  damned.  "Hell,  liailcs,  in  naked  before 
him  ;  and  destruction  (thr  seats  af  destriicltoa)  hath  no 
covering."  No  limits  at  all  are  to  be  set  to  this  perfection. 
"  Great  is  the  Lord,  his  vmlerstnnding  is  iskimtk." 

In  Psalm  xciv.  the  knowledge  of  God  is  argued  from 
the  communication  of  it  to  men.  "  Understand,  ye 
brutish  among  the  people  ;  and,  ye  fools,  when  will  ye 
be  wise ?  He  that  planted  the  ear,  shall  he  noi  hear? 
He  that  formed  the  eye,  shall  he  not  seel  He  that 
chastiseth  the  heatlicn,  shall  not  he  correct  ?  he  that 
teacheth  man  knowledge,  shall  not  he  know!"  This 
argument  is  as  easy  as  it  is  conclusive,  obliging  ;ill 
who  acknowledge  a  First  (^ause,  to  admit  his  jierfect 
intelligence,  or  to  take  refuge  in  Atheism  itself.  It 
fetches  not  the  proof  from  a  distance,  but  refers  us  to 
our  bosoms  for  the  constant  demonstration  that  the 
Lord  is  a  God  of  knowledge,  and  that  by  him  actions  are 
weighed. 

"  We  find  in  ourselves  such  qualities  as  thought  and 
intelligence,  power  and  freedom,  &c..  for  which  we 
have  the  evidence  of  consciousness  as  much  as  for  our 
own  existence.  Indeed,  it  is  only  by  our  consciousness 
of  these  that  our  existence  is  known  to  ourselves. 
We  know  likewise  that  these  are  perfections,  and  that 
to  have  them  is  better  than  to  be  without  them.  We 
find  also  that  they  have  not  been  in  us  from  eternity. 
They  must,  therefore,  have  had  a  beginning,  and  con- 
sequently some  cause,  for  the  very  same  reason  that  a 
being  beginning  to  exist  in  time  requires  a  cause. 
Now  this  cause,  as  it  must  be  superior  to  its  effect, 
must  have  those  perfections  in  a  superior  degree ;  and  if 
it  be  the  first  cause,  it  must  have  them  in  an  infinite 
or  unhmited  degree,  since  bonds  or  limitation,  without 
a  limiter,  would  be  an  effect  without  a  cause." 

"  If  God  gives  wisdom  to  the  wise,  and  knowledge 
to  men  of  understanding,  if  he  communicates  this  per- 
fection to  his  creatures,  the  inference  must  be  that  ho 
himself  is  possessed  of  it  in  a  much  more  eminent 
degree  than  they  ;  that  his  knowledge  is  deep  and  inti- 
mate, reaching  to  the  very  essence  of  thing.s,  theirs  but 
slight  and  superficial ;  his  clear  and  distinct,  theirs  con- 
fused aiul  dark  ;  his  certain  and  infallible,  theirs  doubt- 
ful and  liable  to  mistakes;  his  easy  and  permanent, 
tlieirs  obtained  with  much  pains,  and  soon  lost  again 
by  the  defects  of  memory  or  age ;  his  universal  and 
extending  to  all  objects,  theirs  short  and  narrow,  reach- 
ing only  to  some  few  things,  while  that  which  is  want- 
ing cannot  be  numbered  ;  and  therefore  as  the  heavens 
are  higher  tlian  the  earth,  so,  as  the  prophet  has  told  us, 
are  his  ways  above  their  ways,  and  his  thoughts  above 
their  thoughts."(l) 

But  His  understanding  is  iyifinite;  a  doctrine  which 
the  sacred  writers  not  only  authoritatively  announce, 
but  confirm  by  referring  to  the  wisdom  displayed  in,his 
works.  The  only  difference  between  wisdom  and 
knowledge  is,  that  the  former  always  supjioses  action, 
and  action  directed  to  an  end.  But  wherever  there  is 
wisdom,  there  must  be  knowledge ;  and  as  the  wisdom 
of  God  in  the  creation  consists  in  the  formation  of  things 
which,  by  themselves,  or  in  combination  with  oihers, 
shall  produce  certain  effects,  and  that  in  a  variety  of 
operation  which  is  to  us  boundless,  the  previous  know- 
ledge of  the  possible  qualities  and  effects  inevitably 
supposes  a  knowledge  which  can  have  no  limit.  For 
as  creation  out  of  nothing,  argues  a  power  which  is 
omnipotent ;  so  the  knowledge  of  the  possibilities  ot 
things  which  are  not,  a  knowledge  which,  from  the 
effect,  we  are  sure  must  exist  in  God,  argues  that  such 
a  Being  must  be  omniscient.  For  "  all  things  being  not 
only  present  to  him,  but  also  entirely  depending  upon 
him,  and  having  received  both  their  being  itself,  and  all 
their  powers  and  faculties  from  him :  it  is  manifest 
that,  as  he  knows  all  things  that  are,  so  he  must  like- 
wise know  all  possibilities  of  things,  that  is,  all  effects 
that  can  be.  For,  being  himself  alone  self-existent, 
and  having  alone  given  to  all  things  all  the  powers  and 
faculties  they  are  endued  with ;  it  is  evident  he  must  of 
necessity  know  perfectly  what  all  and  each  of  those 
powers  and  faculties,  which  are  derived  wholly  from 


(1)  Tillotson's  Scnnons. 


136 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


LPaut  U. 


himself,  can  possibly  jiroihlce :  ami  seeing,  at  one  bound- 
less view,  all  tin;  i)i)ssil)le  coiupositMins  unit  illvisioiis, 
variations  and  (■h;iM^'i's,ciri;iinist;in<is  and  ilc))un(lences 
of  things ;  all  tlieir  possible  relatiQiis  one  to  anollier, 
and  their  dispositions  or  fitnesses  to  certain  and  r;- 
spective  ends,  fie  must,  Without  possibility  ol  error, 
know  exactly  what  is  best  and  properest  in  ever)-  one 
of  the  inllnitc  possible  cases  or  inelliods  of  ili.sposui^' 
of  things  ;  and  understand  perfectly  how  to  order  and 
direct  the  resjiective  means,  to  bring  about  what  he  so 
knows  to  be,  in  its  kind,  or  in  the  whole,  the  best  and 
fittest  in  the  end.  This  is  what  we  mean  by  infinite 
Wisdom." 

On  the  subject  of  the  Divine  libi(iuiiy  and  Omni- 
science, many  fine  sentiments  are  limnd,  even  among 
pagans;  for,  an  intelligent  First  (  ause  bemg  in  any 
sense  admitted,  it  was  most  natural  and  obvious  to 
ascribe  to  him  a  perfect  knowledge  of  all  things.  They 
acknowledged  "  that  nothing  is  hid  from  God,  who  is 
intimate  to  our  minds,  and  mingles  himself  with  our 
very  thoughts  ;"(2)  nor  were  they  all  unaware  of  the 
practical  tendency  of  such  a  doctrine,  and  of  the  motive 
it  affords  to  a  cautious  and  virtuous  conduct.(3)  Hut 
among  them  it  was  not  held,  as  by  the  sacred  writers, 
in  coime.xion  with  otlxir  correct  views  of  the  Divine 
Nature,  which  are  essential  to  give  to  this  its  full  moral 
effect.  Not  only  ou  this  subject  does  the  manner  in 
which  the  ir^criptures  stale  this  doctrine  far  transcend 
that  of  the  wisest  pagan  theists;  but  the  moral  of  the 
sentiment  is  infinitely  more  comprehensive  and  im- 
pressive. With  them  it  is  connected  with  man's  state 
of  trial ;  with  a  holy  law,  all  the  violations  of  which, 
in  thought,  word,  and  deed,  are  both  infallibly  known 
and  strictly  marked ;  with  promises  of  grace  ;  and  of 
nnld  and  protecting  government  as  to  all  who  have 
sought  and  found  the  mercy  of  God,  forgiving  their 
sins  and  admitting  them  into  his  family.  The  wicked 
are  thus  reminded,  that  their  hearts  are  searched,  and 
their  sins  anted ;  that  the  eyes  of  the  Lord  are  ujion 
their  ways;  and  that  ihcir  most  secret  works  will  be 
brought  to  light  in  the  day  when  Gnd,  the  ivitncss, 
shall  become  God  the  Judge.  In  like  manner,  "the 
eyes  of  the  Lord  are  said  to  be  over  the  righteous ;" 
that  such  persons  are  kept  by  him  "  v/ho  never  slum- 
bers nor  sleeps ;"  that  he  is  never  "  far  from  them," 
and  that  "  his  eyes  run  to  and  fro  throughout  the  whole 
earth,  to  show  himself  strong  in  their  behalf;"  that 
foes,  to  them  invisible,  are  seen  by  his  eye,  and  con- 
trolled by  his  arm;  and  that  this  great  attribute,  so 
appalling  to  wicked  men,  affords  to  them,  not  only  the 
most  inrt'iential  reason  for  a  perfectly  holy  temper  and 
conduct,  but  the  strongest  motive  to  trust,  and  joy,  and 
hope,  amid  the  changes  and  afflictions  of  the  jiresent 
life.  Socrates,  as  well  as  other  i)hiloso|ihirs,  couhl 
cx7)ress  themselves  well,  so  long  as  the)  ixi)reKsed 
themselves  generally,  on  this  subject.  The  former 
could  say,  "  Let  your  own  frame  instruct  you.  Does 
the  mind  inhabiting  your  body  dispose  and  govern  it 
with  ease?  Ought  you  not  then  to  concluile,  that  the 
universal  mind  with  equal  ease  actuates  and  governs 
universal  nature;  and  that,  when  you  can  at  once  con- 
sider the  interests  of  the  Athenians  at  home,  in  KiTy|)t, 
and  in  Siiuly,  it  is  not  too  much  for  the  Divine  wisilom 
to  take  care  of  the  universe  ?  These  rellcciKuis  will 
six)n  convince  you,  that  the  greatness  ol  the  Divine 
mind  i.ssucb,  as  at  once  to  see  all  tlniiirs,  hear  all  lliings, 
be  presiint  every  where,  and  dmn  t  all  ilie  uMiiirs  of  the 
world."  Tlii;se  views  are  just;  but  lluty  wanted  that 
connexion  with  others  relative  both  to  the  Divine  nature 
and  government,  which  we  see  only  in  the  Hibb',  to 
render  thc^m  influential ;  they  neither  gave  correct 
moral  distinctions  nor  led  to  a  virtuous  practice,  no,  not 
in  Socrates,  who  on  some  subjects,  and  especially  on 
the  personality  of  the  Deity,  anil. his  iiuIcjk  adnuc  on 
matter,  raised  himself  far  above  the  rest  of  his  philo- 
sophic brethren,  but  in  moral  feeling  and  jiractice  was 
as  censurable  as  they .(4) 


(2)  Nihil   Deo   clausiim,  interest  aniinis  iioslris,  et 
mediis  cogitiitionibus  iiilervenit. — Sen.  Ejiixt. 

(3)  Unis  enim  non  tuiieat  Deum, omnia jiirvidentiTm, 
et  eogitantem,  &.e. — (Ur.  De  Nat.  Dtor. 

I  ('I)  .Several  parallels  have  been  at  ditrerent  times 
drawn,  even  by  <  hristian  divines,  between  the  charac- 
ters ol  f'ocralesand  Glirist,  doubtless  with  the  inten- 
tion ol  exalting  llie  latter,  but  yet  so  as  to  veil  the  true 
Character  of  the  ttirmer.     How  gruul  is  the  disgust  one 


The  foreknowledge  of  God,  or  his  prescience  of 
future  thing's,  ibouuli  contingent,  isby  divines  generally 
included  111  the-  t(;riii  oinni.science,  and  for  this  lliey  havu 
inuiiiestioii.-ibly  the  aiilliority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
I'roni  the  dilliiHilty  w  liicli  has  been  supjiosed  to  exist; 
in  reconciling  tins  with  the  freedom  of  human  actions, 
and  man's  a<  conntalnhty,  some  have  however  refused 
to  allow  prisiK  iiii.M  least  of  contingent  actions,  to  be 
a  iiro|ierly  of  the  Divine  Nature;  and  others  Ipivu 
adojiled  various  modifications  of  opinion,  as  to  the 
knowledge  of  t;od,  in  order  to  elude,  or  to  remove  the 
objection.  This  subject  was  glanced  at  in  I'art  i. 
chap.  IX.  but  in  this  place,  where  the  omniscience  of 
God  is  under  consideration,  the  three  leading  theorite 
which  have  been  resorleil  to  (or  the  imrjiose  of  main- 
taining nninipugned  the  moral  government  of  God,  and 
the  Ireedom  and  responsibility  of  man,  seem  to  reiiuire 
examination,  that  the  true  doctrine  of  Scrijiture  may  be 
fully  brought  out  and  established.(5) 


feels  at  that  want  ol  all  moral  delicacy  from  which  only 
such  comparisons  could  enuuiale,  when  the  true  cha- 
racter of  Socrates  comes  to  be  unveiled  !  On  a  sermon 
preached  at  Cambridge  by  Dr.  Itutler,  which  conlams 
one  of  these  parallels,  "  the  (.'hnslian  Observer"'  has 
the  loUowing  just  remarks  ; — 

"We  earnestly  rccjuest  that  such  of  our  readers  as 
are  sufficiently  acquainted  with  classical  literature  to 
institute  the  examination,  would  turn  to  the  eleventh 
chapter  of  the  third  book  of  the  Memorabilia  of  Xeno- 
[ihon,  and  wc  are  (lersuaded  that  they  will  not  think 
our  reprehension  of  Dr.  liutlir  misjilaced.  The  very 
title  of  the  chajiliT,  we  should  have  thought,  would 
have  jirecluded  any  t'linslian  scholar,  much  more  any 
Christian  divine,  from  the  possibility  of  being  guilty  of 
a  profanation  so  gross  and  revolting.  The  title  of  it  is 
Cu7n  Alcretr/ce  Theddala  dc  arte  hointainii  atliriendo- 
rinn  disseril  (Socrates,  viz.)  Doubtless  many  who 
heard  Dr.  Butler  preach,  and  many  more  who  have 
since  read  his  sermon,  have  taken  it  for  granted,  that 
when  he  ventured  to  recommend  the  conduct  of  So- 
crates, in  associating  with  courtesans,  as  being  an 
adumbration  with  that  of  our  Saviour,  he  must  have 
alluded  to  instances  in  the  life  of  that  philosopher  of 
his  having  laboured  to  reclaim  the  vicious,  or  to  con- 
sole the  penitent  with  the  hope  of  pardon.  For  our- 
selves, we  know  of  no  such  instances.  Hut  what  will 
be  his  surprise  to  find  that  the  intercour.se  of  Socrates 
with  courtesans,  as  it  is  here  recorded  by  Xenojilion, 
was  of  the  most  licentious  and  protligate  description  .'"' 

(.*))  There  is  another  theory  which  was  liirmerly  much 
debated,  under  the  name  of  Hcinitia  M,din  ;  but  to 
which,  in  the  present  day,  reference  is  seldom  made. 
The  Knowledu'e  of  God  was  ilistributed  into  Necissary, 
which  goes  beloii!  every  act  of  the  will  in  the  order  of 
nature,  and  by  which  he  knows  hiULself,  and  all  pos- 
sible things  .—  Free,  which  follows  the  act  of  the  will, 
and  by  which  God  knows  all  things  which  he  has  de- 
creed to  do  and  to  permit,  as  things  wluch  he  wills  to 
be  done  or  permitted: — Middle,  so  called,  because  par- 
taking of  the  two  former  kinds,  by  which  he  knows, 
siih  ciiiiditiiiiie,  what  men  and  angels  would  volunlarily 
do  under  any  given  circumstances.  •'Tertiam  .Midiaiii, 
(jiia  sub  coiiditione  novit  ipiid  homines  aut  atigeli  liic- 
turi  esseiit  pro  sua  liberiate,  si  cum  his  aut  illis  cir- 
cumsiantiis,  in  hoc  vel  in  illo  rerum  ordine  constitue- 
reiitnr."  — Kpisioi'iiis  De  Scientia  Dei.  They  illus- 
trate this  kind  of  knowledge  by  such  passages  as  "  Wo 
unto  tliie,  (_  bora/in  I  wo  unto  thee,  Ihthsaida'  for  ;/' 
the  mighty  works  which  were  done  in  \ on,  had  been 
done  111  Tyre  and  Sidoii,  they  would  have  repented  long 
ago  in  sackcloth  and  ashes."  This  di.stiiiclion,  winch 
was  taken  from  the  .lesuifs,  who  drew  it  Irom  iIk; 
Schoolmen,  was  at  least  favoured  by  some  of  (he  Re- 
monstrant divines,  as  the  extract  from  Flpisi-opius 
shows  ;  and  they  seem  to  have  been  led  to  it  by  the  cir- 
cumstance that  almost  all  the  high  Calvinist  theolo- 
gians of  that  day  entirciy  denied  the  possibility  of  cnn- 
fingent  IXiture  actions  being  tiinknow  ii.  in  order  to  sup- 
port on  this  ground  their  doctnne  ol  absolute  predes. 
tmation.  In  this,  however,  thosi!  Itemonstrants,  who 
adojited  that  notion,  did  not  Itillow  their  great  le;uler 
Arminius,  who  felt  no  need  of  this  subterfuge,  but 
stood  on  the  plain  declarations  of  Scripture,  unembar- 
rassed with  metaphysical  distinctions.  (Jumarus,  on 
the  other  side,  adopted  this  ojiinion,  which  was  ciin- 
liiied,  among  the  CiUvuUBtB  of  that  day,  to  hiiiiself  and 


Chap.  IV.J 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


137 


The  Chevalier  Rimsay,  among  his  other  speculations, 
holds  "  it  a  matter  ol'  choice  iii  <!od,  to  think  of  finite 
ideas;"'  and  sinnlar  opinions,  lliongti  variously  worded, 
liave  been  oeciLsionally  adopted.  In  substance  these 
opinions  are,  that  though  the  knowled^'e  of  Cod  he  iii- 
linite  ;is  his  jwwer  is  infinite,  there  is  no  more  reason 
to  conclude,  that  his  knowledge  should  be  always  ex- 
erted to  the  full  extent  of  its  capacity,  than  that  his 
power  should  be  enii)loyed  to  the  extent  of  his  omni- 
potence ;  and  that  if  we  suppose  him  to  choose  not  to 
know  some  contingencies,  the  infinitcnessof  his  know- 
ledge is  not  thereby  inipuf-'ned.  To  this  it  may  be  an- 
swered, "that  the  infinite  power  of  God  is  in Scriirture 
represented,  as  in  the  nature  of  tilings  it  must  be,  as  an 
infinite  capacity,  and  not  as  infinite  in  act ;  but  that 
the.kiwwlcils;e  of  QoA  is  on  the  contrary  never  repre- 
sented there  to  us  as  a  capacity  to  acquire  knowledge, 
but  as  actually  comi)rehending  all  things  that  are,  and 
all  things  that  can  be.  2.  That  the  notion  of  God's 
choosing  to  know  some  things,  and  not  to  know  others, 
supjioses  a  reason  why  he  refuses  to  know  any  class 
of  things  or  events,  which  reason,  it  would  seem,  can 
only  arise  out  of  their  nature  and  circumstances,  and 
therefore  supjioses  at  least  a  partial  knowledge  of 
them,  from  wliich  the  reason  for  his  not  choosing  to 
know  them  arises.  The  doctrine  is  therefore  some- 
what contradictory.  But,  3,  it  is  fatal  to  this  opinion, 
that  it  does  not  at  all  meet  the  difficulty  arising  out  of 
the  question  of  the  congruity  of  Divine  prescience,  and 
the  free  actions  of  man;  since  some  contingent  actions, 
for  which  men  have  been  made  accountable,  we  are 
sure,  have  been  foreknown  by  God,  because  by  his 
Spirit  in  the  prophets  they  were  foretold ;  and  if  the 
freedom  of  man  can  in  these  cases  be  reconciled  to  the 
prescience  of  God,  there  is  no  greater  dilficulty  in  any 
other  case  which  can  possibly  occur, 

A  second  theory  is,  that  the  foreknowledge  of  contin- 
gent events,  being  in  its  own  nature  impossible,  because 
it  imi/lies  a  contradiction,  it  does  no  dishonour  to  the 
Divine  Being  to  allirni,  that  of  such  events  he  has,  and 
can  have, no  prescience  whatever;  and  thus  the  pre- 
science of  God,  as  to  moral  actions,  being  wholly  denied, 
the  difficulty  of  reconciling  it  with  human  freedom  and 
accountability  has  no  exisience.(6) 

To  this  the  same  answer  must  be  given  as  to  the 
former.     It  does  not   meet  the  case,  so  long  as  the 

another.  Gomarus  betook  himself  to  this  notion  of 
conditional  prescience,  in  order  to  avoid  being  charged 
with  making  God  the  author  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  and 
found  it  a  convenient  mode  of  eluding  so  formida- 
ble an  objection,  as  Curcellaens  remarks :  "  Sapienter 
ergo,  meo,  judicio,  Gomarus,  cum  suam  de  reproba- 
tionis  objecto  sententiam  hoc  absurdo  videret  urgeri, 
quod  Deum  peccati  Adarni  auctorem  constituerit,  ad 
prfescientiam  conditionatam,  confugit,  qua  Deus  ex  in- 
Jiiiito  scieiitite  siifB  hanine,  qiKBilam  futura  non  abso- 
lute, sell  ctrta  conditione  posita  prainnvit.  Hac  enini 
ratione  commodissime  ictum  istum  declinavit. — Eum- 
que  postea  secutus  est  Wallaeus  in  Locis  suis  Commu- 
nibus;  qui  etiam  feliciter  scopulum  ilium  prieterve- 
hitur.— NuUnm  pra;terea  ex  Calvini  discipulis  novi, 
qui  hanc  m  Deoscientiam  agnoscat. — De  Jure  Dei. 

To  what  practical  end  this  opinion  went,  it  is  not 
easy  to  see  either  as  to  such  of  the  C'alvinists  or  of  the 
Arminians  as  adojHed  it.  The  point  of  the  question, 
after  all,  was,  whether  the  actual  circumstances  in 
which  a  free  agent  would  be  placed,  and  his  conduct 
accordingly,  could  both  be  foreknown.  Gomarus,  who 
adopted  the  view  of  conditiitaaL  foreknowledge,  as  to 
Adam  at  least,  conceded  the  liberty  of  the  will,  so  far 
as  the  first  man  was  concerned,  to  his  opponents;  but 
Episcopius  and  others  conceded  by  this  notion  some- 
thing of  more  importance  to  the  Supralapsarians,  who 
denied  that  the  pre.science  of  future  contingencies  was 
at  all  possible.  However  both  agreed  to  destroy  the 
prescience  of  God  as  to  actual  contingencies,  though 
the  advocates  of  the  Media  Scientia  reserved  tlie  point 
as  to  possible,  or  rather  hypothetic  ones,  and  thus  the 
whole  was,  after  all,  resolved  into  the  wider  question. 
Is  the  knowledge  of  future  contingencies  possible? 
This  point  will  be  presently  considered, 

(fi)  So  little  effect  has  this  theory  in  removing  any 
difficulty,  that  persons  of  the  most  oiiiiosite  theological 
sentiments  have  claimed  it  in  their  lavour. — Socinus 
and  his  followers— all  the  Supralapsarian  Calvinists,— 
and  a  few  Arminians. 


Scriptures  arc  allowed  to  contain  projihecies  of  reward- 
able  and  punishable  actions. 

Ttiat  man  is  accountable  to  God  for  his  conduct,  and 
therelore  free,  that  is,  laid  under  no  invincible  necessity 
of  acting  in  a  given  manner,  are  doctrines  clearly  con- 
tained ill  the  Bible,  and  the  notion  of  necessity  has  here 
its  fUU  and  satisfactory  reply  ;  but  if  a  difiiculty  should 
be  felt  in  reconciling  the  freedom  of  an  action  with  the 
prescieni-e  of  it,  it  afibrds  not  the  slightest  relief  to  deny 
the  foreknowledge  of  God  as  to  actions  in  general, 
while  the  Scriptures  contain  predictions  of  the  conduct 
of  men  whose  actions  cannot  have  been  determined  by 
invincible  necessity,  because  they  were  actions  for 
which  they  received  from  God  a  just  and  marked  pu- 
nishment. Whether  the  scheme  of  relief  be,  that  the 
knowledge  of  God,  like  his  power,  is  arbitrary;  or  that 
the  prescience  of  contingencies  is  impossible ;  so  long 
as  the  Scriptures  are  allowed  to  contain  predictions  of 
the  conduct  of  men,  good  or  bad,  the  difficulty  remains 
in  all  its  force.  The  whole  body  of  prophecy  is  founded 
on  the  certain  prescience  of  contingent  actions,  or  it  is 
not  prediction,  but  guess  and  conjecture — to  such  fear- 
ful results  does  the  denial  of  the  Divine  prescience 
lead  I  Mo  one  can  deny  that  the  Bible  contains  predic- 
tions of  the  rise  and  fall  of  several  kingdoms;  that 
Daniel,  for  instance,  prophesied  of  the  rise,  the  various 
fortune,  and  the  fall  of  the  celebrated  monarchies  of  an- 
tiquity. But  empires  do  not  rise  and  fall  wholly  by  im- 
mediate acts  of  God;  they  are  not  thrown  up  like  new 
islands  in  the  ocean,  they  do  not  fall  like  cities  in  an 
earthquake,  by  the  direct  exertion  of  Divine  power. 
They  are  carried  through  their  various  stages  of  ad- 
vance and  decline,  by  the  virtues  and  the  vices  of  men, 
which  God  makes  the  instruments  of  their  prosperity 
or  destruction.  Counsels,  wars,  science,  revolutions, 
all  crowd  in  their  agency ;  and  the  predictions  are  of  the 
combined  and  ultimate  results  of  all  these  circum- 
stances,  which,  as  arising  out  of  the  vices  and  virtues 
of  men,  out  of  innumeralsle  acts  of  choice,  are  contin- 
gent. Seen  they  must  have  been  through  all  their 
stages,  and  seen  in  their  results,  for  prophecy  has  re- 
gistered those  results.  The  prescience  of  them  cannot 
be  denied,  for  that  is  on  the  record ;  and  if  certain  pre- 
science involves  necessity,  then  are  the  daily  virtues 
and  vices  of  men  not  contingent.  It  was  predicted, 
that  Babylon  should  be  taken  by  Cyrus  in  the  midst  of 
a  midnight  revel,  in  which  the  gates  should  be  left  un- 
guarded and  open.  Now,  if  all  the  actions  wliich  arose 
out  of  the  warlike  disposition  and  ambition  of  C)tus 
were  contingent,  what  becomes  of  the  principle,  that 
it  is  impossible  to  foreknow  contingencies  ? — they  were 
foreknown,  because  the  result  of  them  was  predicted, 
If  the  midnight  revel  of  the  Babylonian  monarch  was 
contingent  (the  circumstance  which  led  to  the  neglect 
of  the  gates  of  the  city),  that  also  was  foreknown,  be- 
cause predicted;  if  not  contingent,  the  actions  of  both 
monarchs  were  necessary,  and  to  neither  of  them  can 
be  ascribed  virtue  or  vice. 

Our  Lord  predicts,  most  circumstantially,  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans.  If  this  be  al- 
lowed, then  the  contingencies  involved  in  the  conduct 
of  the  Jews  who  provoked  that  fatal  war — in  the 
Roman  senate  who  decreed  it — in  the  Roman  generals 
who  carried  it  on — in  the  Roman  and  Jewish  soldiers 
who  were  engaged  in  it — were  all  foreseen,  and  the  re- 
sult of  them  predicted  :  if  they  were  not  contingencies, 
that  is,  if  they  were  not  free  actions,  then  the  virtues 
and  vices  of  both  parties,  and  all  the  acts  of  skill,  and 
courage,  and  enterprise;  and  all  the  cruelties  and  suf- 
ferings of  the  besieged  and  the  besiegers,  arising  out  of 
innumerable  volitions,  and  giving  rise  to  the  events  so 
circumstantially  marked  intlie  prophecy,  were  deter- 
mined by  an  irreversible  necessity.  The  53d  chapter  of 
Isaiah  predicts,  that  Messiah  should  be  taken  away  by 
a  violent  death,  inflicted  by  men  in  defiance  of  all  the 
principles  of  justice.  The  record  cannot  be  blotted 
out;  and  if  the  conduct  of  the  Jews  was  not,  as  the 
advocates  of  this  scheme  will  contend  it  was  not,  in- 
fluenced by  necessity,  then  we  have  all  the  contin- 
gencies of  their  hatred,  and  cruelties,  and  injustice 
predicted,  and  therefore  foreknoirn.  The  same  obser- 
vations might  be  applied  to  St,  Paul's  prediction  of  a 
"  falling  away"  in  the  church  ;  of  the  ri.se  of  the  "man 
of  sin ;"  and,  in  a  word,  to  every  prediction  which  the 
sacred  volume  contains.  If  there  be  any  predictions  in 
the  Bible  at  all,  every  scheme  which  denies  the  pre- 
science of  contingencies  must  compel  us  into  the  doc-. 


138 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


trine  of  necessity,  which  in  this  place  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  discuss. 

On  tlic  main  principle  of  the  theorj' just  mentioned, 
that  tile  prescience  of  conlingent  events  is  impossible, 
because  tlieir  nature  would  be  destroyed  by  it,  we  may 
add  a  few  remarks.  That  the  subject  is  incomprehen- 
sible as  to  the  mnnnrr  in  which  the  Divine  Being  fore- 
knows future  events  of  this  or  of  any  kind,  even  the 
greatest  minds  which  have  applied  themselves  to  such 
speculations  have  felt  and  acknowledged.  The  fact, 
that  such  a  property  exists  in  the  Divine  Nature,  is, 
however,  too  clearly  st.ited  in  Scripture  to  allow  of  any 
doubt  in  those  who  are  disposed  to  subinit  to  its  author- 
ity; and  it  is  not  left  to  the  u-m  crtainly  of  our  specu- 
Jationson  the  proiiertics  ol'  siiiritiial  natures,  either  to 
be  confirmed  or  disproved.  Kcpiaily  clear  is  it  that  the 
moral  actions  of  men  are  not  necessitated,  because 
human  accountahility  is  the  main  jiillar  of  that  moral 
government,  whose  priiiciiiles,  conduct,  and  ends  are 
stated  so  larsely  in  Divine  revelation.  Whatever, 
therefore,  liccoiiies  of  human  speculations,  these  points 
are  suliicirntly  settled  on  an  authority  which  is  abun- 
danllv  sullic-ieiit.  To  the  objection  of  metaphysicians 
of  dilVrreiit  classes,  against  either  of  these  princijilcs, 
tliat  such  is  not  tlie  sense  of  the  Scriptures,  because  tlie 
fact  "cannot  be  so,  it  involves  a  contradiction"  not 
the  least  importance  is  to  be  attached,  when  tlie  plain, 
concurrent,  and  uniform  sense  of  Scripture,  interpreted 
as  any  other  book  would  be  interpreted,  determines  to 
the  contrary.  It  surely  does  not  follow  that  a  thing 
cannot  be,  because  inen  do  not  see,  or  pretend  not  to 
.see,  that  it  can  be.  Tills  would  lay  the  foundation  of 
our  faith  in  the  strength  or  weakness  of  other  men's  in- 
tellect. We  are  not,  however,  in  many  cases,  lell 
wholly  to  this  answer,  and  it  may  be  shown  that  the 
position,  that  certain  iin^science  destroys  ronlinffnicy, 
is  a  mere  .sophism,  and  that  this  conclusion  is  connected 
■with  the  premise,  by  a  confused  use  of  terms. 

The  great  fallacy  in  the  argument,  that  the  certain 
prescience  of  a  moral  action  destroys  its  contingent  na- 
ture, lies  in  supposing  that  contingency  and  certaiyity  are 
the  opposites  of  each  other.  It  is,  perhaps,  unfortunate 
that  a  word  which  is  of  figurative  etymology,  and  which 
consequently  can  only  have  an  ideal  application  to  such 
subjects,  should  have  grown  into  common  use  in  this 
discussion,  because  it  is  more  liable,  on  tliat  account, 
to  present  itself  to  different  minds  under  different 
shades  of  meaning.  If,  however,  the  term  contingent 
in  this  controversy  has  any  definite  meaning  at  all,  as 
applied  to  the  moral  actions  of  men,  it  must  mean  their 
freedom,  and  stands  opposed  not  to  certainty,  but  to 
necesaity.  A  free  action  is  a  voluntary  one ;  and  an 
action  which  results  from  the  choice  of  the  agent,  is 
distinguished  from  a  necessary  one  in  this,  that  it  might 
not  have  been,  or  liave  been  otherwise,  according  to  the 
self-determining  power  of  the  agent.  It  is  with  refer- 
ence to  this  si)ecific  quality  of  a  free  action,  that  the 
term  contingency  is  used, — it  might  have  l>een  other- 
wise; in  other  words,  it  was  not  necessitated.  Contin- 
gency in  moral  actions  is,  lliercfore,  iXvcvcfreednm,  and 
is  opposed  not  to  rrrlamly  l)ul  to  necessity.  The  very 
nature  of  this  controversy  fixes  this  as  the  precise 
meaning  of  the  term.  The  question  is  not,  in  point  of 
fact,  about  the  certainty  of  moral  actions,  that  is, 
whether  they  iriJI  happen  or  not;  but  about  the  nature 
of  them,  wiiiMher  free  or  constrained,  whether  they 
must  luippin  or  not.  Those  who  advocate  this  theory, 
care  not  about  the  certainty{l)  of  actions,  simply  con- 
sidered, that  is,  whether  they  will  take  place  or  not ; 
the  reason  why  they  obji'ct  to  a  certain  prescience  of 
moral  actions  is,  that  tliey  conclude,  that  such  a  pre- 
science renders  them  nece.tsnry.  It  is  the  quality  of 
the  action  for  which  they  contend,  not  wlielher  it  will 
happen  or  not.  If  contingency  meant  uncertainty, tiw. 
sense  in  which  such  theorists  take  it,  Ww  dispute  would 
be  at  an  end.  Hut  though  an  uncirtain  action  cannot 
be  foreseen  as  certain,  a  free,  unnecessitalcd  action 
may ;  for  there  is  nothing  in  the  knowledge  of  the  ac- 
tion, in  the  least,  to  affect  its  nature.  Simple  know- 
ledge is,  in  no  sense,  a  cause  of  action,  nor  ran  it  be 


(7)  Certainty  is,  properly  speaking,  no  quality  of  an 
action  at  all,  unless  it  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  -a  fired 
^ndnrrrssiliiled  action;  in  this  controversy  it  means 
the  certainty  winch  the  mind  that  foresees  has,  thai  an 
action  will  he  don<',  and  the  certainty  is  therefore  in  the 
mind  and  not  in  the  action. 


conceived  to  be  causal,  unconnected  with  exerted 
power;  for  mere  knowledge,  therefore,  an  action  re- 
mains free  or  necessitated  as  the  case  may  be.  A  ne- 
cessitated action  is  not  made  a  voluntary  one  by  its 
being  foreknown ;  a  free  action  is  not  made  a  necessary 
one.  Free  actions  foreknown!  will  not,  therefore,  cease 
to  be  contingent.  But  how  stands  the  case  as  to  their 
certainty?  Precisely  on  the  same  ground.  The  cer- 
tainty of  a  necessary  action  foreknown,  does  not  result 
from  the  knowledge  of  the  action,  but  from  the  oi)era- 
tion  of  the  necessitating  cause;  and  in  like  manner,  the 
certainty  of  a  free  action  does  not  result  from  the 
knowledge  of  it,  which  is  no  cause  at  all,  but  trom  the 
voluntary  cause,  that  is,  the  determination  of  the  will. 
It  alters  not  the  case  in  the  least,  to  say  that  the  volun- 
tary action  might  have  been  otherwise.  Had  it  been 
otherwise,  the  knowledge  of  it  would  have  been  other- 
wise;  but  as  tlie  will,  which  gives  birth  to  the  action, 
is  not  dependent  upon  the  [irevious  knowledge  of  God, 
but  the  knowlidge  of  the  action  upon  foresight  of  the 
choice  of  the  will,  neither  the  will  nor  the  act  is  con- 
trolled by  the  knowledge,  and  the  action,  though  fore- 
.seen,  is  still  free  or  contingent. 

Tlie  foreknowledge  of  God  has  then  no  influence 
upon  cither  the  freedom  or  the  certainty  of  actions,  for 
this  plain  reason,  that  it  is  knowledge,  and  not  influ- 
ence ;  and  actions  may  be  certainly  foreknow-n,  without 
their  being  rendered  necessary  by  that  foreknowledge. 
But  here  it  is  said,  If  the  result  of  an  absolute  contin- 
gency be  certainly  foreknown,  it  can  have  no  other  re- 
sult, it  cannot  happen  otherwise.  This  is  not  Hie  true 
inference.  It  ivill  not  happen  otherwise ;  but  I  ask, 
why  can  it  not  happen  otherwise  ?  Can  is  an  expres- 
sion of  potentiality,  it  denotes  power  or  possibility. 
The  objection  is,  that  it  is  not  possible  that  the  action 
should  otherwise  happen.  But  why  not  7  WXmx.  de- 
prives it  of  that  power  ?  If  a  necessary  action  were  in 
question,  it  could  not  otherwise  happen  than  as  the  ne- 
cessitating cause  shall  compel;  but  then  that  would 
arise  from  the  necessitating  cause  solely,  and  not  from 
the  prescience  of  the  action,  which  is  not  causal.  But 
if  the  action  be  free,  and  it  enter  into  the  very  nature 
of  a  voluntary  action  to  be  unconstrained,  then  it  might 
have  happened  in  a  thousand  other  ways,  or  not  have 
happened  at  all ;  the  foreknowledge  of  it  no  more  affects 
its  nature  in  this  case  than  in  the  other.  All  its  poten- 
tiality, so  to  si)eak,  still  reiiKiins,  indejiendent  of  fore- 
knowledge, which  neither  aihlsio  its  power  of  happen- 
ing otherwise,  nor  diminishes  it.  But  then  we  are 
told,  that  the  prescience  of  it,  in  that  case,  must  be  un- 
certain :  not  unless  any  person  can  prove,  tliat  the 
Divine  prescience  is  unable  to  dart  through  all  the 
workings  of  the  human  mind,  all  its  comparison  of 
things  in  the  juiigment,  all  the  inlluenccs  of  motives  on 
the  affections,  all  the  hesitancies,  and  baitings  of  the 
will,  to  its  final  choice.  "  Such  knouledge  is  ton  won- 
derful/or 7/.S',"  but  it  is  the  knowledge  of  him  who 
"  linderstandeth  the  thoughts  of  man  afar  off." 

But  if  a  contingency  it-ill  have  a  given  result,  to  that 
result  it  7nust  be  determined.  IS'ot  in  the  least.  We 
have  seen  that  it  cannot  be  determined  to  a  given  re.sult 
by  mere  |irecognilion,  for  we  have  evidence  in  our  own 
minds,  that  mere  knowledge  is  not  causal  to  the  ac- 
tions of  another.  It  is  determined  to  its  result  by  the 
will  of  the  agent ;  but  even  in  that  case,  it  cannot  be 
said,  that  it  mvsl  be  determined  to  that  result,  because 
it  is  of  the  nature  of  freedom  to  be  unconstrained ;  so 
that  here  we  have  an  instance  in  the  case  of  a  free 
agent  that  he  will  act  in  some  particular  manner,  but 
that  it  by  no  means  follows  from  what  will  be,  whether 
foreseen  or  not,  that  it  7nust  be. 

On  this  subject,  so  much  controverted,  and  on  which 
so  much,  in  the  way  of  logical  consequence,  depends, 
I  add  a  few  authorities. 

Dr.  S.  Clarke  observes,  "  They  who  suppose  that 
events  which  are  called  contingent  cannot  be  certainly 
foreknown,  must  likewise  suppose,  that  when  there  is 
not  a  chain  of  necessary  causes,  there  can  be  no  cer- 
tainty of  any  ftiture  events:  but  this  is  a  mistake ;  for 
Ictus  suppose,  that  there  is  in  man  a  power  of  begin- 
ning motion,  and  of  acting  with  what  has,  of  late,  been 
called  philosophical  freedom  ;  and  let  us  suppose,  liir- 
Ihcr,  that  the  actions  of  such  a  man  cannot  possibly 
be  foreknowii ;  will  there  not  yet  be  in  the  nature  of 
things,  notwithstanding  this  snpiiosiiion,  the  same  cer- 
tainty of  event  in  every  one  of  the  man's  actions,  as  if 
they  were  ever  so  fatal  and  necessary  .'     For  instance, 


Chap.  IV.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


139 


suppose  the  man,  by  an  internal  principle  of  motion, 
and  ;iii  ahsoluto  freedom  of  mind,  to  do  some  particular 
action  to-day,  and  suppose  it  was  not  possible  that  this 
action  shouhi  liave  been  foreseen  yesterday,  was  there 
not,  nevertlieless,  the  same  certainty  of  event,  as  if  it 
iiad  been  foreseen,  and  absolutely  necessary  ?  That  is, 
would  it  not  have  been  as  certain  a  truth  yesterday,  and 
from  eternity,  that  this  action  was  an  event  to  be  per- 
formed to-day,  notwithstanding  the  supposed  freedom, 
as  it  is  now  a  certain  and  infallible  truth  that  it  is  per- 
formed ?  Mere  certainty  of  event,  therefore,  does  not 
in  any  measure,  imply  necessity.  And  surely  it  im- 
plies no  contradiction  to  suppose,  that  every  future 
event  which,  in  the  nature  of  things,  is  now  certai)i, 
may  now  be  certainly  known  by  tliat  intelligence  which 
is  omniscient.  Tlie  manner  how  God  can  foreknow  fu- 
ture events,  without  a  chain  of  necessary  causes,  it  is 
indeed  impossible  for  us  to  explain,  yet  some  sort  of  ge- 
neral notion  of  it  we  may  conceive.  For,  as  a  man 
who  has  no  influence  over  another  person's  actions, 
can  yet  often  perceive  beforehand  what  that  other  will 
do;  and  a  wiser  and  more  expericiiceil  man,  with  still 
greater  probability,  will  foresee  \\li;it  another,  with 
whose  disposition  he  is  perfectly  ac([uaiii(eil,  will  in 
certain  circumstances  do;  and  an  angel,  with  still  less 
degree  of  error,  may  have  a  farther  prospect  into  men's 
Aiture  actions :  so  it  is  very  reasonable  to  conceive 
that  God,  without  influencing  men's  wills  by  his  power, 
or  subjecting  them  to  a  chain  of  necessary  causes,  can- 
not but  have  a  knowledge  of  future  free  events,  as 
much  more  certain  than  men  or  angels  can  po.ssibly 
liave,  as  the  perfection  of  liis  nature  is  greater  than 
that  of  theirs.  The  distinct  manner  how  he  foresees 
these  things,  we  cannot,  indeed,  explain ;  but  neither 
can  we  explain  the  manner  of  numberless  other  things, 
of  the  reality  of  which,  however,  no  man  entertains  a 
doubt. 

Dr.  Copleston  judiciously  remarks : — 
"  The  course  indeed  of  the  material  world  seems  to 
proceed  upon  such  fixed  and  uniform  laws,  that  short 
experience  joined  to  close  attention  is  sufficient  to  en- 
able a  man,  for  all  useful  purposes,  to  anticipate  the 
general  result  of  causes  now  in  action.  In  the  inoral 
world  -much  greater  uncertainty  exists.  Every  one 
feels,  that  what  depends  upon  the  conduct  of  his  fel- 
low-creatures is  less  certain,  than  what  is  to  be 
brought  about  by  the  agency  of  the  laws  of  matter :  and 
yet  even  here,  since  man  is  a  being  of  a  certain  com- 
position, haWng  such  and  such  faculties,  inclinations, 
affections,  desires,  and  appetites,  it  is  very  possible  for 
those  who  study  his  nature  attentively,  especially  for 
lho.se  who  have  practical  experience  of  any  individual 
or  of  any  community  of  men,  to  tbretel  how  they  will 
be  affected,  and  how  they  will  act  under  any  supposed 
circumstances.  The  same  power  (in  an  unlimited  de- 
gree as  before)  it  is  natural  and  reasonable  to  ascribe  to 
that  Being,  who  excels  the  wisest  of  us  infinitely  more 
than  the  wisest  of  us  excels  his  fellow-creatures. 

"  It  never  enters  the  mind  of  a  person  who  reflects 
in  this  way,  that  his  anticipation  of  another's  conduct 
lays  any  restraint  upon  that  man's  conduct  when  he 
comes  to  act.  The  anticipation  indeed  is  relative  to 
kimself,  not  to  the  other.  If  it  affected  him  in  the  re- 
motest degree,  his  conduct  would  vary  in  proportion  to 
ihe  strength  of  the  conviction  in  the  mind  of  the  thinker 
that  he  will  so  act.  But  no  man  really  believes  in  this 
magical  sympathy.  No  man  supposes  the  certainty  of 
the  event  (to  use  a  common,  but  as  I  conceive,  an  im- 
proper term),  to  correspond  at  all  with  the  certainty  of 
htm  who  foretels  or  expects  it.  In  fact,  every  day's 
experience  shows,  that  men  are  deceived  in  the  event, 
even  when  they  regarded  them.selves  as  most  certain, 
and  when  they  would  readily  have  used  the  strongest 
phrases  to  denote  that  certainty,  not  from  any  inten- 
tion to  deceive,  but  from  an  honest  persuasion  that 
such  an  event  must  happen.  How  is  it  then  ?  God 
can  never  be  deceived — his  knowledge,  therefore,  is  al- 
ways accomi)anied  or  followed  by  the  event — and  yet 
if  we  get  an  idea  of  what  his  knowledge  is,  by  our  own, 
why  should  we  regard  it  as  dragging  the  event  along 
with  it,  when  in  our  own  case  we  acknowledge  the 
two  things  to  have  no  connexion  ? 

"  But  here  the  advocate  for  necessity  interposes,  and 
says.  True,  your  knowledge  does  not  afl'ect  the  evetit, 
over  which  you  have  no  power:  but  God,  who  is  all 
powerful,  who  made  all  things  as  they  are,  and  who 
hnou's  all  that  will  come  to  pasB,  must  be  regarded  as 


rendering  that  necessary  xvhich  lie  foreknows — ^just 
as  even  you  may  be  considered  accessary  to  the  event 
wliich  you  anticipate,  exactly  in  propcirtion  to  the  share 
you  have  had  in  preiiaring  the  instruments  or  forming 
the  minds  of  those  who  are  to  bring  it  about. 

"  To  this  I  answer,  that  the  connexion  between 
knoidedge  and  the  event  is  not  at  all  established  by 
this  argument.  It  is  not  because  I  kntw  what  would 
follow,  but  because  I  contributed  towards  it,  that  it  is 
influenced  by  me.  You  may  if  you  please  contend, 
that  because  God  made  every  thing,  therefore  all  things 
that  happened  are  done  by  him.  This  is  taking  another 
ground,  for  the  doctrine  of  necessity,  which  will  be 
considered  presently.  All  I  maintahi  now  is,  that  the 
notion  of  God's  foreknowledge  ought  not  to  interfere 
in  the  slightest  degree  with  our  belief  in  the  contin- 
gency o(  events,  and  the  freedom  of  human  actions. 
The  confusion  has,  I  conceive,  arisen  chiefly  from  the 
ambiguity  of  the  word  certainty,  used  as  it  is  even  by 
learned  writers,  both  in  its  relation  to  the  mind  which 
thinks,  and  to  the  object  about  which  it  is  thinking."(8) 

To  the  above,  I  add  a  passage  from  a  divine  of  much 
older  date,  who  has  stated  the  argument  with  admirable 
clearness  : 

In  answer  to  the  common  argument,  "  As  a  thing 
is,  such  is  the  knowledge  of  it :  future  contingencies 
are  uncertain,  therefore  they  cannot  be  known  as  cer- 
tain," he  observes,  "  It  is  wonderful  that  acute  minds 
should  not  have  detected  the  fallacy  of  this  paralogism. 
For  the  major,  which  is  vaunted  as  an  axiom  of 
undoubted  truth,  is  most  false  unless  it  be  properly 
explained.  For  if  a  thing  is  evil,  shall  the  know- 
ledge of  it  be  evill  Then  neither  God  nor  angels 
could  know  the  sins  of  men,  without  sinning  them- 
selves? Again,  should  a  thing  be  necessary,  will  the 
knowledge  of  it,  on  that  account,  be  also  necessary? 
But  many  things  are  necessary  in  the  nature  of  things, 
which  either  are  unknown  to  us,  or  only  known  doubt- 
fully. Many  persons  doubt  even  the  existence  of  God, 
which  in  the  highest  sense  is  necessary,  so  far  are  they 
from  having  a  necessary  knowledge  of  him.  That 
proposition,  therefore,  is  only  true  in  this  sense,  that 
our  knowledge  must  agree  with  the  thuigs  which  are 
known,  and  that  we  know  them  as  they  are  in  reality, 
and  not  otherwise.  Thus  I  ought  to  think,  that  the 
paper  on  which  I  write  is  white  and  the  ink  black;  for 
if  I  fancy  the  ink  white  and  the  paper  black,  tliis  is  not 
knowledge  but  ignorance,  or  rather  deception.  In  like 
manner,  true  knowledge  ought  to  regard  things  neces- 
sary as  necessary,  and  things  contingent  as  contin- 
gent :  but  it  requires  not  that  necessary  things  should 
be  known  necessarily,  and  contingent  tilings  contin- 
gently ;  for  the  contrary  often  happens. 

"  But  the  minor  of  the  above  syllogism  is  ambiguous 
and  improper.  The  things  about  which  our  minds  are 
exercised,  are  in  themselves  neither  certain  nor  uncer- 
tain. They  are  called  so  only  in  respect  of  him  who 
knows  them ;  but  they  themselves  are  necessary  or 
contingent.  But  if  you  understand  by  a  certain  thing, 
a  necessary  one,  and  by  an  uncertain  thing,  that  which 
is  contingent,  as  many  by  an  abuse  of  terms  do,  then 
your  m.inor  will  appear  to  be  identical  and  nugatory, 
for  it  will  stand, '  Future  contingencies  are  contingent,' 
from  which  no  conclusion  can  be  drawn.  It  is  to  be 
concluded,  that  certitude  and  incertitude  are  not  af- 
fections of  the  things  which  are  or  may  be  known,  but 
of  the  intellect  of  him  who  has  knowledge  of  them,  and 
who  forms  different  judgments  resiiecting  them.  For 
one  and  the  same  thing,  without  any  change  in  itself, 
may  be  certain  and  uncertain  at  the  same  lime :  certain 
indeed  to  him  who  knows  it  certainly,  but  to  him  who 
knows  it  not,  uncertain.  For  example,  the  same  fii- 
ture  eclipse  of  the  sun  shall  be  certain  to  a  skilful 
astronomer  who  has  calculated  it,  uncertain  to  him 
who  is  ignorant  of  the  laws  of  the  heavenly  bodies. 
But  that  cannot  be  said  concerning  the  necessity  and 
contingency  of  things.  They  remain  such  as  they  are 
in  their  own  nature,  whether  we  know  them  or  not ;  for 
an  eclipse,  which  from  the  laws  of  nature  must  ne- 
cessarily take  place,  is  not  made  contingent  by  my  ig- 
norance and  uncertainty  whether  it  will  or  will  not 
happen.  For  this  reason  they  are  mistaken  who  say, 
that  things  determined  by  the  decree  of  God,  are  neces- 
sary in  respect  of  God ;  but  that  to  us,  who  know  not 
his  decrees,  they  are  contingent;  for  our  ignorance 


(8)  Inquiry  into  Necessity,  &c. 


140 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  11. 


cannot  make  that  which  is  future  and  necessary,  be- 
cause (i'liii  titilti  ilci.T(Til  it,  change  ils  nature,  and  lie- 
conie  (uiitiii^'eMt.  It  is  no  conlradiclion,  indeed,  to 
say,  thut  one  and  tlie  same  thins;  may  tie  at  once  iw- 
ccsaar ij  duii  yet  unr.ertain,  but  lliat  it  ^sllc)llld  be  neces- 
sary and  cnntiiigeiit  is  a  niuiiilcst  eoiilradiction.  To 
God,  therefore,  whose  knowledge  is  mlinite,  future 
contingencies  are  indeed  certain,  but  to  anjjels  and 
men,  uncertain ;  nor  are  tliey  niaile  necessary  because 
God  knows  them  certainly.  The  knowledge  ofOod 
influences  nothing  extriusically,  nor  changes  the  nature 
of  things  in  any  wise,  lie  knows  future  necessary 
things  as  necessary,  but  contingincics  as  contingen- 
cies; otherwise  he  woulii  not  know  them  truly,  hut  be 
deceived,  which  cannot  happen  to  <;od.''(y) 

The  rudiments  of  ilie  third  theory  wlucli  this  contro- 
versy has  called  Inrlli,  may  be  luund  in  many  theologi- 
cal writers,  ancient  ami  modern  ;  lint  it  is  staled  at  large 
in  the  writings  of  Arclibishnp  King,  and  reijuires  some 
notice,  becan.se  the  views  of  ilial  writer  have  of  late  been 
again  made  a  subject  of  (orilroversy.  They  amount, 
in  brief,  to  this,  that  the  foreknowledge  of  tfodmu.st  be 
supposed  to  differ  so  much  from  any  thing  of  the  kind 
we  perceive  in  ourselves,  and  Irom  any  ideas  whic^h 
we  can  possibly  form  of  that  properly  of  the  Uivine 
Nature,  that  no  argument  respecting  it  can  be  grounded 
upon  our  imjierfect  notions ;  and  that  all  controversy 
on  subjects  connected  with  it  is  idle  and  fruitless. 

In  establishing  this  view,  Archbishop  King,  in  his 
Sermon  on  Divine  Predestination  and  Foreknowledge, 
has  the  following  observations : 

"  It  IS  in  effect  agreed  on  all  hands,  that  the  nature 
«f  God  is  incomiirehensible  by  human  understanding; 
and  not  only  his  nature,  but  likewise  his  powers  and 
faculties,  and  the  ways  and  methods  in  which  he  ex- 
ercises them,  are  so  far  beyond  our  reach,  that  we  are 
.utterly  incapable  of  framing  exact  and  adequate  no- 
tions of  them. 

"  We  ought  to  remember,  that  the  descriptions  which 
we  frame  to  ourselves  of  God,  or  of  the  Divine  Attri- 
butes, are  not  taken  from  any  direct  or  immediate  per- 
ceptions tijat  we  liave  of  him  or  them;  but  from  some 
•ob.servatinns  we  have  made  of  his  works,  and  from  the 
consideration  of  tlmse  (jualilications,  that  we  conceive 
-would  enable  us  to  iierlbrni  llie  like. 

"  It  doth  truly  follow  from  hence,  that  God  must 
either  have  these,  or  other  faculties  equivalent  to  them, 
and  adequate  to  these  mighty  effects  which  proceed 
from  them.  And  because  we  do  not  know  what  his 
faculties  are  in  themselves,  we  give  them  the  names 
of  those  powers  that  we  find  would  be  necessary  to  us 
in  order  to  produce  such  effects,  and  call  them  wis- 
dom, understanding,  and  foreknowledge :  yet  at  the 
same  time  we  cannot  but  be  sensible,  that  they  arc  of 
a  nature  altogether  rlijfernit  from  ours,  and  that  rve 
have  no  dirert  and  proper  notion  or  conception  of  them. 
Only  we  are  sure,  that  they  have  effects  like  unto 
those  that  [)roceed  from  wisdom,  understanding,  and 
foreknowledge  in  us;  and  that  when  our  works  fail  to 
resemble  them  in  any  particular,  it  is  by  reason  of 
some  ilcfect  in  these  qualifications. 

"  Thus  our  reason  teaches  us  to  ascribe  these  attri- 
butes to  God,  by  way  of  analogy  to  such  qualities  as 
we  find  mo.st  valuable  in  ourselves. 

"  If  we  look  into  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  consider 
the  representations  given  us  there  of  God  or  his  attri- 
butes, we  shall  find  them  jilaiidy  borrowed  from  some 
resemblance  to  things,  with  which  we  are  acquainted  by 
our  senses.  Thus,  when  the  Holy  Scriptures  speak 
of  (Jod,  they  ascribe  hands,  and  e>cs,  and  feet  to  him  : 
not  that  we  should  tjelicve  he  ha-s  any  of  these  mem- 
bers, according  to  the  literal  signification;  but  the 
meaning  is,  that  he  has  a  |x>wer  to  execute  all  tho.se 
acts,  to  the  affecting  of  which  these  parts  in  us  are  in- 
strumental:  that  is,  he  can  convi^rse  with  men,  as 
■well  as  if  he  had  a  tongue  and  month  ;  he  can  discern 
all  that  we  do  or  say,  as  iierhclly  as  if  he  had  eyes 
and  ears;  he  can  reach  us  as  well  as  if  he  had  hands 
and  feet;  he  has  as  true  and  substantial  a  being,  as  if 
he  had  a  body;  and  he  is  as  truly  present  cv;.'ry  where 
as  if  that  body  were  infinitely  extended. 

"  After  the  same  manner,  we  find  hirn  represented  as 
affected  with  such  passions  as  we  perceive  to  be  in 
ourselves,  namely,  as  angry  and  pleased,  as  loving  and 
hating,  as  repenting  and  changing  his  resolutions,  as 


(9)  CuRCKLLyKis,  Uc  Jure  Uoi,  1645. 


full  of  mercy  and  provoked  to  revenge.  And  yet  on 
rellectiiin  we  cannot  think,  that  any  of  these  iiassions 
literally  all'eci  the  Divine  Nature. 

'•  And  as  the  passions  of  men  are  thus  by  analogy 
ascribed  to  (jod,  because  these  would  in  us  be  the  prin- 
cijiles  of  such  outward  actions,  as  we  sec  he  has  per- 
formed ;  so  by  the  same  condescension  to  the  weakness 
of  our  capacities,  we  find  the  powers  and  operations  of 
our  minds  ascribed  to  him. 

"  The  use  of  foreknowledge  with  us,  is  to  prevent  any 
surprise  when  events  hapjien,  and  that  we  may  not  be 
at  a  loss  what  to  do  by  things  coming  upon  us  un- 
awares. Now,  inasmuch  as  we  are  certain  that  nothing 
can  surjirise  God,  and  that  he  can  never  be  at  a  loss 
what  to  do;  we  conclude  that  God  has  a  faculty  lo 
which  our  foreknowledge  bears  some  analogy,  therelbre 
we  call  it  by  that  name. 

"  But  it  does  not  tiillow  from  hence,  that  any  of  these 
are  iil.i  rally  in  (iod,  after  the  manner  they  are  in  us,  any 
more  tlian  liaiids  or  eyes,  than  love  or  hatred  are;  on 
the  ciiiiirary,  we  must  acknowledge,  that  those  things 
which  we  call  by  these  names,  when  attributed  to  God, 
are  of  so  very  different  a  nature  from  what  they  are  in 
us,  and  so  superior  to  all  that  we  can  conceive,  that  in 
reality  there  is  no  more  likeness  between  them,  than 
betirrrn  our  hand  and  God's  power.  Nor  can  we  draw 
consequences  from  the  real  nature  of  one  to  that  of  the 
other,  with  more  justness  of  rea.son,  than  we  can  con- 
clude, because  our  hand  consists  of  fingers  and  joint.s, 
therefore  the  power  of  God  is  distinguished  by  sucli 
parts. 

"  So  that  to  arzue,  '  because  foreknovvledge,  as  it  is  in 
us,  if  suppo.sed  infallible,  c^mnot  consist  with  the  con- 
tingency of  events,  therefore  what  we  call  so  in  God 
cannot,'  is  as  far  from  rea.son,  as  it  would  be  to  conclude, 
because  our  eyes  cannot  see  in  the  dark,  therefore, 
when  God  is  said  to  see  all  things,  his  eyes  must  be  en- 
lightened with  a  perpetual  sunshine;  or  becaus*;  wo 
cannot  love  or  hale  without  passion,  therefore,  when 
the  Scriptures  ascribe  these  to  God,  they  teach  us,  that 
he  is  liable  to  these  affections  as  we  are. 

"We  ought,  therelbre,  to  interpret  all  the.se  things, 
when  attributed  to  God,  only  by  way  of  condescension 
to  our  capacities,  in  order  to  help  us  to  conceive  what 
we  are  to  expect  from  him,  and  what  duty  vvc  are  to 
pay  to  him.  Particularly,  the  terms  of  (brekiiowledge, 
predestination,  nay,  of  understanding  and  will,  when 
ascribed  to  him,  are  not  to  be  taken  strictly  or  properly, 
nor  are  we  to  think  that  they  are  in  him  in  the  same 
.sr«.scthat  we  find  them  in  ourselves;  on  the  contrary, 
we  are  to  interpret  them  only  by  way  of  analogy  and 
comparison." 

These  views  have  recently  been  advocated  by  Dr.  Co- 
pleston,  in  his  "  Inquiry  into  the  Doctrines  of  A'fre.siiii/ 
and  PriiUstuiation  ;"  but  to  this  theory  the  first  objec- 
tion is,  that,  like  the  former,  it  does  not,  in  the  least, 
relieve  the  difficulty,  for  the  entire  subduing  of  which 
it  was  adopted. 

For  though  foreknowledge  in  God  should  be  admitted 
to  be  something  of  a  "  very  diflerent  nature''  to  the 
same  quality  in  man,  yet  as  it  is  represented  as  some- 
thing equivalent  to  foreknowledge,  whatever  that  .tome- 
thins;  may  be ;  as,  in  consecjuenceof  it,  projihecies  havo 
actually  been  uttered  and  fulfilled,  and  of  such  a  kind, 
too,  as  relate  to  actions  for  which  men  have  in  fact  been 
held  accountable;  all  the  original  difiunlly  of  recon- 
ciling contingent  events  to  this  .vomWA/Hi,',  of  which 
human  foreknowledge  is  a  "kind  of  shadow,"  as  "a 
map  of  China  is  to  China  itself,"  remains  in  full  force. 
The  difiii  ulty  is  shifted,  hut  not  removed ;  it  cannot 
even  be  with  more  facility  glided  past;  and  cither  tlie 
Christian  world  must  be  content  to  forego  all  ini|uirieH 
into  these  subjects, — a  consummation  not  to  be  ex- 
pected, however  it  may  be  wished,— or  the  coolest  must 
be  resumed  on  another  field,  with  no  advantage  from 
better  ground  or  from  broader  daylight. 

A  farther  objection  to  these  notions  is,  that  they  arc 
dangerous. 

For  if  it  be  true,  that  the  faculties  wc  a.scribeto  God 
arc  "  of  a  nature  altogetlK^r  different  from  our  otim, 
and  that  we  hare  no  direct  ami  i>roper  notion  or  cmirep- 
tion  of  them,"  then,  in  point  of  fad,  wc  have  no  proper 
revelation  at  all  of  the  nature  of  (Jod,  and  of  his  altri- 
bntes,  in  the  Scriptures ;  ami  what  we  esteem  to  bo 
such,  is  a  revelation  of  terms  to  whiih  we  can  attach  no 
''proper  notion."  If  this  conclusion  be  well  founded, 
tlicQ  it  is  so  inunatroiu,  that  the  premises  on  which  it 


Chap.  IV.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


141 


hangs  must  be  unsonnd  Bnd  anti-scriptural.  This 
alone  is  a  sufficient  i^eneral  refutation  of  the  hypo- 
Iliesis  :  hut  a  more  particular  examination  will  show, 
that  it  rests  upon  fitlse  assumptions ;  and  that  it  intro- 
dui-es  i^raiiiiiims  dilliculties,  not  called  forty  the  sup- 
posed ililliiuliy  of  reconciling  the  foreknowledge  of  God 
with  the  freedom  of  human  actions. 

1.  It  is  assmned,  that  the  descriptions  which  we 
frame  to  ourselves  of  God,  are  taken  from  the  observa- 
tions we  have  made  on  his  works,  and  from  the  con- 
sciousness of  those  qualifications,  which,  we  conceive, 
would  enable  us  to  perform  the  like.  This  mifihl  be,  in 
jiart,  true  of  heathens  left  without  the  light  of  revela- 
tion ;  but  it  is  not  true  of  those  who  enjoy  that  ad- 
vantage. Our  knowledge  of  God  comes  from  the 
Scriptures,  which  are  taught  to  us  in  our  infancy,  and 
with  which,  either  by  reading  or  hearing,  we  become 
familiar  as  we  grow  up.  The  notions  we  have  of  God, 
so  far  as  they  agree  with  the  Scriptures,  are,  therefore, 
not  those  which  we  have  framed  by  Win  process  assumed 
by  the  Archbishop,  but  those  which  have  been  declared 
(.0  us  in  the  Scriptures  by  God  liimself,  as  descriptions 
of  his  own  nature.  This  makes  a  great  difference. 
Our  own  modes  of  forming  conceptions  of  the  Divine 
Nature  would  have  no  authority  liigher  than  ourselves  ; 
the  annouticements  of  Scriptvire  are  the  word  of  (iod, 
communicating  by  human  language  the  trutli  and  renlitij 
of  things,  as  to  himself.  This  is  the  constant  profession 
of  the  sacred  writers  ;  they  tell  us,  not  what  there  is  in 
man  which  may  support  an  analogy  between  man  and 
God,  but  what  God  is  in  himself. 

2.  It  is  assumed,  that  because  the  nature  of  God  is 
"  incomprehensible,"'  we  have  no  "  proper  uo{\on  or  con- 
ception of  it."  The  term  "  proper  notion"  is  vague. 
It  may  mean  "  an  exact  and  adequate  notion,"  which  it 
may  be  granted  without  hesitation  that  we  have  not ;  or 
it  may  mean  a  notion  correct  and  true  in  itself,  though 
not  complete  and  comprehensive.  A  great  part  of  the 
fallacy  lies  here.  To  be  incomprehensible,  is  not,  in 
every  case,  and  assuredly  not  in  this,  to  be  iinintelli- 
ffihle.  We  may  know  God,  though  we  cannot  fullri 
know  him ;  and  our  notions  may  be  trtie,  though  not 
adequate ;  and  they  must  be  true,  if  we  have  rightly 
understood  God's  revelation  of  himself.  Of  being,  for 
instance,  we  can  form  a  true  notion,  because  we  are 
conscious  of  our  own  existence  ;  and  though  we  cannot 
extend  the  conception  to  absolute  being  or  self-existence, 
because  our  being  is  a  dependent  one,  we  can  yet  supply 
the  defect,  as  we  are  taught  by  the  Scriptures,  by  the 
negative  notion  of  independence.  Of  spirit  we  have  a 
true  notion,  and  understand,  therefore,  what  is  meant, 
when  it  is  said,  that  "  God  is  a  Spirit ;"  and  though  we 
can  have  but  an  imperfect  conception  of  an  itijinite 
Spirit,  we  can  supply  that  want  also,  to  all  practical 
jmrjioses,  by  the  negative  process  of  removing  all  imper- 
fection, or  limit  of  excellence,  from  our  views  of  the 
Divine  Nature.  We  have  a  true  notion  of  the  presence 
of  one  being  with  other  beings,  and  with  place;  and 
though  we  cannot  comprehend  the  mode  in  which  God 
is  omnipresent,  we  are  able  to  conceive  without  diffi- 
culty the  /rtcf,  that  the  Divine  presence  fills  all  Ihhigs. 
We  have  true  notions  of  prwer  and  knowledge;  and 
can  suppose  them  infinite,  though  how  tfiey  should  be 
so,  we  know  not.  And  as  to  the  moral  attributes,  such 
as  truth,  justice,  and  goodness,  we  have  not  only  true, 
but  comprehensive,  and,  for  any  thing  that  appears  to 
tlie  contrary,  arfp/7««^e  notions  of  them ;  for  our  difli- 
(utlties  as  to  these  attributes  do  not  arise  from  any  inca- 
))acity  to  conceive  of  what  is  perfect  ttuth,perfect  jus- 
tire,  and  perfect  goodness,  but  from  our  inability  to  show 
how  many  things  which  occur  in  the  Divine  govern- 
ment are  to  be  reconciled  to  these  attributes ; — and 
that,  not  because  our  notions  of  the  attributes  them- 
selves are  obscure,  but  because  thethings,  outof  wliich 
such  questions  arise,  are  either  in  themselves,  or  in 
their  relations,  but  partially  understood  or  greatly  mis- 
taken. Job  and  his  friends  did  not  differ  in  abstract 
views  of  the  j?tsJ(ce  of  the  moral  government  of  God, 
but  in  reconciling  Job's  afflictions  with  it. 

3.  It  is  assumed  that  the  nature  of  God  \^ essential} tj 
different  from  the  spiritual  nature  of  man.  This  is  not 
the  doctrine  of  Scripture.  When  it  says,  that  "  God  is 
a  spirit ;"  we  have  no  reason  to  conclude,  that  a  distant 
analogy,  such  a  one  as  springs  out  of  mere  relation, 
which,  in  a  poetic  imagination,  miglit  be  sufTicieiii  to 
support  a  figure  of  speech,  is  alone  intended.  The  very 
argument  connected  with  these  words,  in  the  discourse 


of  our  Lord  with  the  woman  of  Samaria,  forbids  this. 
It  is  a  declaration  of  the  nature  of  (iod,  and  of  the 
worship  suited  to  his  nature;  and  the  word  employed 
is  that  by  which  both  Jews  and  Samaritans  had  been 
taught  by  the  same  inspired  records,  which  they  each 
possessed,  to  designate  and  conceive  of  the  intellectual 
nature  of  man.  The  nature  of  God,  and  tlie  nature  of 
man,  are  not  the  same;  but  they  are  similar,  because 
they  bear  many  attributes  in  common,  though  on  the 
part  of  the  Divine  IVature  in  a  degree  of  jierfectiou 
iiilinitely  exceeding.  The  difference  of  degree,  however, 
cannot  prove  a  difference  of  essence, — no,  nor  the  cir- 
cumstance that  one  lias  attributes  which  the  other  ha.s 
not, — in  any  sense  of  the  word  difference  winch  could 
be  of  service  to  the  advocates  of  ibis  li\  pnibcsis.  IJut 
if  atotal  difference  is  proved  as  to  llie  luleltirtvalMiri- 
butes  of  God  and  men,  that  difference  must  be  extended 
to  the  moral  attributes  also ;  and  so  the  very  Ibundation 
of  morals  and  religion  would  be  undermined.  This 
point  was  successfully  pressed  by  Edwards  against 
Archhisliop  King,  and  it  is  met  very  feebly  by  Dr.  Co- 
pleston.  "  Edwards,"  he  observes,  "  raises  a  clamour 
about  the  moral  attributes,  as  if  their  nature  also  must 
be  held  to  be  different  in  kind  from  human  virtues,  if  the 
knowledge  of  God  be  admitted  to  be  different  in  kind 
from  ours."  Certainly  this  Ibllows  from  the  principles 
laid  down  by  Archbishop  King;  and  if  his  followers 
take  his  conclusions  as  to  the  intellectual  attributes, 
tliey  must  take  them  as  to  the  moral  attributes  also.  If 
the  faculties  of  God  be  "  of  a  nature  altogether  different 
from  ours,"  we  have  no  more  reason  to  except  from  this 
rule  the  truth  and  the  justice,  than  the  v  isdom  and  the 
prescience  of  God ;  and  the  reasoning  of  Arclibi,shop 
King  is  as  conclusive  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other. 

The  fallacy  of  the  above  assumptions  is  sulUcient  to 
destroy  the  hypothesis  which  has  been  built  upon  them; 
and  the  argument  from  Scrijiture  may  be  shown  to  be 
as  unfounded.  It  is,  as  the  above  extract  will  show, 
in  brief  this, — that  as  the  Scriptures  ascribe,  by  «?!«- 
logy,  hands,  and  eyes,  and  feet  to  God,  and  also  the 
passions  of  love,  hatred,  anger,  <fcc.,  "  because  these 
would  be  in  us  the  principles  of  such  outward  actions 
as  we  see  lie  has  performed  ;  so,  by  the  same  conde- 
scension to  the  weakiie.ss  of  our  capacities,  we  find  the 
jiowers  and  operations  of  our  7ninds  ascribed  to  him.'' 
But  will  the  advocates  of  this  opinion  look  steadily  to  its 
legitimate  consequences?  We  believe  not ;  and  those 
conseciuences  fnust,  therefore,  be  its  total  refutation. 
For  if  both  our  intellectual  and  moral  affections  are 
made  use  of  but  as  distant  analogies  and  obscure  inti- 
mations, to  convey  to  us  an  imperfect  knowledge  of  the 
intellectual  powers  and  affections  of  the  Divine  nature, 
in  the  same  manner  as  human  hands  and  human  eyes 
are  made  to  represent  his  power  and  his  knowledge, — 
it  follows,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Divine  nature 
which  answers  more  truly  and  exactly  to  knowledge^ 
justice,  truth,  yncrcy,  and  other  qualities  in  man,  than 
the  knowledge  of  God  answers  to  human  organs  of 
vision,  or  his  power  to  the  hands  or  the  feet ;  and  from 
this  it  would  follow,  that  nothing  is  said  in  the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Divine  Being,  but  what  is  in  the  highest 
sense  figurative  and  purely  metaphorical.  We  are  no 
more  like  God  in  our  minds  than  in  our  bodies,  and  it 
might  as  truly  have  been  said  with  respect  to  man's- 
bodily  shape  as  to  tiis  mental  faculties,  that  man  was 
made  in  the  image  of  God. '"(1) 


(1)  "  Though  his  grace  rightly  lays  down  analogy  for 
the  fbundation  of  his  di.seourse,  yet,  for  want  of  iiaving 
thoroughly  weighed  and  digested  it,  and  by  wording 
himself  incautiously,  he  seems  entirely  to  have  de- 
stroyed the  nature  of  it ;  insomuch  that,  wliile  he  re- 
jects the  strict  propriety  of  our  conce])tions  and  words 
on  the  one  hand,  he  appears  to  his  antagonists  to  run 
into  an  extreme,  even  below  metaphor,  on  the  other. 

"  His  greatest  mistake  is,  that  through  his  discourse 
he  supposes  the  members  and  actions  of'  a  human  body, 
which  we  attribute  to  God  in  a  pure  metaphor,  to  he 
equally  upon  the  same  foot  of  analogy  with  the  pas- 
sions of  a  human  soul,  which  are  attributed  to  him  in 
a  lower  and  more  imperfect  degree  of  analogy ;  and 
even  with  the  operations  and  perfections  of  the  pure 
mind  or  intellect,  which  are  attributed  to  him  in  a  yet 
higher  and  more  complete  degree.  In  jiursuance  of 
this  oversight,  he  expressly  asserts  love  and  anger, 
wisdom  and  goodness,  knowledge  and  foreknowledge, 
and  all  the  other  Divine  attributes,  to  be  spoken  of  God, 


142 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


It  is  also  to  be  observed,  that  when  the  Scriptures 
speak  of  the  knowledf^e,  power,  and  other  attribiues  ol 
<Jod  in  tif;urative  language,  taken  from  the  eyes  or 
hands  of  the  body,  it  is  sulliciently  obvious  that  this 
laiiL'uage  is  metaphorical,  not  only  from  tlie  reason  of 
Ihimis  itself,  but  because  the  same  ideas  are  also  quite 
as  oil  en  expressed  without  figure;  and  llie  mitaphor, 
therelbre,  never  misleads  us.  We  have  sullicient  prool', 
also,  that  it  never  did  mislead  the  Jews,  even  in  tlie 
worst  periods  of  their  history,  and  when  their  tendency 
to  idolatry  and  ltoss  superslition  was  most  powerlul. 
They  made  images  in  Imman  shajie  of  otlier  gods  ;  but 
never  of  Jehovah.  The  Jews  were  never  Antliropo- 
morphite.s,  whatever  they  might  be  besides.  But  it  is 
equally  certain,  that  they  did  give  a  literal  interpreta- 
tion to  those  passages  in  their  Scriptures,  which  speak 
of  the  k/inwitdffe,  justice,  nmcy,  <fcc.  of  God,  a-^  the 
same  in  kind,  though  infinitely  higher  in  their  degree 
of  excellence,  with  the  same  qualities  in  men.  The 
reason  is  obvious  ;  they  could  not  interpret  those  pas- 
sages of  their  Holy  Writings  which  speak  of  the  liands, 
the  eyes,  and  the  feet  of  (Jod,  literully  ;  because  every 
part  of  the  same  sacred  revelation  was  (iiU  of  repre- 
sentations of  the  Divine  nature,  whiili  declared  his 
ab.solute  spirituality  ;  and  they  could  not  interpret  those 
passaL'cs  tiL'uralively  which  speak  of  the  intellectual  and 
moral  (jualiiiesof  God  in  terms  that  express  the  same 
(jualilies  in  men;  because  their  whole  revelation  did  not 
furnish  them  with  any  hint,  even  the  most  distant,  that 
there  was  a  more  literal  or  e.xact  sense  in  which  they 
could  be  taken.  It  was  not  possible  for  any  man  to 
take  literally  that  sublimely  figurative  representation 
of  the  upholding  and  ruling  power  of  God,  where  he  is 
said  to  "  hold  the  waters  of'  the  ocean  in  the  hollow  of 
his  hand,'"  unless  he  could  also  conclude  that  wliere  he 
is  .said  to  "  weigh  the  mountains  in  scales,  and  the  hills 
in  a  balance,"  he  was  to  understand  this  literally  also. 
The  idea  suggested  is  that  of  sustaining,  regulating, 
and  adjusting  [lOwer;  but  if  he  were  told  that  he  ought 
to  take  the  idea  of  power  in  as  figurative  a  sense  as 
that  of  the  waters  being  held  in  the  hollow  of  the  hand 
of  Goil,  and  his  weighing  ihe  mountains  in  scales,  he 
would  find  it  impossible  to  form  any  idea  of  the  thing 
signified  at  all.  The  first  step  in  the  attempt  would 
plunge  him  into  total  darkness.  The  figtirative  hand 
a.ssists  him  to  Ibnn  the  idea  of  managing  and  control- 
ling pmi'ir,  but  the  figurative  power  suggests  milhiiig  ; 
.-inci  so  this  sclieme  blots  out  entirely  all  revelation  of 
<;od  of  any  kind,  by  resolving  the  whole  into  figures, 
which  represent  nothing  of  which  we  can  form  any  con  - 
ception. 

The  argument  of  ARriiBisHor  King,  from  the  pas- 
sions which  are  ascribed  to  God  in  Scripture,  is  not 
more  conclusive.  "  After  the  same  manner  we  find 
him  represented  as  aflfected  with  such  passions  as  we 
perceive  to  be  in  ourselves,  as  angry  and  pleased,  as 
loving  and  hating,  as  repenting  and  changing  his  reso- 
lutions, as  full  of  mercy  and  provoked  to  revenge;  and 
yet,  on  refiection,  we  cannot  think  that  any  of  these 
passions  literally  affect  tlie  Oivine  nature."     Hut  why 


as  improperly  fis  f.'jes  or  ears;  that  there  is  no  more 
likeness  between  these  things  in  tlie  Divine  nature  and 
in  ours,  than  there  is  between  our  hand  and  God's 
power,  and  that  they  are  not  to  be  taken  in  the  same 
sense. 

"  Agreeably  to  this  incautious  and  indistinct  manner 
of  treating  a  subject  curious  ami  ditlicult,  lie  hath  un- 
warily drojiped  some  such  shocking  expressions  as 
these, — the  best  representations  ire  ran,  make  nf  God 
are  infinitely  short  of  truth.  Which  (!od  forbid,  in 
Ihe  sense  his  adversaries  take  it ;  for  then  all  our  rea- 
sonings concerning  him  would  be  groundless  and  false. 
But  the  saying  is  evidently  true  in  a  favourable  and 
qualified  sense  and  meaning;  namely,  that  they  are 
infinitely  short  of  the  real,  true,  internal  nature  of  (Jod 
as  he  is  in  himself.  Again,  that  then  are  emiilntis  in- 
deed, and  parabolical  fgvres  of  the  Dinnr  attrilmlrs, 
which  they  are  designed  to  siizinfy;  as  if  ilicy  were 
signs  or  figures  of  our  own,  allogcilur  prccinoiis  ami 
arbitrary,  and  without  any  real  and  tnir  lomiilation  of 
analogy  lietween  them,  in  the  nature  of  iiiIk  r  (ioil  or 
man;  and  accordingly,  he  unhappily  describes  the 
knowledge  we  liave  of  God  and  his  attributes,  by  the 
notion  we  form  of  a  strange  country  by  a  7nap,  wliicli 
is  only  pa/ier  and  ink,  strokes  and  lines." — UishO]i 
Brown's  Procedure  of  Human  Lhiderstaiidms. 


not  ?  As  they  are  represented  in  Scripture  to  be  afiec- 
tions  of  the  Divine  nature,  and  not  in  tlie  f;ro.is  manner 
in  which  they  are  expressed  m  this  exlrai-t,  there  seemi* 
nothing  improper  in  taking  them  literally;  and  no 
necessity  is  made  out  to  compel  us  to  understand  them 
to  signify  someahat  lor  which  we  have  not  a  name, 
and  of  wiiich  we  can  form  no  idea.  The  Scrijitures  no- 
where warrant  us  to  consider  (;od  as  a  cold,  metapliy- 
sical  abstraction  ;  and  Iliey  nowhere  indicate  to  us,  that 
when  they  ascribe  ajfictions  to  him,  they  are  to  be 
taken  as  mere  figures  of  sjieech.  On  the  contrary,  they 
leach  us  to  consider  them  as  answering  substantially, 
ttiough  not  circumstantially,  to  the  innocent  affections 
of  men  and  angels.  Why  may  not  anger  be  "  lite- 
rally" ascribed  to  God,  not  indeed  as  it  may  be  carica- 
tured to  suit  a  theory,  but  as  we  find  it  ascribed  in  the 
Scriptures?  It  is  not  maliiinaat  anger,  nor  blind, 
stormy,  and  disturbing  anger,  wliich  is  spoken  of;  nor 
is  this  always,  nor  need  il  be  at  any  time,  the  anger  of 
creatures.  There  is  an  anger  which  is  without  sin  in 
man,  "  a  perception  of  evil  and  opposition  to  it,  and 
also  an  emotion  of  mind,  a  sensation,  or  i)assion,  suit- 
able thereto."(2)  There  was  this  in  our  Lord,  who  was 
without  i;/t;  nor  is  it  represented  by  the  Evangelists, 
who  give  us  the  instances,  as  even  an  infirmity  of  the 
nature  he  assumed.  In  God,  it  may  be  allowed  to  exist 
in  a  different  manner  to  that  in  which  it  is  found  even 
in  men  who  are  "  angry  and  sin  not ;"  it  is  accompa- 
nied with  no  weakness,  it  is  allied  to  no  imperfection  ; 
but  that  it  does  exist  as  truly  in  him  as  in  man  is  the 
doctrine  of  Scripture ;  and  there  is  no  perfection 
ascribed  to  God,  to  which  it  can  be  proved  contrary,  or 
with  which  we  cannot  conceive  it  to  coexi.st.(3)  Not 
only  anger,  we  are  told,  is  ascribed  to  God,  but  "the 
being  plea.sed."  Let  the  term  used  be  complacency, 
instead  of  one  w'liich  seems  to  have  been  selected  to 
convey  a  notion  of  a  lower  and  less  worthy  kind;  and 
there  is  no  incongruity  in  the  idea.  He  is  the  blessed 
or  happy  God,  and  therefore  capable  of  pleasure.  lie 
looked  upon  his  works  and  saw  that  they  were  "  good," 
"  very  good,'' — words  which  suggest  the  idea  of  his 
complacency  upon  their  <-nmpletii)ii ;  and  this,  when 
separated  from  all  connexion  with  human  infirmity, 
appears  to  be  a  perfection,  and  not  a  defect.  To  be  in- 
caiiable  of  comjilacency  and  delight  is  the  character  of 
the  Supreme  Being  of  Ei'iciRi  s  and  of  the  modern 
Hindoos,  of  whose  internal  state,  so  to  speak,  deep 
sleep,  and  the  surface  of  an  unruffled  lake,  are  favourite 
figurative  representations.  But  of  this  refinement  we 
have  nothing  in  the  Bible,  nor  is  it  in  the  least  neces- 
sary to  our  idea  of  infinite  perfection.  And  why  should 
not  love  exist  in  God  in  more  than  a  figurative  sense  ? 
For  this  all'ection  to  be  accompanied  with  perturbation, 
anxiety,  and  weak  or  irrational  jiartiality,  is  a  mere 
accident.  So  we  often  see  it  in  human  beings;  but 
though  this  affiu-tion,  without  any  concurrent  infirinily, 
be  ascribed  to  God,  it  surely  does  not  follow  that  it 
exists  in  him  as  something  in  nature,  "  wholly  difl'er- 
ent"  from  love  in  wise  and  holy  creatures,  in  angels, 
and  in  saints.  Not  only  the  beauty,  the  force,  and  the 
encouragement  of  a  thousand  passages  of  Scripture 
would  be  lost  upon  this  hypothesis,  but  their  meaning 
also.  Love  in  God  is  something,  we  are  told,  which  is 
.so  called,  because  it  produces  similar  efiecls  to  those 
which  are  jiroduced  by  love  in  man  ;  but  what  this 
something  is  we  are  not  informed.  And  the  revelation  of 
Scripture  as  to  God  is  thus  reduced  to  a  revelation  of 


(2)  Wksi.ey. 

(3)  Melancthon  says,  "Tlic  Ijord  was  very  angry  wit k 
Aaron  to  have  destroyed  him  ;  and  I  [Moses]  prayed 
for  Aaron  also  at  the  same  time.  (Dent.  ix.  2(1.)  Let 
us  not  elude  Ihe  exceedingly  lamentable  expressions 
which  the  Holy  laiosl  einphiys,  when  he  says,  God  was 
very  angry ;  and  let  us  not  liign  to  ourselves  a  God  of 
.itone,  or  a  Stoical  lUily.  i'or  though  (Jod  is  angry  in 
a  difiirent  mtmner  from  men,  yet  let  us  conclude  that 
(iod  was  really  angry  with  Aaron,  and  that  Aaron  was 
not  then  in  (a  state  of  |  grace,  but  obnoxious  to  ever- 
lasting punishment.  Dreadful  was  Ihe  fall  of  Aaron, 
who  had  through  fear  yielded  to  the  madness  of  (he 
people  when  they  instituted  the  Egyptian  worship. 
Being  warned  liy  tins  ex.irnple,  let  us  not  confirm  our- 
selves in  seciirliy,  but  ai  kiiiiwledge  that  it  is  possible 
for  elect  and  renewed  persons  horribly  to  fall,"  ice.— 
Loci  Prcecipui  Theologi,  1543. 


Chap.  IV.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


143 


his  acts  only,  but  not  iti  the  least  of  the  principles 
from  which  they  flow.(4) 

The  same  observations  may  be  applied  to  "  merry 
atul  revenge,"  by  the  latter  of  which  the  archbishoj)  can 
mean  nothing  more  than  judicial  vengeance,  orrelribu- 
twH,  though  an  eriuivocal  term  has  been  adopted,  ad 
cai>t(inilum.  "  Repenting  and  changing  his  resolu- 
tions.'' arc  improperly  placed  among  the  iiffictinns; 
but  freed  from  ideas  of  human  infirmity,  they  may  be, 
without  the  least  dishonour  to  the  fulness  of  the  Divine 
perfections,  ascribed  to  (iod  in  as  literal  a  sense  as  we 
find  them  stated  in  the  Scriptures.  They  there  clearly 
signify  no  more  than  the  change  which  takes  place  in 
till'  ajricttdtm  of  God,  his  anger  or  his  love,  as  men 
turn  from  the  practice  of  righteousness,  or  repent  and 
turn  back  again  to  him ;  and  the  conseiiucnt  changes 
in  his  dispensations  towards  them  as  their  Governor 
and  Lord.  This  is  the  Scriptural  doctrine,  and  there 
is  nothing  in  it  which  is  not  most  worthy  of  God,  though 
literally  interpreted  ;  nothing  which  is  not  consistent 
with  his  absolute  immutability.  He  is  unchange- 
ably the  lover  and  the  rcwarder  of  righteousness, 
unchangeably  the  hater  and  the  judge  of  iniquity ; 
and  as  his  creatures  are  righteous  or  wicked,  or  are 
changed  from  the  one  state  to  the  other,  they  become 
the  objects  of  the  dilTerent  regards  and  of  the  dilferent 
administrations  of  the  same  righteous  and  gracious 
Sovereign,  who,  by  these  very  changes,  shows  that  he 
is  without  variableness  or  shadow  of  turning. 

If,  then,  there  is  no  rea.son  for  not  attributing  even 
certain  affections  of  the  human  mind  to  God,  when  con- 
nected with  absolute  perfection  and  excellence,  in  their 
nature  and  in  theirexerci.se,  no  reason  certainly  can  be 
given  for  not  considering  his  intellectual  attributes, 
represented  as  to  their  iiature,  though  not  as  to  their 
degree,  by  terms  taken  from  the  faculties  of  the  human 
mind,  as  corresponding  with  our  own.  But  the  matter 
is  placed  beyond  all  doubt  by  the  appeal  which  is  so 
often  made  in  the  Bible  to  these  properties  in  man,  not 
as  illustrations  only  of  something  distantly  and  indis- 
tinctly analogous  to  properties  in  the  Divine  nature, 
but  as  representations  of  the  nature  and  reality  of  these 
((uahties  in  the  Supreme  Being,  and  which  are,  there- 
fore, made  the  grounds  of  argument,  the  basis  of  duty, 
and  the  sources  of  consolation. 

With  respect  to  the  nature  of  God,  it  is  sufficient  to 
refer  to  the  passage  before  mentioned, — Goo  >s  a 
Si'iRir; — where  the  argument  is,  that  he  requires  not 
a  ceremonial  but  a  spiritual  worship,  the  worship  of 
mixn's  spirit ;  because  he  himself  is  a  Spirit.  How 
this  argument  could  be  brought  out  on  Archbishop 
King'.s  and  Dr.  Copleston's  theory,  it  is  difficult  to 
state.  It  would  be  something  of  tliis  kind  : — Gud  is  a 
Spirit  ;  that  is,  he  is  called  a  Spirit,  because  his  na- 
ture is  analogous  to  the  spiritual  nature  of  man  ;  but 
this  analogy  implies  no  similarity  of  nature  ;  it  is  a 
mere  analogy  of  relation,  and  therefore,  though  we  have 
no  direct  and  proper  notion  of  the  nature  of  God,  yet, 
because  he  is  called  a  Spirit,  "  they  that  worship  him 
must  worship  him  in  spirit  and  in  truth."  This  is,  in- 
deed, far  from  being  an  intelligible,  and  it  is  still  less  a 
practical,  argument. 

With  respect  to  his  intellectual  attributes,  it  is  ar- 
gued in  Scripture,  "  He  that  teacheth  man  knowledge, 

(4)  "  It  would  destroy  the  confidence  of  prayer  and 
the  ardour  of  devotion,  if  we  could  regard  the  Deity  as 
subsisting  by  himself,  and  as  having  no  sympathies, 
but  mere  abstract  relations  to  the  whole  family  in 
heaven  and  earth ;  and  I  look  upon  it  as  one  of  the  most 
rational  and  philo.sophical  confutations  of  your  system, 
that  it  is  fitted  neither  for  the  theory  nor  the  practice 
of  our  religion ;  and  that,  if  we  could  adopt  it,  we  must 
henceforth  exchange  the  language  of  Scripture  for  the 
anthems  of  Epicurus : 

"  Omnis  enim  per  se  Divum  natura  necesse  'st, 
Immortali  aevo  summa  cum  pace  fruatur, 
Semota  ab  nostris  rebus,  sejunctaque  longe  ; 
Nam  privata  dolore  omni,  privata  peric  'lis 
Ipsa  suis  pollens  opibus,  nihil  mdiga  nostri, 
Nee  bene  promeritus  capitur,  nee  tangitur  iri. 
"  It  is  in  direct  opposition  to  all  such  vain  and  skep- 
tical speculations,  that  Christianity  always  represents 
and  speaks  of  the  Deity  as  participating,  so  far  as  infi- 
nity and  perfection  may  participate,  in  (hose  feelings 
and  affections  which  belong  to  our  rational  nature."— 
Grinfield's  Vxivlicioi  Analusicw. 


shall  not  he  knmul  Here  the  knowledge  of  God  rs 
supposed  to  be  of  the  same  nature  as  the  knowledge  of 
man.  This  is  the  sole  foundation  of  the  argument ; 
which  would  have  appeared  indescribably  obscure,  if, 
according  to  Archbishop  King's  ti)polhcsis,  it  had  stood 
— He  that  teacheth  man  knowledge,  shall  he  not  have 
somewhat  in  his  nature,  which,  because  it  gives  rise  to 
actions  similar  to  those  which  proceed  from  knowledge, 
we  may  call  knowledge,  but  of  which  we  have  no 
direct  or  proper  notion  ?" 

With  respect  to  his  moral  attributes,  we  find  the 
same  appeals.  *  Shall  not  the  .ludge  of  the  whole  earth 
^i.0  right  V  Here  the  abstract  term  right  is  undoubt- 
edly used  in  the  sense  commonly  received  among  men, 
and  is  supposed  to  be  cornjirehensible  by  them.  "The 
righteous  Lord  loveth  righteousness."  The  righteous- 
ness in  man  which  he  loveth  is  clearly  correspondent 
in  its  kind  tothatwhich  constitutes  liiiu  fiiiliifnily  "the 
righteous  Lord."  Still  more  forcibly,  the  House  of  Is- 
rael is  called  upon  "  to  jwdg^e  between  him  and  his 
vineyard :"  he  condescends  to  try  his  own  justice  by 
the  notions  of  justice  which  prevail  among  men ;  in 
which  there  could  be  no  meaning,  if  this  moral  quality 
were  not  in  God  and  in  man  of  the  same  kind.  "  Hear 
now,  O  House  of  Israel,  is  not  my  way  ei/ual?"  But 
what  force  would  there  be  in  this  challenge,  designed 
to  silence  the  murmurs  of  a  people  under  correction,  as 
though  tliey  had  not  been  justly  dealt  with,  if  justice 
among  men  had  no  more  resemblance  to  justice  in  God 
than  a  hand  to  power,  or  an  eye  to  knowledge,  or  "a 
map  of  China  to  China  itself?"  The  appeal  is  to  a 
standard  common  to  both,  and  by  which  one  might  be 
as  explicitly  determined  as  the  olher.(5)  Finally,  the 
ground  of  all  praise  and  adoration  of  (Jod  for  works  of 
mercy  and  judgment — of  all  tru.<t  in  God,  on  account 
of  his  faithfulness  and  truth — and  of  all  imitation  of 
God  in  his  mercy  and  compassiim — is  laid  in  every 
part  of  the  word  of  God,  not  surely  in  this,  that  there 
are  unknown  and  unapprehended  qualities  of  some 
kind  in  God,  which  lead  him  to  perform  actions  similar 
to  those  which  flow  from  justice,  truth,  and  mercy  in 
men ;  but  in  the  consideration  that  he  is  justice  itself, 
truth  it.ielf,  and  goodness  itself.  The  hypothesis  is 
therefore  contradicted  by  the  Scripture;  and  though  it 
has  been  a.ssumed  in  favour  of  a  great  truth,  that  the 
prescience  of  God  does  not  destroy  the  liberty  of  man, 
— that  truth  needs  not  so  cumbrous  and  mi.schievous 
an  auxiliarj'.  Divine  foreknowledge  and  the  freedom 
of  human  agency  are  compatible,  not  because  fore- 
knowledge in  God  is  a  figure  of  speech,  or  something 
diff'erentin  kind  to  foreknowledge  in  man  ;  but  because 
knowledge,  simply  considered,  whether  present,  past, 
or  future,  can  have  no  influence  upon  action  at  all,  and 
cannot  therefore  change  a  contingent  action  into  a  ne- 
cessary one. 

For,  after  all,  where  does  the  great  theological  diffi- 
culty lie,  for  the  evasion  of  which  so  much  is  to  be  sa- 
crificed? The  prescience,  counsels,  and  jdans  of  God 
are  prescience,  counsels,  and  plans,  which  respect  free 
agents,  as  far  as  men  are  concerned ;  and  unless  we 
superadd  injiuence  to  necessitate,  or  plans  to   entice 

(5)  "How  can  we  confess  God  to  be  just,  if  we  un- 
derstand it  not  ?  But  how  can  we  understand  him  so, 
but  by  the  measures  of  justice?  and  how  shall  we 
know  that,  if  there  be  two  justices,  one  that  we  know 
and  one  that  we  know  not,  one  contrary  to  another? 
If  they  be  contrarj',  they  are  not  justice  ;  tor  justice  can 
be  no  more  oppo.sed  to  justice  than  truth  to  truth.  If 
they  be  not  contrary,  then  that  which  we  understand  to 
be  just  in  us  is  just  in  God;  and  that  which  is  just 
once,  is  just  for  ever  in  the  same  case  and  circum- 
stances. And  indeed,  how  is  it  that  we  are  in  all 
things  of  excellence  and  virtue  to  be  like  God,  and  to 
be  meek  like  Christ ;  to  be  humble  as  he  is  humble,  and 
to  bejmre  like  Gnd,  to  be  just  after  his  example ;  to  be 
merciful  as  ovr  heavenly  Father  is  merciful .'  If  there 
is  but  one  mercy,  and  one  justice,  and  one  meekness, 
then  the  measure  of  these,  and  the  reason,  is  eternally 
the  same.  If  there  be  two,  either  they  are  not  essen- 
tial to  God,  or  else  not  imitable  by  us;  and  then,  how 
can  we  glorify  God,  and  speak  hmiovr  n/'his  name,  and 
exalt  his  justice,  and  magnify  his  truth,  .-md  sincerity, 
and  simplicity,  \i truth  and  snnpli'ity,  and  justice  and 
mercy  in  him  is  not  that  ihirig  which  we  understand, 
and  which  we  are  to  imitate  '."  iic— Biihop  Tavi.or'S 
"  Ductor  Dubitantiurn." 


144 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


irresistihly,  and  to  entrap  inevitably,  into  soitie  given 
course  of  iiiiiiliKt.  tin  re  is  clearly  no  im-ongruity  hc- 
tween  tliesc  and  liiiiiian  freedom.  TlitTe  is  adi/licnity 
in  concciviiiK  Imu-  lurcknowlediic  stiould  bo  absolute, 
as  there  is  a  dillirully  in  concfiviii;;  liow  (lod's  jinsent 
knowledfc  should  prnclrale  tin;  Innii  ul  inaM,  and  how 
his  present  thoutihts:  but  niitlnr  parly  argues  frotn 
the  inconiprchtnsdiilily  uf  the  incidf  to  the  impossi- 
bility of  the  tbm^'.  'J'h'e  fireut  dilliculty  does  not  then 
lie  here.  It  seems  to  lie  planted  precisely  in  this,  that 
God  should  proliibit  many  thiiigs,  which  he  neverthe- 
less knows  will  occur,  and  in  the  prescience  of  which 
he  regulates  his  dispensations  to  bring  out  of  these 
circumstances  various  results,  which  he  makes  sub- 
servient to  the  displays  of  his  mercy  and  his  justice; 
and  particularly,  that  in  the  case  of  those  individuals 
■who,  he  knows,  will  finally  perish,  he  exhorts,  warns, 
invites,  and,  in  a  word,  takes  active  and  inlluential 
means  to  jirevent  a  foreseen  result.  This  forms  the  dilli- 
tulty  ;  because,iiithecaseof  man,  the  jirescienceof  fail- 
ure would,  in  many  cases,  paralyze  all  ellbrt, — wliereas, 
in  the  government  of  God,  men  are  treated,  in  our 
views,  with  as  much  intensity  of  care  aiid  effort,  as 
though  the  issue  of  things  was  entirely  unknown. 
But  if  the  perplexity  arises  from  this,  nothing  can  be 
more  clear  than  that  the  ijuestion  is  not,  how  to  recon- 
cile God's  prescience  with  the  freedom  of  man  ;  but  liow 
to  reconcile  the  conduct  of  God  towards  man,  consi- 
dered as  a  free  agent,  with  his  own  prescience  ;  how 
to  assign  a  congruity  to  warnings,  exhortations,  and 
other  means  adopted  to  prevent  destruction  as  to  indi- 
viduals, with  the  certain  Ibresight  of  that  terrible  re- 
sult. In  this,  however,  no  moral  attribute  of  God  is 
impugned.  On  the  contrary,  mercy  requires  the  ajipli- 
cation  of  means  of  deliverance,  if  man  be  under  a  dis- 
pensation of  grace ;  and  justice  requires  it,  if  man  is 
to  be  judged  ibr  the  use  or  abuse  of  mercy.  The  difK- 
culty  then  entirely  resolves  itself  into  a  mere  matter 
of  feeli/ii:,  which,  of  course, — as  we  cannot  be  judges 
of  a  nature  infinite  in  perfection,  though  similar  to 
what  is  excellent  in  our  own,  nor  of  proceedings 
which,  in  the  unlimited  range  of  the  government  of 
God,  may  have  connexions  and  bearings  beyond  all 
our  comprehension, — we  cannot  reduce  to  a  human 
standard.  Is  it,  then,  to  adjust  a  mere  matter  of /et/- 
ing,  that  we  are  to  inake  these  outrageous  interpreta- 
tions of  the  word  of  God,  in  what  he  hath  spoken  of 
himself?  And  are  we  to  deny  that  we  liave  no  "  pro- 
jier  or  direct  notion  of  God,"  because  we  cannot  find 
him  out  to  perfection  '  This  difficulty,  wliich  we  ought 
not  to  dare  to  try  by  human  standards,  is  not  one,  how- 
ever, we  again  remark,  which  arises  at  all  out  of  the 
relation  of  the  Divine  prescience  to  the  liberty  of  hu- 
man actions  ;  and  it  is  entirely  untouched  by  any  part 
of  this  controversy.  We  fall  into  new  dilliculties 
through  these  sjieculations,  but  do  not  escape  the  true 
one.  If  the  freedom  of  man  is  denied,  the  moral  at- 
tributes of  (Jod  are  impugned ;  and  the  dilliculty,  as  a 
matter  of  feeling,  is  heightened.  Divine  prescience 
cannot  be  denied,  because  the  prophetic  Scriptures 
have  determined  that  already ;  and  if  Archbishop 
King's  interpretation  of  Ibnknowledge  be  re-sorted  to, 
the  scw/i<«//n(:r  snbstilnted  liir  prescience,  and  er/utva- 
lent  to  it,  comes  mi,  to  bring  us  back,  in  a  fallacious 
circle,  to  thi;  jioint  Iroiii  which  we  started. 

It  may  therefore  be  certainly  concluded,  that  the  om- 
niscience of  <;od  comprehends  his  certain  prescie?ice 
of  all  events  however  contingent;  and  if  any  thing 
more  were  necessary  to  slreiuithen  the  argument 
above  given,  it  nnght  bcdrawn  Iroin  the  irrational  and, 
above  all,  the  unscriptural  conse(|Mences  which  would 
follow  from  the  denial  of  this  doctrine.  These  are 
forcibly  stated  by  President  Kdviards  : 

"  It  would  follow  from  this  notion  (namely,  that  the 
Almighty  doth  not  foreknow  what  will  be  the  result  of 
futun;  contingencies),  that  as  (Joil  is  liable  to  be  con- 
tinually repenting  what  he  has  done,  so  he  must  be 
exposed  to  be  constantly  changing  his  mind  and  inten- 
tions as  to  his  future  conduct ;  altering  his  measures, 
relinquishing  his  old  designs,  and  Ibriiiing  new  schemes 
and  projections.  For  h.s  purpo.ses,  even  as  to  the  main 
parts  of  his  scheme,  namely,  such  as  belong  to  the 
state  of  his  moral  kingdom,  must  be  always  liable  to 
be  broken,  through  vvant  of  foresight  ;  and  he  must 
be  continually  putting  hm  system  to  rights,  as  it  gets 
out  of  order,  through  the  continttence  (d' the  actions 
of  moral  agenis  :  he  must  be  a  Iking,  who,  instead  of 


being  absolutely  immutable,  must  necessarily  be  the 
subject  of  iiifinitcly  the  most  numerous  acts  of  repent- 
ance, and  (duinges  of  intention,  ol  any  being  whatso- 
ever; for  this  ))lain  reason,  that  liiu  vastly  cxiensivu 
charge  comprehends  an  infinitely  greater  number  of 
those  things  which  are  to  him  contingent  and  uncer- 
tain. In  such  a  sil nation  he  must  have  little  else  to 
do,  but  to  mend  broken  links  as  well  as  he  can.  and  be 
rectifying  his  disjoiniid  irame  and  disordered  move- 
ments, in  the  best  inaiiner  the  case  will  allow.  The 
Sujtreme  Lord  of  all  tilings  must  needs  be  under  great 
and  miserable  disadvantages,  in  governing  the  world 
which  he  has  made  and  has  the  care  of,  through  his 
being  utterly  unable  to  find  out  things  of  chief  impor- 
tance, whiidi  herealler  shall  bctall  his  system ;  which, 
if  he  did  but  know,  he  might  make  seasonable  provision 
for.  In  many  cases,  there  may  be  very  great  necessity 
that  he  should  make  provision,  in  the  manner  of  his  order- 
ing and  disposing  things,  for  .some  great  events  which 
are  to  hapjicn,  of  vast  and  extensive  influence,  and  end- 
less consequence  to  the  universe ;  which  he  may  see 
afterward,  when  it  is  too  late,  and  may  wish  in  vain 
that  he  had  known  beforehand,  that  he  might  have  or- 
dered his  affairs  accordingly.  And  it  is  in  the  power 
of  man,  on  these  principles,  by  his  devices,  purposes, 
and  actions,  thus  to  disai)iioint  God,  break  his  mea- 
sures, make  him  continually  to  change  his  mind,  sub- 
ject him  to  vexation,  and  bring  him  into  confusion." 


CHAPTER  V. 

Attributes  of  God — Ivimxitability,  Wisdom. 

Another  of  the  qualities  of  the  Divine  Nature,  on 
which  the  sacred  writers  often  dwell,  is  his  unchange- 
alilcness.  This  is  indicated  in  tlis  august  and  awful 
title,  I  AM.  All  other  beings  are  dependent  and  mu- 
table, and  thus  stand  in  striking  contrast  to  him  who 
is  hidependent,  and  therefore  capable  of  no  mutation. 
"  Of  old  hast  thou  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth  ; 
and  the  heavens  are  the  work  of  thy  hands ;  they  shall 
perish  ;  but  thou  shalt  endure, — yea,  all  of  them  shall 
wax  old  like  a  garment ;  as  a  vesture  shalt  thon 
change  them,  and  they  shall  be  changed  ;  but  thou  art 
the  s'.MK,  and  thy  years  .shall  have  no  end. — He  is  the 
Father  of  lights,  with  whom  is  no  variableness,  nei- 
ther shadow  of  turning. — His  counsel  staTideth  fast 
for  ever,  and  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  to  all  genera- 
tions.— His  mercy  cnduieth  for  ever. — His  righteous- 
ness is  like  the  great  mountains,  firm  and  immoveable. 
— 1  am  the  Lord,  I  change  not." 

Of  this  truth,  so  important  to  religion  and  tomorals, 
tliere  are  many  confirmations  from  subjects  constantly 
open  to  observation.  The  general  order  of  nature,  in 
the  revolutions  of  the  heavenly  bodies  ;  the  succession 
of  seasons;  the  laws  of  animal  and  vegetable  produc- 
tion ;  and  the  perpetuation  of  every  sjiecics  of  beings, 
from  which,  if  there  be  occasional  deviations,  they 
prove  the  general  regularity  and  stability  of  this  mate- 
rial system,  or  they  would  cease  to  attract  attention. 
The  ample  universe,  therefore,  with  its  immense  ag- 
gregate of  individual  brings  and  classes  of  being,  dis- 
plays not  only  the  all-comprehending  and  pervading 
power  of  God  ;  but,  as  it  remains  from  age  to  age  sub- 
ject to  the  same  laws,  and  fulfilling  tlie  same  pur- 
poses, it  is  a  visible  image  of  the  existence  of  a  being 
of  steady  counsels,  free  from  caprice,  and  liable  to  no 
control.  The  moral  government  of  God  gives  its  evi- 
dence also  to  the  same  truth.  The  laws  under  which 
we  are  now  placed,  are  the  same  as  those  which  were 
prescribed  to  the  earliest  generations  of  men.  What 
was  vice  then,  is  vice  now;  and  what  is  virtue  now, 
was  then  virtue.  Miseries  of  the  same  kind  and  de- 
gree inflict  puni.shment  on  the  Ibrnicr  ;  peace  and  bless- 
edness, as  formerly,  accompany  the  latter.  God  has 
manifcsled  his  will  lo  men  by  successive  revelations, 
the  patriarchal,  the  Mo.saic,  and  the  Christian,  and 
those  distant  from  each  other  many  ages;  but  llic 
iporal  pnniij^fs  on  which  eac-h  rests  are  [ireciaely  the 
same,  and  the  moral  ends  which  each  proposes.  Their 
differences  arc  circumsianlial.  varying  according  to  the 
age  of  tho  world,  the  condition  of  mankind,  and  his 
own  plans  of  infinite  wisdom  ;  hm  the  identity  of  their 
sjtiri!,  their  injluence,  and  their  rhnrnrter  shows  their 
aulhor  to  be  an  unchanseable  bcnii;  of  holiness,  truth, 
justice,  and  mercy,  ^■lclo^w  nun  have  now  the  same 
reason  to  tremble  before  God,  as  m  former  periods,  for 


Chap.  V.] 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


145 


he  is  still  "  of  purer  eyes  than  to  behold  iniquity;"  and 
the  penitent  and  the  pious  have  the  same  ground  of 
hope,  and  the  same  sure  foundation  of  trust.  These 
are  the  cautionary  and  the  cheering  moral  uses  to 
wliieh  the  sacred  writers  constantly  ai)ply  this  doc- 
trine. He  is  "the  Lord,  the  hope  of  their  fathers;" 
and  in  all  the  changes  and  vicissitudes  of  lil'e,  this  is 
the  consolation  of  liis  people,  that  he  will  never  leave 
them,  nor  forsake  them.  "  Though  the  mountains  de- 
part and  the  hills  be  removed,  yet  my  kindness  shall 
not  depart  from  thee,  nor  shall  the  covenant  of  my 
peace  be  removed." 

It  is  true,  that  the  stability  of  the  Divine  operations, 
and  counsels,  as  indicated  by  the  laws  of  the  material 
universe,  and  the  revelations  of  his  will,  only  show  the 
inunutability  of  God  through  those  periods  within 
which  these  operations  and  dispensations  have  been  in 
force ;  but  in  Scripture  they  are  constantly  represented 
as  the  results  of  an  immutability  which  arises  out  of 
the  perfection  of  the  Divine  Nature  itself,  and  which 
is  therefore  essential  to  it.  "  I  am  the  Lord,  I  change 
rot;"  he  changes  not,  because  he  is  "the  Lord." — 
With  him  there  is  "  no  variableness,  neither  shadow 
of  turning  ;"  because  he  is  "  the  Father  iif  lishts,"  the 
source  and  fulness  of  all  light  and  perfection  wliatever. 
Change  in  any  sense  which  implies  defect  and  in- 
firmity, and  therefore  imperfection,  is  impossible  to 
absolute  perfection  ;  and  immutability  is  therefore  es- 
sential to  his  Godhead.  In  this  sense,  he  is  never 
capable  of  any  kind  of  change  whatever,  as  even  a 
heathen  has  so  strongly  expressed  it,  ovhTrore,  oviaiirj, 
ovt'a^ioji  aWoiojmv,  ov^Cfwiv  £r'fi£X£''<"-('')  ^°'"  "  ''"'^^'^ 
consider  the  nature  of  God,  that  he  is  a  self-existent 
and  independent  being,  the  great  Creator  and  wise  Go- 
vernor of  all  things ;  that  he  is  a  spiritual  and  simple 
being,  void  of  all  parts  and  all  mixture,  that  can  induce 
a  change ;  that  he  is  a  sovereign  and  uncontrollable 
being,  which  nothing  from  without  can  affect  or  work 
an  alteration  in ;  that  he  is  an  eternal  being,  which 
always  has,  and  always  will  go  on  in  the  same  tenor 
of  existence ;  an  omniscient  tjeing,  who,  knowing  all 
things,  has  no  reason  to  act  contrary  to  his  first  re- 
solves ;  and,  in  all  respects,  a  most  perliict  being,  that 
can  admit  of  no  addition  or  diminution  ;  we  cannot  but 
believe,  that  both  in  his  essence,  in  his  knowledge,  and 
in  his  will  and  purposes,  he  must  of  necessity  be  un- 
changeable. To  suppose  him  otherwise,  is  to  suppose 
him  an  imperfect  being :  for  if  he  change,  it  nmst  be 
either  to  a  greater  perfection  than  he  had  before,  or  to 
a  less ;  if  to  a  greater  perfection,  then  was  there 
plainly  a  defect  in  him,  and  a  privation  of  something 
better  than  what  he  had,  or  was ;  then  again  was  he 
not  always  the  best,  and  consequently  not  always  God : 
if  he  change  to  a  less  perfection,  then  does  he  fall 
into  a  defect  again  ;  lose  a  perfection  he  was  possessed 
once  of,  and  so  ceasing  to  be  the  best  being,  cease  at 
the  same  time  to  be  God.  The  sovereign  perfection  of 
the  Deity  therefore  is  an  invincible  bar  against  all  mu- 
tability ;  for,  which  way  soever  we  suppose  him  to 
change,  his  supreme  excellency  is  nulled  or  impaired 
by  it :  for  since  in  all  changes,  there  is  something 
from  which,  and  something  to  which,  the  change  is 
made,  a  loss  of  what  the  thing  had,  or  an  ac(iuisition 
of  what  it  had  not,  it  must  Ibllow,  that  if  God  change 
to  the  better,  he  was  not  perfect  before,  and  so  not 
God ;  if  to  be  worse,  he  will  not  be  perfect,  and  so  no 
longer  God,  after  the  change.  We  esteem  changeable- 
ness  in  men  either  an  imperfection  or  a  fault :  their 
natural  changes,  as  to  their  persons,  are  from  weak- 
ness and  vanity;  their  moral  changes,  as  to  their  in- 
clinations and  purposes,  arc  from  ignorance  or  incon- 
stancy, and  therefore  this  quality  is  no  way  compatible 
with  the  glory  and  attributes  of  God. ''(7) 

In  his  being  and  perfections,  God  is  therefore  eter- 
nally THE  SAME.  He  cannot  cease  to  be,  he  cannot  be 
more  perfect  because  his  perfection  is  absolute ,  he 
cannot  be  less  so,  because  he  is  indejiendeiit  of  all  ex- 
ternal power,  and  has  no  internal  principle  of  decay. 
We  are  not,  however,  so  to  interpret  the  immutability 
of  God,  as  though  his  operations  admitted  no  change, 
and  even  no  contrariety;  or  that  Ins  mind  was  incapa- 
ble of  different  regards  and  ajftrtiims  towards  the 
same  creatures  under  different  circumstances.  He 
creates  and  he  destroys  ;  he  wounds  and  he  heals  ;  he 
works  and  ceases  from  his  works ;  he  loves  and  hates ; 


but  these,  as  being  under  the  direction  of  the  same  im- 
mutable wisdom,  holiness,  goodness,  and  justice,  are 
the  proofs  not  of  changing  but  of  unchanging  princi- 
ples, as  stated  in  the  preceding  chapter.  They  are  per- 
fections, not  impcrfeclions.  Variety  of  operation,  the 
power  to  commence,  and  cease  to  act,  show  the  liberty 
of  his  nature;  the  (lirectiou  of  this  op(;ration  to  wise 
and  good  ends,  shows  its  excellence.  Thus  in  Scrip- 
ture language  "  he  repents"  of  threatened,  or  com- 
meucfd  puni-shment,  and  shows  mercy  ;  or  "  is  iceary 
of  forbearing^'  with  the  obstinalely  guilty,  and  so  in- 
flicts vengeance.  Thus,  "  he  hates  the  evil-doer,"  and 
"  loveth  the  righteous."  That  love  too  may  be  lost,  "  if 
the  righteous  turn  away  from  his  righteousness ;"  and 
that  hatred  may  be  averted,  "  when  the  wicked  man 
turneth  away  from  his  wickedness."  There  is  a  sense 
in  which  this  may  be  called  change  in  God,  but  it  is  not 
the  change  of  imperfection  and  defect.  It  argues  pre- 
cisely the  contrary.  If  when  "  the  righteous  man 
turneth  away  from  I»is  righteousness,"  God's  love  to 
him  were  unchangeable,  he  could  not  be  the  un- 
changeably holy  God,  the  hater  of  iniquity ;  and  "  when 
the  wicked  man  turneth  away  from  his  wickedness," 
and,  by  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  becomes  a  new 
creature,  if  he  did  not  become  the  object  of  God's  love, 
God  would  not  be  the  unchangeable  lover  of  righteous- 
ness. By  these  Scriptural  doctrines,  the  doctrine  of  the 
Divine  immutability  is  not  therelbre  contradicted,  but 
confirmed. 

Various  speculations,  however,  on  the  Divine  immu- 
tability occur,  in  the  writings  of  divines  and  others, 
which,  though  often  well  intended,  ought  to  be  received 
with  caution,  and  sometimes  even  rejected  as  bewilder- 
ing or  pernicious.  Such  are  the  notions,  that  God 
knows  every  thing  by  intuition;  that  there  is  no  suc- 
cession of  ideas  in  the  Divine  mind :  that  he  can  re- 
ceive no  new  idea ;  that  there  are  no  affections  in  God, 
for  to  suppose  that  would  suppjiose  that  he  is  capable 
of  emotion ;  that  if  there  are  affections  in  God,  as  love, 
hatred,  &c.,  they  always  exist  in  the  same  degree,  or 
else  he  would  suffer  change  ;  for  these  and  other  simi- 
lar speculations,  recourse  iTiay  be  had  to  the  school- 
men, and  metaphysicians,  by  those  who  are  curious  ia 
such  subjects :  but  the  impression  of  the  Divine  cha- 
racter, thus  represented,  will  be  found  very  different  to 
that  conveyed  by  those  inspired  writings  in  which  God 
is  not  spoken  of  by  men,  but  speaks  of  himself;  and 
nothing  could  be  more  easily  shown  than  that  most  of 
these  notions  are  either  idle,  as  assuming  that  we  know 
more  of  f;od  than  is  revealed  ;  or  such  as  tend  to  repre- 
sent the  Divine  Being  as  rather  a  necessary  than  a  free 
agent,  and  his  moral  perfections  as  resulting  from  a 
blind  physical  necessity  of  nature,  more  than  from  an 
essential  moral  excellence,  or,  finally,  as  unintelligible 
or  absurd.  As  a  specimen  of  the  latter,  the  Ibllowing 
passages  may  be  taken  from  a  work  in  some  rej)ute. 
The  arguments  are  drawn  from  the  schoolmen,  and 
though  broadly  given  by  the  author,  will  be  Ibuud  more 
or  less  to  tinge  the  remarks  on  the  immutability  of  God, 
in  the  most  current  systems  of  theology,  and  discourses 
on  the  Attributes : 

"  His  knowledge  is  independent  upon  the  object-! 
known ;  therefore,  whatever  changes  there  are  in  them, 
there  is  none  in  him.  Things  known  are  considered 
either  as  past,  present,  or  to  come,  and  these  are  not 
known  by  us  in  the  same  way;  for  concerning  things 
past  it  must  be  said,  that  we  once  knew  them  ;  or  of 
things  to  come,  that  we  shall  know  them  herealier; 
whereas  God,  with  one  view,  comiirehends  all  tilings 
past  and  future,  as  though  they  were  present. 

"  if  God's  knowledge  were  not  unchangeable,  he 
might  be  said  to  have  different  thoughts  or  apprehen- 
sions of  tilings,  at  one  tune,  troin  what  he  has  at 
another,  which  would  argue  a  defect  of  wisdom.  And 
indeed  a  change  of  sentiments  implies  ignorance,  or 
weakness  of  understanding ;  for  to  make  advances  in 
knowledge,  suppo.ses  a  degree  of  ignorance :  and  to  de- 
cline therein  is  to  be  reduced  to  a  stale  of  ignorance : 
now  it  is  certain,  that  both  these  are  iiuonsisieiit  with 
the  infinite  perfection  of  the  Divine  mind  ;  nor  can  any 
such  defect  be  applied  to  him,  who  is  called  The  only 
wise  God-^iS) 

In  thus  representing  the  knowledge  of  God  as  "in- 
dependent of  the  objects  known ;"  in  order  to  the  esta- 
blishing of  such  an  immutability  of  knowledge,  as  is 


(6)  Plato  m  Pheed. 


(,7)  CUARNOLli. 


(8)  KiooKLKV's  Body  of  Divinity. 


146 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES, 


[Part  II, 


not  only  not  inr onsistent  with  the  perfection  of  that  at- 
tribute, but  without  whicli  it  i-ould  not  be  perfect;  and 
in  Jeny'iiig,  tliat  kiic>wli;ilKe  in  Uod  has  any  respect  to 
the  pasi,  presciii,  anit  I'ulure  of  thiiias.  a  very  impor- 
tant distinction  between  tlie  kninvledj;!)  of  tilings  p»s.sj- 
ble  and  the  knowledge  of  things  ruticil,  both  of  wliich 
must  be  attributed  to  God,  is  strangely  overlooked. 

In  respect  of  jHjssible  beings,  the  Divine  knowledge 
lias  no  relation  to  lime, and  there  is  in  it  no  past,  no  lu- 
ture;  he  knows  his  own  wisdom  and  omnipotence, and 
that  is  knowing  every  ttiiii);  resjiecting  them.  Hut  to 
the  jxjssible  existem-.e  of  things,  we  must  now  add 
actual  existence ;  that  eomuienced  with  time,  or  time 
uith  thst.  Here  tlien  is  another  branch  of  the  Divine 
knowledge,  tlM3  knowledge  of  tilings  actually  existip.g, 
a  dislinciioa  with  w^hich  the  operations  of  our  own 
iiiindsmakeus  familiar;  and  from  the  actual  existence 
of  things  arise  order  and  succession,  past,  present,  and 
future,  not  only  in  the  things  themselves,  but  in  the 
Divine  knowledge  of  them  also;  for  as  there  could  he 
no  knowledge  of  things  in  the  Divine  mind  as  actiuilly 
existing,  which  did  not  actually  exist— for  that  would  be 
falsehood,  not  truth— so  if  things  liave  been  brought 
into  actual  existence  in  succession,  the  knowledge  of 
their  actual  existence  must  have  been  8uccT!ssive  also ; 
for  as  actual  existences  they  could  not  be  known  as  ex- 
isting before  they  were.  The  actual  being  of  things 
added  nothing  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Infinite  Mind  as 
to  their  jnrwers  and  properties.  Those  he  knew  from 
liimself,  the  source  of  all  being,  for  they  all  depended 
upon  his  will,  jiower,  and  wisdom.  There  was  no 
need,  for  instance,  to  set  the  mi-clmniHmof  this  universe 
in  motion,  tliat  he  might  know  how  it  would  play,  what 
properties  it  would  exlii!>it,  what  would  be  its  results; 
but  tlie  knowledge  of  tlie  universe,  as  a  congeries  of 
beings  in  tdeiU  or  possible  existence,  was  not  the  know- 
ledge of  it  as  a  retil  existence ;  that,  as  far  as  we  can 
see,  was  only  possible  when  "  he  spake  and  it  was 
done,  when  he  commanded  and  it  stood  fast:"  the 
knowlcilge  of  ilie  a<aual  existence  of  things  with  God 
is  therefore  successive,  because  Itungs  come  into  being 
in  succession,  and,  as  to  ac-tual  existences,  there  is  fore- 
knowledge, present  knowledge,  and  after-knowledge 
with  God  as  well  as  with  ourselves. 

Hut  not  only  is  a  distinction  to  be  msde  between  the 
knowledge  of  God  as  to  things  possibly  and  things 
actually  e.xisting  ;  but  also  between  his  knowledge  of 
all  iwssible  things,  and  of  those  things  to  which  he 
doterinined  before  tlM:ir  ciealion  to  give  actual  exist- 
ence. To  ihiiiy  that  in  the  Diviiit;  iniiid  any  distinction 
existed  between  the  apprehension  of  things  which 
woiUd  remain  possible  only,  and  things  winch  in  their 
time  were  to  come  into  ac'tual  being,  would  be  a  bold 
denial  of  tlie  perfect  knowledge  of  ikvl. 

Here,  liowever,  it  is  intimated,  that  this  makes  the 
knowledge  of  Gi«l  to  be  derived  from  so?ricthing  out  of 
himself;  and  if  he  derive  his  knowledge  Irom  sonie- 
tliing  out  of  himself,  then  it  must  \»:  diin  ndeiit.  And 
what  evil  follows  from  this .'  The  knowledge  of  the 
nature,  projierties,  and  relations  of  things  <iod  has 
Irom  himself;  that  is,  from  the  knowledge;  he  has  of  his 
own  wisdom  and  omnipotence,  by  winch  the  tilings 
that  are  have  been  produced,  and  from  whiih  only  they 
could  be  produced,  ami  in  this  respect  his  knowledge 
is  not  dependent ;  but  the  knowledge  that  tlii->  actually 
exist  is  not  from  him.self  except  as  he  makes  them  to 
exist ;  and  whiMi  they  are  made  to  be,  then  is  the  know- 
ledge of  their  actual  existence  derived  from  them,  thai 
is,  from  the  fact  itself.  As  long  as  they  are,  he  knows 
that  they  are;  when  they  cease  to  be,  he  knows  that 
they  arc  not ;  and  betbre  they  exist,  he  knows  that  they 
do  not  yet  exist.  IIis  knowledge  of  the  crimes  of  men, 
for  instance,  as  actually  committed,  is  dependent  upon 
the  committal  of  those  crimes,  lie  knows  what  crime 
is,  independent  of  its  actual  existence  ;  but  the  know- 
ledge of  it  as  committed,  depinids  not  on  himself  but 
niion  the  creature.  And  so  far  is  tins  from  derogating 
from  tlie  knowledge  of  God,  that,  according  to  the  com- 
mon reason  of  things,  it  is  thus  only  that  we  can  sup- 
I)OSe  the  knowlcdge'of  (Jod  to  be  exact  and  perfect. 

But  this  is  not  all  which  su-stains  Hh;  opinion,  that 
there  is  order  and  succession  also  in  the  knowledge  of 
the  Divine  Being.  It  is  not  only  as  far  as  the  know- 
ledge of  the  successive  and  transient  actual  existence 
of  things  is  concerned,  that  both  fore  and  aller  know- 
ledge are  to  be  ascribed  to  (Jod,  but  al.so  in  another 
respact.    Authors  of  the  class  juat  ijuoled,  si>eak  as 


though  God  himself  had  no  ideas  of  time,  and  order, 
and  succession;  as  though  past,  and  jiresenl,  and  to 
come,  were  so  entirely  and  exclusively  human,  that 
even  the  Infinite  Mind  itself  had  not  the  power  of  ap- 
prehending them.  But  if  there  be  actvalUj  a  succes- 
sive order  of  events  as  to  vs,  and  if  this  be  somdhing 
real  and  not  a  dream,  then  must  there  be  a  correspond- 
ing knowledge  of  it  in  him,  and  therefore,  in  all  things 
which  respect  us,  a  knowledge  of  them  as  past,  present, 
or  to  come,  that  is,  as  they  are  in  the  c.tperi«nce  of 
mankind,  and  in  the  truth  of  thinge  itself.  Besides- 
this,  if  there  be  what  the  Scriptures  call  "  pvrjwtes^ 
with  God ;  if  this  expression  is  not  to  be  ranked  \\-;il» 
those  figures  of  speech  which  represent  Di^^nc  power 
by  a  hand  and  an  arm,  then  there  is  fore-knowledge, 
strictly  and  properly  bo  called,  with  God.  The  know- 
ledge of  any  Hung  actually  existing  is  collateral  with 
Its  existence ;  but  as  the  intention  to  produce  any  thing, 
or  to  suflt;r  it  to  be  produced,  must  be  before  the  actuat 
existence  of  the  thing,  becatsse  that  is  finite  and  cansed, 
so  that  very  intention  is  in  proof  of  the  precognition 
of  that  which  is  to  be  produced,  irmnediately  by  the  act 
of  God,  or  mediately  through  his  pennission.  The 
actual  occurrence  of  things  in  succession  as  te  us,  and 
in  pursuance  of  his  purpose  or  permission,  is  therefore 
a  sulHcient  proof  of  the  existence  of  a  strict  and  proper 
prescience  of  them  by  Almighty  God.  As  to  the  pos- 
sible nature,  and  properties,  and  relations  of  things, 
his  knowledge  7nni/  have  no  sncccssion.  no  order  of 
linn: ;  bat  when  those  Brchetypes  of  things  in  the  Eter- 
nal iVIind  come  into  actual  being  by  his  power  or 
permission,  it  is  in  pursuance  of  previous  intention: 
ideas  (vf  time  are  thus  created,  so  to  spi^ak,  by  the  very 
order  in  w  liich  he  produces  them,  or  purposes  to  pro- 
duce them,  anil  his  knowledge  of  them  as  realities  cor- 
responds to  their  nalure  and  relations,  because  it  is  pn- 
fecl  knowledge.  lie  knows  thern  before  they  are  ym- 
duced,  as  things  which  are  to  be  prodticed  or  permitted  ; 
when  they  are  produced,  he  knews  theniwitli  the  addi- 
tional idea  of  their  actual  being;  and  when  they  cease 
to  be,  ho  knows  them  as  things  which  have  been. 

Allied  to  theatlnbiiteof  Imniulability  is  Hie  1/1iikrtv 
of  God,  which  eiiuliles  us  to  cinceive  of  his  linchange- 
ableness  in  the  noblest,  and  most  wortljy  manner,  as 
the  result  of  his  will,  and  infinite  moral  excellence,  and 
not  as  the  conseiiuencc  of  a  blind  and  physical  neces- 
sity. "He  <lolh  whatever  pleaseth  him,"  and  his  ac- 
tions are  the  result  of  will  and  choice.  This,  as  Dr.  S. 
Clarke  has  well  stated  it,  follows  from  his  intelli- 
gence;  for  "Intelligence  without  liberty  is  really,  ii» 
respect  of  any  power,  excellence,  or  pierfeciion.  no  in- 
telligence at  all.  It  is  indeed  a  consciousness,  but  it  is 
merely  a  passive  one ;  a  conscioosness,  not  of  acting, 
but  purely  of  being  aotcd  upon.  Without  liberty, 
nothing  can  in  any  tolerable  propriety  of  s|H-ecli,  be  said 
to  be  an  agent,  or  cause  of  any  thing.  I'or  to  act  neces- 
sarily, is  really  and  properly  not  to  act  at  till,  but  only 
to  be  acted  ui)on. 

"  If  tin;  8ui)rcnie  Cause  is  not  a  being  cndned  with 
liberty  and  choice,  but  a  mere  necessary  agent,  whose 
actions  are  all  as  absolutely  and  naturally  necessary  as 
his  existence :  then  it  will  follow,  that  nothing  which 
is  not,  could  possibly  have  been  ;  and  that  nothinfi; 
which  is,  could  possibly  not  have  been ;  and  that  no 
mode  or  circumstance  of  the  existence  of  any  thing, 
could  possibly  have  been  in  any  respect  otherwise,  than 
It  now  actually  is.  All  wliich  being  evidently  most 
false  and  absurd,  it  follows,  on  the  contrary,  that  the 
Supreme  Cause  Is  not  a  mere  necessary  agent,  but  a 
being  endued  with  liberty  and  choice." 

It  Is  true,  that  God  cannot  do  evil.  "  It  is  imjiassible 
for  him  to  //>."  But  "  this  is  a  necessity,  not  of  nature 
and  fate,  but  of  fitness  ami  wisdom  ;  a  necessity,  con- 
sistent with  the  greatest  fi-ccdom  and  most  perfect, 
choice.  For  the  only  foundation  of  this  necessity,  is 
such  an  unalterable  rectitude  of  will,  and  perfection  of 
wisdom,  as  makes  it  impossible  for  a  wisp  being  to  re- 
solve to  act  foolishly;  or  fora  nature  infinitely  good,  t» 
choose  to  do  that  which  is  evil." 

Of  the  Wisdom  of  God,  it  is  here  necessary  to  say- 
little,  because  many  instances  of  it  in  the  application 
of  knowledge  to  accomplish  such  ends  as  were  worthy 
of  himself  and  reiiuisite  for  the  revilation  of  his  glory 
1(1  his  creatures,  have  been  given  in  the  proofs  of  an 
intelligent  and  ilesigiiing  cause,  with  which  the  world 
abuiiiids.  On  this,  as  well  as  on  the  other  attributes, 
the  bcriplures  dwell  with  on  iutcrcstUig  complacency. 


Chap.  V.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


147 


and  lead  us  to  the  contemplation  ol'  an  unbounded 
variety  of  instances  in  which  tliis  perfection  of  (;od  has 
hcen  manifested  to  men.  He  is  "  the  only  wts-c  God  ," 
and  as  to  liis  worlis,  "  in  wisdom  hast  thou  made  ttiem 
all."  Every  thing  has  been  done  by  nice  and  delicate 
adjustment,  by  number,  weight,  and  measure.  "  He 
seeth  under  the  whole  heaven,  to  make  the  wright  for 
the  winds,  to  ivcig^h  the  waters  by  measure,  to  make  a 
decree  for  the  rain,  and  a  xray  for  the  liglitnhig  of  the 
thunder."  Whole  volumes  have  been  written  on  this 
amaziiig  subject,  "  the  Wisdom  of  God  in  the  Crea- 
tion," and  it  is  still  unexhausted.  Every  research  into 
nature,  every  discovery  as  to  the  laws  by  which  mate- 
rial things  are  combined,  decomposed,  and  translbrmed, 
throws  new  light  upon  the  simplicity  of  the  elements, 
which  are  the  subjects  of  this  ceaseless  operation  of 
Divine  power,  and  the  exquisite  sldll,  and  unbounded 
compass  of  the  intelligence  which  directs  it.  The  vast 
body  of  facts  which  natural  pliilosophy  has  collected 
with  so  much  laudable  labour,  and  the  store  of  which 
is  constantly  increasing,  is  a  commentary  ou  the  words 
of  inspiration,  ever  enlarging,  and  which  will  continue 
to  enlarge  as  long  as  men  remain  on  earth  to  pursue 
such  inquiries;  "he  do(!th  great  things  past  finding 
out,  and  wonders  without  number^  ''  Lo  these  are 
parts  of  his  ways,  but  how  little  a  portion  is  heard  of 
him  1"  The  excellent  books  which  have  been  written 
with  the  express  de.iign  to  illustrate  the  wi.sdom  of 
God,  and  to  exhibit  the  final  causes  of  the  creation  and 
preservation  of  the  innumerable  creatures  vrith  which 
we  are  surrounded,  must  be  referred  to  on  so  copious 
a  subject, ('.))  and  a  few  general  remarks  must  suffice. 

The  first  character  of  wisdom  is  to  act  for  ivorthy 
eiids.  To  act  with  design,  is  a  suflicient  character  of 
intelligence ;  but  wisdom  is  the  Jit  a.nd  proper  exercise 
of  the  understanding  ;  and  though  we  are  not  adequate 
judges  of  what  it  is  fit  and  proper  for  God  to  do  in 
every  case,  yet  for  many  of  his  acts  the  reasons  are 
at  least  partially  given  in  liis  own  word,  and  they 
command  at  once  our  adoration  and  gratitude,  as  worthy 
of  himself  and  benevolent  to  us.  The  reason  of  the 
creation  of  the  world  was  the  manifestation  of  the  per- 
fections of  God,  to  the  rational  creatures  designed  to 
inhabit  it,  and  to  confer  on  them,  remaining  innocent,  a 
felicity  ecjual  to  their  largest  capacity.  The  end  was 
important,  and  the  means  by  wliich  it  was  appointed 
to  be  accomplished  evidently  _/f<.  To  be  was  itself 
made  a  source  of  satisfaction.  God  was  announced  to 
man  as  his  Maker,  Lord,  and  Friend,  by  revelation ;  but 
invisible  himself,  every  object  was  fitted  to  make  him 
present  to  the  mind  of  his  creature,  and  to  be  a  remem- 
brancer of  his  power,  glory,  and  care.  The  heavens 
"  declared  his  glory ;"  the  fruitful  earth  "  his  good- 
ness." The  understanding  of  man  was  called  into  ex- 
ercise by  the  number  and  variety,  and  the  curious 
structure  of  the  works  of  God ;  pleasures  of  taste  were 
formed  by  their  sublimity,  beauty,  and  harmony.  "Hay 
unto  day  uttered  speech,  night  unto  night  taught  know- 
ledge ;"  and  God  in  his  law,  and  in  his  creative  munifi- 
cence and  preserving  care,  was  thus  ever  jilaced  before 
his  creature,  arrayed  in  the  f\ill  si)lendour  of  his  natu- 
ral and  moral  attributes,  the  oliject  of  awe  and  love,  of 
trust  and  of  submission.  The  great  moral  end  of  the 
creation  of  man,  and  of  his  residence  in  the  world,  and 
the  means  by  which  it  was  accomplished,  were,  there- 
fore, displays  of  the  Divine  Wisdom. 

It  is  another  matk  of  wisdom  when  the  process  by 
which  any  work  is  accomplished  is  sim]>le,  and  many 
effects  are  produced  ft-oni  one,  or  a  few  elements. 
*'  When  every  several  effect  has  a  particular  separate 
cause,  this  gives  no  pleasure  to  the  spectator,  as  not  dis- 
covering contrivance;  but  that  work  is  beheld  with  ad- 
miration and  delight  as  the  result  of  deep  counsel, 
which  is  complicated  in  its  parts,  and  yet  simple  in  its 
operation,  when  a  great  variety  of  effects  are  seen  to 
arise  from  one  principle  ojierating  uniformly."(l)  'This 
is  the  character  of  the  works  of  God.     From  one  mate- 


(9)  Ray's  "Wisdom  of  God." — Deuuam's  Astro 
artd  Physico-Theology. — Palkv's  Natural  Theology. — 
Sti'rm's  Rertections. — Kirbv  and  Si-enck's  Entomo- 
logy; and,  though  not  written  with  any  such  ilesign, 
St.  PiERiiE's  "  Studies  of  Nature"  ojien  to  the  inhul 
that  can  supply  the  iiious  sentiments  which  the  author 
Tinfortunately  wanted,  many  striking  instances  of  the 
wisdom  and  benevolein-e  of  God. 

(1)  AuKKNBTUY  on  Attribute: 
K2 


• 


rial  substance,(2)  possessing  the  same  essential  jiropcr- 
ties,  allthe  visible  beings  which  surround  us  arc  made; 
the  granite  rock,  and  the  ceninil  uU-pcrvading  sun; 
the  moveless  clod,  the  ra|)id  lighlmng,  and  the  trans- 
parent air.  Gravitation  unites  the  atoms  which  com- 
pose the  world,  combines  the  planets  into  one  system, 
governs  the  regularity  of  their  motions,  and  yet  vast  as 
is  its  power,  and  all-pervadiiig  as  its  inllucnce,  it  sub- 
mits to  an  infinite  iiunilxT  of  modifications,  which  allow 
of  the  motion  of  individual  bodies;  and  it  gives  place 
to  even  contrary  forces,  which  yet  it  controls  and  regu- 
lates. One  act  of  Divine  ])ower  in  giving  a  certain  in- 
clination to  the  earth's  axis,  produced  the  eflect  of  the 
vicissitude  of  seasons,  gave  laws  to  its  temperature,  and 
covered  it  with  increased  variety  of  productions.  To 
the  composition,  and  a  few  simple  laws  imjiressed  uiion 
light,  every  object  owes  its  colour,  and  the  heavens  and 
the  earth  arc  invested  with  beauty.  A  combination  of 
earth,  water,  and  the  gases  of  the  atmosphere,  forms 
the  strength  and  majesty  of  the  oak,  the  grace,  and 
beauty,  and  odour  of  the  rose  ;  and  lirom  the  priiicijilo 
of  ei!aporatio7i,  are  formed  clouds  which  "  drop  fat- 
ness," dews  which  refresh  the  languid  fields,  springs 
and  rivers  that  make  the  valleys  through  which  they 
flow  "  laugh  and  sing." 

Variety  of  equally  perfect  operation  is  a  character  of 
wisdom.  In  the  works  of  God  the  variety  is  endless, 
and  shows  the  wisdom  from  which  they  spring  to  be 
infinite.  Of  that  mind  in  which  all  the  ideas  after 
which  the  innumerable  objects  composing  the  universe 
must  have  had  a  previous  and  distinct  existence,  be- 
cause after  that  pattern  they  were  made;  and  not  only 
the  ideas  of  the  things  themselves,  but  of  every  part  of 
which  they  are  composed ;  of  the  place  which  every 
particle  in  their  composition  should  fill,  and  the  part  it 
should  act,  we  can  have  no  adequate  conception.  The 
thought  is  overwhelming.  This  variety  is  too  obvious 
to  be  dwelt  upon  ;  yet  a  few  of  its  nicer  shades  may 
be  adverted  to,  as  showing,  so  to  speak,  the  infinite  re- 
sources, and  the  endles.sly  diversified  conceptions  of  the 
Creator.  "  O  Lord,  how  manifold  are  thy  works !"  All 
the  three  kingdoms  of  nature  pour  forth  the  riches  of 
variety.  The  varied  forms  of  crystallization  and  com- 
position in  minerals ;  the  colours,  forms,  and  qualities 
of  vegetables  ;  the  kinds  and  properties,  and  habits  of 
animals.  The  gradations  from  one  class  of  beings  to 
another;  from  unformed  to  organic,  from  dead  to  living, 
from  mechanic  sensitiveness  to  sensation,  from  dull  to 
active  sense,  from  sluggishness  to  motion  ;  from  creep- 
ing to  flying,  from  sensation  to  intellect,  from  instinct 
to  reason, (3)  from  mortal  to  immortality,  from  man  to 
angel,  from  angel  to  seraph.  Between  similitude  and 
total  unlikcness,  variety  has  a  boundless  range ;  but  its 
delicacy  of  touch,  so  to  speak,  is  shown  in  the  narrower 
field  that  lies  between  similarity  and  entire  resemblance, 
of  which  the  works  of  God  present  so  many  curious 
examples.  No  two  things  appear  exactly  alike,  when 
even  of  the  same  kind.  Plants  of  the  same  species, 
the  leaves  and  flowers  of  the  same  plant,  have  all  their 
varieties.  Animals  of  the  same  kind  have  their  indivi- 
dual character.  Any  two  blades  of  grass,  or  particles 
of  sand,  shall  show  a  marked  difference  when  carefully 
compared.  The  wisdom  of  this  appears  more  strongly 
marked  when  we  consider,  that  important  ends,  both 


(2)  "  A  few  undecompounded  bodies,  which  may  per- 
haps ultitnately  be  resolved  into  still  fewer  element.s, or 
which  may  be  different  forms  of  the  same  material, 
constitute  the  whole  of  our  tangible  universe  of  things." 
— Davy's  Chemistry. 

(.S)  It  is  not  intended  here  to  countenance  the  opinion 
that  the  difference  between  the  highest  instinct  and  the 
lowest  reason,  is  not  great.  It  is  as  great  as  the  dif- 
li3rence  between  an  account<thle  and  an  i/naccomitalile 
nature;  between  a  being  under  alawof  force,  and  a  law 
of  moral  obligation  and  motive;  between  a  nature 
limited  in  its  capacity  of  im[iroveinerit.  mid  one  whose 
capabilities  are  unlimiteil.  '•Tlir  r.isli  li\  luilhisis,  that 
the  negro  is  the  connecting  link  hetweeii  the  white  man 
and  the  ape,  took  its  rise  from  the  arbifrary  cla.-sifica- 
tion  of  Linnieus,  which  associates  man  and  the  ape  in 
the  same  order.  The  more  natural  arrangement  of 
later  systems  separate  thein  into  the  binianous,  and 
quadrii'manous  orders.  If  this  t;lassific-alion  had  not 
been  l<)llowcd,  it  would  not  have  occurred  to  the  most 
fanciful  mind  lo  find  in  the  negro  an  intermediate  link." 
— PiilxeHAKD  on  3Ian. 


148 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Paht  W 


intellectual  and  practical,  often  depend  upon  it.  The 
losemblances  of  various  natural  tilings  in  greater  or 
less  degree  become  the  means  of  acquiring  a  know- 
ledge of  tliem  with  greater  ease,  because  it  is  made  the 
basis  of  their  arrangement  into  kinds  and  sorts,  with- 
out which  the  human  memory  would  fail,  and  the  un- 
derstanding be  confused.  The  dilFcrtMices  in  things 
are  as  iiii|iorlant  as  their  resemblances.  This  is 
strikingly  illustr:Ued  in  the  domestic  animals  and  in 
men.  If  the  individuals  of  the  former  did  not  difti;r,no 
property  could  Ije  claimed  in  Ihem,  or  when  lost  they 
could  not  be  recovered.  The  countenance  of  one  human 
individual  dilTers  from  all  the  rest  of  his  species;  his 
voice  and  his  manner  have  the  same  variety.  This  is 
not  only  an  illustration  of  the  resources  of  creative 
power  and  wisdom ;  but  of  design  and  intention  to  se- 
cure a  practical  end.  Parents,  cliildren,  and  friends 
could  not  otherwise  be  distinguished,  nor  the  criminal 
from  the  innocent.  No  felon  could  be  identified  by  his 
aecu.ser,  and  the  courts  of  judgment  would  be  ob- 
structed, and  ottcn  rendered  of  no  avail  lor  the  jirotection 
of  life  and  property. 

To  variety  of  kind  and  form,  we  may  add  variety  of 
magnitude.  In  the  works  of  (Jod,  we  have  the  ex- 
tremes, and  those  extremes  filled  up  in  perfect  grada- 
tion from  magnificence  to  minuteness.  We  adore  the 
mighty  swee])  of  that  power  which  scooped  out  the  bed 
of  the  fathomless  ocean,  moulded  the  mountains,  and 
filled  spaic  with  iiiiuimcrable  worlds  ;  but  the  same 
hand  forinrd  the  aiiiiiialciilc,  which  requires  the  strong- 
est Biagiiifyiiig  power  of  optical  instruments  to  make  it 
visible.  In  that  too  the  work  is  perfect.  We  perceive 
matter  in  its  most  delicate  organization,  bones,  sinews, 
tendons,  muscles,  arteries,  veins,  the  pulse  of  the  heart, 
and  the  heaving  of  the  lungs.  The  workmanship  is  as 
complete  in  the  smallest  as  in  the  most  massive  of  the 
works  of  God. 

The  coiineximi  and  depemlence  of  the  works  of  Ood 
are  as  wonderful  as  their  variety.  Every  thing  fills  its 
jdace,  not  by  accident  but  by  design ;  wise  regulation 
runs  through  the  whole,  and  shows  that  that  whole  is 
the  work  of  one,  and  of  one  alone.  The  meanest  weed 
which  grows  stands  in  intimate  connexion  with  the 
mighty  universe  itself.  It  depends  upon  the  atmos- 
phere for  moisture,  which  atmosphere  supposes  an 
ocean,  clouds,  winds,  gravitation  ;  it  depends  ujion  the 
sun  for  colour,  and,  essentially,  for  its  required  degree 
of  temperature.  This  supposes  the  revolution  of  the 
earth,  and  the  adjustment  of  the  whole  planetary  sys- 
tem. Too  near  the  sun,  it  would  be  burned  up ;  loo 
far  from  it,  it  would  be  chilled.  What  union  of  ex- 
tremes is  here, — the  grass  of  the  earth,  "  which  to-day 
is,  and  to-morrow  is  cast  into  the  oven,"  with  the  stu- 
pendous powers  of  nature,  the  most  glorious  works  of 
the  right  haml  of  God  ! 

So  clearly  does  wisdom  display  itself,  in  the  adop- 
tion of  means  to  ends  in  the  visible  world,  that  there 
are  i^omparatively  few  of  the  objects  which  surround 
us,  and  few  of  their  qualities,  the  use  of  which  is  not 
apparent.  In  this  particular,  the  degree  in  which  the 
Creator  has  been  jilcased  to  manifest  liis  wisdom  is 
remarkably  iuqiressive. 

"  Among  all  the  properties  of  things,  we  discover  no 
inutility,  no  superlluity.  Voluntary  motion  is  denied 
to  the  vegetable  creation,  because  mechanical  motion 
answers  the  purpose.  This  raises,  in  some  plants,  a 
defence  against  the  wind,  expands  others  towards  the 
sun,  inclines  them  to  the  support  they  rci|iiirc,  and  dif- 
fuses their  seed.  If  we  asniid  liighrr  towards  irra- 
tional animals,  we  find  tliini  jrnssissiil  ol  powers 
exactly  suited  to  the  rank  tliey  hold  in  the  scale  of  ex- 
istence. 

"  The  oyster  is  fixed  to  his  rock  ;  the  herring  tra- 
verses a  vast  extent  of  ocean.  Hut  the  powers  of  the 
oyster  are  not  deficient ;  he  opens  his  shell  (or  nourish- 
ment, and  closes  it  at  the  approach  of  an  enemy.  Nor 
are  tho.se  of  the  herring  superlluous  ;  he  siiures  and 
supports  himself  in  the  fro/.cn  seas,  and  conimits  his 
spawn  in  the  summer  to  the  more  genial  iiillmncf  of 
warmer  climates.  The  strength  and  linicily  ol'  biasis 
of  prey  are  required  by  the  mode  of  kiiIisisIciiii'  allollcd 
to  Ihem.  If  the  ant  has  peculiar  sag;ii  ily,  it  is  Imt  a 
compensation  for  its  weakness;  if  the  t«c  is  remarka- 
ble for  its  forcsiglil,  that  foresight  is  rciidcn-d  nccrs- 
sary  by  the  slmrl  diiraLKin  of  its  harvest.  Noiliaig  c;iii 
be  more  various  than  the  powers  allowed  to  animals, 
each  in  their  order ;  yet  it  will  be  found,  that  all  these 


powers,  which  make  the  study  of  nature  so  endlcs* 
and  so  interesting,  suffice  to  their  necessities  and  ii* 
more."(4) 

"  Equally  conspicuous  is  the  wisdom  of  God  in  the 
govenmieiit  of  nations,  of  states,  and  of  kingdoms:  yea, 
rather  more  consiiicuons  ;  if  infinite  can  be  allowed  to 
admit  of  any  degrees.  For  the  wliole  inanimate  crea- 
tion, being  totally  passive  and  inert,  can  make  no  oppo- 
sition to  his  will.  Therefore,  in  the  natural  world  all 
things  roll  on  in  an  even  uninterrupted  course.  But  it 
is  far  otherwise  in  the  Tiior;il  world.  Here  evil  men 
and  evil  sjiirits  continually  oppose  the  Divine  WUl,  and 
create  numberless  irregularilies.  Here,  therefore,  is 
lull  scope  for  the  exercise  of  all  the  ricltcs  both  of  the 
wisdom  and  knowledge  of  God,  in  counteracting  all 
the  wickedncrss  and  folly  of  men,  and  all  the  subtlety 
of  Satan,  to  carry  on  his  own  glorious  design,  the  sal- 
vation of  lost  mankind.  Indeed,  were  he  to  do  tliis  by 
an  ahsolule  decree,  and  by  his  own  irresistible  power, 
it  would  iiiqily  no  wisdom  at  ail.  Hut  his  wisdom  is 
shown,  by  saving  man  in  such  a  manner  as  not  to  de- 
.stroy  his  nature,  nor  to  take  away  the  Uberty  which  he 
has  given  him."(5) 

IJnt  in  the  means  by  which  offending  men  are  recon- 
ciled to  God,  the  inspired  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment peculiarly  glory,  as  the  most  eminent  manifesta- 
tions of  the  visdnm  of  God. 

"  For  the  wonderful  work  of  redemption  the  apostle 
gives  us  this  note,  that  'he  hath  therein  abounded  in 
all  wisdom  and  prudence.'  Herein  did  the  perfection 
of  wisdom  and  prudence  shine  forth,  to  reconcile  the 
mighty  amazing  difliculties  and  seeming  contrarieties, 
real  contrarieties  indeed,  if  he  Iiad  not  some  way  inter- 
vened to  order  the  course  of  things,  such  as  the  conflict 
between  justice  and  mercy ; — that  the  one  must  be 
satisfied  in  such  a  way  as  the  other  might  be  gratified : 
which  could  never  have  had  its  pleasing  grateful  exer- 
cise without  being  reconciled  to  the  former.  And  that 
this  should  be  brought  about  by  such  an  expedient, 
that  there  should  be  no  complaint  on  the  one  hand,  nor 
on  the  other.  Herein  hath  the  wisdom  of  a  crucified 
Redeemer,  that  whereof  the  crucified  Redeemer  or  Sa- 
viour was  the  elfectcd  object,  triumphed  over  all  the 
imaginations  of  men,  and  all  the  contrivances  even  of 
devils,  by  that  death  of  his,  by  which  the  Devil  purposed 
the  last  defeat,  the  complete  destruction  of  the  whole 
design  of  his  coming  into  the  world,  even  by  that  very 
means,  it  is  brought  about  so  as  to  fill  hell  with  horror, 
and  heaven  and  earth  with  wonder.'"((i) 

"  Wisdom  in  the  treasure  of  its  incomprehensible 
light,  devised  to  save  man.  without  prejudice  to  the 
perfections  of  God,  by  transferring  the  punishment  to  a 
Surety,  and  thus  to  punish  sin  as  required  hy  justice y 
and  pardon  the  smiur  as  desired  by  mercy."{7) 


CHAPTER  VT. 
Attributes  of  God — Goodness. 

GooDNKSs,  when  considered  as  a  distinct  attribute 
of  (;od,  is  not  taken  in  the  sense  of  universal  rectitude, 
but  sigmlies  linn  rnlcnrc  or  a  disposition  to  communi- 
cate happiness.  P'roiii  ;in  inward  priiulple  of  good 
will,(;iiil  exerts  Ins  oMHiipolciice  ill  diiriisiiig  happiness 
through  till'  iiiiiversi',  in  all  fitting  iiroporlion,  accord- 
ing to  the  iliireiciit  capacities  with  which  be  has  en- 
dowed his  creiiliires,  iiiid  according  to  the  dircclioii  of 
the  most  pertcit  wisdom.  "  TIkik  art  i^ond  uml  dotxl 
i^ond.—The  Father  of  lis:lits.  frniti  xrhnm  r.omiili  iverij 
good  and  ptrfect  gift.—O  praise  the  Jjord:  for  he  is 
good,  ami  his  mercy  endureth  for  crcr.'' 

This  view  of  the  Divine  character  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures has  in  it  some  important  peculiarities,  too  olleii 
overlooked,  but  which  give  to  the  revelation  they  make 
of  God  a  singular  glory. 

Goodness  iti  God  is  represented  as  goodness  of  na- 
ture ;  as  one  of  his  essential  perfections,  and  not  as  an 
accidental  or  an  occasional  aflcction ;  and  thus  he  is 
set  infinitely  above  the  pods  of  the  heathen,  thoso 
imaginary  creations  of  the  perverted  imaginations  of 


(4)  Siimnur's  Records  of  Creation. 

(5)  Wkslky's  Sermons, 
(fi)  Howk's  Posthumous  Works. 
(7)  liATiiJHitirniuny. 


i'i^B|ku:n 


Chap.  VI.] 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


149 


corrupt  men,  whose  benevolence  was  occasional,  li- 
mited, ami  apt  to  l)c^  disturbed  by  contrary  passions. 

Such  were  the  best  views  of  pagans ;  but  t'j  us  a 
Being  of  a  far  diirereat  character  is  manifested  as  our 
(,'reator  and  Lord.  One  of  his  appropriate  and  distin- 
guishing names,  as  proclaimed  by  Uiinself,  sij?nifios 
"  Tlie  (iracimix  One,''  and  imports  goodness  m  the 
principle ;  and  another,  "  7V^e  aU-su/ficient  and  all- 
bountiful  pourrr  forth  of  all  good;"  and  expresses 
goodness  in  actum.  Another  interesting  view  of  this 
attribute  is,  that  the  goodness  of  God  is  efficient  and 
ine.vbau.stibie  ;  it  reaches  every  fit  case,  it  supplies  all 
possible  want ;  and  "  endnretk  for  ever."  Hence  the 
Talmudists  e.xplain  ''TK'  Shadd-^i,  in  Gen.  xvii.  1,  by 
"m  (Zternam  sirfficiens  sum"  I  am  the  eternally  all- 
surticienr.  Like  his  emblem  the  sun,  which  sheds  liia 
rays  upon  the  surrounding  worlds,  and  enlightens  and 
cnerishes  the  whole  creation  without  being  diminished 
in  splendour,  he  imparts  without  being  exhausted,  and, 
ever  giving,  has  yet  infinitely  more  to  give. 

A  third  and  equally  important  repre.sentation  is,  that 
he  takes  pleasure  in  the  exercise  of  benevolence  ;  that 
"  he  delighls  in  mercy."  It  is  not  wrung  from  him 
^ith  reluctance  ;  it  is  not  stintedly  measured  out,  it  is 
not  coldly  imparted.  God  saw  the  works  he  had  made, 
that  "^  they  were  good"  with  an  evident  gratification 
and  delight  in  what  he  had  imparted  to  a  world  "  full 
of  his  goodness,"  and  into  which  sin  and  misery  had 
not  entered.  "  He  is  rich  to  all  that  call  upon  him; — 
he  giveth  liberally  and  ui)braideth  not  ; — exceeding 
abundantly  above  all  that  we  can  ask  or  think."  It  is 
under  these  views,  that  the  Scriptures  afford  so  much 
encouragement  to  prayer,  and  lay  so  strong  a  ground 
for  that  absolute  trust  in  God,  which  they  enjoin  as 
one  of  our  highest  duties,  as  it  is  the  source  of  our 
greatest  comfort. 

Another  iUusiratinn  of  the  Divine  goodness,  and 
which  is  also  peculiar  to  the  Scriptures,  is,  that  nothing, 
if  capable  of  happiness,  comes  immediately  from  his 
forming  hands  without  being  placed  in  circumstances 
•of  positive  felicity.  By  heathens,  acquainted  only  with 
a  state  of  things  in  which  much  misery  is  suffered,  this 
view  of  the  Divine  goodness  could  not  be  taken. — They 
rould  not  but  suppose  either  many  Gods,  some  benevo- 
Jent,  and  others,  and  the  greater  number,  of  an  oppo- 
site character ;  or  one,  in  whose  nature  no  small  pro- 
portion of  malevolence  was  intermixed  with  milder 
sentiments.  The  Scriptures,  on  the  contrary,  repre- 
sent misery  as  brought  into  the  world  by  the  fault  of 
creatures  ;  and  that  otherwise  it  had  never  entered. 
When  God  made  the  world,  he  made  it  good ;  when  he 
made  man,  he  made  him  happy,  with  power  to  remain 
so.  He  sows  good  seed  in  his  field,  and  if  tares  spring 
up,  "  an  enemy  hath  done  this."  This  is  the  doctrine  of 
inspiration.  Finally,  the  Scriptures,  upon  this  lapse  of 
man,  and  the  introduction  of  natural  and  moral  evil, 
represent  God  as  establishing  an  order  of  perfectly  suf- 
ficient means  to  remedy  both.  One  of  his  names  is 
therefore  7NU  Goel,  "  the  Redeemer,'"  and  another, 
nj13  Bon  AH,  "the  Restorer."  The  means  by  which 
be  ju.stifies  these  titles  display  his  goodness  with  such 
peculiar  eminence,  that  they  are  called  "  the  riches  of 
his  grace,"  and  sometimes  "  the  riches  nf  his  glory." 
By  the  incarnation  and  sacrificial  death  of  the  Son  of 
God,  he  became  the  "Gokl,"  the  kinsman,  and  "  re- 
<ieenic?"  of  mankind;  he  bought  back  and  "restored" 
tlie  forfeited  inheritance  of  happiness,  present  and  eter- 
nal, into  the  human  (iimily,  and  placed  it  again  within 
the  reach  of  every  human  being.  In  anticipation  of  this 
propitiation,  the  first  offender  was  forgiven  and  raised 
to  eternal  life,  and  the  same  mercy  has  been  promised 
to  all  his  descendants.  No  man  perishes  finally  but  by 
his  own  refusal  of  the  mercy  of  his  God.  And  though 
the  restoration  of  individuals  is  not  at  once  followed  by 
the  removal  of  the  natural  evils  of  pain,  death,  &c. ; 
for  had  the  whole  race  of  man  accepted  the  offered 
grace,  they  would  not,  in  this  present  state,  have  been 
removed ;  yet  beyond  a  short  life  on  earth  the.se  evils 
are  not  extended,  and,  even  in  this  life,  they  are  made 
the  means  of  moral  ends,  tending  to  a  higher  moral 
perfection,  and  greater  happiness  in  another. 

Such  are  the  views  of  the  Divine  goodness  as  un- 
folded in  the  Scriptures;  views  of  the  utmost  import- 
ance in  an  inquiry  into  the  proofs  of  this  altribute  of 
tiie  Divine  nature,  which  are  afl'orded  by  the  actual 
fijreumstances  of  the  world.    JMepciident  of  their  <;id, 

10 


no  proper  estimate  can  be  taken  of  the  sum  of  evil 
which  actually  exists  ;  nor  of  its  bearing  upon  the  Di- 
vine character.  On  these  subjects  there  have  been 
conrticting  ojuiiions ;  and  the  princiiial  rea.son  has  been, 
that  many  persons  on  both  .siiks;— those  who  have  im- 
pugned the  goodness  of  God,  and  tlio.se  who  have  de- 
fended it  against  objections  taken  from  the  existence 
of  evil — have  too  ollen  made  the  question  a  subject  of 
imre  "  Natural  Theology,"  and  have  therefore  necessa- 
rily fonned  their  conclusions  on  a  partial  and  most  de- 
fective view  of  the  case.  This  is  not  indeed  a  subject 
tor  Natural  Theology.  It  is  absurd  to  make  it  so  ;  and 
the  best  writers  have  either  been  pressed  with  the  in- 
superable difficulties  which  have  arisen  from  excluding 
the  light  which  Revelation  throws  upon  the  state  of 
man  in  this  world,  and  his  connexion  with  another; 
or,  like  I'aley,  they  have  burst  the  self-infiicted  re- 
straint.s,  and  confessed  "that  when  we  let  in  religious 
considerations,  we  let  in  light  upon  the  difficulties  of 
nature." 

With  respect  to  the  illustrations  of  the  Divine  good- 
ness which  are  presented  in  the  natural  and  moral 
world,  there  are  extremes  of  opinion  on  both  sides. 
The  views  of  some  are  too  gloomy,  and  shut  out  much 
of  the  evidences  of  the  Divine  titre(g^«zfy;  others  embrace 
a  system  of  optimism,  and  exclude,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  manifestations  of  the  Divine  yustice,  and  the  retri- 
butive character  of  the  Universal  Governor.  The 
Scriptures  enable  us  to  adjust  these  extremes,  and  to 
give  to  God  the  glory  of  an  absolute  goi  dness,  without 
limiting  its  tenderness  by  severity,  or  ilimimstiing  its 
majesty  by  weakness. 

The  dark  side  of  the  actual  state  of  the  world  and  ef 
man  its  inhabitant,  has  often,  for  insidious  purpo.ses, 
been  very  deeply  shadowed.  1'\\e  facts  alleged  may 
indeed  be  generally  admitted.  The  globe,  as  the  resi- 
dence of  man,  has  its  inconveniences  and  positive  evils ; 
its  variable,  and  often  pernicious  climates ;  its  earth- 
quakes, volcanoes,  tempe.s<s,  and  inundations;  its  ste- 
rility in  some  places,  which  wears  down  man  with 
labour;  its  exuberance  of  vegetable  and  animal  life  in 
ot  hers,  which  generates  disease  or  gives  hirl  h  to  annoying 
andde-itructive  animals.  The  diseases  of  the  human  race; 
their  short  life  and  painfid  dissolution ;  their  general 
poverty  ;  their  universal  sufferings  and  cares  ;  the  dis- 
tractions of  civil  society ;  oppressions,  frauds,  and 
wrongs ;  must  all  be  acknowledged.  To  these  may  be 
added  the  sufferings  and  death  of  animals,  and  the  uni- 
versal war  carried  on  between  diflerent  creatures 
throughout  the  earth.  This  enumeration  of  evils  might 
indeed  be  greatly  enlarged  without  exaggeration. 

But  this  is  not  the  only  view  to  be  taken.  It  must  be 
combined  with  others  equally  obvious  ;  there  are  lights 
as  well  as  shadows  in  the  scene,  and  the  darkest 
masses  which  it  presents  are  mingled  with  bright  and 
joyous  colours. 

For,  as  Paley  has  observed,  "  In  a  vast  plurality  of 
instances,  in  which  contrivance  is  perceived,  the  design 
of  the  contrivance  is  beneficial. 

"When  God  created  the  human  species,  either  he 
wished  their  happiness,  or  he  wished  their  misery,  or 
he  was  indifferent  and  unconcerned  about  either. 

"  If  he  had  wished  our  misery,  he  might  have  made 
sure  of  his  purpose,  by  forming  our  senses  to  be  so 
many  sores  and  pains  to  us,  as  they  are  now  instru- 
ments of  gratification  and  enjoyment :  or,  by  placing 
us  amid  objects  so  ill  suited  to  our  perceptions  as  to 
have  continually  offended  us,  instead  of  ministering  to 
our  refreshment  and  delight.  He  might  have  made,  for 
example,  every  thing  we  tasted  bitter ;  every  thing  we 
saw,  loathsome;  every  thing  wre  touched,  a  sting; 
every  smell,  a  .stench ;  and  every  sound,  a  discord. 

"  If  he  had  been  indifferent  about  our  happiness  or 
misery,  we  must  impute  to  our  good  fortune  (as  all 
design  by  this  supposition  is  excluded),  both  the  ca- 
pacity of  our  senses  to  receive  pleasure,  and  the  sup- 
ply of  external  objects  fitted  to  produce  it. 

"  But  either  of  these,  and  still  more  both  of  them, 
being  too  much  to  be  attributed  to  accident,  nothing 
remains  but  the  first  supposition,  that  God,^'.vhen  he 
created  the  human  species,  wished  their  happiness  ; 
and  n;ade  for  them  the  provision  wliich  he  has  made, 
with  that  view  and  for  tliat  purpose. 

"  The  same  argument  may  be  proposed  in  different 
terms,  thus :  contrivance  proves  design  ;  and  the  pre- 
dominant tendency  of  the  contrivance  indicates  the  dis- 
position of  the  designer.    The  world  abounds  with 


150 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II, 


contrivances;  and  all  tlio  contrivances  wliich  we  are 
ac(|uaintc(l  with,  are  directed  to  beneficial  purixises. 
Evil  no  doubt  exists,  but  is  never,  that  we  can  perceive, 
the  object  of  contrivance.  Teeth  are  contrived  to  eat, 
not  to  ache;  their  aching  now  and  then  is  incidental  to 
the  contrivance,  perhaps  inseparable  Irorn  it ;  or  even, 
if  you  will,  let  it  be  called  a  defect  m  the  ((nitrivance; 
but  it  is  not  the  object  of  it.  This  is  a  di.siiMcUon  which 
well  deserves  to  be  attended  to.  In  discriluii;;  imple- 
ments of  husbandry,  you  \vould  liaiclly  s;iy  of  the 
sickle,  that  it  is  made  to  cut  llic  naiitr'N  hand,  Ihiiuj^h, 
from  the  construction  of  llie  m-siniiiicMt,  and  ihe  iiiaii- 
ner  of  using  it,  this  niiscliicf  otleu  follows.  Jlut  if 
you  had  occasion  to  ilisirihc  in^truiiientsof  torture  or 
execution,  thisengine,  you  would  say,  is  to  extend  ihe 
einews;  this  to  dislocate  the  joints;  this  to  break  the 
bones  ;  this  to  scorch  the  soles  of  the  feet.  Here  pain 
and  misery  are  the  very  objects  of  the  contrivance. 
Now,  notluncr  of  this  sort  is  to  bo  found  in  the  works 
of  nature.  VV'e  never  discover  a  train  of  contrivance 
to  bring  aljoul  an  evil  purpose.  No  anatomist  ever  dis- 
covered a  system  of  organization  calculated  to  produce 
pain  and  disease; ;  or,  in  explaining  the  parts  of  the 
liiiman  body,  ever  said,  this  is  to  irritate;  this  to  in- 
llaine;  this  duct  is  to  conveythe  gravel  to  the  kidneys  ; 
this  gl:ind  to  secrete  the  humour  which  forms  the  gout. 
If  by  cliaiice  he  come  at  a  part  of  which  he  knows  not 
theu.se,  Die  most  he  can  say  is,  that  it  is  useless:  iioone 
ever  sus])ects  that  it  is  put  there  to  incommode,  to 
annoy,  or  to  torment."(8) 

The  chief  excei)tions  to  this  are  those  of  venomous 
animals,  and  of  animals  ;jre(/<>jg' upon  one  another;  on 
the  tirst  of  which  it  has  been  remarked,  not  only  that 
the  number  of  venomous  creatures  is  few,  but  that 
"  the  animal  itself  being  regarded,  the  faculty  com- 
plained of  is  good ;  being  conducive,  in  all  cases,  to  the 
defence  of  the  animal ;  in  some  cases,  to  the  subduing 
of  its  prey ;  and  in  some  probably  to  the  killing  of  it, 
when  caught,  by  a  mortal  wounci  inthcted  in  the  pas- 
sage to  the  stomach,  which  may  be  no  less  merciful  to 
the  victim,  than  salutary  to  the  devourer.  In  the  viper, 
for  instance,  the  poisonous  fang  may  do  that  which, 
in  other  animals  of  prey,  is  done  by  the  crush  of  the  teeth. 
Frogs  and  mice  might  bo  swallowed  alive  without  it. 

"  The  second  case,  namely,  that  of  animals  devouring 
one  another,  furnishes  a  consideration  of  much  larger 
extent.  To  judge  whether,  as  a  general  provision,  ilns 
can  be  deemed  an  evil,  even  .so  far  as  we  undcrsmnd  Ms 
conseciuences,  which  probably  is  a  partial  unilerstand- 
ing,  the  following  rellections  are  fit  to  be  attended  to. 

"  1.  Immortality  upon  this  earth  is  out  of  the  (jues- 
tion.  Without  death,  there  could  l)e  no  generation,  no 
parental  relation,  that  is,  as  thinL's  are  constituted,  no 
animal  happiness.  The  particular  duration  of  life, 
assigned  to  dill'erent  animals,  can  Ibrm  no  part  of  the 
objection ;  because,  whatever  that  duration  be,  while 
it  remains  linite  and  limited,  it  may  always  be  asked, 
why  it  is  no  longer.  The  natural  age  of  diirerent  ani- 
mals varies  from  a  single  day  to  a  century  of  jcars. 
No  account  can  be  given  of  this;  nor  could  any  be 
given,  whatever  other  proportion  of  life  had  obtained 
among  them. 

"  The  term,  then,  of  life  in  diHercnt  animals,  being 
the  same  as  it  is,  tlie  ([ucstion  is,  what  mode  ol' taking 
il  away  is  the  best  even  for  the  animal  itself 

"  Now,  accor(hiig  to  the  established  order  of  rialure 
(vvhich  we  must  sui>iu)si'  to  prevail,  or  we  cannot  reason 
at  all  upon  the  sub|i'it),  tin-  Ihrce  iiu'lliods  by  winch 
life  is.usually  put  an  end  to,  are  acule  disi-asi^s,  diuray, 
and  violence.  The  simple  and  naiural  lite  of  brutes  is 
not  oltcn  visited  'by  acute  disiempers  ;  nor  could  it  be 
deemed  an  improvement  of  their  lol  if  they  were.  Let 
it  be  considered,  therefore,  in  what  a  condition  of  suf- 
fering and  misery  a  brute  animal  is  placed,  which  is 
lell  to  perish  by  decay,  in  human  sickness  or  inlirmity, 
there  is  the  a.ssistance  of  man's  rational  fellow-crea- 
tures, if  not  to  alleviate  his  pain.s,  at  least  to  minister 
to  his  necessities,  and  to  supply  the  place  of  his  own 
activity.  A  brute,  in  his  wild  and  natural  stale,  does 
cv(!ry  thing  tor  himself.  When  his  sircnglli.  Ihcrel'ore, 
or  his  speed,  or  his  limbs,  or  his  senses  liiil  liiin,  lie  is 
delivered  over,  eilher  to  absoliile  famini'.  or  lo  the  pro- 
tracted wretchedness  of  a  life  slowly  wasted  liy  scar- 
city of  food.  Is  it  then  to  see  the  world  filled  Willi 
drooping,  superannuated,   half-starved,  helpless,  and 


(8)  Nattual  Tlieoloey. 


vmhelped  animals,  that  you  would  alter  the  present 
system  of  pursuit  and  prey  i 

"  2.  This  system  is  also  to  them  the  spring  of  motion 
and  activity  on  both  sides.  'I'lie  pursuit  of  its  prey 
forms  the  employment,  and  appears  to  constitute  the 
plea.sure,  of  a  considerable  part  of  the  animal  creation. 
The  using  of  the  means  of  defence,  or  tiight,  or  pre- 
caution, forms  also  the  business  of  another  jiart.  And 
even  of  this  latter  tribe  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose, 
that  their  happiness  is  much  molested  by  their  fears. 
Their  danger  exists  continually  ;  and  in  some  cases 
they  seem  lo  be  so  liir  sensible  ol  it  as  to  provide  in  the 
rn-st  inaiinertliey  crin.againsi  ii:  hut  il  is  only  when  the 
atl.icU  is  ;icln;ill>  inailc  ii|iiiij  lliiin.  thai  they  appear  to 
sutler  from  It.  Toconli'iripl.iicllii-  insecurity  of  their  con- 
dition with  anxiety  and  dread,  requires  a  degree  of  relle.c- 
tion,  which  (lia]ipily  lor  themselves)  they  do  not  pos- 
sess. A  hare,  notwithstanding  the  number  of  its 
dangers  and  its  enemies,  is  as  playful  an  animal  as 
any  other." 

It  is  to  be  observed,  that  as  to  animals,  there  is  still 
much  happiness. 

"  The  air,  the  earth,  the  water,  teem  with  delighted 
existence.  In  a  spring  noon  or  a  summer  evening,  on 
whichever  side  I  turn  my  eycs,myriads  oi  bajipy  beings 
crowd  upon  my  view.  '  The  insect  youth  are  on  the  wing.' 
Swarms  of  new-born  Hies  are  trying  their  pinions  in 
the  air.  Their  sjiorlive  motions,  their  wanton  mazes, 
their  gratuitous  activity,  their  continual  change  of 
place  without  use  or  purpose,  testily  their  joy  and  the  ex- 
ultation which  they  feel  in  their  lately-discovered  facul- 
ties. A  bee,  among  the  flowers  in  spring,  is  one  of  the 
cheerfullest  objects  that  can  be  looked  upon.  Its  Ufa 
appears  to  be  all  enjoyment ;  so  busy  and  so  pleased  ; 
yet  it  is  only  a  specimen  of  insect  life,  with  which,  by 
reason  of  the  animal  being  half  domesticated,  we  hap- 
pen to  be  better  actjuainted  than  we  are  with  that  of 
others.  The  whole  winged  insect  tribe,  it  is  probable, 
are  equally  intent  upon  their  proper  employments,  and, 
under  every  variety  of  constitution,  gratified,  and  per- 
haps equally  gratified,  by  the  ollices  winch  the  author 
of  their  nature  has  assigned  to  tlieni.  I!ut  \\t^  atmos- 
phere is  not  the  only  scene  of  enioyment  for  the  insect 
race.  Plants  are  covered  with  aipliidrs,  ;;rccdily  suck- 
ing their  juices,  and  constantly,  as  It  should  seiin,  in 
the  act  of  sucking.  It  cannot  be  doubled  but  that  this 
is  a  state  of  gratitication.  What  else  should  fix  them 
so  close  to  the  operation,  and  so  long  ?  Other  species 
are  running  about  with  an  alacrity  in  their  motions 
which  carries  with  it  every  mark  of  pleasure.  Largo 
patches  of  ground  arc  sometimes  half-covered  with 
these  brisk  and  sprightly  natures.  If  we  look  to  what 
the  waliTS  produce,  shoals  of  the  fry  of  fish  frequent 
the  margins  of  rivers,  of  lakes,  and  of  the  sea  itsidf. 
These  are  so  hapjiy  that  they  know  not  what  to  do  with 
themselves.  Tluir  attitudis,  their  vivacity,  their  leaps 
out  of  the  water,  their  Inilics  in  it  (which  I  have  no- 
ticed a  Ihousanil  limes  with  equal  attention  and  amuse- 
ment), all  coiiilueit  to  show  their  excess  of  spirits,  and 
are  simply  the  (fleets  of  that  excess. 

"At  this  moiiieiii,  in  every  given  moment  of  time, 
how  iiiuiiy  m\  nads  of  animals  are  eating  their  liiod, 
gralit'ying  their  appetites,  ruminating  in  their  holes, 
accdiiiiilisliiiii:  their  weshes,  pursuing  their  pleasures,  . 
taking  tli'ir  p;isiiiiies  !  In  each  individual,  how  many 
thini;s  iiiusi  go  n^'llt  for  it  to  be  at  ease;  yet  how  large 
a  iiro|ioit  11)11  out  of  every  species  are  so  in  every  assign- 
able instant:  Throughout  the  whole  of  life,  as  it  is 
dilFused  in  nature,  and  as  far  as  we  are  acquainted  with 
it,  looking  to  the  average  of  sensations,  the  jdurality 
and  the  preponderance  is  in  favour  of  happiness  by  a 
vast  excess.  In  our  own  species,  in  which  perhaiis 
the  assertion  mav  be  more  questionable  than  in  any 
other,  the  preiioU'ency  of  good  over  evil,  of  health  for 
example  and  ease,  over  pain  and  distress,  is  evinced  by 
the  very  notice  which  calamities  excite.  What  inqui- 
ries does  the  sickness  of  our  friemls  pnnhice  I  What 
conversation  their  misfortunes !  This  shows  that  tlio 
common  course  of  things  is  in  favour  ot  liiippiness ; 
that  happiness  is  the  rule,  misery  llie  e\i-.plion.  W(TO 
the  oriler  reversi'd,  our  attention  would  lie  calleil  to 
e\ain]iles  of  health  and  coinpcteiicy  instead  of  disease 
and  want  "(U) 

Various  alleviations  of  iHisiiivo  evils,  and  llieir  beinfj 
connected  with  beneficiaj  ends,  are  also  to  he  taken 

(',»)  I'ALiiJV'^fctural  TUoology. 


CHiP.  VI.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


151 


■into  consiJcratioii.  Pain  teaches  vigilance  and  caution, 
•and  renders  its  remission  in  a  state  of  liealtli  a  source  of 
higher  enjoyment.  Fornumerous  diseases,  ;ilso,  reine- 
<lies  are,  liy  the  providence  of  (!od,  and  his  blessint; 
upon  the  researches  of  man,  established.  Tlie  process 
of  mortal  diseases  has  the  effect  of  mitigating  the  natu- 
ral horror  vii:  have  of  death.  Sorrows  and  separations 
are  smoothed  by  lime.  The  necessity  of  labour  obliges 
«s  to  occ«[iy  time  usefully,  which  is  both  a  source  of 
enjoyment,  and  the  means  of  preventing  much  mis- 
chief in  a  world  of  corrupt  and  ill-inclined  men;  and 
/amiliarity  and  habit  render  many  circumstances  and 
Inconveniences  tolerable,  wliich,  at  first  sifjlu,  we  con- 
ceive to  be  necessarily  the  sources  of  wretciiedness. 
In  all  this,  there  is  surely  an  ami)le  proof  and  an  adora- 
ble display  of  the  Divme  benevolence. 

In  considering  the  actual  existence  of  evils  in  the 
■world,  as  it  affects  the  (luestion  of  the  goodness  of 
God,  we  must  also  make  a  distinction  between  tiiose 
evils  which  are  self-inriicied,  and  those  which  are  in- 
evitable. The  qaestion  of  the  reconcilableness  of  the 
permission  nf  evil  with  the  goodness  of  God  will  be 
distinctly  considered  ;  bKt  waiving  this  lor  the  moment, 
nothing  can  be  reore  obvious  than  that  man  himself  is 
chargeable  with  by  far  the  largest  share  of  the  mise- 
ries of  the  present  life,  and  that  they  draw  no  cloud 
over  the  splendour -of  universal  goodness.  View  men 
collectively.  Sin,  as  a  niling:  habit,  is  not  necessary. 
The  means  of  repressing  its  inward  motions,  and  re- 
straining its  outward  acts,  are  or  have  been  furnished 
to  all  mankind ;  and  yet  were  all  those  miseries  which 
are  the  eltects  of  voluntary  vice  removed,  how  little 
comparatively  would  remain  to  be  complained  of  in  the 
;Svorld'  Oppressive  governments,  private  wrongs, 
Avars,  and  all  their  conseiiuent  evils,  would  disap- 
pear. Peace,  security,  and  industry  would  cover  the 
earth  with  fruits,  in  sufficient  abundance  for  all ;  and 
for  accidental  wants,  the  helpless,  suok,  and  aged 
%vould  find  a  prompt  supply  in  the  rhsrity  of  others. 
Regulated  passions  and  an  ajiproving  conscience 
•would  create  benevolent  tenii)ers,  and  these  would  dis- 
place Inward  disquiet  with  inward  peace.  Disease 
■would  remain,  accidents  to  life  and  limb  occur,  death 
would  ensue ;  but  diseases  v,feuld  in  consequence  of 
temperance  be  less  frequent  and  formidable,  men  would 
ordinarily  attain  a  peaceful  age,  and  sink  into  the  grave 
by  silent  decay.  Besides  the  removal  of  so  many  evils, 
how  greatly  would  the  s-um  of  positive  happiness  be 
increased  I  Intellectual  improvement  would  yield  the 
pleasures  nf  knowledge ;  arts  would  multiply  the  com- 
forts, and  mitigate  many  of  the  most  wasting  toils,  of 
life ;  general  benevolence  would  unite  men  in  warm 
affections  and  friendships,  productive  of  innumerable 
reciprocal  offices  of  kindness ;  piety  would  crown  all 
■with  the  pleasures  of  devotion,  the  removal  of  the  fear 
of  death,  and  the  hope  of  a  still  better  state  of  being. 
All  this  is  possible.  If  it  is  not  actual,  it  is  the  fault 
of  the  human  race,  not  of  their  Maker  and  Redeemer ; 
and  his  goodness  is  not,  therefore,  to  be  questioned, 
because  they  are  perverse. 

I  But  let  the  world  remain  as  it  is,  with  all  its  self-in- 
flicted evils,  and  let  the  case  of  an  individual  only  be 
considered,  with  reference  to  the  number  of  existing 
evils,  from  which,  by  the  merciful  provision  of  tho 
grace  of  God,  he  may  entirely  escape,  and  of  those 
|Which  it  is  put  into  his  power  to  mitigate,  and  even  to 
convert  to  his  benefit.  It  cannot  be  doubted  as  to  any 
individual  around  us,  hut  that  he  may  escajie  from  the 
practice  and  the  consequence  of  every  kind  of  vice,  and 
experience  the  renewing  efTects  of  Christianity— that 
he  may  be  justified  by  fiiith,  adopted  into  tlie  family  of 
God,  receive  the  hallowing  influences  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  henceforth  walk,  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the 
Spirit.  Why  do  men  who  profess  to  believe  in  Chris- 
tianity, when  employed  in  writing  systems  of  "Natu- 
ral Theology,"  which  oblige  them  to  reason  on  the 
Divine  goodness,  and  to  meet  obj,  ctions  to  it,  forget 
this,  or  transfer  to  some  other  branch  of  theology  what 
is  so  vital  to  their  own  argument  ?  Here  the  benevo- 
ience  of  God  to  man  comes  forth  in  all  its  brightness, 
and  throws  its  illustrations,  upon  his  dealings  with 
man.  What,  in  tliis  case,  -would  be  the  quantum  of 
evil  left  to  be  suiFercd  by  this  individual,  morally  so 
restored  and  so  regenerated  ?  No  evils,  wliicli  are  the 
■conse(iuences  of  personal  vice,  often  a  long  and  fearful 
train.  No  inward  disquiet,  the  effect  of  guilty  or  fool- 
esh  passions,  another  pregnant  source  of  uusory.    No 


restless  pining  of  spirit  after  an  unknown  good,  cre- 
ating a  di.staste  to  present  innocent  enjoyments— helms 
fbmid  lliatgoodin  the  favour  and  friendship  of  (iod. 
No  discontent  wit li  the  allotments  of  Providence— he 
has  been  taught  a  peacefiil  submissioiu  No  irritable 
restlessness  under  his  sufferings  and  sorrows, — "  in 
patience  he  possesses  his  soul."  No  fearful  apprehension 
of  the  future— he  knows  that  there  is  a  guiding  eye, 
and  a  supporting  hand  above,  employed  in  all  his  con- 
cerns No  tortnenting  anxiety  as  to  life  or  death—"  he 
has  a  lively  hope"  of  an  inheritance  in  heaven.  What 
then  of  evil  remains  to  him  but  the  common  afihctions 
of  life,  all  of  wnich  he  feels,  but  does  not  sink  under, 
and  which,  as  they  exercise,  improve  his  virtues,  and, 
by  rendering  them  mere  exemplary  and  influential  to 
others,  are  converted  into  ultimate  henefits.  Into  this 
state  any  individual  may  be  raised  ;  and  what  is  thus 
made  possible  to  us  by  Divine  goodness  is  of  that  attri- 
bute ah  adorable  manifestation. 

These  views,  however,  while  they  remove  the  weight 
of  any  objections  which  may  be  made  to  the  benevo- 
lence of  the  Dinne  character,  taken  from  the  existence 
of  actual  evils  in  the  world,  are  at  as  great  a  distance 
as  possible  from  that  theory  on  this  subject  which  has 
been  denominated  Optiimsin.  This  opinion  is,  briefly, 
not  that  the  present  system  of  being  is  the  best  tliat 
might  be  conceived  ;  but  the  best  which  the  nature  of 
things  would  admit  oS  That  between  not  creating  at 
all,  and  creating  material,  and  sentient,  and  rational 
beings,  as  we  find  them  now  circumstanced,  and  with 
their  present  qnalities,  there  was  no  choice.  Accord- 
ingly, with  respect  to  natural  evils,  the  Optimists 
appear  to  have  revived  the  opinion  of  the  Oriental  and 
Grecian  schools,  that  matter  has  in  it  an  inherent  defect 
and  tendency  to  disorder,  which  baffled  the  skill  of  the 
great  Artificer  himself  to  form  it  into  a  perfect  world ; 
and  that  moral  evil  as  necessarily  follows  from  finite,  and 
therefore  imperfect,  natures.  No  iiii|Hitation,  they 
infer,  can  be  cast  upon  the  Creator,  wlwse  goodness, 
they  c^jntend,  is  abundantly  laanil'est  in  eon'ecting 
many  of  these  evils  by  skiliul  contrivances,  and  ren- 
dering them,  in  numerous  in.staiices,  the  occasion  of 
good.  Thus  the  storm,  the  earllufiiake,  and  the  volcano, 
in  the  natural  world,  though  necessary  consequences 
of  imperfection  in  the  very  nature  of  matter,  are  ren- 
dered by  their  effects  beneficial,  in  the  various  ways 
which  natural  philosophy  points  out ;  and  thus  even 
moral  evils  are  necessary  to  give  birth,  and  to  call  into 
exercise  the  opposite  qualities  of  virtue,  which  but  for 
them  could  have  no  exercise ;  e.  g.  if  no  injuries  were 
inflicted,  there  could  be  no  place  for  the  virtue  of  for- 
giveness. To  this  ahso  is  added  the  doctrine  oi general 
laws ;  according  to  which,  they  argue,  the  universe 
must  be  conducted;  hut  that,  however  well  set  and 
constituted  general  laws  may  be,  they  will  often  thwart 
and  cross  one  another ;  and  tliat  from  thence  jiarticular 
inconveniences  will  arise.  The  constitution  ef  things 
is,  Jiowever,  good  on  the  whole,  and  that  is  all  which 
can  be  re<iuired. 

The  apology  for  the  Di^vine  goodness  afforded  by  such 
an  hypothesis  will  not  be  accepted  by  those  most  anx- 
ious to  defend  this  attribute  from  atheistic  cavils ;  and 
though  it  has  had  its  advocates  among  some  who  have 
professed  respect  for  the  Scriptures,  yet  it  could  never 
have  been  adopted  by  them,  had  they  not  been  too  re- 
gardless of  the  light  which  they  cast  upon  these  sub- 
jects, and  been  led  astray  by  the  vain  project  of  con- 
structing perfect  systems  of  natural  religion,  and  by 
attempting  to  unite  the  difficulties  whifch  arise  out  of 
them,  by  the  aid  of  unassisted  reason.  The  very  prin- 
ciple of  this  hypothesis,  that  the  nature  of  things  did 
not  admit  of  a  better  world,  implies  a  very  unworthy 
notion  of  God.  It  was  pardonable  in  the  ancient  advo- 
cates of  the  eternity  of  matter,  to  ascribe  to  it  an  es- 
sential imperfection,  and  inseparable  evil  qualities ;  but 
if  the  doctrine  of  creation,  in  the  proper  sense,  be 
allowed,  the  omnipotence  which  could  bring  matter  out 
of  nothing,  was  just  as  able  to  invest  it  with  good  as 
with  evil  qualities  ;  and  he  who  arranged  it  to  produce 
so  much  beauty,  harmony,  security,  and  benefit,  as  wc 
actuall)-  find  in  the  world,  could  be  at  no  loss  to  ren- 
der his  work  perfect  in  every  respec^t,  and  needed  not 
the  balancings  and  counteractions  of  one  evil  against, 
another  to  effiHt  his  benevolent  nurjioses.  Accord- 
ingly, in  fact,  we  lind,  that  when  (Jod  had  finished  liis 
work,  he  pronounced  it  not  merely  good  comparaliviUj  ; 
but  "  very  good,"  or  good  absvlv.tdy.    Nor  is  it  true 


152 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


that,  in  the  moral  world,  vice  must  necessarily  exist 
in  order  to  virtue ;  and  that  if  wu  value  the  one,  we 
must  in  the  nafure  of  things  he  content  to  lalie  it  with 
the  ntlicr.  We  are  told,  indeed,  that  no  forgiveness 
could  be  exercised  by  one  human  being,  if  injury  were 
not  indicted  by  another;  no  meekmsx  could  be  dis- 
jjlaycd,  were  there  no  anger  ;  no  lon^-s-ii/finn!:,  were 
there  no  perversoness,  itc.  Ilut  the  liilUu'y  lies  in  sepa- 
rating the  acts  of  virtue  from  the  pniniples  of  virtue. 
All  the  above  instances  may  be  reducxd  to  one  priiici- 
j)le  of  beiievoleii.ce,  which  may  exist  in  as  high  a  degree, 
when  never  called  forth  by  such  occasions;  and 
express  itself  in  acts  (luite  as  explicit,  in  a  state  of 
society  from  wliich  sin  is  e.xcliiilcd.  There  are,  ti)r  in- 
Btance,  according  to  Scrijilure,  beings,  called  angels, 
who  liept  their  lirst  state,  and  have  lu^ver  sinned.  In 
such  a  society  as  theirs,  composed  probably  of  dinbr- 
ent  orders  of  intelligem'cs,  some  more  advanced  in 
knowledge  lliaii  iiilier.s,  some  with  higher  and  others 
with  lower  degrees  of  jierfection,  "as  one  star  differeth 
from  another  si.irin  glory  ;"  how  many  exercises  of  liu- 
niilityand  condescension;  how  much  kind  communica- 
tion (if  knowledge  by  some,  and  meek  aridgralel'ul  recep- 
tion ol' it  by  others  ;  how  many  diirerenl  ways  in  wliicli  a 
perfect  purity  and  a  perfect  love,  and  a  i)erfect  freedom 
from  seltishness,  may  display  themselves!  When,  there- 
fore, the  principle  of  universal  benevolence  may  be  con- 
ceived to  display  itself  so  strikingly  in  a  sinless  state 
of  society,  does  it  need  injur;/  to  call  it  forth  in  the  visi- 
ble form  of  forgiveness  ;  anger,  in  the  I'onn  ot  meek- 
ness;  obstinacy,  in  the  fiirm  of  forbearance?  Cer- 
tainly not ;  and  it  demands  no  effort  of  mind  to  infer, 
that  did  such  occasions  exist  to  call  for  it,  it  would  be 
developed,  not  only  in  the  particular  modes  just  named, 
hut  in  every  other. 

In  opposition  to  the  view  taken  by  such  theorists,  we 
may  deny,  that  "  whatever  is,  is  best."  We  can  not 
only  conceive  of  a  better  state  of  things  as  possible, 
hut  can  show  that  the  evils  which  actually  exist, 
"whether  natural  or  moral,  do  not  exi.st  Jter.essnrily. 
It  is,  indeed,  a  proof  of  the  Divine  goodness  lo  briii:; 
good  out  of  evil;  to  make  storms  and  earilniirikes, 
which  are  di!structive  to  the  few,  benelicial  to  the 
many  ;  to  render  the  sins  of  men  occasions  to  try,  exer- 
cise, and  perfect  various  virtues  in  the  good  ;  but  if 
man  liadbeenun<leran  unmixed  dispensation  of  mercy, 
all  Ihese  ends  niiglit  obviously  hoMtc  lieen  accimiplished, 
imlependeill  ol  the  existence  of  evils,  nalural  or  iimral, 
in  any  degrt'c.  'I'he  true  key  to  the  whole  subject  is 
furiiislied  by  Divine  revelation.  Hin  has  entered  the 
world.  Man  is  under  the  displeasure  of  his  Maker. 
Hence  we  see  natural  evils,  atid  punitive  acts  of  the 
Divine  administration,  not  because  (lod  is  not  good, 
hut  because  he  is  irnst  as  well  as  good.  Hut  man  is 
not  lell  under  condemnation  ;  through  the  propitiation 
madit  fur  his  sins  by  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  he  is  a  sub- 
ject of  mercy.  He  is  under  correction,  not  uikUt  uii- 
mingled  wrath,  and  heni^e  the  displays  of  the  Divine 
benevolence,  which  the  world  and  tin-  acts  of  Provi- 
dence every  where,  and  IhriiuL'hoiil  all  ages,  present; 
and  in  proportion  as  good  pnclominates,  kindness 
triumphs  against  severity,  and  the  Divine  character  is 
emblazoned  in  our  sight  as  one  that  "  dtlisktctk  in 
mercy." 

To  this  representation  of  the  actual  relations  in  which 
the  human  race  stand  to  (;od,  and  to  no  other  /lypothe- 
sis,  the  state  of  the  world  exactly  answers,  and  thus 
aflords  an  obvious  and  powerful  confirmation  of  the 
doctrine  of  revelation.  This  view  has  been  drawn  out 
at  length  by  a  late  ingenious  writer,(l)  and,  in  many 
instances,  with  great  felicity  of  illustration.  A  fi^w 
extracts  will  show  the  course  of  the  argument.  The 
fir.st  relates  to  the  convulsions  which  have  been  under- 
gone by  the  globe  itself. 

"  Suppo.se  a  traveller,  penetrating  into  regions 
placed  beyond  the  sphere  of  his  antecedent  knowledge, 
suddenly  to  find  himself  on  the  coiiliiies  ol  acity  lying 
in  ruins.  Suppose  the  desolation,  Iboiigli  bearing 
marks  of  ancient  date,  to  niaiiili'st  uiiei|nivocal  proofs 
that  it  was  not  elliited  by  the  moulileniig  hand  ol  time, 
but  has  been  the  result  ol'ilesign  ami  of  violeiici!.  Dis- 
loiated  arclu;s,  pendent  liattlements,  interrupted  acjue- 
duclH,  towers  undermined  and  subverted,  while  they 
record  the  primeval  strength  and  magnificence  of  the 


(1)  (iisiioRNK's  Testimony  of  Natural  riiilosuphy  to 
CJiristianit); 


structures,  [iroclaim  the  determined  pnrpose,  the  per- 
severing exertions,  with  which  force  had  urged  forward 
the  work  of  destruction.  Suppose,  farther,  that  in  sur- 
veying the  relics  which  have  survived  through  the 
silent  lapse  of  ages,  the  stranger  discovers  a  present 
race  of  inhabitants,  who  have  reared  their  huts  amid 
the  wreck.  He  imiuires  the  history  of  the  scene  belbre 
him.  He  is  iiiliirnied,  that  the  city,  once  distinguished 
by  splendour,  by  beauty,  by  every  arrangement  and 
provision  lor  the  security,  the  accommodation,  the 
liajipiness  of  its  occupiers,  was  reduced  to  its  existing 
situation  by  the  deliberate  resolve  and  act  of  its  own 
lawful  Sovereign,  the  very  Sovereign  by  whom  it  had 
been  erecteil,  the  Emperor  of  that  part  of  the  world. 
'  Was  he  a  ferocious  tyrant  ?' — 'No,'  is  the  universal 
reply.  '  He  was  a  monarch  pre-eminent  for  consis- 
tency, forbearance,  and  benignity.'—'  Was  his  judg- 
ment blinded,  or  inisled,  by  erroneous  intelligence  as 
to  the  plans  and  proceedings  of  his  subjects  " — '  He 
knew  ever  thing  but  too  well.  He  understood  with 
undeviating  accuracy  ;  he  decided  with  unimpeachable 
wisdom.' — 'The  ca.*e,  then,'  cries  the  traveller,  'is 
plain :  the  conclusion  is  inevitable.  Your  forefa- 
thers assuredly  were  ungrateful  rebels;  and  thus 
plucked  down  devastation  upon  their  city,  themselves, 
and  their  posterity.' 

"  The  actual  appearance  of  the  globe  on  which  we 
dwell,  is  in  strict  analogy  with  the  picture  of  our  hy- 
pothetical city. 

"  The  earth,  whatever  may  be  the  configuration, 
whatever  may  have  been  the  perturbation  or  tlie  repose 
of  its  deep  and  hidden  recesses,  is.  In  its  superior  sirata, 
a  mass  of  ruins.  It  is  not  of  one  land,  or  of  one  clime, 
that  the  assertion  is  made  ;  but  of  all  lands,  but  of  all 
climes,  but  of  the  earth  universally.  Wherever  the 
steep  front  of  mountains  discloses  their  interior  con- 
struction ;  wherever  native  caverns  and  fissures  reveal 
the  disposition  of  the  component  materials  ;  wherever 
the  operations  of  the  miner  have  jiierced  the  successive 
layers,  beneath  which  coal  or  metal  is  deposited  ;  con- 
vulsion and  disruption  and  disarnuiiienient  are  visible. 
Tlioiiiili  the  smoiilliness  and  uniloriMity  which  the  hand 
of  cultivation  exjiands  over  some  portions  of  the  globe, 
and  the  shaggy  mantle  of  thickets  and  forests  with 
which  nature  veils  other  portions  hitherto  unreplen- 
ished  and  unsubdued  by  mankind,  combine  to  obscure 
the  vestiges  of  the  slioiks  vvhicli  imr  planet  has  expe- 
rienced ;  as  a  fair  skin  and  iiriiaineiilal  attire  conceal 
internal  fractures  and  disorgani/.atuiiis  in  the  human 
frame:  to  the  eye  of  the  contemplative  inquirer  explor- 
ing the  surface  of  the  earth,  there  is  apparent  many 
a  star  testifying  ancient  concussion  and  collision 
and  laceration ;  and  many  a  wound  yet  unhealed, 
and  opening  into  unknown  and  unfathomable  jiro- 
lundity. 

'•  From  this  universal  scene  of  confusion  in  the  supe- 
rior sirata  of  the  earth,  let  the  student  of  natural  theo- 
logy turn  his  thoughts  to  the  general  works  of  Hod. 
What  are  the  characteristics  in  which  those  works, 
however  varied  in  their  kinds,  in  their  magnitudes,  and 
in  their  purpo.ses,  obviously  agree '!  What  are  the 
characteristics  by  which  they  are  all,  with  manifest 
intention,  imprinted  .' — Order  and  Harmony.  In  every 
moile  of  animal  life,  from  the  human  frame  down  to  the 
atomic  and  unsus|)ected  existences  in  water,  which 
have  been  rendered  visible  by  the  lenses  of  modern 
science  ;  in  the  vegetable  world,  from  the  cedar  of 
Lebanon  to  the  hyssop  by  the  wall;  from  the  hy.ssop 
by  the  wall  lothe  minutest  jilant  discernible  under  the 
microscope :  in  the  crystallizations  of  the  mineral 
kingdom,  of  its  metals,  of  its  salts,  of  its  spars,  of 
its  gems  :  in  the  revolution  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  and 
in  the  conseijuent  reciprocations  of  day  and  iiigUt  and 
seasons:— all  is  regularity.  In  the  works  of  flod, 
order  and  harmony  are  the  rule;  irregularity  and  con- 
fusion form  the  rare  exception.  Under  tlie  Divine  govern- 
ment, an  exception  so  portentous  as  that  which  we 
have  been  contemplating,  a  transformation  from  order 
and  harmony  to  irregularity  and  confusion  involving 
the  integuments  of  a  world,  cannot  be  attributed  to 
any  circum.stance  which,  in  common  language,  wo 
term  fortuitous.  It  proclaims  itself  to  have  been  owing 
to  a  moral  cause  :  to  amoral  cause  demanding  so  vast 
and  extraordinary  an  eflect;  amoral  cause  which  can- 
not but  be  deeply  inlerosting  to  man,  cannot  but  he 
closily  comiei^lcd  with  man,  the  sole  being  on  the  face 
ol  tlus  globe  who  is  uivcsled  with  mural  agency  ;  tUe 


Chap.  VI.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


153 


sole  being,  iliorefore,  on  this  globe  who  is  subjccteii  to 
moral  responsibility  ;  the  solo  being  on  this  globe 
whose  moral  conduct  i-an  have  had  a  partu-le  of  even 
indirect  influence  on  the  general  condition  ol'tho  globe 
■which  he  inhabits." 

Another  instance  is  supplied  from  the  general  de- 
luge. Aller  proving  from  a  number  of  geological  facts, 
that  such  a  phenomenon  must  have  occurred,  the 
author  observes  ; — 

"  Thus,  while  the  e.\terior  strata  of  the  earth,  by 
recording  in  characters  untiuestionable  and  indelible  the 
fact  of  a  primeval  and  penal  deluge,  attest  from  age  to 
age  the  holiness  and  the  justice  of  God  ;  the  form  and 
aspect  of  its  surface  are,  with  eiiual  clearness,  testify- 
ing from  generation  to  generation  his  inherent  and  not 
less  gliirious  attribute  of  mercy.  For  they  prove  that 
the  very  dihige,  in  its  irruption  employed  as  the 
instrument  in  his  dispensation  of  vengeance  to  destroy 
a  guilty  world,  was,  in  its  recess,  so  regulated  by  him 
as  to  the  varying  rapidity  of  its  subsidence,  so  directed 
by  liim  throughout  all  its  consecutive  operations,  as  to 
prepare  the  desolated  globe  lor  the  reception  of  a 
restored  succession  of  inhabitants  ;  and  so  to  arrange 
the  surface,  as  to  adapt  it  in  every  climate  for  the  sus- 
tenance of  the  animals,  for  the  production  of  the  trees 
and  plants,  and  for  the  growth  and  commodious  culti- 
vation of  the  grain  and  the  fruits,  of  which  man,  in  that 
particular  region,  would  chiefly  stand  in  need. 

"  During  the  retirement  of  the  waters,  when  a  bar- 
rier of  a  rocky  stratum,  sufficiently  strong  for  resist- 
ance, crossed  the  line  of  descent,  a  lake  would  be  in 
consequence  formed.  These  memorials  of  the  domi- 
nion of  that  element  which  had  recently  been  so  destruc- 
tive, remain  also  as  memorials  of  the  mercy  of  the 
Restorer  of  Nature ;  and  by  their  own  living  splendours, 
and  by  the  beauty  and  the  grandeur  of  their  boundaries, 
are  the  most  exquisite  ornaments  of  tlie  scenes  in 
which  we  dwell. 

i  "  Would  you  receive  and  cherish  a  strong  impression 
of  the  e.xtent  of  the  mercy  displayed  in  the  renewal  of 
the  lace  of  the  earth  ?  Would  you  endeavour  to  render 
justice  to  the  subject?  Contemplate  the  number  of 
the  diversified  effects  on  the  surface  of  the  globe,  which 
have  been  wrought,  arranged,  and  harmonized  by  the 
Divine  benignity  through  the  agency  of  the  retiring 
deluge:  and  combine  in  your  survey  of  them  the  two 
connected  characteristics,  utility  and  beauty  ;  utility  to 
meet  the  necessities  and  multiply  the  comforts  of  man  ; 
beauty  graciously  superadded  to  cheer  his  eye  and  de- 
light his  heart,  with  which  the  general  aspect  of  nature 
is  impressed.  Observe  the  mountains,  of  every  form 
and  of  every  elevation.  See  them  now  rising  in  bold 
acclivities ;  now  accumulated  in  a  succession  of  grace- 
fully sweeping  ascents  ;  now  towering  in  rugged  pre- 
cipices; now  rearing  above  the  clouds  their  spiry  pin- 
nacles glittering  with  perpetual  snow.  View  their 
sides  now  darkened  with  unbounded  forests ;  now 
spreading  to  the  sun  their  ample  slopes  covered  with 
herbage,  the  summer  resorts  of  the  flocks  and  the  herds 
of  subjacent  regions  ;  now  scooped  into  sheltered  cnn- 
caviiies  ;  nowenclosing  within  their  ranges  glens  green 
as  the  emerald,  and  watered  by  streams  pellucid  and 
sparkling  as  crystal.  Pursue  these  glens  as  they  unite 
and  enlarge  themselves  ;  mark  their  rivulets  uniting 
and  enlarging  themselves  also  ;  until  the  glen  becomes 
a  valley,  and  the  valley  expands  into  a  rich  vale  or  a 
spacious  plain,  each  varied  and  bounded  by  hills  and 
knolls  and  gentle  uplands,  in  some  parts  chiefly 
adapted  for  pasturage,  in  others  for  the  plough ;  each 
intersected  and  refreshed  by  rivers  flowing  onwards 
from  country  to  country,  and  with  streams  continually 
augmented  by  collateral  accessions,  until  they  are 
finally  lost  in  the  ocean.  There  new  modes  of  beauty 
are  avvaiting  the  beholder ;  winding  shores,  bold  capes, 
rugged  promontories,  deeply  indented  bays,  harbours 
penetrating  far  inland  and  protected  from  every  blast. 
But  in  these  vast  and  magnificent  features  of  nature, 
the  gracious  Author  of  all  things  has  not  exhausted  the 
attractions  with  which  he  (mrposed  to  decorate  inani- 
mate objects.  He  pours  forth  beauties  in  detail,  and 
with  unsparing  prodigality  of  munificence,  and  lor 
Avhatever  other  reasons,  forh'uman  gratification  also,  on 
the  several  portions,  however  inconsiderable,  of  which 
the  larger  component  parts  of  the  splendid  whole  con- 
sist :  on  the  rock,  on  the  fractured  stone,  on  the  thicket, 
on  the  single  tree,  on  the  bush,  on  the  mossy  bank,  on 
the  plant,  oa  the  flower,  ou  the  leaf.    Of  all  these  works 


of  his  wondrous  hand,  he  is  continnally  varying  anil 
enhancing  the  attractions  by  the  diversified  modes  and 
accessions  of  beauty  with  which  he  invests  them,  by 
the  alteratiniis  of  s(>asons,  by  the  countless  and  rapid 
cliangfs  (il  light  and  shade,  by  the  characteristic  effects 
of  the  rising,  the  meridian,  the  setting  sun,  by  the  sub- 
dued glow  of  twilight,  by  the  soft  radiance  of  the  moon: 
and  by  the  hues,  the  actions,  and  the  music  of  the  ani- 
mal tribes  with  which  they  are  peopled." 
The  human  frame  supplies  another  illustration  :  — 
"  Consider  the  human  frame,  naked  against  the  ele- 
ments, instantly  susceptible  of  every  external  impres- 
sion ;  relatively  weak,  unarmed :  during  infancy 
totally  helpless  ;  helpless  again  in  old  age ;  occu|iying 
along  period  in  its  progress  of  growth  to  its  destined 
size  and  strength ;  ungifted  with  swiftness  to  escape 
the  wild  beast  of  the  forest ;  incapable,  when  over- 
taken, of  resisting  him  ;  requiring  daily  supplies  of 
food,  and  of  beverage,  not  merely  that  sense  may  not 
be  ungratified,  not  merely  that  vigour  may  not  decline, 
but  that  closely  impending  destruction  may  be  delayed. 
For  what  state  does  such  a  frame  appear  characteristi- 
cally fitted  ?  For  what  state  does  it  appear  to  have 
been  originally  designed  ?  For  a  state  of  innocence 
and  security ;  for  a  paradisiacal  state ;  for  a  state  in 
which  all  elements  were  genial,  all  external  impres- 
sions innoxious ;  a  state  in  which  relative  strength 
was  unimportant,  arms  were  needless  ;  in  which  to  be 
helpless  was  not  to  be  insecure ;  in  which  the  wild 
beast  of  the  forest  did  not  exist,  or  existed  without 
hostility  to  man ;  a  state  in  which  food  and  beverage 
were  either  not  precarious,  or  not  habitually  and  speal- 
ily  indispensable.  Represent  to  yourself  man  as  inno- 
cent, and  in  consequent  possession  of  the  unclouded 
favour  of  his  God  ;  and  then  consider  whether  it  be 
probable,  that  a  frame  thus  adapted  to  a  paradisiacal 
state,  thus  designated  by  characteristical  indications 
as  originally  formed  for  a  paradisiacal  state,  would 
have  been  selected  lor  the  world  in  which  we  live. 
Turn  to  the  contrary  representation ;  a  representation 
the  accuracy  of  which  we  have  already  seen  the  pupil 
of  natural  theology  constrained,  by  other  irresistible 
testimonies  which  she  has  produced,  to  allow  :  regard 
man  as  having  forfeited  by  transgression  the  Divine 
favour,  and  as  placed  by  his  God,  with  a  view  to  ulti- 
mate possibilities  of  mercy  and  restoration,  in  a  situa- 
tion which,  amid  tokens  and  means  of  grace,  is  at 
present  to  partake  of  a  penal  character.  For  such  a 
situation,  for  residence  on  the  existing  earth  as  the 
appointed  scene  of  discipline  at  once  merciful,  moral, 
and  penal,  what  frame  could  be  more  wisely  calcu- 
lated ;  What  frame  could  be  more  happily  adjusted  to 
receive,  and  to  convey,  and  to  aid,  and  to  continue,  the 
impressions,  which,  if  mercy  and  restoration  are  to  be 
attained,  must  antecedently  be  wrought  into  the  mind  ? 
Is  not  such  a  frame,  in  such  a  world,  a  Uving  and  a 
faithful  witness,  a  constant  and  an  energetic  remem- 
brancer, to  natural  reason,  that  man  was  created  holy  ; 
that  he  fell  from  obedience;  that  his  existence  was 
continued  for  purposes  of  mercy  and  restoration  ;  that 
he  is  placed  in  his  earthly  abode  under  a  dispensation 
bearing  the  combined  marks  of  attainable  grace,  and 
of  penal  discipline  ?  Is  not  such  a  frame,  hi  suet  a 
world,  a  preparation  for  the  reception,  and  a  collateral 
evidence  to  the  truth,  of  Christianity  V 
The  occupations  of  man  furnish  other  instances : — 
"  One  of  his  most  general  and  most  prominent  oc- 
cupations will  necessarily  be  the  cultivation  of  the 
ground.  As  the  products  drawn  from  the  soil  form  the 
basis,  not  only  of  human  subsistence,  but  of  the  wealth 
which  expands  itself  in  the  external  comforts  and  or- 
naments of  social  life ;  we  should  expect  that,  under  a 
dispensation  comprehending  means  and  purposes  of 
mercy,  the  rewards  of  agriculture  would  be  found 
among  the  least  uncertain  and  the  most  liberal  of  the 
recompenses,  which  Providence  holds  forth  to  exertion. 
Experience  confirms  the  expectation,  and  atti^sts  that 
man  is  not  rejected  of  his  Creator.  Yet  how  great, 
how  continual,  is  the  toil  annexed  to  the  effective  cul- 
ture of  the  earth  !  How  constant  the  anxiety,  lest  re- 
dundant moisture  should  corrupt  the  seed  under  the 
clod ;  or  grubs  and  worms  gnaw  the  root  of  the  rising 
plant ;  or  reptilps  and  insects  devour  the  blade ;  or 
mildew  blast  the  stalk ;  or  ungenial  seasons  destroy 
the  harvest  I  How  frequenlly,  from  these  and  other 
causes,  are  the  unceasing  labours  an<l  the  promising 
hopes  or  the  husbaudmau  terminated  in  bitter  disap- 


154 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  U. 


pointmenll  Agriculture  wears  not,  in  iliis  our  planet, 
Che  cUaracteristics  of  an  occupation  arranged  (or  an 
innocent  and  a  (ully  favoured  race.  It  difiplays  to  the 
eye  [of  iNatural  Theology  traces  ol  tlic  s(Miteiice  pro- 
nounced on  the  first  cultivator,  the  reprcseiiiative  of 
all  who  were  to  succeed ;  '  Cursed  Ih  the  ground  for  thy 
sake.  Thorns,  also,  ami  tliisiles  shall  it  bring  fcirth  to 
thee.  In  sorrow  shall  thou  eat  of  it  all  tho  days  of 
thy  life.  In  the  sweat  of  thy  lace  shalt  thou  eat  hnsHd.' 
It  bears,  in  its  toils  and  in  its  solicitudes,  plain  indica- 
tions that  man  is  a  sinner. 

"  Observations  in  substance  corresponding  vvilli 
those  which  have  been  stated  respecting  tillage,  migat 
be  adduced  concerning  the  care  of  Hocks  and  hcrd.^. 
The  return  for  labour  in  this  branch  of  employment  is, 
in  the  ordinary  course  of  events,  Kufiicieut,  as  in  agri- 
culture, both  to  e.xcite  and  sustain  exertion,  and  to  in- 
timate the  merciful  benignity  with  which  the  Deity 
looks  upon  luaiikiud.  But  the  fatiguing  Kuperinlfiid- 
ence,  the  watchful  anxiety,  the  ri.sksof  lo.ss  by  disease, 
by  casualties,  by  malicious  injury  and  depredation,  and, 
in  many  countries,  by  the  inroads  of  wild  beasts,  con- 
spire in  their  amount  to  enforce  the  truth  which  has 
been  inculcated.  They  inscribe  the  page  of  Natural 
Theology  with  the  scriptural  denunciation:  that  the 
labour  and  the  pain  assigned  to  man  are  the  conse- 
quences of  transgression. 

"Another  of  the  principal  occupations  of  man  con- 
sists in  the  extraction  of  the  mineral  contents  of  the 
earth,  and  in  the  reduction  of  the  metals  into  the  states 
and  the  forms  reijuisite  for  use.  On  the  toil,  tlie  irk- 
soraeness,  and  the  dangers  attendant  on  these  modes 
of  life,  it  is  unnecessary  to  enlarge.  They  have  been 
discussed ;  and  have  been  shown  to  be  deeply  stamped 
with  a  penal  character  appropriate  to  a  fallen  and  guilty 
ra.ce, 

'•  Another  and  a  very  comprehensive  range  of  em- 
p.oyment  consists  in  the  fabrication  of  manufactures. 
These,  in  correspondence  with  the  necessities,  the  rea- 
sonable desires,  the  self-indulgence,  the  ingenuity,  the 
caprices,  and  the  luxury  of  individuals,  are  diversified 
beyond  enumeration.  Hut  it  may  be  affirmed  generally 
concerning  manufiictures  in  extensive  demand,  that, 
in  common  with  the  occupations  which  have  already 
been  examined,  they  impose  a  pressure  of  labour,  an 
amount  of  solicitude,  and  a  risk  of  disappointment, 
such  as  we  cannot  represent  to  ourselves  as  probable 
in  the  case  of  beings  holy  in  their  nature,  and  tho- 
roughly approved  by  their  Cod.  The  tendency,  also,  of 
such  manufactures  is  to  draw  together  numerous  ope- 
rators within  a  small  compass;  to  crowd  them  into 
close  workshops  and  inadequate  habitations;  to  injure 
their  health  by  contaminated  air,  and  their  morals  by 
contagious  society. 

"  Another  line  of  exertion  is  constituted  by  trade, 
subdivided  into  its  two  branches,  domestic  traffic  and 
foreign  commerce.  IJoth,  at  the  same  time  that  they 
are  permitted  in  common  with  the  modes  of  occupation 
already  named  to  anticiiiale,  on  the  whole,  by  tlie  ap- 
pointment of  Providence,  such  a  recompense  as  jnoves 
ade(|uale  to  the  ordinary  excitement  of  industry,  and  to 
the  acijuisition  of  the  niodrrate  comforts  of  life,  are 
marked  with  the  pciiul  l!ii[)ress  of  toil,  anxiety,  and 
disappoint ineiit.  Natural  Theology  still  reads  the  sen- 
teoce,  '  In  the  sweat  of  thy  face,  in  sorrow,  shalt  thou 
cat  bread.'  Vigilance  is  frustrated  by  the  carelessness 
flf  associates,  or  profit  intercepted  by  their  inii|Uity. 
Uprightness  in  the  dealer  bec:omes  the  prey  of  fraud  in 
the  customer.  The  ship  is  wricked  on  a  distant  shore, 
or  sinks  with  the  cargo,  and  with  tlic  merchant,  in  the 
ocean. "(2) 

Numerous  other  examples  are  fUrni.shcd  by  the  au- 
thor, and  might  be  easily  enlarged,  so  abundant  is  the 
evidence;  and  the  wlioli;  directly  connects  itself  with 
the  subject  under  considerallon.  The  voluntary  good- 
ness of  God  is  not  impugned  by  the  various  evils  which 
exist  in  the  world,  lor  we  see  I  hem  accounted  for  by 
the  actual  corrupt  slate  of  man,  and  by  a  righteous  ad- 
ministration, by  which  goodness  must  be  onlnillcd 
to  be  an  attribute  worthy  of  (iod.  It  would  otherwise 
be  weakness,  a  blind  passion,  and  not  a  wisiely-regulated 
afTecdon.  On  the  other  lianil,  there  is  clearly  no  rea- 
son for  resorting  to  notions  of  nrrcs.iil!/,  and  delects 
in  the  essential  nature  of  created  things,  to  prove  that 


QJ)  Tustiiiiony  of  iNuture,  Ac 


Cod  is  good ;  or,  in  other  words,  according  to  the  liy- 
pothesis  above  stated,  as  i^ond  as  the  stubbornness  of 
matter,  and  the  necessity  that  vice  and  misery  should 
e.vi8t,  would  allow.  His  goodness  is  hinited  by  moral 
not  by  pki/fical  reasons,  butstill,  considering  the  globe 
as  the  resilience  of  a  fallen  and  perverse  race,  that 
glorious  attribute  ia  heightened  in  its  lustre  by  this 
very  circumstance ;  it  arrays  itself  before  us  in  all  its 
airccting  attributes  of  mercy,  pity,  long-sufTering,  miti- 
gation, and  ri mission.  It  is  goodness  poured  forth  in 
the  riilicsi  liliirality,  where  moral  order  ixjrmits  its 
unre.straiiieil  Mow  ;  and  it  is  never  withheld  but  where 
the  general  benefit  demands  it.  Penal  acts  never  go 
beyond  the  rigid  necessity  of  the  case  ;  acts  of  mercy 
rise  infinitely  above  all  desert. 

The  aljove  observations  all  suppose  moral  evil  ac- 
tually in  the  world,  and  infecting  the  whole  human 
race;  but  the  Origin  of  evil  reipiires  distinct  consider- 
ation. How  did  moral  ovil  arise,  and  how  is  this  cir- 
cumstance compatible  with  the  Divine  goodness? 
However  these  ijuestions  may  be  answered,  it  is  to  be 
remembered  that  though  the  answer  should  leave  some 
diitic  ulties  in  full  force,  they  do  not  press  exclusively 
upon  the  Scriptures.  Independent  of  the  Bible,  the  fact 
is  that  evil  exists ;  and  the  Theist  who  admits  the  exist- 
ence of  a  Cod  of  infinite  goodness,  has  as  large  a  share 
of  the  difficulty  of  reconciling  fticts  and  principles  on 
this  subject  as  the  ( christian,  but  with  no  advantage 
from  that  lustory  of  the  introduction  of  sin  into  llie 
world  which  is  contained  in  the  writings  of  Moses, 
and  none  IVom  those  alleviating  views  which  are  af- 
forded by  the  doctrine  of  the  redemption  of  man  by 
Jesus  Christ. 

As  to  the  source  of  evil,  the  following  are  the  lead- 
ing ojiinions  which  have  been  held.  Necessity,  arising 
out  of  the  nature  of  things;  the  Manichaau  principle 
of  duality,  or  the  existence  of  a  good  and  an  evil  deity ; 
the  iloctrinii  that  God  is  the  efficient  cause  or  author  of 
sin ;  and  finally,  that  evil  is  tlie  result  of  the  abuse  of 
the  moral  freedom  with  which  rational  and  account- 
able creatures  arc  endowed.  With  respect  to  the  first, 
as  the  necessity  meant  is  independent  of  God,  it  refutes 
itself.  For  if  all  creatures  are  under  the  infiuence  of 
this  necessity,  and  they  must  be  under  it  if  it  arise 
out  of  tho  nature  of  things  itself,  no  virtue  could  now 
exist :  from  the  moment  of  creation  the  deteriorating 
princijile  must  begin  its  operation,  and  go  on  until  all 
good  is  extinguished.  Nor  could  tliere  be  any  return 
from  vice  to  virtue,  since  the  nature  of  things  would 
on  that  supposition  be  counteracted,  which  is  impos- 
sible. 

The  second  is  scarcely  worth  notice,  since  no  one 
now  advocates  it.  This  heresy,  which  prevailed  in 
several  parts  of  the  Christian  world  from  the  third  to 
the  sixteenlh  century,  seems  to  have  been  a  modifica- 
tion of  the  ancient  Magian  doctrine  superadded  to  some 
of  the  tenets  of  Christianity.  Its  leading  principle 
was,  that  our  souls  were  made  by  the  good  principle, 
and  our  bodies  by  the  evil  one;  these  two  principles 
being,  according  "to  M.vni  the  founder  of  the  seel,  co- 
eternal  and  iiKU'i)eiideiit  of  each  other.  These  notions 
were  supposed  to  afford  an  easy  explanation  of  the 
origin  of  evil,  and  on  that  account  were  zealously  pro- 
jiagated.  It  was  however  overlooked  by  the  advocates 
of  this  scheme,  that  it  lell  the  diificuliy  without  any 
alleviation  at  all ;  for  "  it  is  just  as  rf|ingiiaiit  to  infi- 
nite goodness  to  create  what  it  foresaw  would  be 
sjioiled  by  another,  as  to  create  what  would  be  spoiled 
by  the  constitution  of  its  nature."(3) 

The  dogma  which  makes  God  himself  the  efficient 
catise,  or  author  of  sin,  is  direct  blasphemy,  and  it  is 
one  of  those  culjiablc  extravagances  into  which  men 
are  sometimes  betrayed  by  a  blind  attachment  to  some 
favourite  theory.  This  notion  is  found  in  the  writings 
of  some  of  the  most  unguarded  advocates  of  the  Cal- 
vinislic  hypothesis,  though  now  generally  abandoned 
by  the  writers  of  that  school.  A  modern  deliiider  of 
Calvinism  thus  puts  in  his  disclaimer,  "  God  is  not  the 
author  of  sin,  A  Calvinist  who  says  so  I  regard  as 
Judas,  and  will  have  no  communion  wth  him, "(4) 


(3)  King's  Origin  of  Evil,  | 

(4)  Scott's  Kemarks  on  the  Krfatation  of  CaMn- 
M-m.— Few  have  been  so  ilaring,  ixci'iu  tlie  grosser 
Aniinoniiaiis  of  ancient  and  niodeni  limes.  The  elder 
Culviiiists.  though  they  ofltii  made  li;)irt'ul  api)rouches 


Chap.  VI.], 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


155 


The  general  abandonment  of  this  notion,  so  offensive 
and  blameable,  rnnilers  it  unnecessary  to  enter  into  its 
refutation.  If  refiitatioii  were  required  it  would  be 
found  in  this,  tliat  the  first  pair  who  sinned  were  sub- 
jected (o  punislinient  for  and  on  account  of  sin ;  which 
they  could  not  in  justice  have  been,  had  not  their  crime 
been  chargeable  npoii  themselves. 

The  last  oi)inii)n,  and  that  which  has  been  generally 
received  bylli(olo;i;ians,  is,  that  moral  evil  is  the  result 
of  a  VdluiiUiry  abuse  of  the  freedom  of  the  will  in  ra- 
tioiuil  auil  moral  agents;  and  that,  as  to  the  human 
race,  the  first  p;iir  sinned  by  choice,  when  Ihe  power  to 
have  remained  iiumcent  remained  with  them.  "  Why 
is  there  sin  in  the  world  ?  Because  man  was  created  in 
the  image  of  OoJ  ;  because  he  is  not  mere  niatt»;r,  a  clod 
of  earth,  a  lump  of  clay,  \vithout  sense  or  understand- 
ing, but  a  spirit  like  his  Creator ;  a  being  endued  not 
only  with  seuse  and  understanding,  but  also,  with  a 
will  evening  itself  in  various  affections.  To  crown 
all  the  rest,  he  was  endued  \vith  liberty,  a  power  of 
directing  his  own  affections  and  actions,  a  capacity  of 
determming  him.self,  or  of  choosing  good  and  evil.  In- 
deed, had  not  man  been  endued  with  this,  all  the  rest 
would  have  been  of  no  use.  Had  he  not  been  a  free,  as 
well  as  an  intelligent  being,  his  understanding  would 
have  been  as  incapable  of  holiness,  or  any  kind  of  vir- 
tue, as  a  tree  or  a  block  of  marble.  And  having  tliis 
power,  a  power  of  choosing  good  and  evil,  he  chose 
the  latter,  he  chose  evil.  Thus  '  sin  entered  Into  the 
world.'  "(5) 

This  account  unquestionably  agrees  with  the  history 
of  the  fact  of  the  fall  and  corruption  of  man.  Like 
every  thing  else  to  its  kind,  he  was  pronounced  "  very 
good ;"  he  was  placed  under  a  law  of  obedience,  which,  if 
he  hail  not  had  the  power  to  observe  it,  would  have  been 
absurd ;  and  that  he  had  also  the  power  to  violate  it  is 
equally  clear  from  the  prohibition  under  which  he  was 
laid,  and  its  accompanying  penalty.  The  conclusion 
therefore  is,  that  "  God  made  man  upright,"  with  power 
to  remain  so,  and,  on  the  contrary,  to  sin  and  fall. 

Nor  was  this  liberty  to  sin  inconsistent  with  that 
perfect  purity  and  moral  perfection  with  which  he  was 
endowed  at  his  creation.  Many  extravagant  descrip- 
tions have  been  indulged  in  by  some  divines  as  to  the 
intellectual  and  moral  endowments  of  the  nature  of  the 
first  man,  which,  if  admitted  to  the  full  extent,  would 
render  it  difficult  to  conceive  how  he  could  possibly 
have  fallen  by  any  temptations  which  his  circum- 
stances allowed,  or  indeed  how,  in  his  case,  temptation 
could  at  all  exist.  His  state  was  high  and  glorious,  but 
it  was  still  a  state  not  of  rcicanl  but  of  trial,  and  his 
endowments  and  perfections  were  therefore  suited  to 
it.    It  is,  indeed,  perhaps  going  much  too  far  to  state, 


in  their  writings  to  this  blasphemy,  yet  did  not,  openly 
and  directly,  charge  God  with  being  the  author  of  sin. 
This  Arininius  with  great  candour  acknowledges;  but 
gives  them  a  friendly  admonition,  to  renounce  a  doc- 
trine from  which  this  aspersion  upon  the  Divine  cha- 
racter may,  by  a  £;nnd  consequence,  be  deduced :  a  cau- 
tion not  uncalled  for  in  the  present  day.  "  Inter  omnes 
blasphemias  qua  Deo  inipingi  possunt,  omniiun  est 
graxnssima  qua  author  peccati  statuitur  Deus  :  qua; 
ipsa  non  parum  exaggeratur,  si  addatur  Deum  idcirco 
authorem  esse  peccati  d  creatura  commissi,  ut  creatu- 
ratn  in  aeternum  exitium,  ([uod  illi  jam  ant^  citra  re- 
specturn  peccati  destinaverat,  damnaret  et  deduceret ; 
sic  eniin/(«€n(  causa  injutititice  liomini  ut  ipsi  ajter- 
nam  miseriam  adferre  posset.  Hanc  blasphemiam 
nemo  Deo,  quein  bonum  concipit,  impiiiget:  quare 
etiam  Manichsi,  pessimi  hnereticorum,  quum  causam 
mall  bono  Deo  adscribere  vererentur,  alium  Deum,  et 
aliud  principium  statuerunt,  cui  niali  causam  deputa- 
rent.  Qua  de  causa,  nee  ullis  Docloribus  reformala- 
rum  Ecclesiarum  jure  impingi  jiotest,  quod  Deum 
authorem  peccati  statuant  exprofesso :  imo  verissi- 
mum  est  illos  expresse  id  negare,  et  illam  calumniam 
contra  alios  egregi^  confutasse.  Attamen  fieri  potest, 
lit  quis  ex  ignorantia  aliquod  doceat,  ex  quo  bona 
consequentia  deducatur,  Deum  per  illani  doctrinnm 
statin  authorem  peccati.  Hoc  si  fiat,  turn  quidem 
istius  <loctrin;B  professoribus,  non  est  impui^iniliiin 
quod  Deum  authorem  peccati  fnctatit,  sed  (aiuuin  niu- 
nendi  ut  doctrinam  islam,  unde  id  bona  coiiacqueiitia 
deducitur,  deserant  et  abjiciailt." 
(5)  WEHLKV'a  Sermons. 


that  all  created  rational  beings,  being  finite,  and  en- 
dowed also  with  liberty  of  choice,  must,  under  all  cir- 
cumstances, be  liable  to  sin.  It  is  argued  by  Archbi- 
shop King,  that  "  God,  though  he  be  omnipotent,  can- 
not make  any  created  being  absolutely  perfej't ;  for 
whatever  is  ab.solulely  periect,  must  necessarily  be 
self-existent ;  but  it  is  included  in  the  very  notion  of  a 
creature,  as  such,  not  to  exist  of  itself,  but  of  God.  An 
absolutely  perfect  creature,  therefore,  implies  a  contra- 
diction ;  for  it  would  be  of  itself,  and  not  of  itself,  at 
the  same  time.  Absolute  perfection,  therelbre,  is  pecu- 
liar to  God  ;  and  should  he  communicate  his  own  (lecu- 
liar  perfection  to  another,  that  other  would  be  God. 
Imperfection  must  therefore  be  tolerated  in  creatures, 
notwithstanding  the  Divine  Omnipotence  and  good- 
ness ; — for  contradictions  are  no  objects  of  power.  God 
indeed  might  have  refrained  from  acting,  and  conti- 
nued alone  self-suflicient  and  jierfect  to  all  eternity ;  but 
infinite  goodness  would  by  no  means  allowof  this  :  and 
therefore  since  it  obliged  him  to  produce  external  things, 
which  things  could  not  possibly  be  perfect,  it  preferred 
these  imperfect  things  to  none  at  all ;  from  whence 
it  follows,  that  imperfection  arose  from  the  infinity  of 
Divine  goodness."(0) 

This  in  jiart  may  be  allowed.  Imperfection  must,  in 
comparison  of  God,  and  of  the  creature's  own  capacity 
of  improvement,  remain  the  character  of  a  finite  being ; 
but  it  is  not  so  clear  that  this  imperfection  must  at  all 
times,  and  throughout  tlie  whole  course  of  existence, 
imply  liability  to  sin.  God  is/rte,  and  yet  cannot  "  be 
tempted  of  evil."  "  It  is  impossible  for  God  to  lie  ;" 
not  for  want  of  natural  freedom,  but  because  of  an  ab- 
solute moral  perfection.  Liberty  and  i/npeccabihty 
imply,  therefore,  no  contradiction  ;  and  it  cannot,  even 
on  rational  grounds,  he  concluded,  that  a  free  finite 
moral  agent  may  not,  by  the  special  favour  of  God,  be 
placed  in  circumstances  in  which  sinning  is  morally 
impossible.  Revelation  undoubtedly  gives  tliis  pro- 
mise to  the  faithful,  in  another  state ;  a  consummation 
to  be  effected,  not  by  destroying  their  natural  liberty, 
but  by  improving  their  moral  condition.  This  was  not 
however  the  case  with  man  at  his  first  creation,  and 
during  his  abode  in  paradise.  His  state  was  not  that 
of  the  glorified,  tor  it  was  probationary ,  and  it  was  yet 
inconceivably  advanced  above  the  present  state  of  man ; 
since,  with  a  nature  unstained  and  uncorrupted,  it 
was  easy  for  him  toliave  maintained  his  moral  recti- 
tude, and  to  have  improved  and  confirmed  it.  Obedi- 
ence with  him  had  not  those  clogs,  and  internal  ojipo- 
sitions,  and  outward  counteractions,  as  with  us.  It 
was,  however,  a  state  which  required  wat.chfrilness, 
and  effort,  and  prayer,  and  denial  of  the  appetites  and 
passions,  since  Eve  fell  by  her  appetite,  and  Adam  by 
his  passion :  and  slight  as,  in  the  first  instance,  every 
external  influence  which  tended  to  depress  the  energy 
of  the  spiritual  life,  and  lead  man  from  God,  might  be, 
and  easy  to  be  resisted ;  it  might  become  a  step  to  a 
farther  defection,  and  the  nucleus  of  a  fatal  habit. 
Thus  says  Bishop  Butler,  with  his  accustomed  acute- 
ness :  "  Mankind,  and  perhaps  all  finite  creatures,  from 
the  very  constitution  of  their  nature,  before  habits  of  vir- 
tue, are  deficient,  and  in  danger  of  deviating  from  what 
is  right ;  and  therelbre  stand  in  need  of  virtuous  habits, 
lor  a  security  against  this  danger.  For,  together  with 
the  general  principle  of  moral  understanding,  we  have 
in  our  inward  frame  various  affections  towards  parti- 
cular external  objects.  These  affections  are  naturally, 
and  of  right,  subject  to  the  government  of  the  moral  prin- 
ciple, as  to  the  occasions  upon  which  they  may  be  gra- 
tified :  as  to  the  times,  degrees,  and  manner  in  which 
the  objects  of  them  may  be  pursued:  but  then  the 
principle  of  virtue  can  neither  excite  them,  nor  prevent 
their  being  excited.  On  the  contrary,  they  are  natu- 
rally felt,  when  the  objects  of  them  are  present  to  the 
mind,  not  only  before  all  consideration,  whether  they 
can  be  obtahied  by  lawliil  means,  but  after  it  is  found 
they  cannot.  For  the  natural  objects  of  afT'ection  con- 
tinue so :  the  necessaries,  conveniences,  and  pleasures 
of  life  remain  naturally  desirable,  though  tiiey  cannot 
be  obtained  innocently ;  nay,  though  they  cannot  pos- 
sibly be  obtained  at  all.  And  when  the  objects  of  any 
affection  whatever  cannot  be  obtained  without  unlaw- 
ful means,  but  may  be  obtained  by  them ;  such  affec- 
tion, through  its  being  excited,  and  its  coiuuiuance 

(0)  Origin  of  Evil. 


156 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


some  lime  in  the  mind,  be  it  as  innocent  as  it  is  natu- 
ral anil  necessary,  yrt  cannot  but  be  conceived  to  have 
:i  tctiilency  to  niclinr  jicrsons  to  venture  U|)on  such 
uiiliiwlUI  iiii;iiis ;  and,  tlii-relbre,  must  he  cunccivcd  iik 
jiuliiii!;  tliciri  ill  Miiiic  (l:iii::(r  of  it.  Now,  what  is  the 
geiierul  security  asairisl  this  danger,  a^'ainst  llieir  ac- 
ttiaily  deviatiiif;  I'rom  right  ?  As  tlic  daii^'cr  is,  so  also 
must  the  security  lie,  Croiii  witliiu  ;  Irom  the  practical 
principle  of  virtue.  Ami  the  strciiKtlitiiiiijr  or  iin|irov- 
inp  this  principle,  considered  as  jiractical,  or  as  a  jirin- 
ciple  of  action,  will  Itsst^ii  the  daimer,  or  increase  the 
jtecurity  «i;aiiist  it.  And  this  moral  ]iriiiciide  is  capa- 
ble of  iiiiprovcnient  by  pruj;er  disciiiliiie  and  e.xercisc  ; 
by  recollectiin;  tlie  practical  iniprcHsioiis  which  exam- 
ple and  experience  have  made  upon  us ;  and  instead  of 
following  humour  and  mere  inclination  by  continually 
alteiidiuf;  to  the  eijuity  and  right  of  the  case,  in  what- 
ever we  are  engaged,  be  it  in  greater  or  less  matters, 
and  accustoming  ourselves  always  to  act  upon  it ;  as 
being  itself  the  just  and  natural motiveof  action,  and  as 
this  moral  course  of  behaviour  must  neces-sarily,  under 
Divine  government,  he  our  final  interest.  Thus  the 
principlf  0/  virtHC,  improved  into  kaliit,  (if  ivhirh  nn- 
prnvemcni  ive  nrr  tlmx  rapahle,  will  ptiinily  he,  in  pro- 
portion  to  the  stmii^th  of  it,  a  security  against  the 
danger  xvhirh  Jill  lie  creatures  are  in.,  from  the  very 
nature  of  jirojieiisioii,  or  particular  ajfcctions. 

"  From  these  things  we  may  observe,  and  it  will  far- 
ther show  this  our  natural  and  original  neeij  of  being 
improved  by  discipline,  how  it  comes  to  pass,  that  crea- 
tures made  upriglit  fall ;  and  that  those  who  preserve 
their  uprightness,  by  so  doing,  raise  themselves  to  a 
more  secure  state  ol  virtue.  To  say  that  the  Ibrmer  is 
accounted  for  by  the  nature  of  liberty,  is  to  say  no  more 
than  that  an  event's  actually  happening  is  accounted  for 
by  a  mere  possibility  of  its  happening.  Hut  it  seems 
<listinctly  conceivable  from  the  very  nature  of  particular 
afl'ections  or  iirojieiisions.  For,  supiiose  creatures  in- 
tended for  such  a  particular  state  of  life,  for  which  such 
propensions  were  necessary :  suppose  them  endued 
with  such  propensidiis,  together  with  moral  understand- 
ing, as  well  including  a  practical  sctn.se  of  virtue,  as  a 
speculative  perception  of  it ;  and  that  all  these  .several 
princijiles,  both  natural  and  moral,  forming  an  inward 
constitution  of  mind,  were  in  the  most  exact  jiroportion 
possible  ;  i.  e.  in  a  jiroportinn  the  most  exactly  ada])led 
to  their  intended  state'  of  lite ;  such  creatures  would  be 
made  upright,  or  finitely  i;erle(;t.  Now,  particular  pro- 
pensions,  from  their  very  nature,  must  be  felt,  the  ob- 
jects of  them  being  present ;  though  they  cannot  be 
gratified  at  all,  or  not  with  the  allowance  of  the  moral 
principle.  Hut  if  they  can  be  gratified  without  its  al- 
lowance, or  by  contradicting  it ;  then  they  must  be  con- 
ceived to  have  some  tendency,  in  how  low  a  degree  so- 
ever, yet  some  tendency,  to  induce  jiersons  to  such  for- 
bidden gratification.  'I'histriideiiey,  in  someone  parti- 
cular propension,  may  be  ininaseij,  by  the  greater  fre- 
quency of  occasions  naturally  excilnig  it,  than  of  occa- 
sions exciting  others.  The  least  voluntary  indulgence 
in  forbidden  circumstances,  though  but  in  thought,  will 
increase  this  wrong  tendiMicy ;  and  may  increiise  it  far- 
ther, till,  peculiar  conjunctures,  perhaps,  coiiNpiring,  It 
becomes  effect;  and  danger  of  deviating  IVoni  right, 
ends  in  actual  deviation  from  it:  a  danger  inu'essarily 
arising  from  tlie  very  nature  of  imipension ;  and 
which,  therefore,  could  not  have  b(!en  prevcnteil.  though 
it  might  have  lieen  escaped,  or  got  innocently  through. 
The  ease  would  he,  as  if  we  were  to  sujiposc  a  slraiglit 
path  marked  out  for  a  person,  in  wliich  such  a  degn.'e 
of  aWention  would  keep  him  steady :  but  if  he  would 
not  attend  in  this  degree,  any  one  of  a  thousand  objects, 
eali'liing  his  eye,  might  leail  h mi  out  of  it.  Now,  it  is  im- 
possible losay,how  much  even  the  first  fnllovert  act  of 
jrn'giilarily  might  disorder  the  inward  coiistitnlion,  un- 
settle the  adjustments,  and  alter  the  iiroporlions,  which 
iMrnied  it,  ami  in  which  the  uprightness  of  its  mal;e  con- 
Bisted;  but  repetition  of  irregularities  would  produce 
habits.  And  thus  the  constiiiiiion  would  be  sjioiled  ; 
and  creatures  made  ii[iright,  beriime  corrupt  and  d<v 
praved  m  ttnar  settled  charai'ter,  jiroportionahly  to  their 
re)ieated  irregularities  in  occasional  ai'ts.  liiil,  on  the 
contrary,  these  creatures  might  have  iniproveil  and 
raised  themselves  to  a  higher  and  more  secure  state  of 
virtue,  by  the  contrary  hehaviour  ;  by  sle.idily  following 
the  moral  princijile,  supposed  to  be  one  (lart  of  their  na- 
ture i  aiitl  thus  wiihsiaiidiiig  thut  unavoidable  danger 


of  defection,  which  necessarily  arose  from  propension, 
the  other  part  of  it.  For,  by  thus  jireserving  their  ijl- 
tegrity  lor  some  time,  their  danger  would  lessen;  since 
pro]ieiisions,  by  being  inured  to  submit,  would  do  it 
more  easily  and  of  course :  and  their  security  .against 
this  lessening  danger  would  increa.se;  since  the  moral 
princi|)le  wuuld  gain  ailditional  strength  byexerci.se: 
both  which  things  are  implied  in  the  notion  of  virtuous 
liabils.  'I'liiis,  then,  vicious  indulgence  is  not  only  cri- 
niiiial  in  il.seli,  but  also  dejiraves  the  inward  eoiislitu- 
lioii  and  cliiiiacter.  And  virtuous  self-government  is 
not  onl\  right  in  itself,  but  also  improves  the  inward 
constitution  or  character;  and  may  improve  it  to  such 
a  dcL'ree,  that  ihniigli  we  should  suppose  it  impossible 
lor  iiarlicular  alleclions  to  be  absolutely  coincident  with 
the  moral  principle,  and  consequently  should  allow, 
that  such  creatures  as  have  been  above  supposed,  would 
for  ever  remain  defectible,  yet  their  danger  of  actually 
deviating  from  right,  may  be  almost  infinitely  lessened, 
and  they  fully  fortified  against  what  remauis  of  it :  if 
that  may  be  called  danger,  against  which  there  is  an 
adeijuate  effectual  security.  Hut  still,  this  their  higher 
perfection  may  continue  to  consist  in  habits  of  virtue 
formed  in  a  state  of  discipline,  and  this  their  more  com- 
jilete  security  remain  to  proceed  from  them.  And  thus 
it  is  plainly  conceivable,  that  creatures  without  blemish, 
as  they  came  out  of  the  hands  of  (Iod,may  be  in  danger 
of  going  wrong;  and  so  may  stand  in  need  of  the  secu- 
rity of  virtuous  habits,  additional  to  the  moral  princijile 
wrought  into  their  natun^s  by  him.  That  which  is  the 
ground  of  their  danger,  or  their  want  of  security,  may 
be  considered  as  a  deficiency  in  them,  to  which  virtuous 
habits  ari^  the  natural  suiiply.  And  as  they  are  natu- 
rally callable  oflieing  raised  and  improved  by  discipline, 
it  may  be  a  tlilm:  lil  and  reiinisite,  that  they  should  be 
placed  in  circumstances  with  an  eye  to  it ;  in  circum- 
stances peculiarly  fitted  to  be,  to  them,  a  state  of  disci- 
pline for  their  imiirovement  in  virtue."(") 

It  is  easy,  therefore,  to  conceive,  without  supposing 
that  moral  liberty,  in  all  cases,  lu'ccssnrily  supposes  lia- 
bility to  ciiniinit  sill,  how  a  perfectly  pure  and  upright 
being  might  be  capable  of  disobedience,  though  con- 
tinued submission  to  God  and  to  bus  law  was  not  only 
possible  but  practicable  whhout  painf\il  and  dirticult 
effort.  To  be  in  a  state  of  trial,  the  mirral  as  well  as 
the  natural  freedom  to  choose  evil  was  essential ;  and 
as  far  as  this  fact  bears  upon  the  iiuestion  of  the  Divine 
goodness,  it  resolves  itself  into  this,  "  whether  it  was 
inconsistent  with  that  attribute  of  the  Divine  Nature,  to 
endow  man  with  this  liberty,  or,  in  other  words,  to 
place  tiiin  in  a  stale  of  trial  on  earth,  before  his  admis- 
sion into  that  stale  from  which  the  possibility  of  evil  is 
for  ever  excluded."  To  this,  uietssisted  reason  could 
frame  no  answer.  Hy  the  aid  of  revelation  we  are  as- 
sured, that  benevolence  is  so  absolutely  the  motive  and 
the  end  of  the  Divine  providence,  that  thus  to  dispose  of 
man,amlconseijiientlytoperiml  his  voluntary  fall,  is  con- 
sisient  with  it;  but  in  what //((i/j/urit  is  so,  is  involved 
ill  obscurity  :  and  the  fact  being  established,  we  may 
well  be  content  to  wait  for  the  developement  of  that  great 
process  which  shall  "justify  the  ways  of  (Jod  to  man," 
without  indulging  in  speculations,  which,  fiir  xvant  of 
all  llie  Ihrtsof  llii^  ease  before  us,  must  always  he  to  a 
great  extent  without  lonmlation,  and  may  even  seriously 
mislead.  This  we  know,  that  the  entrance  of  sin  into 
the  w-orld  has  given  occasion  for  the  temlcrest  displays 
of  the  Divine  goodness,  in  the  gill  of  the  great  licstorer  ; 
and  opened,  to  all  who  will  avail  themselves  of  the  bless- 
ing, the  gate  to  "glory,  honour,  immortality,  and  eter- 
nal life."  The  observations  of  Doddridge  on  this  sub- 
ject have  a  commendable  modesty. 

"  It  will  still  be  demanded,  why  was  moral  evil 
permitted  '  To  this  it  is  generally  answered,  that  it 
was  the  result  of  natural  liberty ;  and  it  was  fit  that 
among  all  the  other  classes  and  orders  of  beings,  some 
should  be  lormed  posses.sed  of  this,  as  it  conduces  to  the 
harniony  of  the  universe,  and  to  the  beautiful  variety  of 
beings  in  it.  Yet  still  it  is  replied.  Why  did  not  (;6d 
prevent  this  abuse  of  liberty  ?  Due  would  not  \^■illingly 
say,  that  he  is  not  able  to  do  it,  without  violating  the 
n.ature  of  his  creatures;  nor  is  it  possible  that  any 
should  prove  this.  It  is  commonU  s.aid  that  he  permit- 
ted it  in  order  to  extract  from  thence  greater  good.  Hut 
it  may  be  larlhcr  (jueried.  Could  he  not  have  produced 

(7)  Analogy. 


Chap.  VII.  1 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


157 


that  greater  good  without  such  a  means?  Coulil  he 
not  have  secured  arnoni;  all  his  creatures  universal 
grioii  and  universal  happiness,  in  full  consistency  with 
the  liberty  he  had  jiveii  them  ?  I  acknowledge  I  see 
no  way  of  answering  this  question  but  by  saying,  he 
had  indeed  a  natura!  power  of  doing  it,  but  that  he  saw 
•t  better  not  to  do  it,  though  the  reasons  upon  which  it 
appeared  preferable  to  liim  are  entirely  unknown  to 
lis."(8)   . 

The  MERCY  of  Ood  is  not  a  distinct  attribute  ol  his 
nature,  but  a  mode  of  his  jroodness.  It  is  the  disp'isi- 
tio  whereby  he  is  inclined  to  succour  those  who  arc 
in  misery,  and  to  jiardon  those  who  have  offended.  "  In 
Scripture  language,"  says  Archbishop  Tillotson,  "it  is 
usually  set  forth  to  us  by  the  expressions  of  pity  and 
eoin])assion  ;  which  is  an  affection  that  causes  a  sensi- 
ble commotion  and  disturbance  in  us,  upon  the  appre- 
hension of  some  great  evil,  either  threatening  or  op- 
pressiin;  another;  pursuant  to  wliich  God  is  said  to  be 
grieved  and  afflirled  for  the  miseries  of  men.  I5ut 
though  Ood  be  pleased  in  this  manner  to  convey  an  idea 
of  his  mercy  and  tenderness  to  us,  yet  we  must  take 
tieed  how  we  clothe  the  Divine  Nature  with  the  infirmi- 
ties of  human  passions :  we  must  not  measure  the  per 
fections  of  God  by  the  expressions  of  his  condescension  ; 
ai:d  because  he  stoops  to  our  weakness,  level  him  to 
our  infirmities.  When,  therefore,  God  is  said  to  -pitii  us, 
or  to  be  grieved  at  our  afflictions,  we  must  be  carelul  to 
remove  the  imperfection  of  the  passion,  the  commotion 
and  disturbance  that  it  occasions,  and  then  we  may 
conceive  as  strongly  of  the  Divine  mercy  and  compas- 
sion as  we  please ;  and  that  it  exerts  itself  in  a  very 
tender  and  affectionate  manner. 

"  And  therefore  the  Holy  Scriptures  not  only  tell  us, 
th&t  '  the  Lord  our  God  is  a  merciful  God,'  but  that  he  is 
the  Father  of  mercies,  and  the  God  of  all  comfort ;'  that 
he 'delights  in  mercy, — waits  to  be  gracious,^rejoices 
over  us  to  do  good, — and  crowneth  us  with  his  loving- 
kindness:'  to  denote  tVie  greatness  and  continuance  of 
this  affection,  they  not  only  tell  us,  that  '  his  mercy  is 
above  the  heavens  ;'  that  it  extends  itself  '  over  all  his 
works, — is  laid  up  in  store  for  a  thousand  generations, 
r.nd  is  to  endure  for  ever  and  ever :'  to  express  the  in- 
ter.seness  ofit,  they  not  only  tell  us  of  the  'multitude  of 
his  tender  mercies;  the  sounilingof  his  bowels,'  the  relent- 
ings  of  his  heart,  and  '  the  kindlings  of  his  repentance ;' 
bu.t  to  give  us  as  sensible  an  idea  as  possible  of  the  com- 
passions of  God,  they  compare  them  to  the  tenderest  af- 
fections among  men ;  to  that  of  a  father  towards  his 
children,  'as  a  father  pitieth  his  children,  so  the  Lord 
pitieth  them  that  fear  him;'  nay,  to  the  compassion  of 
a  mother  towards  her  infant :  '  can  a  woman  forget  her 
sucking  child,  that  she  should  not  have  compassion  on 
the  son  of  her  womb  ?  yea,  she  may  forget,'  it  is  possi- 
ble, though  very  unlikely  ;  but  though  a  mother  may 
become  unnatural,  yet  God  cannot  prove  unmerciful. 

"  In  short,  the  Scrii)tures  every  where  magnify  the 
mercy  of  God,  and  speak  ofit  with  all  possible  advan- 
tage, as  if  the  Divine  Nature,  which  does  in  all  per- 
fections excel  every  other  thing,  did  in  this  perfection 
excel  itself:  and  of  this  we  have  a  farther  conviction, 
if  we  lift  but  up  our  eyes  to  God,  and  then  turning 
them  upon  ourselves,  begin  to  consider  how  many 
evils  and  miseries,  that  every  day  we  are  exposed  to, 
by  his  preventing  mercy  are  hindered,  or  when  they 
were  coming  upon  us,  stojiped  or  turned  another  way  ; 
how  oil  our  punishment  has  he  deferred  by  his  for- 
bearing mercy,  or,  when  it  was  necessary  for  our  chas- 
tisement, mitigated  and  made  light :  how  ofl  we  have 
been  supported  in  our  afflictions  by  Ins  comforting 
mercy,  and  visited  with  the  light  of  his  countenance^ 
in  the  exigencies  of  our  soul  and  the  gloominess  of  des- 
pair: how  oft  we  have  been  supplied  by  his  relieving 
mercy  in  our  wants,  atid  when  there  was  no  hand  to 
succour,  and  no  soul  to  pity  us,  his  arm  has  been 
stretched  out  to  lift  us  from  the  mire  and  clay,  and  by 
a  providential  train  of  events,  brought  about  our  sus- 
tenance and  support :  and  above  all,  how  daily,  how 
hourly,  how  minutely  we  offend  against  him,  and  yet, 
by  the  power  of  his  pardoning  mercy,  we  arc  .still  alive : 
for,  considering  the  multitude  and  heinousness  of  our 
provocations, '  it  is  of  his  mercy  alone  that  we  are  not 
consumed,  and  because  his  compa.ssions  fail  not. 
Whoso  is  wise  will  ponder  these  things,  and  he  will 
understand  the  loving-kindness  of  the  Lord.'  \'i) 


(8J  DoDoKiBOE's  Lectures 


('!)  Sermona. 


CIUPTER  VII. 

Attributes  of  God.— Holiness. 

In  creatures,  Holiness  is  conformity  to  the  will  cf 
God,  as  expressed  in  his  laws,  and  consists  in  absti- 
nence from  every  thing  wliicli  has  been  coinprehenderl 
under  the  general  term  of  *■(«,,  and  lu  llie  habit  and 
practice  of  righteousness.  Ilolh  these  terms  are  pro- 
perly understood  to  include  various  principles,  affec- 
tions, and  acts,  wliich,  considered  separately,  are  re- 
garded as  vices  or  virtues;  and  collectively,  as  consti- 
tuting a  holy  or  a  polluted  character.  Our  conception 
of  lioliness  in  creatures,  both  in  its  negative  and  its  posi- 
tive import,  is  therefore  explicit ;  it  is  determined  by  tho 
will  of  God.  But  when  we  speak  of  God,  we  speak  of  a 
being  who  is  a  law  to  liimself,  and  whose  conduct  cannot 
be  referred  to  a  higher  authority  than  his  own.  This  cir- 
cumstance has  given  rise  to  various  opinions  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  holiness  of  the  Divine  Being,  and  to  different 
modesof  stating  this  glorious  attribute  of  his  moral  nature. 
But  without  conducting  the  reader  into  the  prolitles.s 
question,  whether  there  is  a  fixed  and  unalterable  na- 
ture and  fitness  of  things,  independent  of  the  Divino 
will  on  the  one  hand ;  or,  on  the  other,  whether  good 
and  evil  have  their  foundation,  not  in  the  nature  of 
things,  but  only  in  the  Divine  wdl,  which  makes  theni 
such,  there  is  a  method,  less  direct  it  may  be,  but  more 
satisfactory,  of  assisting  our  thoughts  on  this  subject. 

It  is  certain  that  various  affections  and  actions  have 
been  enjoined  upon  all  rational  creatures  under  the  ge- 
neral name  of  righteousness,  and  that  their  contraries 
have  been  prohibited.  It  is  a  matter  also  of  constant 
experience  and  observation,  that  the  good  of  society  is 
promoted  only  by  the  one  and  injured  by  the  other ;  and 
also  that  every  individual  derives,  by  the  very  constitti- 
tion  of  his  nature,  benefit  and  happiness  from  rectitude ; 
injury  and  misery  from  vice.  This  constitution  of  hu- 
man nature  is  therefore  an  indication,  that  the  Maker 
and  Ruler  of  men  formed  them  with  the  intent  that 
they  sliould  avoid  vice,  and  practise  virtue ;  and  that 
the  former  is  the  object  of  his  aversion,  the  latter  of  his 
regard.  On  this  principle  all  the  laws  which,  in  his 
legislative  character,  Almighty  God  has  enacted  for  the 
government  of  mankind  have  been  constructed.  "  The 
law  is  holy,  and  the  commandment  holy,  just,  and 
good."  In  the  administration  of  the  world,  where  God 
is  so  often  seen  in  his  judicial  capacity,  the  punish- 
ments which  are  indicted,  indirectly  or  hnniediately, 
upon  men  clearly  tend  to  discourage  and  prevent  the 
practice  of  evil.  "  Above  all,  the  Gospel,  that  last  and 
most  perfect  revelation  of  the  Divine  will,  mstead  of 
giving  the  professors  of  it  any  allowance  to  sin,  be- 
cause grace  has  abounded  (wliich  is  an  injurious  im- 
putation cast  upon  it  by  ignorant  and  impious  minds), 
its  chief  design  is  to  establish  that  great  principle,  God's 
moral  purity,  and  to  manifest  his  abhorrence  of  sin, 
and  inviolable  regard  to  purity  and  virtue  in  his  reason- 
able creatures.  It  was  for  this  he  sent  his  Son  into 
the  world  to  turn  men  from  their  iniquities,  and  bring 
them  back  to  the  paths  of  righteou.sness.  For  this,  the 
blessed  Jesus  submitted  to  tlie  deepest  humiliations 
and  most  grievous  sufferings.  He  gave  iiimself  (as 
St.  Paul  speaks)  for  his  church,  that  he  might  sanctify 
and  cleanse  it,  that  he  might  present  it  to  himself  a 
glorious  church,  not  having  spot  or  v/rinkle,  but  that 
it  should  be  holy  and  without  blemish  ;  or,  as  it  is 
elsewhere  expressed,  he  gave  himself  for  us,  to  re- 
deem us  from  our  inicjuities,  and  to  purify  unto  himself 
a  peculiar  people,  zealous  of  good  works.  In  all  this 
he  is  said  to  have  done  the  will  of  his  P'alher,  and  glo- 
rified him,  that  is,  restored  and  promoted  in  the  world 
the  cause  of  virtue  and  righteousness,  which  is  the 
glory  of  God.  And  his  life  was  the  visible  image  of  the 
Divine  sanctity,  proposed  as  a  familiar  example  to 
mankind,  for  he  was  holy,  harmless,  undefiled,  and 
separate  from  sinners.  He  did  no  siiu  neither  was 
guile  found  in  his  mouth.  And  as  Christianity  appears, 
by  the  character  of  its  author,  and  by  his  actions  and 
sufferings,  to  be  a  designed  evidence  of  the  holiness  of 
God,  or  of  his  aversion  to  sin,  and  his  gracious  desire 
to  tuni  men  from  it,  so  the  institution  it.self  is  perfectly 
pure,  it  contains  the  clearest  and  most  lively  descrip- 
tions of  moral  virtue,  and  the  strongest  motives  to  the 
practice  of  it.  It  promises,  as  tVorii  (lod,  the  kindest 
assistance  to  men,  for  makini.' lln-  •.'ospcl  eflectual  to 
renew  them  in  the  spirit  of  llnir  minds,  and  to  reform 
tiieir  lives,  by  his  Spiritsciit  down  Irom  heaven,  oa 


158 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


purpose  to  convince  the  world  of  sin,  and  riglueous- 
ness,  anil  ju(lf;m€nt.  To  cnii^titun  them  who  were  in 
darkness,  and  turn  the  disoliedient  to  the  wisdom  oC 
the  just,  to  strenj;tlien  its  converts  to  true  religion,  unto 
all  obedience,  and  long-sulTuring,  and  patience,  to  en- 
able them  to  resist  temptation,  to  abound  in  the  fruits 
of  ri'^hleousucss,  and  perfect  holiness  in  the  fear  of 
God."(l) 

Since,  then,  it  is  so  manifest,  that  "  the  Lord  lovcth 
righteousness  and  haltth  iniquity,"  it  must  be  neces- 
sarily concluded,  that  this  jirefereMce  of  the  one,  aiul 
hatred  of  the  other,  flow  from  some  principle  in  his  very 
nature.  "  That  he  is  the  rn^klt'tus  Lord. — Of  i)urer 
eyes  than  to  behold  evil, — one  who  cannot  look  upon 
iniquity."  Tliis  princijile  is  Iwlnicss,  an  attribute 
which,  in  the  most  emphatic  manner,  is  assumed  by 
himself,  and  attributed  to  liim,  both  by  adoring  iingels 
in  their  choirs  and  by  inspired  saints  in  their  worsliip. 
He  is,  by  his  own  designation,  "  t/ie  FIoly  Onk  r/  Is- 
rael;" the  seraphs,  in  the  vision  of  the  prophet,  cry 
continually  "  IIoi.v,  Holy,  Holy,  is  the  Lord  God  of 
Hosts,  the  whole  earth  is  full  ofhts  glory,"  thus  sum- 
ming up  all  his  glories  in  this  sole  moral  perfection. 
The  language  of  the  sanctuary  on  earth  is  borrowed 
from  that  of  heaven— "  Who  shall  not  fear  thee,  ()  Lord, 
and  glorify  thy  /iame,/or  thou  only  art  lloi.v." 

If,  then,  there  is  this  principle  in  the  Divine  mind, 
which  leads  him  to  prescribe  love,  and  reward  truth, 
justice,  benevolence,  and  every  other  virtuous  affi-clion 
and  habit  in  his  creatures  which  we  sum  up  in  the 
term  holiness;  and  to  forbid,  restrain,  and  punish 
their  opposites ;  that  principle  being  essential  in  him. 
a  part  of  his  very  nature  and  Godhead,  must  be  the 
spring  and  guide  of  his  own  conduct ;  and  thus  we 
conceive,  without  difficulty,  of  the  essential  rectitude 
tir  holiness  of  the  Divine  Nature,  and  the  absolutely 
pure  and  righteous  character  of  his  admini.stration  : 
"  In  him  there  can  be  no  malice,  or  envy,  or  hatred,  or 
revenge,  or  pride,  or  cruelty,  or  tyranny,  or  injustice, 
or  falsehood,  or  uiifiilhfulness;  and  if  there  be  any 
tiling  besides  which  implies  sin,  and  vice,  and  moral 
imperfection,  holiness  signifies  that  the  Divine  Na- 
ture is  at  an  infinite  distance  from  it."(9)  Nor  are  we 
only  to  conceive  of  this  quality  negatively,  but  posi- 
tively also,  as  "  the  actual  perpetual  rectitude  of  all 
his  volitions,  and  all  the  works  and  actions  which  are 
consecjuent  thereupon ;  and  an  eternal  propension 
thereto,  and  love  thereof,  by  which  it  is  altogether  im- 
possible to  that  vnll  that  it  should  ever  vary ."(3) 

This  attribute  of  holiness  exhibits  itself  in  two  great 
branches,  justice  and  truth,  which  are  sometimes  also 
treated  of  as  separate  attributes. 

Justice,  in  its  princ'iple,  is  holiness,  and  is  often  ex- 
pressed by  the  term  righteousness  ;  but  when  it  relates 
to  matters  of  government,  the  universal  rectitude  of 
the  Divine  Nature  shows  itself  in  inflexible  regard  to 
what  is  right,  and  in  an  opposition  to  wrnn'g,  which 
cannot  be  warped  or  aliened  in  any  degree  whatever. 
"  Just  and  right  is  he."  .Justice  in  God,  when  it  is  not 
regarded  as  universal,  but  particular,  is  either  legis- 
lative or  judicial. 

Legislative  justice  determines  man's  duty,  and  binds 
him  to  the  performance  of  it,  and  also  defines  the  re- 
wards and  punishments,  which  .shall  be  due  upon  the 
creature's  obcilience  or  disobedience.  Tlus  branch  of 
Divine  justice  has  many  illustrations  in  Scripture. 
'I'he  prinr.iple  of  it  is,  that  absolute  right  which  (iod 
lias  to  the  entire  and  perjietual  obedience  of  the  crea- 
tures which  hi:  has  made.  This  right  is  iiiiiiuestioiiable. 
and  in  pursuance  of  it  all  moral  agents  arc  placed  under 
lan>,  and  are  subject  to  rewards  or  pumshiiiriits.  None 
are  excepted.  Tho.se  who  have  imt  (loil's  revealed  law, 
have  a  law  "  written  on  their  liiarls,'  and  are  "  a 
law  unto  themselves."  The  original  law  of  obedience 
given  to  man  was  a  law,  not  to  the  first  man.  Inn  to 
the  whole  human  race  ;  for  if,  as  llie  Apostle  has  laid  it 
down,  "  the  lehole  world,"  comprising  lioth  .lews  and 
Gentiles,  is  "  guilty  before  (ioil,"  llicn  the  whole  world 
is  under  a  law  of  obedience.  In  tins  respect  God  is 
just  in  asserting  his  own  right  to  be  obc_\  ed,  and  in 
claiming  from  the  creature  he  has  made  ami  preserved 
the  obedience  which  in  strict  rightcnusness  he  owes: 
but  this  claim  is  strictly  hmited,  and  never  goes  be- 
yond justice  into  rigour.    "  He  is  not  a  hard  master, 


(I)  Abkhnetuy's  Struions. 

(3)  UOWK. 


(2)  TH-LOISON. 


reaping  where  he  ha-s  not  sown,  and  gathering  where 
he  has  not  slrowed."  His  law  Ls,  however,  unchange- 
ablt)  in  its  demand  upon  man  for  umvcrsal  obedience, 
because  man  is  considered  in  it  as  a  creature  capable 
of  yielding  that  obedience;  but  when  the  human  race 
became  corrupt,  means  of  pardon,  unsistent  with  right- 
eous government,  were  introduced,  by  the  atoimnent 
for  sin  made  by  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ,  received  by 
faith ;  and  su[icrnutural  aid  w-as  put  within  their  reach 
by  which  the  evil  of  their  nature  might  be  removed' 
and  the  disposition  and  the  iiower  to  obey  the  law  of 
God  imiiarted.  The  case  of  heathen  nations  to  whom 
tho  gospel  is  not  yet  preached  may  hereafter  be  con- 
sidered. It  involves  some  dillicullies,  but  it  is  enough 
for  us  to  know,  that  "  the  Judge  of  the  whole  earth 
will  do  right ;"  and  that  this  shall  bo  made  apparent  to 
all  creatures,  when  the  facts  of  the  whole  case  shall 
bo  disclosed,  "  in  the  day  of  the  revelation  of  Jesus 
Christ." 

Judicial  justice,  more  generally  termed  di.itrib%dive 
justice,  is  that  wliich  respects  rewards  and  punish- 
ments. (Jod  renders  to  men  according  to  their  works. 
Tills  branch  of  justice  is  said  to  be  rermiiurative,  or 
prasmialive,  when  he  rewards  the  obedient ;  and  vin- 
dictive, when  he  pmiishes  the  guilty.  With  respect  to 
the  first,  it  is  indeed  reward,  properly  speaking,  not  of 
dclit,  but  of  grace ;  for  antecedently,  God  cannot  be  a 
debtor  to  his  creatures  ;  but  since  he  binds  hiiruself  by 
engagements  in  his  law, "  this  do  and  thou  shalt  live," 
exjjress  or  tacit,  or  attaches  a  particular  promise  of  re- 
ward to  some  particular  duty,  it  becomes  a  jiart  oi jus- 
tice to  jierlbrmthe  engagement.  On  this  principle  also, 
.St.  I'aul  says,  Heb.  vi.  10,  "  God  is  not  unrighteous  to 
forget  your  work  and  labour  of  love. — And  if  we  con- 
fess our  sins,  he  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us  our 
sins."  "  Even  this  has  justice  in  it.  It  is,  upon  one 
account,  the  highest  act  of  mercy  imaginable,  consider- 
ing with  what  liberty  and  freedom  the  course  and  me- 
thod were  settled,  wherein  sins  come  to  he  pardoned : 
but  it  is  an  act  of  justice  also,  inasmuch  as  it  is  the  ob- 
servation of  a  metliod  to  which  he  had  bound  himself, 
and  from  which  afterward,  therefore,  he  caimot  de- 
part, cannot  vary. "(4) 

Vindictive  or  punitive  justice  consists  in  the  inflic- 
tion of  punishment.  It  renders  the  punislmient  of  un- 
pardoned sins  cfrtam,  so  that  no  criminal  shall  escape; 
and  it  guarantees  the  e.xact  proportion  of  punishment 
to  the  nature  and  circumstances  of  the  offence.  Both 
these  circumstances  are  marked  in  numerous  passages 
of  Scripture,  the  testimony  of  which  on  this  subject 
may  be  summed  up  in  the  words  of  Elihu ;  "  for  the 
work  of  a  man  shall  he  remier  unto  him,  and  cause 
every  man  to  find  according  to  his  ways,  yea,  surely 
God  will  not  do  wickedly,  neither  will  the  Almighty 
pervert  judgment." 

What  is  called  commutative  justice  relates  to  the 
exchange  of  one  thing  for  another  of  equal  value,  and 
is  called  forth  by  contracts,  bargains,  and  similar  trans- 
actions among  men  ;  but  this  branch  of  justice  belongs 
not  to  God,  because  of  his  dignity.  "  He  hath  no  equal, 
there  are  none  of  the  same  order  with  liini  to  make 
exchanges  with  him,  or  to  transfer  rights  to  him  for 
any  riglits  transferred  from  him."  "  Our  righteous- 
ness cxtendeth  not  to  him,  nor  can  man  be  profitable 
to  his  Maker."  The  whole  world  of  creatures  is  chal- 
lenged and  humbled  by  the  question,  "  Who  hath 
given  him  any  thing,  and  it  shall  be  recomiiensed  to 
liiin  again  !" 

Strict  impartiality  is,  however,  a  prominent  charac- 
ter in  the  jiistii  (■  of  God.  "  There  is  no  n  spc  rt  of  |>er- 
soiis  withtldd."  As,  on  the  one  hand,  he  hauili  imthing 
which  he  has  made,  and  cannot  be  iiillmined  by  pre- 
judices and  prepossessions;  so,  on  the  other,  he  can 
fear  no  one,  however  iiowerful.  No  being  is  necessary 
to  him,  even  as  an  agent  to  fulfil  his  plans,  that  ho 
.should  overlook  liis  ofT'enccs;  no  combination  of  beings 
can  resist  the  steady  and  eijual  march  of  his  adminis- 
tration. The  majesty  of  his  Godhead  sets  him  infinitely 
above  all  such  considerations.  "  The  Lord  our  God 
is  the  God  of  (Jods,  and  Lord  of  Lords,  a  great  God,  a 
mighty  and  terrible,  which  rcgardeth  not  persons,  nei- 
ther takelh  rewards.— lie  arcrptcth  not  the  person  of 
jirinces,  nor  reganUth  the  rich  more  than  the  poor,  for 
they  are  all  the  work  of  his  hands." 

There  are,  however,  many  circtimstances  in  the  ad- 


(4)  Ilowit's  I'ost  Works. 


Chap.  VII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES, 


150 


ministration  of  the  affairs  of  the  world,  which  appear 
irreconcilable  to  that  strict  and  exact  exercise  of  jus- 
lice  wc  have  ascribed  to  God,  as  the  su])reme  Ruler 
These  liavc  soniotJnios  been  lu-ged  as  objections,  and 
the  writers  of  systems  of  "  natural  rcUgimC  have 
often  found  it  dilhcult  to  answer  them.  That  has 
arisen  from  their  excluding  from  such  systems,  as 
innch  as  possible,  the  lii,'lit  of  revelation  ;  and  on  that 
account,  nnich  more  than  from  the  real  difficulties  of 
the  cases  adduced,  it  is,  that  their  reasonings  are  ollen 
unsatislactory.  Yet  if  man  is,  in  point  of  lact,  under 
a  dis]KMisatiou  of  grace  and  mercy,  and  that  is  now  in 
perfect  accordance  with  the  strictest  justice  ot  God's 
moral  government,  neither  his  circumstances,  nor  the 
conduct  of  God  towards  him,  can  ever  be  judged  of, 
by  systems  which  are  constructed  expressly  on  the 
principle  of  excluding  all  such  views  as  are  peculiar  to 
the  Scriptures.  In  attempting  it,  the  cause  of  truth 
has  been  injured  rather  than  served  ;  because  a  feeble 
argument  has  been  often  wielded,  when  a  powerful  one 
was  at  hand;  and  the  answer  to  infidel  objectors  has 
been  partial,  lest  it  should  be  said,  that  the  full  and  suffi- 
cient reply  was  furnished,  not  by  human  reason,  but  by 
the  reason,  the  jt7»(ym  of  God  himself,  as  imbodied  in  his 
word.  This  is,  however,littlebetter  than  asolemn man- 
ner of  trilling  with  truths  which  so  deeply  concern  men. 

Hut  let  the  two  facts  wliich  respect  the  relations  of 
man  to  God  as  the  Governor  of  the  world,  and  which 
stamp  their  character  upon  his  administration,  be  both 
taken  into  account ; — ttiat  God  is  a  just  ruler,— and 
yet,  that  offending  man  is  under  a  lUspensation  of 
mercy,  which  provides,  through  the  sacrifice  of  (,'hrist 
meritoriously,  and  his  own  repentance  and  faith  in- 
strunientally,  for  his  forgiveness,  and  for  llie  healing 
of  his  corru|)ted  nature;  and  a  strong  and,  generally, 
a  most  satisfactory  light  is  throwni  upon  those  cases 
which  have  been  supposed  most  irreconcilable  to  an 
exact  and  righteous  government. 

'I'he  doctrine  ot  n  future  mid  general  judgment, 
which  alone  explains  so  many  difficulties  in  the  Divine 
administration,  is  grounded  solely  on  the  doctrine  of 
redemption.  Under  an  administration  of  strict  jus- 
tice, punishment  must  have  followed  offence  without 
delay.  This  is  indicated  in  the  sanction  of  the  first 
law,  "  in  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  sh.alt  surely 
the,"  a  threat  which,  we  may  learn  from  Scripture, 
would  have  been  executed  fully,  but  for  the  immediate 
introduction  of  the  redeeming  scheme.  If  we  suppose 
the  first  pair  to  have  preserved  their  innocence,  and  any 
of  their  descendants  at  any  period  to  have  become  dis- 
obedient, they  must  have  borne  their  own  iniquity; 
and  punishment,  to  death,  and  excision,  mu.st  instantly 
have  followed ;  for,  in  the  case  of  a  Divine  govern- 
ment, where  the  parties  are  God  and  a  creature,  every 
sin  must  be  considered  capital,  since  the  penalty  of 
death  is,  in  every  case,  the  sentence  of  the  Divine  law 
against  transgression.  Under  such  an  administration, 
no  reason  would  seem  to  exist  for  a  general  judgment 
at  the  close  of  the  world's  duration.  That  has  its 
reason  in  the  circumstances  of  trial  in  which  men  are 
placed  by  the  introduction  of  a  method  of  recovery. 
Justice,  in  connexion  with  a  sufficient  atonement,  ad- 
mits of  the  suspension  of  punishment  lor  offence,  of 
long-suffering,  of  the  application  of  means  of  repent- 
ance and  conversion ;  and  that  throughout  the  whole 
term  of  natural  life.  The  ju<lgment,  the  examination, 
and  public  exhibition  of  the  use  or  abuse  of  this  pa- 
tiencej  and  of  thc^c  means,  is  deferred  to  one  particu- 
lar day,  in  which  he  who  now  offers  grace  shall  admi- 
nister justice,  strict  and  unsparing.  This  world  is 
not  the  appointed  phire  of  final  judgment,  under  the 
new  dispensation  ;  the  space  of  human  life  on  earth 
is  not  the  time  appointed  for  it ;  and  however  difficult 
it  may  be,  without  taking  these  things  into  considera- 
tion, to  trace  the  manifestations  of  justice  in  God's 
moral  government,  or  to  reconcile  certain  circum- 
stances to  the  character  of  a  righteous  governor,  by 
their  aid  the  difficulty  is  removed.  Justice,  as  the 
principle  of  his  administration,  has  a  sufficiently  awful 
manifestation  in  the  miseries  wliich  in  this  life  are 
attached  to  vice ;  in  the  sorrows  and  sufferings  to 
which  a  corrupted  race  is  subjected  ;  and,  above  all,  m 
the  satisfaction  exacted  from  the  Son  of  God  himself, 
as  the  price  of  human  pardon  :  but  since  the  final  pun- 
ishment of  persevering  ami  obstinate  ofl'enders  is,  Inj 
GruVx  man  prDclamalmn,  ]instponed  lo  "a  day  ap- 
pointed, in  wiuch  he  will  judge  the  world  in  nyliteous- 


nes8,  by  that  man  whom  he  hath  ordained,"  and  since 
also  tile  fln.al  rewards  of  the  reconciled  and  recovered 
part  of  mankind  are  equally  delayed,  it  is  folly  to  look 
for  a  perfect  exercise  of  justice  in  tlie  present  state, 
Wc  may  learn,  therefore,  from  this, 

1.  That  it  is  no  impeachment  of  a  righteotis  govern- 
ment, that  external  prosperity  should  be  the  lot  of  great 
ofTi^nders.  It  may  be  jiart  of  a  gracious  administratiort 
to  bring  them  to  repentance  by  favour,  or  it  may  be 
desigrred  to  make  their  fall  and  fiiial  punishment  more 
marked ;  or  it  may  be  intended  to  teach  tiie  important 
lesson  of  the  sliglit  value  of  outward  advantages,  se- 
parate from  holy  habits  and  a  thankful  mind. 

2.  That  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  rectitude,  that 
even  those  who  are  forgiven  and  reconciled,  those  who 
are  become  dear  to  God,  should  be  afflicted  and  op- 
pressed, since  their  defects  and  omissions  may  require 
chastisement,  and  since  also  these  are  made  the  meauH 
of  their  excelling  in  virtue,  of  aiding  their  heavenly- 
mindedness,  and  of  qualifying  them  for  a  better  state. 

3.  That  as  the  administration  under  which  man  is 
placed  is  one  of  griwe  in  harmony  with  justice,  the 
dispensation  of  what  is  matter  of  pure  favour  may 
have  great  variety  and  be  even  very  unequal  without 
any  impeachment  of  justice.  The  parable  of  the  la- 
bourers in  the  vineyanl  seems  designed  to  illustrate 
this.  To  all,  God  will  be  able,  at  the  reckoning  at  the 
close  of  the  day,  to  say,  "  I  do  thee  no  wrong ;"  no 
principle  of  justice  will  be  violated ;  it  will  then  ap- 
pear, that  "  he  reaps  not  where  he  has  not  sown."  Hut 
the  other  principle  will  have  been  as  strildngly  made 
manifest,  "  Is  it  not  lawful  for  nie  to  do  what  I  will 
with  my  own  ?" 

With  nations  the  case  is  otherwise.  Their  rewards 
and  pimishments,  being  of  a  civil  nature,  may  be  fully 
administered  in  this  life,  and,  as  bodies  politic,  they 
have  no  posthumous  existence.  Reward  and  retribu- 
tion, in  their  case,  have  been  therefore  in  all  ages  vi- 
sible mid  strik-tng ;  and,  in  the  conduct  of  the  Great 
Ruler  to  them,  ''  his  judgments"  are  said  to  be  "  abroad 
in  the  ear{h."  In  succession,  every  vicious  nation  has 
perished ;  and  always  by  means  so  marked,  and  often 
so  singular,  as  to  bear  upon  them  a  broad  and  legible 
punitive  character.  With  collective  bodies  of  men, 
indeed,  the  government  of  God  in  tliis  world  is  greatly 
concerned ;  and  that  both  in  their  civil  and  religious 
character ;  with  churches,  so  to  speak,  as  well  as  with 
states ;  and,  in  consequence,  the  cases  of  individuals, 
as  all  cannot  be  of  equal  guilt  or  innocence,  must  often 
be  mixed  and  confounded.  These  apparent,  and  some- 
times, perhaps,  from  the  operation  of  a  general  sys- 
tem, real  irregularities,  can  be  compensated  to  the 
good,  or  overtaken  as  to  the  wicked,  in  their  personal 
character  in  another  state,  to  which  we  are  constantly 
directed  to  look  forwards,  as  to  the  great  and  ample 
comment  upon  all  that  is  obscure  in  this. 

For  the  discoveries  of  the  word  of  God  as  to  this  at- 
tribute of  the  Divine  nature,  we  owe  the  most  grateful 
acknowledgments  to  its  Author.  Without  this  revela- 
tion, indeed,  the  conceptions  which  heathens  form  of 
the  justice  with  wliich  the  world  is  administered,  are 
exceedingly  imperfect  and  unsettled.  The  course  of 
the  world  is  to  them  a  fiow  without  a  direction,  move- 
ment without  control ;  and  gloom  and  impatience  must 
often  bo  the  result  :(4)  taught  as  we  are,  we  see  no- 
thing loose  or  disjointed  in  the  system.  A  firm  hand 
grasps  and  controls  and  directs  the  whole.  This  go- 
verning power  is  also  manifested  to  us  as  our  friend, 
our  father,  and  our  God,  delighting  in  mercy,  and  re- 
sorting only  to  severity  when  we  ourselves  oblige  the 
reluctant  measure.  On  these  firm  principles  of  jus- 
tice and  mercy,  truth  and  goodness,  every  thing  in  pri- 
vate as  well  as  public  is  conducted ;  and  from  these 
stable  foundations,  no  change,  no  convulsion,  can 


(4)  The  accomplished  Qainctilian  may  be  given  as 
an  instance  of  this,  and  also  of  what  the  Apostle  calls 
their  sorrowing  "  without  hope."  In  pathetically  la- 
menting tlie  death  of  his  wife  and  sons,  he  tells  us, 
that  he  had  lost  all  taste  for  study,  and  that  every  good 
parent  would  condemn  him,  if  he  employed  his  tongue 
for  any  other  purpose  than  to  ac.usc  the  gods,  and  tes- 
tify against  a  Providence.  ••tluispMim  bonus  parens 
milii  iijnoscat,  ac  non  oderit  lianc  auimi  mei  firmii.a- 
tem,  si  quis  in  me  est  alius  usus  vocis,  quam  ut  incu- 
.scm  deos,  su|ierstes  omniimi  meorum,  nullam  terras 
despicere  provideniiam  tester  V—lnslU.  Ltb.  0 


160 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  IL 


shake  off  the  vast  frame  of  human  interests  and  con- 
cerns. 

Allied  to  justice,  as  justice  is  allied  to  holiness,  is 
the  Truth  of  God,  which  nianifestation  of  the  moral 
character  of  Ctod  has  also  an  eminent  jilace  in  the  in- 
sjnred  volume.  His  paths  are  said  to  be  "mercy  and 
truth,'" — his  wnrrdi,  ways,  and  juds;men,ts,  to  lie  trti.e 
and  righteouft.  "  Ilis  mercy  is  great  to  the  heavens 
and  his  truth  to  the  clouds,  lie  keeiietli  trutli  for 
ever.  The  strength  of  Israel  will  not  //(.  It  is  iiii- 
pos-sible  that  <;od  should  Uc.  He  is  \\\e.  faithful  (ioil 
whii-h  keepeth  covenant  and  mercy  :  he  abuWxh  J'uilh- 
fui."  From  these  and  other  i)assages,  it  is  plain  that 
truth  is  contemplated  by  the  sacred  writers  in  its  two 
great  branches,  vi-Tcicitij  and  futtkfuhuss,  both  of 
vvliioli  they  ascribe  to  (iod,  with  an  emjiliasis  and  vi- 
gour of  phrase  which  show  at  once  their  belief  of  the 
facts,  their  trust  and  confidence  in  them,  and  the  im- 
I)ortant  place  which  they  considered  the  existence  of 
such  a  beins  to  holil  in  a  system  of  revealed  religion. 
It  forms,  indeed,  the  basis  of  all  religion,  to  know  the 
true  (;od,  and  to  know  that  that  Ciod  is  true.  In  the 
liibic  this  must  of  necessity  be  fully  and  satisfactorily 
(leclar<cl,  because  of  the  other  discoveries  which  it 
makes  of  the  Divine  Nature.  If  it  reveals  to  us,  as 
tile  only  living  and  true  God,  a  being  of  knowledge  in- 
finitely perfect,  then  he  himself  cannot  be  deceived; 
and  his  knowledge  is  true,  because  conformable  to  the 
e.xact  and  perfect  reality  of  things.  If  he  is  hohj, 
without  spot  or  defect,  then  his  icorrf  must  be  conform- 
able to  his  knowledge,  will,  and  intention  :  on  this  ac- 
count he  cannot  deceive  others.  In  all  his  dealings 
with  us,  he  uses  a  perfect  sincerity,  and  represents 
things  as  they  are,  whether  laws  to  be  obeyed,  or  doc- 
trines to  be  believed.  All  is  perfect  and  absolute  vera- 
city in  his  communications.  "  God  is  light,  andin  him 
is  no  darkness  at  ail." 

His  faithfulness  relates  to  his  engagements,  and 
is  confinned  to  us  with  the  same  certainly  as  his  vera- 
city. If  he  enters  into  eng.igements,  promi-ses,  and  co- 
venants, he  acts  with  perfect  freedom.  These  are  acts 
of  grace  to  which  be  is  under  no  compulsion,  and  they 
can  never,  therefore,  be  reluctant  engagements  which 
lie  w  ould  wish  to  violate ;  because  they  tlow  from  a 
ceaseless  and  changeless  inclination  to  bestow  benefits 
and  a  delight  in  the  exercise  of  goodness.  They  can 
never  be  made  in  haste  or  unadvisedly,  for  the  whole 
case  of  his  creatures  to  the  end  of  time  is  Itelbre  him, 
and  no  circum.stanccs  can  arise  which  to  him  are  new 
or  unforeseen.  He  cannot  want  the  jiower  to  fulfil  his 
promises,  because  he  is  omnipotent ;  he  cannot  promise 
l)eyoiid  his  ability  to  make  good,  because  his  fulness  is 
infinite;  finally,  "he  cannot  deny  himself,"  becau.se 
"he  is  not  a  man  that  he  should  lie,  nor  the  son  of  man 
that  he  should  rejient ;"  and  thus  every  promise  xvhich 
lie  has  made  is  guaranteed,  as  well  by  his  natural  at- 
tributes of  wisdom,  power,  and  sullieiency,  as  by  bis 
perfect  moral  rectitude.  In  this  manner  the  true  God 
stands  contrasted  with  the  "lijing  vanities"  of  the 
heathen  denies  ;  ami  in  this  his  character  of  truth  the 
everlasting  IniiiidaiKiiis  of  his  religion  are  laid.  That 
changes  nut,  Ixcimsc  the  doctrines  taught  in  it  are  in 
themselves  true  without  error,  and  can  never  be  dis- 
placed by  new  and  better  discoveries ;  it  fails  not,  be- 
cause every  gracious  promise  must  by  him  be  accom- 
|]|islicd:  and  thus  the  religion  of  the  liible  continues 
friim  age  to  age.  and  Irom  day  to  day,  as  much  a  mailer 
of  personal  experience  as  it  ever  was.  In  its  doc- 
trines, it  can  never  become  an  antiquated  theory,  liir 
truth  is  eternal.  In  its  practical  application  it  can 
never  become /w(i^«  to  man,  (or  it  eiiliirs  now,  and 
must  ever  enter  iiilo  his  concerns,  his  duties,  hopes, 
and  comforts,  to  llie  end  of  linie.  We  know  what  is 
true  as  an  object  of  belief  because  the  (Jod  of  trulh 
lias  declared  it;  and  xve  know  what  is /(■«//;/«/,  and, 
then;fore,  the  object  of  unlimited  trust,  because  "  he  is 
faitlilnl  that  hath  promisi^d."  Whether,  therefore,  in 
the  language  of  the  old  divines,  we  consider  (iod's 
■word  as  " declarali/ry  or  iironiissnrii,'^ declaring  "how 
things  are  or  how  they  shall  be,"  or  pronii-siug  to  us 
certain  benefits,  its  alisoliile  iriiili  is  confirmed  ions  by 
the  Iriltll  of  llie  Divine  Nature  itself;  it  claiins  llie  uii"- 
divided  assent  of  our  judgment,  and  the  nnsiispicions 
trust  of  our  licarls;  and  presents,  at  once,  a  sure  rest- 
ing-place for  our  oiiinions,  and  a  laithful  object  for  our 
confidence. 

Such  aic  the  adorable  attributes  of  lUc  over  blessed 


God  which  are  distinctly  revealed  to  us  in  his  owTi 
word ;  in  addition  to  wliich,  there  are  other  and  more 
general  ascriptions  of  e.xcellence  to  him,  which  though, 
from  the  very  greatness  of  the  subject,  and  the  imper- 
fectUm  of  human  conception  and  human  language,  they 
are  vague  and  indeterminate,  serve,  for  this  very  rea- 
son, to  heighten  our  conceiiiions  of  him,  and  to  set  be- 
Ibre  the  humlrled  and  awed  sjiirit  of  man  an  over- 
whelming height  and  depth  of  majesty  and  glory. 

(;od  is  ]ur/'i(t.  We  are  thus  taught  to  ascnbe  to 
him  every  natural  and  moral  e.xcellence  we  can  con- 
ceive ;  and  when  we  have  done  that,  we  are  to  con- 
clude, that  if  any  nameless  and  unconccived  glory  bo 
necessary  to  comjilete  a  iierfection  which  excludes  all 
deficiency ;  which  is  cajiable  of  no  excess ;  whi<-h  is 
unalterably  full  and  corniilete — it  exists  in  him.  Every 
attribute  in  him  is  perfect  in  its  Kind,  and  is  the  most 
elevated  of  its  kind.  It  is  perfect  in  its  degree,  not  fall- 
ing ill  the  least  below  the  standard  of  the  highest  ex- 
cellence, either  in  our  conceptions,  or  those  of  angels, 
or  in  the  possible  nature  of  things  itself.  These  va- 
rious perfections  are  systematically  distributed  into 
incotmiui?iicalile,  as  self-existence,  immensity,  eter- 
nity, omniscience,  omnipotence,  and  the  like,  because 
there  is  nolliiiig  in  creatures  which  could  be  signified 
by  such  names;  no  common  jiroperties  of  xvliicli  these 
could  be  the  annmon  terms,  and  tlierelore.  they  remain 
Jiecullarly  and  exclusively  proptr  to  (iod  liimself ;  and 
comi)ru7itcnl/le,  such  as  wisdom,  goodness,  holiness, 
justice,  and  truth,  because,  under  the  same  names, 
they  may  be  sjioken  of  him  and  of  us,  though  in  a 
sense  inhiutely  inferior.  But  all  these  perfections 
form  the  o/ie  glorious  perfection  and  fulness  of  excel- 
lence which  constitutes  the  Divine  Nature.  They  arc 
not  accidents,  separable  from  that  iialure,  or  sujier- 
added  to  it;  butlliey  are  his  very  nature  itself,  which  ia 
and  must  be  perfectly  wise  and  good,  holy  and  just, 
almighty  and  all-suliicient.  This  idea  of  po.>;itive  per- 
fection, which  runs  through  the  whole  of  tScnpture, 
warrants  us  also  to  conclude,  that,  where  nesatire  at- 
tributes are  ascribed  to  (Jod,  they  imply  always  a  posi- 
tive excellence.  Immortality  implies  "  an  undecaying 
fulness  of  lifie;"  and  when  (;od  is  said  to  be  luvisibli; 
the  meaning  is  that  he  is  a  being  of  too  high  an  excel- 
lence, of  too  glorious  and  transcendent  a  nature,  to  be 
subject  to  the  oliservation  of  sense. 

(iod  is  all-suflicient.  This  is  another  of  those  decla- 
rations of  Scripture  which  exalt  our  views  of  God  into 
a  niNsterious,  unbounded,  and  undefined  amplitude  of 
grandeur.  It  is  sufficiency,  absolute  plemlude  and 
ruliicss  /j-oOT  //(7/i.s(//',  eternally  rising  out  of  his  own 
Iierfection  ;  yi/r  himself  aa  that  he  is  am,  to  himself, 
ahd  depends  upon  no  other  being  ;  and/or  all  that  com- 
muuicatiim,  however  large  and  however  lasting,  on 
w  Inch  the  whole  universe  of  existent  creatures  depends, 
and  from  wliich  future  creations,  if  any  take  place,  can 
only  be  supplied.  The  same  vast  thought  isexiiressed 
by  St.  Paul,  in  the  phrase  "All  in  all,"  which,  as 
Howe  justly  observes,  (5)  "  is  a  most  godlike  phrase, 
wherein  (Jod  doth  speak  of  himself  with  divine  great- 
ness and  majestic  sense.  Heri^  is  an  all  in  all;  an 
»// coiNprelieiideil,  and  an  ((// comiiretieiiding  ;  one  cre- 
ate anil  the  oilier  uiicreale  ;  Ihe  former  contained  in  the 
latter,  and  bjst  like  a  drop  in  llie  ocean,  in  llie  all-com- 
prelniiding,  all-pervading,  all-siistaining,  uncreated  ful- 
ness." "  In  liirn  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our 
being." 

(iod  is  iinsearcJiable.  All  we  scc/)r  hear  of  him  is 
faint  and  .shadowy  manifestation.  Beyond  Ihe  highe.st 
glory,  there  is  yet  an  uniiierced  and  uiiap|iroaehed  light, 
a  tract  of  intellectual  and  moral  splendour,  uiilravelli'il 
by  the  thoughts  of  the  contemplating  and  adoring  spi- 
rits who  are  nearest  to  his  throne.  The  manifestation  of 
this  nature  of  G'od,  never  fully  to  be  revealed,  because 
infinite,  is  rejiresented  as  constituting  the  reward  ami 
(elicity  of  heaven.  This  is  "  to  sec  (iod."  This  is  "  to 
1)0  for  ever  with  the  I.ord.''  This  is  to  behold  his  glory 
as  in  a  glass,  with  unveile'd  face,  and  lo  be  changed  into 
his  image,  from  glory  to  glory,  in  boundless  progression 
and  infinite  apiiroxlmalion.  Vet,  alter  all,  if  will  be  a.i 
true,  atler  countless  ages  spent  in  hciven  itself,  as  in 
the  present  state,  that  noiii'  by  "  seanliing  e:m  find  out 
(iod,"  ihal  is,  "to  ))er|ieHoii."  He  will  iheii  be  "  a 
(ioil  that  hideth  himself;"  and  widely  as  the  illumina- 
tion may  extend,  "clouds  and  darkness  will  still  be 


(.5)  rosihujiious  Works 


Chap.  VIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


161 


round  about  liim. — Hix  glorious  name  is  exalted  above 
all  blexmiig  and  praise.— Thiiic,  O  Lord,  is  the  great- 
ness, and  the  power,  and  the  glorxj,  and  the  victory, 
aiul  the  majesty ;  for  all  that  is  in  the  heaven  and 
in  the  earth  is  thine ;  thine  is  the  Kingdom,  O  Lord, 
and  thou  art  exalted  as  headoverall. — Blessed  be  the 
LoiiD  God  of  Israel,  who  only  doethivondrous  things ; 
and  BLESSED  he  his  glorious  namk  for  ever,  and  let 
the  whole  earth  be, filled  with  his  clory.  Amen  and 
Amen." 


CHAPTER  Mil. 

God. — The  Trinity  in  Unity. 

We  now  approatth  this  great  mystery  of  our  I'aith, 
for  tlie  ilet-laraiion  of  wliicli  we  are  so  e.xclusively  in- 
debted to  (he  Scriptures,  that  not  only  is  it  incapable  of 
proof  d  priori,  but  it  derives  no  direct  confinnatory 
evidence  from  the  existence,  and  wise  and  orderly  ar- 
rangement, of  the  works  of  God.  It  stands,  however, 
ou  the  unshaken  foundation  of  his  own  word  :  that  tes- 
timony which  he  has  given  of  himself  in  both  Testa- 
ments ;  and  if  we  .see  no  traces  of  it,  as  of  his  simple 
being  and  operative  perfections,  in  the  works  of  his 
creative  power  and  wisdom,  the  reason  is  that  creation 
in  itself  could  not  be  the  medium  of  manife.sting  or  of 
illustrating  it.  Some,  it  is  true,  have  thought  the  Tri- 
nity  of  Divine  persons  in  the  Unity  of  the  Godhead  de- 
monstrable  by  natural  reason.  Poiretand  others,  for- 
merly, and  Professor  Kidd,  recently,  have  all  attempted 
to  prove,  not  that  this  doctrine  implies  a  contradiction, 
but  that  it  cannot  be  denied  without  a  contradiction;  and 
that  it  is  impossible  but  that  the  Divine  Nature  should 
so  exist.  The  former  endeavours  to  prove  that  neither 
creation  nor  indeed  any  action  in  the  Deity  was  possible, 
but  from  this  tri-unity.  But  his  arguments,  were  they 
adduced,  would  scarcely  be  considered  satisfactory, even 
by  those  whose  belief  in  the  doctrine  is  most  settled. 
The  latter  argues  from  notions  of  duration  and  space, 
which  themselves  have  not  hitherto  been  satisfactorily 
established,  and  if  they  had,  would  yield  but  slight  as- 
sistance in  such  an  investigation.  This,  however,  may 
be  said  respecting  such  attempts,  that  they  at  least 
show,  that  men,  quite  as  eminent  for  strength  of  un- 
derstanding and  logical  acuteness  as  any  who  have 
decried  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  irrational  and 
contradictory,  find  no  such  opposition  in  it  to  the  rea- 
son, or  to  the  nature  of  things,  as  the  latter  pretend  to 
be  almt)st  self-evident.  The  very  opposite  conclusions 
reached  by  the  parties,  when  they  reai?on  the  matter 
by  the  light  of  their  own  intellect  only,  is  a  circum- 
stance, it  is  true,  which  lessens  our  confidence  in 
pretended  rational  demonstrations ;  but  it  gives  neither 
party  a  right  to  assume  any  thing  at  the  expense  of  the 
other.  Such  failures  ought,  indeed,  to  produce  in  us  a 
proper  sense  of  the  inadequacy  of  human  powers  to 
search  the  deep  things  of  God ;  and  they  forcibly  exhi- 
bit the  necessity  of  Divine  teaching  in  every  thing 
which  relates  to  such  subjects,  and  demand  from  us  an 
entire  docility  of  mind,  where  God  himself  has  conde- 
scended to  become  our  instructer. 

More  objectionable  than  the  attempts  which  have 
been  made  to  prove  this  mystery  by  mere  argument, 
are  pretensions  to  explain  it;  whether,  by  what 
logicians  call  immanent  ar.ts  of  Deity  upon  himself, 
from  whence  arise  the  relations  of  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost ;  or  by  assuming  that  the  Trinity  is  the 
same  as  the  three  "  essential  primalitie-s,  or  active  pow- 
ers in  the  Divine  essence,  power,  intellect,  andwill,"(*)) 
for  which  they  invent  a  kind  of  personification ;  or 
by  alleging  that  the  three  persons  are  "  Deus  seipsurn 
intelligens,  Deus  a  setpso  intellectus,  et  Deus  a  serpso 
amatiis."  All  such  hypotheses  either  darken  the  coun- 
sel they  would  explain,  by  "  words  without  know- 
ledge," or  assimie  princijiles,  which,  when  expanded 
into  their  full  import,  are  wholly  inconsistent  with  thi; 
doctrine  as  it  is  announced  in  the  .Scripture,  and  wliich 
their  advocates  have  professed  to  receive. 

It  is  a  more  innocent  theory,  that  types  and  symbols 
of  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity  are  found  in  various  na- 
tural objects.      From  the  Fathers,  jnany  have  lUus- 


(6)  "  Potentia,  Intellectus,  el  Voluntas,"  or  "  Poten- 
tia,  Sapientia,  et  Amor."    CainpaiuUa,  Richardus,  and 
others. 
L 


trated  the  trinity  of  persona  in  the  same  Divine  Nature 
by  the  analogy  of  three  or  more  men  having  each  the 
same  human  nature;  by  the  union  of  two  natures  of 
man  in  one  person ;  by  the  trinity  of  intellectual  pri- 
mary faculties  in  the  soul,  power,  intellect,  and  will, 
"  posse,  scire,  velle,"  which  they  say  arc  not  three  parts 
of  the  soul,  "  it  being  the  whole  soul  (/i«b  potest,  qv(B 
intclligit,et  qu(B  vult ;"  by  motion,  light,  and  heat  in 
the  sun,  with  many  others.  Of  these  instances,  how- 
ever, we  may  observe,  that  even  granting  them  all  to 
be  philosophically  true,  they  cannot  be  proofs ;  they  are 
seldom,  or  but  very  inajiplicably,  illustrations  ;  and  the 
best  use  to  which  they  have  eVer  been  put,  or  of  which 
they  are  indeed  capable,  is  to  silence  the  absurd  objec- 
tions which  are  sometimes  drawn  from  things  merely 
natural  and  finite,  by  answers  which  natural  and  finite 
things  supply ;  though  both  the  objections  and  the  an- 
swers oflen  prove,  that  the  subject  in  question  is  too 
elevated  and  peculiar  to  be  approached  by  such  analo- 
gie.s.  Of  these  illustrations,  as  they  have  sometimes 
been  called,  Baxter,  though  inclined  to  make  too  much 
of  them,  well  enough  observes, — "It  is  one  thing  to 
show  in  the  creatures  a  clear  demonstration  of  this  tri- 
nity of  persons,  by  showing  an  efl^ect  that  fully  answer- 
eth  it,  and  anotherthing  toshow  such  vesligia  adumbra- 
tion, or  image  of  it,  as  hath  those  dissimilitudes  which 
must  be  allowed  in  any  created  image  of  God.  This  is 
it  which  I  am  to  do."(7)  This  excellent  man  has  been 
charged,  perhaps  a  little  too  hastily,  with  adopting  one 
of  the  theories  given  above,  as  his  own  view  of  the  tri- 
nity, a  trinity  of  personified  attributes  rather  than  of 
real  jiersons.  It  must,  however,  be  acknowledged,  that 
he  has  given  some  occasion  for  the  allegation,  but  his 
conclusion  is  worthy  of  himself,  and  instructive  to  all : 
— "  But  for  my  own  part,  as  I  unfeignedly  account  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  the  very  sum  and  kernel  of  tho 
(Christian  religion  (as  exjiressed  in  our  baptism),  and 
Athanasiushis  creed,  the  best  explication  of  it  that  ever 
I  read;  so  I  think  it  very  unmeet  in  these  tremendous 
mysteries  to  go  farther  than  we  have  God's  own  light 
to  guide  us."(8) 

The  term  person  has  bean  variously  taken.  It  signi- 
fies in  ordinary  language  an  individual  substance  of  a 
rational  or  intelligent  nature.(9)  In  the  strict  philoso- 
phical sense,  it  lias  been  said,  two  or  more  persons 
would  be  two  or  more  distinct  beings.  If  the  term 
person  were  so  applied  to  the  trinity  in  the  Godhead,  a 
plurality  of  Gods  would  follow ;  while  if  taken  in 
what  has  been  called  a  political  sense,  personality 
would  be  no  more  than  relation  arising  out  of  office. 
Personality  in  God  is,  therelbre,  not  to  be  understood 
111  either  of  the  above  senses,  if  respect  be  paid  to  the 
testimony  of  Scripture.  God  is  oiie  Being ;  this  is  ad- 
mitted on  both  sides.  But  he  is  more  than  one  being  in 
three  relations ;  for  personal  acts,  that  is,  such  acts  a.s 
we  are  used  to  ascribe  to  distinct  persons,  and  which 
we  take  most  unequivocally  to  characterize  personality, 
are  ascribed  to  each.  The  Scripture  doctrine  therefore 
is,  that  the  persons  are  not  separate,  but  distinct ;  that 
they  ^^ are -united  persons,  or  persons  having  no  .«e/>«- 
rate  existence,  and  that  they  are  so  united  as  to  be  but 
one  Being,  one  God."  In  other  words,  that  the  one 
Divine  Nature  exists  under  the  personal  distinction  of 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost. 

"The  word pfrAOT?,"  Howe  remarks,  "must  not  be 
taken  to  signify  the  same  thing,  when  spoken  of  God 
and  of  ourselves."  That  is,  not  in  all  resj>ects.  Never- 
theless, it  is  the  only  word  which  can  express  the  sen.se 
of  those  passages,  in  which  personal  acts  are  uncijuivo- 
cally  ascribed  to  each  of  the  Divine  subsistences  in  the 
(Jodhead.  Perhaps,  however,  one  may  be  allowed  to 
doubt  whether,  in  all  respects,  the  term  person  may  not 
be  taken  to  signify  "  the  same  thing"  in  us  and  in  God. 
It  is  true,  as  belbre  observed,  that  three  persons  amow^ 
men  or  angels  would  convey  the  idea  of  three  difTcrent 
and  separate  beings  ;  but  it  may  be  questioned  whether 
this  arises  from  any  thing  uecessartlii  <onveyed  in  the 
idea  o(  personality.  We  have  been  accustomed  to  ob- 
serve jiersonality  only  in  connexion  with  separate  be- 
ings ;  but  this  separation  seems  to  be  but  a  circumstance 
connected  with  personality,  and  not  any  thing  which 
arises  out  of  personality  itself.  Dr.Waterland  clearly 
defines  the  term  person,  as  it  must  be  understood  in  this 


(7)  Christian  Religion. 
(9)  It  is  defined  by  Occam, 
lectuale.'' 


(8)  Ibid. 
•  Suppositum  intel- 


162 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


controvcrs>%  to  be  "  an  intelligent  agent,  having  the  ilis- 
tiiM't  ( Inraitcr.s,  I,  tiidl,  hk.''  Ttiat  one  being  should 
necessarily  coiickule  one  person  ««/(/,  is,  liovvevcr,  what 
none  can  jirove  from  the  nature  of  things;  and  all  ttiat 
can  be  allinneil  on  tlie  subject  is,  that  it  is  so  m  fact 
among  all  intelligent  creatures  with  which  we  are  ac- 
quainted. Among  tUeni,  distinct  persons  arc  only  seen 
in  xfjiarate  behn^s,  but  this  separation  of  beuig  is 
clearly  an  ar.cidnit  of  personality  ;  for  the  circumstance 
of  separation  forms  no  pan  of  the  idea  of  personaUty 
Itself,  which  is  confined  to  a  capaliility  of  performing 
licrsonal  acts.  In  God,  the  distinct  persons  are  repre- 
.seiitcd  as  having  a  common  loundation  in  niiv  httiig : 
but  this  union  also  forms  no  part  of  the  idea  of  per- 
sonality, nor  can  be  proved  inconsistent  with  it.  The 
manner  of  tlie  union,  it  is  granted,  is  incomprehensible, 
and  so  is  Deity  himself,  and  every  essential  attribute 
Willi  which  his  iiauirc  is  invested. 

It  lias  been  said,  that  the  term  person  is  not  used  in 
Scripture,  and  some  who  believe  the  doctrine  it  ex- 
])rcsses,  have  objected  to  its  use.  To  such  it  may  be 
sullicieiit  to  rei)ly,  tliat  provided  that  which  is  clearly 
staled  in  Scripture,  be  compendiously  expressed  by  ttiis 
term,  and  cannot  so  well  be  expressed,  except  by  an 
inconvenient  periphrasis,  it  ought  to  be  retained.  They 
who  believe  such  a  distinction  in  the  Godhead  as 
amounts  to  a  personal  distinction,  will  not  generally  be 
disposed  to  surrender  a  word  which  keeps  up  tlie  force 
of  the  Sc;riptural  idea;  and  they  who  do  not,  object  not 
to  the  term,  but  to  the  doctrine  wliicli  it  conveys.  It  is 
not,  however,  so  clear,  that  there  is  not  Scripture  war- 
rant for  the  tenn  itself^  Our  translators  so  concluded, 
when,  in  Ileb.  i.  3,  they  call  the  Son,  "  the  express 
image"  of  the  "person"  of  the  Father.  The  original 
wOrd  is  hijposto.six ;  whicli  was  undcrsteod  by  the 
Greek  Fathers  to  signify  a  person,  though  not,  it  is  true, 
ex<-lusively  so  u.sed.(l)  The  sense  of  D7ruar<io-is  in  this 
passage  must,  however,  be  considered  as  fixed  by  the 
Apostle's  argument,  by  all  who  allow  the  Divinity  of 
the  Son  of  Oo<l.  For  the  Son  being  called  "the  express 
image"  of  the  Father,  a  dislni'lioti  between  the  Son 
and  the  Father  is  thus  unquestionably  expressed ;  but  if 
there  be  but  one  God,  and  the  Son  be  Divine,  the 
distinction  here  cxjiressed  cainiol  be  a  distinction  of 
c^ssence,  and  must  thenMiire  be  a  peraniKd  one.  Not 
from  the  Father's  essence,  but  from  the  Father's  hypo- 
stasis or  person,  can  he  be  distinguished.  Tliis  seems 
sulUelentto  liave  warranted  the  u.seof  Ai//)o.\7a.s7sinllie 
sense  of  person,  in  the  early  church,  and  to  authorize  the 
latter  term  in  our  own  language.  In  fact,  it  was  by 
tin;  adoption  of  the  two  great  theological  terms  oytonaioi 
and  tnrnnTaaii  that  the  early  church  at  length  reared  up 
impregnable  barriers  against  the  two  leading  heresies 
into  which  almost  every  modification  of  error  as  to  the 
jiersoii  of  ('lirist  may  be  resolved.  The  Ibrnier,  which 
IS  compounded  of  o/koj  the  same,  and  naia  siibstance, 
Btood  oppo.sed  to  the  Arians  who  denied  that  Christ  was 
of  the  siibstanee  of  the  Father,  that  is,  that  he  was 
truly  God;  the  latter,  when  (ixedin  the  sense  of  yxr.svwj, 
resisted  the  Sabellian  scheme,  which  allowed  the  Di- 
vinity of  the  Son  and  Siiirit,  but  denied  their  projier 
personality. 

Among  ilie  leading  writers  in  dclence  of  the  Trinity, 
there  arc  some  shades  of  difference  in  opinion,  as  to 
what  constitutes  the  Viiily  of  the  three  persons  in  the 
Godhead.  Doddridge  thus  (expresses  these  leading  dif- 
ferences among  the  orthodox : 

"  Mr.  Howe  seems  to  su|ipn.se.  that  there  are  three 
distinct, eternal  spjrits.or  dislinel  intelligent  hypo.stascs, 
each  liaving  his  own  distimi,  singular,  intelligent  na- 
ture, united  in  sue  h  an  inevplKniblc  manner,  as  that 
upon  account  of  their  iierlict  harmony,  consent,  and 
alfection.lo  which  he  adds  their  mutual  self-conscious- 
ness, they  may  be  called  the  one  God,  as  properly  as 
1  bed  I  Mirent  corporeal,  sensitive,  and  intellectual  natures 
uiiiied  may  be  called  one  man. 

"  Dr.  VVaterland,  Dr.  A.  Taylor,  with  the  rest  of  the 
Athanasians,  assert  three  proper  distinct  jiersons,  en- 


(I)  "NonnuiKiuam  tiTro^affis  pro  CO  ipiod  nos  oDrriai' 
dicimus  ct  vice  versA  vox  ouirio  pro  eo  cjuod  nosinroj-JKTo/ 
aiipellamus,  ab  ijisis  arceptu  luit." — Itishop  Hull. 
■)  rrof.iffis,  it  ought,  however,  to  bo  observed,  was  used 
in  the  sense  of  jiersoii,  before  the  council  of  Nice,  by 
many  (.'hristian  writers,  and,  in  the  ancient  Greek 
Lexicons,  it  i.s  explained  by  irpoaurrui',  and  rendered  by 
tbc  Ltitiiis  persona. 


(Part  IT, 

tirely  equal  to.  and  independent  upon,  each  other,  yet 
making  U])  one  and  the  same  being;  and  that,  though 
there  may  app<^ar  many  things  inexplicable  In  the 
scheme,  it  is  to  be  charged  to  the  weakness  of  our  under- 
standing, and  not  to  the  absurdity  of  the  doctrine  itself. 

"  Itishop  I'earson,  with  whom  lii'iliop  Hull  also  agrees, 
is  of  opinion,  that  thoni'h  (lod  the  Father  is  the  luuntaiii 
of  the  Deity,  the  whole  Divine  Nature  is  (■omniuiiicaled 
from  the  Father  to  the  Son.  and  from  l)olh  to  the  Spirit, 
yet  so  as  that  the  l''ather  and  the  Son  are  not  separate, 
nor  separable  from  the  Divmjty,  but  do  still  exist  in  it, 
and  are  most  intimately  united  to  it.  Tliis  was  als« 
Dr.  Owen's  scheme. "(2) 

The  last  view  appear.s  to  comport  most  exactly  with 
the  testimony  of  Scripture,  which  shall  be  presently 
adduced. 

Hefore  we  enter  upon  the  examination  of  the  Scrip- 
tural proofs  of  the  Trinity,  it  may  be  necessary  to  im- 
pnsis  the  reader  with  a  sense  o4'  the  importance  of  this 
revealed  doctrine ;  and  the  more  -so  as  it  has  been  a  part 
of  the  subtle  warfare  of  the  enemies  of  this  funila- 
meiital  branch  of  the  common  faith,  to  represent  it  as 
of  little  consequence,  or  as  a  matter  of  useless  specu- 
lation. Thus  Dr.  Priestley,  "  All  that  can  be  said  for  it 
is,  that  the  doctrine,  however  improbable  in  itself,  is 
necessary  to  explain  some  particular  texts  of  Scripture  ; 
and  that,  if  it  hail  not  been  for  those  particular  texts,  wo 
Khotild  have  found  no  want  of  it,  for  there  is  neither 
any  fact  in  nature,  nor  any  one  puqio.se  of  moral.s, 
which  are  Ine  object  and  end  of  all  religion,  that  re- 
quires it. "(3) 

The  non-importance  of  the  doctrine  has  been  a  fa- 
vourite subject  with  its  opjiosers  in  all  ages,  that  by 
allaying  all  fears  in  the  minds  of  the  miwary,  as  to  the 
consequences  of  the  opposite  errors,  they  might  be  jiut 
off  their  guard,  and  be  the  more  easily  [lersuaded  to  part 
with  "  the  faith  delivered  to  the  saints."  The  answer 
is,  however,  obvious. 

1.  The  knowledge  of  Go<l  is  fnndamrntal  to  religion  ; 
and  as  we  know  nothing  of  htm  but  what  he  has  been 
pleased  to  reveal,  and  as  these  revelations  have  all  moral 
ends,  and  are  designed  to  |ironiote  ]>iety  and  not  to  gratify 
ciirtosity,  all  that,  he  has  revealed  of  himself  in  parti- 
ni/.ar  must  partake  of  that  character  of  fundamental 
imjiortance  which  belongs  to  the  knowledge  of  God  in 
the  aggregate.  "This  is /;/>  (^?-»r(Z,  that  they  might 
know  thee,  the  only  true  (;od,  and  Jesus  (Christ  whom 
thou  hast  sent."  IVolhing,  tlicrelbre,  can  disprove  the 
fundamental  importance  of  the  Trinity  in  Unity,  but 
that  which  will  disjirove  it  to  boa  doctrine  of  Scripture. 

2.  Dr.  Priestley  allows,  that  this  doctrine"is  neces- 
sary to  explain  some  particular  texts  of  Scriptnre." 
This  alone  is  sullicient  to  murk  its  importance ;  esjie- 
clally  as  it  can  be  shown,  th;U  these  '•■particular  texts 
of  Scripture"  comprehend  a  very  large  portion  of  the 
sacred  volume ;  tliat  they  arc  scattered  throughout 
almost  all  the  books  of  both  Testaments  ;  that  they  are 
not  incidentally  introduced  only,  but  solemnly  laid  down 
as  revelations  of  the  nature  of  God ;  and  that  they 
manifestly  give  the  tone  both  to  the  thinkim;  and  the 
phrase  of  the  sacred  writers  on  many  other  weighty 
subjects.  That  which  is  necessary  to  explain  so  many 
passages  of  holy  writ ;  and  without  which,  they  are  so 
incorrigibly  unmeaning,  that  the  Socinians  have  felt 
themselves  obliged  to  submit  to  their  evidence,  or  to 
expunge  thein  from  the  inspired  record,  carries  with  it 
an  miportance  of  the  highest  character.  So  important, 
indeed,  is  it,  upon  the  showing  of  the.se  opposers of  the 
truth  themselves,  that  we  can  only  iireserve  the  Scrip- 
tures by  admitting  it ;  for  they,  first  l)y  excepiing  to  the 
genuineness  of  certain  passages,  then  by  <inestioning 
the  inspiration  of  whole  books,  and,  linally.  of  the 
greater  jiarl,  if  not  the  whole  New  Testament,  have 
nearly  left  ihemselvcs  as  destitute  of  a  revelation  from 
(iod,  as  infidels  llieniselves.  No  homage  more  expres- 
sive has  ever  been  jiaid  to  this  doctrine,  as  the  doctrine 
of  the  tScri))tures,  than  the  liberties  thus  taken  with  the 
llible,  by  those  who  have  denied  it ;  no  stronger  proof 
can  be  offered  of  its  importance,  than  that  the  Bible 
cannot  heinlerprrlcd  vpun  any xubstUuted tkcory,lhey 
themselves  being  the  judges. 

3.  It  rsxndially  aflicih  our  viiws  of  God  as  the  object 
of  our  worship,whellii'r  we  regard  him  as  one  in  es- 
sence, and  one  in  person,  or  admit  that  in  the  unity  of 
this  Godhead  there  are  thre<!  equally  Divine  jiersons. 


(2)  Lectures.       (3)  History  of  Early  Opiaioiis. 


Chap.  VIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


163 


These  are  two  very  different  conceptions.  Both  cannot 
De  true.  Tiie  fioJ  of  tliose  who  deny  the  Trinity,  i.s  not 
the  God  of  ttiose  wlio  wor.ship  the  Trinity  in  Unity,  nor 
on  the  contrary;  so  that  one  or  the  other  worships 
whftt  is  "nothing  in  the  world ;"  and,  lor  any  rmlitii 
in  tlie  object  of  worsliip,  might  as  well  worship  a  I'agan 
idol,  which  also,  says  St.  I'aul,  "is  nothing  in  the 
world."  If  God  be  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  (;host,  the 
duties  owing  to  (Jo'd  will  be  duties  owing  to  that  triune 
distinction,  wliich  iiiusi  be  paid  accordingly ;  and  who- 
ever leaves  out  any  of  them  out  of  his  idea  of  V,m\, 
conies  so  far  short  of  honouring  God  perfectly,  and  of 
serving  him  in  iiroportion  to  the  nianilestations  he  has 
made  of  himself  "(-t) 

As  the  object  of  our  worship  is  affected  by  our  re- 
spective views  oil  this  great  subject,  so  also  its  charac- 
ter. We  are  between  the  e.xtrenies  of  pure  and  accept- 
able devotion,  and  of  gross  and  offensive  idolatry,  and 
must  run  to  one  or  the  other.  If  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  be  true,  then  those  who  deny  it  do  not  worship 
the  God  of  the  Scriptures,  but  a  fiction  of  their  own 
framing;  if  it  be  false,  the  Trinitarian,  by  paying  Divine 
honours  to  the  Son  and  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  equally 
guilty  of  idolatry,  though  in  another  mode. 

Now  it  is  surely  important  to  determine  this ;  and 
which  is  the  most  likely  to  have  fallen  into  this  false 
and  corrupt  worship,  the  very  pri/ud  facie  evidence 
may  determine : — the  Trinitarian,  who  has  the  lulUr, 
ami  plain  com7no>i-sense  interpretation  of  Scripture 
for  his  warrant ; — or  he  who  confesses,  that  he  must 
resort  to  all  the  artifices  of  criticism,  and  boldly  chal- 
lenge the  inspiration  of  an  authenticated  volume,  to 
get  rid  of  the  evidence  which  it  exhibits  against  hmi, 
if  taken  in  its  first  and  most  obvious  meaning.(5)  It 
is  not  now  attempted  to  prove  the  Surniian  heresy 
from  the  Scriptures  ;  this  has  long  been  given  up,  and 
tli(!  main  effort  of  all  modern  writers  on  that  side  has  been 
directed  to  cavil  at  the  adduced  proofs  of  the  opposite  doc- 
trine. They  are,  as  to  Scri])ture  argument,  wUolly  on 
the  defensive,  and  thus  allow,  at  least,  that  they  have 
no  direct  warrant  for  their  oiiinioiis.  We  acknowledge, 
indeed,  that  the  charge  of  idolatry  would  lie  against  us, 
could  we  be  proved  in  error ;  but  they  seem  to  forget, 
that  it  lies  against  them,  should  they  be  in  error  ;  and 
that  they  are  in  this  error,  they  themselves  tacitly  ac- 
knowledge, if  the  Scriptures,  which  they  now,  in  great 
measure,  reject,  must  determine  the  question.  On  that 
authority,  we  may  unhesitatingly  account  them  idola- 
ters, worshippers  of  what  "  is  nothing  in  the  world  ;" 
and  not  of  the  God  revealed  in  the  Bible.(b)  Thus, 
the  only  hope  which  is  left  to  the  Socinian  is  held  on 
the  same  tenure  as  the  hope  of  the  Ueist, — the  forlorn 
hope  that  the  Scriptures,  which  he  rejects,  are  not  true  ; 
for  if  those  te.\ts  they  reject,  and  tho.se  books  which 
they  hold  of  no  authority,  be  established,  then  this 
whole  charge,  and  its  consequences,  lie  full  against 
them. 

4.  Dr.  Priestley  objects,  "  that  no  fact  in  nature,  nor 
any  one  purpose  of  morals,  requires  this  doctrine." 
The  first  part  of  the  objection  is  futile  and  tritling,  if 
he  meant  that  the  facts  of  nature  do  not  require  this 
doctrine  for  their  philosophical  illustration ;  for  who 
seeks  the  explication  of  natural  phenomena  in  theolo- 
gical doctrines  i  But  there  is  one  view,  in  which  even 
right  views  of  the  facts  of  nature  depend  upon  projier 
views  of  the  Godhead.  All  nature  has  a  theological 
reason,  and  a  theological  end ;  and  its  interpretation 
in  these  respects,  rests  wholly  upon  the  person  and 
ofii(-e  of  our  Lord.  All  things  were  made  by  the  .Son 
and  for  him  ;  a  theological  view  of  the  natural  world, 
which  is  large  or  contracted,  emphatic  or  spiritless,  ac- 
cording to  the  conceptions  which  we  form  of  the  Son 

(4)  Waterland. 

(5)  St.  Paul  says,  that  all  Scripture  is  given  by  in- 
spiration of  God ;  but  Dr.  Priestley  tells  us,  that  this 
signifies  aothini;  more,  than  that  the  books  were  writ- 
ten by  good  men,  with  the  best  views  and  designs. 

(6)  To  this  purpose  Witsiu.s,  who  shows  that  there 
can  be  neither  religion  nor  wor.ship,  unless  the  Trinity 
be  acknowledged.  "  Nulla  etiam  rcligio  est,  nisi  quis 
verum  Deum  colat ;  non  colit  verum  Deum,  sed  cerebri 
sui  fi^mentum,  qui  non  adorat  in  a'ljuali  divinitalis 
majestate  Patrem,  Filium,  et  Spinnim  Sanctum.  I 
nunc,  et  doctrinam  cam  ad  pra-i  in  inulilcmcsscclania, 
sine  qua  nulla  Fuiei  ant,  Pietalis  Chrisliana'  praxis 
esse  potest." 

Li2 


of  God,  "  by  whom,  and  for  whom,"  it  was  built,  and 
is  preserved.  The  reason  why  the  present  circum- 
stances of  the  natural  world  are,  as  before  shown, 
neither  wholly  perfect,  nor  without  large  remains  of 
orniiiial  perfection;  neither  accordant  with  the  con- 
dition of  condemned,  nor  of  innocent  creatures  ;  but 
adapted  only  to  such  a  state  of  man  as  the  reikcming 
scheme  supposes,  cannot,  on  the  Socinian  lupothisis, 
be  di.scovered ;  for  that  redeeming  sclicme  dipciids 
for  its  character  ujion  our  views  of  the  person  ol' Christ. 
Without  a  settled  opinion  on  these  points,  we  are  there- 
fore, in  tins  re.=pect  also,  without  the  key  to  a  just  and 
(ull  explanation  of  the  theological  character  of  our  pre- 
sent residence,  the  world. 

Another  relation  of  the  natural  world  to  theology 
lies  in  its  duration.  It  was  made  for  Christ ;  and  tlie 
reason  which  deterriunes  that  it  shall  be  burned  up 
centres  in  him.  He  is  appointed  judge,  and  shall  ter- 
minate the  present  scene  of  things,  by  destroying  the 
frame  of  the  visible  universe,  when  the  probation  of 
its  inhabitants  shall  have  expired.  I  beg  the  reader  to 
turn  to  the  remarks  before  made  on  the  reason  of  a 
general  judgment  being  found  in  the  fact,  that  man  is'  ■ 
under  grace  and  not  strict  law;  and  the  argument, 
offered  to  show,  that  if  we  were  under  a  covenant- of.- 
mere  obedience,  no  cause  for  such  an  appoin'ment,  as- 
that  of  a  general  judgment,  would  be  obvious.  Iftho.se 
views  be  correct,  then  the  reason,  both  of  a  general 
judgment  and  the  final  destruction  of  the  world,  is, to 
be  found  in  the  system  of  redemption,  and  conseqyently 
in  such  views  of  the  person  of  Christ,  as  are  not  found 
in  the  Socinian  scheme.  The  conclusion  therefore  is, 
that  as  "  to  facts  in  nature,"  even  they  are  intimately 
connected,  in  several  very  important  respects,  which 
no  wise  man  can  overlook,  with  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity.  Socinianism  cannot  explain  the  pecuhar  phy- 
sical state  of  the  world  as  connected  with  a  state  of 
trial ;  and  the  general  judgment,  and  the  "  end  of  all 
things,"  bear  no  relation  to  its  theology. 

The  connexion  of  the  orthodox  doctrine  with  morals 
is,  of  course,  still  more  direct  and  striking ;  and  dim 
must  have  been  that  intellectual  eye  which  could  not 
discern,  that,  granting  to  the  believers  in  the  Trinity 
their  own  principles,  its  relation  to  morals  is  vital  and 
essential.  Whether  those  j  rinciples  are  supported  by 
the  .Scripture,  is  another  consideration.  If  they  could 
be  disproved,  then  the  doctrine  ought  to  be  rejected  on 
a  higher  ground  than  that  here  urged  ;  but  to  attempt  to 
push  it  aside,  on  the  pretence  of  its  having  no  conne.\ioa 
with  morals,  was  but  a  very  unworthy  mode  of  veiling 
the  case.  For  what  are  "  morals,"  but  confonnity  to 
a  Divine  law,  which  law  must  take  its  character  from 
its  author  ?  The  Trinitarian  scheme  is  essentially  con- 
nected with  the  doctrine  of  atonement  ;  and  what  is 
called  the  Unitarian  theory  necessarily  excludes  atone- 
ment. From  this  arise  opposite  views  of  God,  as  the 
Governor  of  the  world ;  of  the  law  under  which  we  are 
placed ;  of  the  nature  and  con.sequcnces  of  sin,  the 
violation  of  that  law ;  points  winch  have  an  essential 
relation  to  morals,  because  they  affect  the  nature  of  the 
sanctionji  which  accompany  the  law  of  God.  He 
who  denies  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  its  necessary 
adjunct,  the  atonement,  makes  sin  a  matter  of  compa- 
ratively triflaig  moment :  Ciod  is  not  strict  to  punish 
it ;  and  if  punishment  follow,  it  is  not  eternal.  Whe- 
ther, under  these  soft  and  easy  views  of  the  law  of 
God,  and  of  its  transgression  by  sin,  morals  can  have 
an  equal  sanction,  or  human  conduct  be  equally  re- 
strained, are  points  too  obvious  to  be  argtied ;  but  a 
subject  which  involves  views  of  the  judicial  character 
of  God  so  opjiosite,  and  of  the  evil  and  penalty  of 
offence,  must  be  considered  as  standing  in  the  most  in- 
timate relation  with  every  question  of  inoraU.  It  is 
presumed,  too,  in  the  objection,  that  faith,  or,  in  other 
words,  a  firm  belief  in  the  testimony  of  God,  is  no  part 
of  morality.  It  is,  however,  sufficient  to  place  this 
matter  in  a  very  different  light,  if  we  recollect  that,  to 
believe,  is  so  much  a  command  that  the  highest  sanc- 
tion is  connected  with  it.  "  lie  that  believeth  shall  be 
saved,  and  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned." 
Nothing,  therefore,  can  be  more  inqiortant  to  us  than 
to  examine,  without  captiousiiess  and  the  spirit  of  un- 
belief, what  God  hath  revealed  as  the  object  of  our  faith, 
since  the  rejection  of  any  revealed  truth,  under  the  in- 
fluence of  pride,  whether  of  the  reason  or  the  heart; 
or  through  alicctation  of  iiidependen.e  ;  or  love  of  the 
world ;  or  any  other  corrupt  motive ;  must  be  certainly 


1G4 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


visilod  with  pnnishinent :  the  law  offatth  having  the 
same  authority,  mid  tlie  same  sanction,  as  the  laiu  nj 
works.  It  is,  thcretbre,  a  point  of  duty  to  believe,  be- 
cause it  is  a  point  of  obedience,  and  hence  St.  Paul 
speaks  of  "  the  obedience  of  faith."  For,  as  it  has 
been  well  observed,  "  As  to  the  nature  ot  faith,  it  is  a 
inaltir  of  obligation,  as  being  that  natural  homage 
which  the  understanding  or  will  pays  to  Cod  in  re- 
ceiving and  assenting  to  what  he  reveals  upon  his  bare 
word  iir  aiilliiinly.     It  isa  humiliation  of  ourselves,  and 

a  glonlical ifGod."(7)    It  may  be  added,  too,  that 

iiiith,  wliiili  implies  a  submission  toUod,  is  an  import- 
ant branch  also  of  discipline. 

The  objection,  that  there  can  be  no  faith  where  there 
is  not  sufficient  evidence  to  command  it,  will  not  affect 
this  conclusion.  For  when  once  tlie  evidence  of  a  di- 
vine revelation  is  admitted,  our  duly  to  receive  its  doc- 
trines does  not  rest  upon  the  rational  evidence  we  may 
have  of  their  truth;  but  upon  the  much  easier  and 
plainer  evidence,  lliat  they  are  among  the  things  ac- 
tually revealed.  He,  therefore,  who  admits  a  divine 
revelation,  and  rejects  itsdnctrines,  because  he  has  not 
a  satisfactory  rattnu.al  evidence  of  them,  is  more  ob- 
viously criminal  in  his  unh<'lief  than  he  who  rejects 
the  revelation  itself,  for  he  o]M?iily  debali's  the  case  with 
ills  Maker,  a  circumstance  whuli  iiidicaus,  in  the  most 
striking  manner,  a  corrupt  habit  of  niiiul.  It  is,  in- 
deed, ofu-ii  pretended,  thai  suclurulhs  are  rejected,  not 
so  nmchoii  ihisaciMiuiit,  aslliat  they  do  not  appear  to  be 
(be  sense  of  the  revckition  itself.  But  tlu.s  cannot  be 
urged  by  those  who  openly  lay  it  down  as  a  principle, 
that  a  true  revelation  can  contain  nothing  which  to 
them  appears  unreasonable:  or  that  ilit  does,  they  are 
bound  by  the  law  of  their  nature  not  to  admit  it.  Nor 
will  it  appear  to  be  any  other  than  an  unworthy  and 
dishonest  pretence  in  all  cases  where  such  kinds  of 
criticism  are  resorted  to,  to  alter  the  sense  of  a  text, 
or  to  disprove  its  authority,  as  they  would  not  allow 
in  the  ease  of  te.xls  supposed,  by  a  partial  construction, 
to  favour  their  own  opinion  ;  or  such  as  would  be  con- 
demned by  all  learned  and  sober  persons  as  hyjiercri- 
tical  and  violent,  if  applied  to  any  other  writings.  It 
may  also  be  added,  that  should  any  of  the  great  iiuali- 
ties  reipiired  in  a  serious  and  honest  inquirer  aHer 
truth  have  been  uncultivated  and  unapplied,  though  a 
sincere  conviction  of  the  truth  of  on  erroneous  con- 
clusion may  e.xist,  the  guilt  of  unbelief  would  not  be 
removed  by  such  kind  of  sincerity.  If  there  has  been 
no  aiuriety  to  be  right ;  no  prayer,  earnest  and  devout, 
ofl'ered  to  God,  to  be  kept  from  error;  if  an  lii/mble 
sense  of  human  liability  to  err  has  not  been  maintained  ; 
if  diligence  in  looking  out  for  proofs,  and  jmlinire  and 
perseverance  in  imiuiry  have  not  been  exerti'd  ;  il'lKi/irsti/ 
in  balancing  evidence,  and  a  firm  nsululiiin  to  em- 
brace the  truth,  whatever  prejudices  or  interests  it  may 
roiilraihct  or  oppose,  have  not  been  felt ;  even  sincerity 
in  lielieviiig  that  to  be  true,  which,  in  the  present  state 
of  a  judgment  determined,  jirobaljly,  before  all  the 
means  of  information  have  bei  n  resorted  to,  and,  per- 
haps, under  the  perverting  iiillueiice  of  a  worldly  or 
carnal  state  of  inind,  may  appear  to  bt^  so,  will  be  no 
excuse.  We  are  under  "  a  law  of  faith,"  and  that  law 
cannot  be  suppo.sed  to  be  so  pliabb^  and  nugatory,  as 
they  who  contend  for  the  right  of  believing  only  what 
iliev  please,  woubl  make  it. 

f  hese  observations  will  show  the  connexion  of  the 
(Idctriiie  of  the  Trimty  with  morals,  the  point  denied 
by  Dr.  Priestley. 

Hut,  to  leave  this  objection  for  views  of  a  larger  ex- 
lent  ;  our  love  to  God,  which  is  the  sum  of  every  duty, 
its  sanctifying  motive,  and  conseiinently  a  compendium 
of  all  true  religion,  is  most  intimat(Hy  and  even  essen- 
tially connected  with  the  doctrine  in  ijuestion.  God's 
love  to  us  is  the  ground  of  our  love  to  him;  and  by 
our  views  of  that,  it  must  be  heightened  or  diminished. 
The  love  of  God  to  man  in  the  gill  of  his  Son  is  that 
manifestation  of  it  on  which  tlic^  Scriptures  most  eni- 
])hatically  and  fretiuenlly  dwell,  and  on  which  they 
establish  our  duty  of  loving  (iod  and  one  another. 
Now  the  estimate  which  we  are  to  take  of  the  love  of 
(Jod,  must  be  the  value  of  his  giffs  to  us.  llis  great- 
est gift  is  the  gill  of  his  Son,  lliroiigh  whom  aloiii!  we 
have  the  promise  of  everlasting  life  ;  but  onr  esliniate 
ol  the  love  which  iiii-is  must  be  widely  dill'eiciit,  ac- 
cording as  we  regard  Iheff;/!!  bestowed,— as  a  creature 


or  as  a  Divine  person, — aa  merely  a  Son  of  man,  or  as 
the  Son  of  (Jod.  If  tlie  former  only,  it  is  difficult  to 
conceive  in  what  this  love,  constantly  represented  a» 
"  uii'')ii(iJcalili"  and  astonishing,  could  consist.  In- 
deed, if  we  suppose  Christ  to  be  a  man  only,  on  the 
Socinian  scheme,  or  as  an  exalted  creature,  according  to 
the  Arians,  (;o<i  might  be  rather  said  to  have  "  so  loved 
his  Son"  than  \is,  lus  to  send  him  into  the  world  on  a 
service  so  honourable,  and  which  was  to  be  followed 
by  so  high  and  vast  a  reward,  that  he,  a  creature, 
should  be  advanced  to  universal  dominion,  and  receive 
universal  homage,  as  the  price  oiily  of  temporary  suf- 
ferings, which,  upon  either  the  Socinian  or  Arian 
scheme,  were  not  greater  than  those  which  many  of 
his  disciples  endured  alter  liim,  and  ui  many  instances 
not  so  great. (7) 

For  the  same  reason,  the  doctrine  which  denies  our 
Lord's  Divinity  diminishes  the  love  of  (Jhrist  himself, 
takes  away  its  geaerosity  and  devotedness,  presents  it 
under  views  infinitely  below  those  contained  in  the 
New  'I'estament,  and  weakens  the  motives  which  are 
drawn  from  it  to  excite  our  gratitude  and  obedience. 
"  If  Christ  was  in  the  form  of  God,  equal  with  God, 
and  very  God,  it  was  then  an  act  of  infinite  love  and 
condescension  in  him  to  become  man  ;  but  if  he  was 
no  more  than  a  creature,  it  was  no  surprising  conde- 
scension to  embark  in  a  work  so  glorious ;  such  as 
being  the  Saviour  of  mankind,  and  such  as  would  ad- 
vance him  to  be  Lord  and  .I'idge  of  the  world,  to 
be  admired,  reverenced,  and  adored,  both  by  men  and 
aiigels."(8)  To  this  it  may  be  added,  that  the  idea 
of  disinterested,  generous  love,  such  as  the  love  Christ 
is  represented  to  be  by  the  Kvangelists  and  the  Apos- 
tles, cannot  be  sup|iorted  upon  any  supposition  but  that 
he  was  properly  a  Divine  jMrson.  As  a  man  and  as  a 
creature  only,  however  exalted,  he  would  have  profited 
by  his  exaltatioQ ;  but,  considered  as  Divine,  Christ 
gained  nothing,  (iod  is  full  and  perfect— he  is  exalted 
"above  blessing  and  praise;"  and,  therefore, our  Lord, 
in  that  Divine  nature,  prays  that  he  might  be  glorified 
with  the  Father,  with  the  glory  he  had  befork.  Not 
a  glory  which  was  new  to  liim ;  not  a  glory  heightened 
in  its  degree;  but  the  glory  which  he  had  with  tho 
Father  "  before  the  world  was."  In  a  manner  inysle- 
rioiis  to  us,  even  as  to  his  Divine  nature,  "  he  emptied 
hiniself— he  humbled  himself;"  but  in  that  nature  lie 
returned  to  a  glory  which  hi-  had  before  the  world  was. 
The  whole,  therclore,  was  in  him  generous.  disiiUe- 
risted  love.  inetlUlile  and  allccliiig  condescension.  The 
heresy  of  the  Sdciiiians  and  .\riaiis  totally  annihilates, 
therelore,  the  true  clinracler  of  the  love  of  Christ,  "  so 
that,"  as  Dr.  Sherlock  well  observes,  "  to  deny  the  Di- 
vinity of  Christ  alters  the  very  foundations  of  (;hris- 
tianilN,  and  destroys  all  the  powerful  arguments  of  the 
love,  hiimilily,  and  condescension,  of  our  Lord,  whicb 
are  the  peculiar  motives  of  the  (iospel. "('.)) 

lint  n  is  not  only  in  this  vuw  iliat  the  <lenial  of  the 
Divinity  of  our  Lord  would  alter  the  limndation  of  (he 
(,'hrisfian  schenu!,  but  in  others  equalij  essential ;  For, 

1.  The  doctrine  of  satisfaction  or  atonement  depends 
upon  his  Divinity  ;  and  it  is,  therelore,  consistently 
denied  by  those  who  reject  the  Ibrmer.  So  important, 
however,  is  the  decision  of  this  case,  that  the  very  terms 
of  onr  salvation,  and  the  ground  of  our  hope,  are  af- 
fected by  it. 

The  Arians,  now,  however,  nearly  extinct,  admitted 
the  doctrine  of  atonement,  though  inconsistently.  "  No 
creature  could  merit  from  (;od,  or  do  works  of  super- 
erogation. If  it  be  said  that  <;od  might  accept  it  as 
he  pleased,  it  may  be  said,  upon  the  .same  principle,  that 
he  might  accept  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats.     Yet 


(7)  NoRRia  on  Christian  Prudence. 


(7)  "Equidem  rem  attentius  perpendenli  liquebit,  ex 
hvpothesi  sive  Sortniani  sive  Ariana,  Deum  in  hoc 
iiegotio  aiiKiiini  et  dilectionem  suam  potius  in  ilium 
ipsuni  liliiini,  ipiani  erga  nos  homines  ostendisse.  Quid 
enim  !  Is  qui  (  hristus  dicilur.  ex  iiiera  Dei  eri'oKta  et 
beneplacilo  in  earn  gralium  elect  ns  est,  ut  post  breveni 
hie  in  terris  Deo  priestitam  oliediiiiliaiii,  ex  puro  |)Uto 
homine  juxta  .Socinistas,  sive  ex  mera  et  nmtabili  crea- 
tura,  ut  Ario-manil(B  dicunt,  Ihiis  ijise  fieret,  ac  dtvi- 
n.os  honores,  non  modo  a  nobis  hominibus  sed  etiam 
al)  ipsis  aiigelis  atque  archaiigclis  sibi  tribuendos  a-sse- 
ijucntiir,  ail(iH|ue  in  alias  creaturas  omnes  dominium 
atque  imprrium  obtiiieret."— Hill,,  Jud.Eccl.  Catliol 

(K)  VVackklanii's  Im|)ortaiice. 

(9)  Dclt-nCC  of  iJTII.LlKUl'  LLST. 


CoAr.  VIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


165 


:lie  AposlN;  tells  us,  that  it  is  not  pnssiile.  thai  the  hlimd 
<if  btdls  and  of  !;natx  slinuld  take,  away  sin ;  wliicli 
words  resolve  th(!  satisfaclioii,  not  merely  into  Goil's 
free  aoreptance,  Imt  into  the  intrinsic  value  of  tile  sa- 
cri(ice."(l)  Ilenr.e  the  Scriptures  so  constantly  rnn- 
neet  the  atonement  with  the  character,— the  veo'  Dmi- 
nity  of  the  pi-rson  suflering.  It  was  Jelwvah  who  was 
j)iefccd,  Zcch.  xii.  11 ;  Hod,  who  purchased  the  chtircli 
with  hui  t>W7i  lilood,  Acts  xx.  28.  It  was  6  Aco-iron/s 
the  high  Lord,  that  bought  us,  2  Pet.  ii.  1.  It  was  the 
Lord  of  glory  that  was  crucified,  1  Cor.  ii.  8. 

It  is  no  small  presumption  of  the  impossibility  of 
holding,  with  any  support  from  the  common  sense  of 
mankind,  the  doctrine  of  atonement  with  that  of  an 
inferior  Divinity,  that  these  opinions  have  so  uniformly 
slided  down  into  a  total  denial  of  it ;  and  by  almost  all 
persons,  except  those  who  have  retained  the  pure  faith 
of  the  Gosiwl,  Christ  is  regarded  as  a  man  only  ;  and 
no  atonement,  in  any  .sense,  is  allowed  to  have  been 
niaile  by  his  death.  The  terms,  then,  of  human  sal- 
vation are  entirely  different  on  one  scheme  and  on  the 
other ;  and  with  respect  to  their  advocates,  one  is 
"  under  law,"  the  other  "  under  grace ;"'  one  takes  the 
cause  of  his  own  salvation  into  his  own  hands,  to  ma- 
nage it  as  he  is  able,  and  to  plead  with  God,  either  that 
he  is  just,  or  that  he  may  be  justified  by  liis  own  peni- 
tence and  acts  of  obedient  virtue ;  the  other  pleads  the 
meritorious  death  and  Intercession  of  his  Saviour ;  in 
his  name  and  mediation  makes  his  reciuests  knowTi  unto 
God  ;  and  asks  a  justification  by  faith,  and  a  renewal 
of  heart  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  One  stands  with  all  his 
offences  before  his  Maker,  and  in  his  own  person, 
without  a  mediator  and  advocate ;  the  other  avails  him- 
self of  both.  A  ([uestion  which  involves  such  conse- 
quences, is  surely  not  a  speculative  one;  but  dee'ply 
practical  and  vital,  and  must  be  found  to  be  so  in  its 
final  issue. 

2.  The  manner  in  which  the  evil  of  sin  is  estimated 
must  be  very  different  on  these  views  of  the  Divine 
Nature  respectively ;  and  this  is  a  consequence  of  a 
directly  practical  nature.  Whatever  lowers  in  men  a 
sense  of  what  an  Apostle  calls  "  the  exceeding  sinful- 
ness of  sin,"  weakens  the  hatred  and  horror  of  it  among 
men,  and  by  consequence  encourages  it.  In  the  Soci- 
nian  view,  transgressions  of  the  Divine  law  are  all 
regarded  as  venial,  or,  at  most,  to  be  subjected  to 
slight  and  temporary  punishment.  In  the  orthodox 
doctrine,  sin  is  an  evil  so  great  in  itself,  so  hateful  to 
God,  so  injurious  in  its  effects,  so  necessary  to  be  re- 
strained by  punishment,  that  it  dooms  the  offender  to 
eternal  exclusion  from  God,  and  to  positive  endless 
punishment,  and  could  only  be  forgiven  through  a  sa- 
crifice of  atonement,  so  extraordinary  as  that  of  the 
death  of  the  Divine  Son  of  God.  By  these  means,  for- 
giveness only  could  be  promised  ;  and  the  neglect  of 
them,  in  order  to  pardon  and  sanctification  too,  aggra- 
vates the  punishment,  and  makes  the  final  visitation 
of  justice  the  more  terrible. 

3.  It  totally  changes  the  character  of  Christian  ex- 
perience. Those  strong  and  painful  emotions  of  sor- 
row and  alarm,  which  characterize  the  descriptions  and 
example  of  Repentani  k  in  the  Scriptures,  are  totally 
incongruous  and  uncalled  for,  upon  the  theory  which 
denies  man's  Inst  condition,  and  his  salvation  by  a 
process  of  redemption.  Faith,  too,  undergoes  an  es- 
sential change.  It  is  no  longer  faith  in  Christ.  His 
doctrine  ox  liis  ?7ussion  are  its  objects;  but  not,  as 
the  New  Testament  states  it,  hisperson,  as  a  surety, 
a  sacrifice,  a  mediator :  and  much  less  than  any 
thing  else  can  it  be  Cctlled,  in  the  language  of  Scrip- 
ture, "faith  ill  his  BLOOD,"  a  phrase  utterly  incapa- 
ble of  an  interpretation  by  Socinians.  Nor  is  it  possible 
to  offer  up  PRAYER  to  God  in  the  /lame  of  Christ,  though 
expressly  enjoined  upon  his  disciples,  in  any  sense 
■which  would  not  justify  all  the  idolatry  of  the  Roman 
Church,  in  availing  themselves  of  the  names,  the  in- 
terests, and  the  merits  of  saints.  In  a  Socinian,  this 
would  even  be  more  inconsistent,  because  he  denies 
the  doctrine  of  mediation  in  any  sense  which  would 
intimate  that  a  benevolent  God  may  not  be  immedi- 
ately approached  by  his  guilty  but  penitent  creatures. 
Love  to  Christ,  which  is  made  so  eminent  a  grace  in 
internal  and  experimental  Christianity,  changes  also  its 
character.  It  cannot  be  supreme,  for  that  would  be  to 
break  the  first  and  great  command,  "  Thou  shalt  love 


(1)  Watebland's  Importance. 


the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,"  if  Chiist  himself 
be  not  that  Lord  our  God.  It  must  be  love  of  the  same 
kind  we  feel  to  creatures  from  whom  we  have  received 
any  benefit,  and  a  passion,  therefore,  to  be  guarded 
and  restrained,  lest  it  should  become  excessive  and 
wean  our  hearts  and  thoughts  from  God.  But  surely 
it  is  not  under  such  views  that  love  to  Christ  is  repre- 
sented in  the  Scriptures ;  and  against  its  excess,  as 
against  ereaturely  attachments,  we  have  certainly  no 
admonition,  no  cautions.  The  love  of  Christ  to  us 
also  as  a  motive  to  generous  service,  sufferings,  and 
death,  for  the  sake  of  others,  loses  all  its  force  and  a])- 
plication.  "  The  love  of  Christ  constraineth  us  ;  forwe 
thus  judge,  that  if  one  died  for  all,  then  were  all  dead." 
That  love  of  Christ  which  constrained  the  Apostle  was 
a  love  which  led  him  to  die  /or  men.  St.  John  makes 
the  duty  of  dying  for  our  brother  obligatory  upon  all 
Christians,  if  called  to  it,  and  grounds  it  upon  the  same 
lact.  "  He  laid  down  his  life  for  us,  and  wo  ought  to 
lay  down  our  lives  for  our  brethren."  The  meaning 
doubtless  is,  in  order  to  save  them ;  and  though  men 
are  saved  by  Christ's  dying  for  tliem,  in  a  verj  different 
sense  from  that  in  which  they  can  be  saved  by  our 
dying  in  the  cause  of  instructing,  and  thus  instrumen- 
tally  saving  each  other ;  yet  the  argument  is  founded 
ujion  the  necessar}  connexion  which  there  is  between 
the  death  of  Christ  and  the  salvation  of  men.  But,  on 
the  Socinian  scheme,  Christ  did,  in  no  sense,  die /or 
men,  no,  not  in  their  general  mode  of  intepreting  such 
passages,  '-/or  the  benefit  of  men  :"  for  what  benefit, 
independent  of  propitiation,  which  Socinians  deny,  do 
men  derive  from  the  voluntary  death  of  Christ,  consider- 
edasamerehunianinstructer?  Ifitbesaid  hisdeath  was 
an  example,  it  was  not  specially  and  peculiarly  so ;  for 
both  prophets  and  apostles  have  died  with  resignation 
and  fortitude.  If  it  be  alleged  that  it  was  to  confirm 
his  doctrine,  the  answer  is,  that  in  this  view  it  was 
nugatory,  because  it  had  been  confirmed  by  undoubted 
miracles.  If  that  he  might  confinn  his  mission  by  his 
resurrection,  this  might  as  well  have  followed  from  a 
natural  as  from  a  violent  death  ;  and  besides  the  benefit 
which  men  derive  from  him,  is,  by  this  notion,  placed 
in  his  resurrection,  and  not  in  his  death,  which  is  al- 
ways exhibited  in  the  New  Testament  with  marked 
and  striking  emphasis.  The  motive  to  generous  sacri- 
fices of  ease  and  life,  in  behalf  of  men,  drawn  from  the 
death  of  (Christ,  has,  therefore,  no  existence  whenever 
Lis  Godhead  and  sacrifice  are  denied. 

4.  The  general  and  habitual  exercises  of  the  affec- 
tions of  TRUST,  HOPE,  JOY,  &;c.  towards  Christ,  are  all 
interfered  with  by  the  Socinian  doctrine.  This  has,  in 
part,  been  stated ;  but  "  if  the  Redeemer  were  not  om- 
nipresent and  omniscient,  could  we  be  certain  that  he 
always  hears  our  ])rayers,  and  knows  the  source  and 
remedy  of  all  our  miseries  ?  If  he  were  not  all-mer- 
ciful, could  we  be  certain  he  must  always  be  willing  to 
pardon  and  relieve  us?  If  he  were  not  all-powerful, 
could  we  be  sure  that  he  must  always  be  aMe  to  sup- 
port and  strengthen,  to  enlighten  and  direct  us?  Of 
any  being  less  than  God,  we  might  suspect  that  his 
purposes  might  waver,  his  promises  fail,  his  existence 
itself,  perhaps,  terminate  ;  for,  of  every  created  being, 
the  existence  must  be  dependent  and  terminable."{2) 

The  language,  too,  I  say  not  of  the  Church  of  Christ 
in  all  ages,  for  that  has  been  formed  upon  her  faith,  but 
of  the  Scriptures  themselves,  must  be  altered  and 
brought  down  to  these  inferior  views.  No  dying  saint 
can  say,  -'Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit,"  if  he  be  a 
man  like  ourselves;  and  the  redeemed  neither  in 
heaven  nor  in  earth  can  dare  to  associate  a  creature  so 
with  God  in  divine  honours  and  solemn  worship,  as  to 
unite  in  the  chorus,  "  Blessing,  and  honour,  and  glor)', 
and  power,  be  unto  Hi.m  that  sitteth  upon  the  throne, 
and  unto  the  LamJi,  for  ever  1" 

The  same  essential  changes  must  be  made  in  the 
doctrine  of  Viinne  agency  in  the  heart  of  man,  and  in 
the  church,  and  the  same  confusion  introduced  into  the 
language  of  Scripture.  "  Our  salvation  by  Christ  does 
not  consist  only  in  the  expiation  of  our  sins,  Ac,  but 
in  communication  of  divine  grace  and  power,  to  renew 
and  sanctify  us :  and  tliis  is  every  where  in  Scripture 
attributed  to  the  Jioly  Spirit,  as  his  peculiar  office  in 
the  economy  of  man's  salvation :  it  must  therefore 
make  a.  Jaiidamental  change  in  the  doctrine  of  divine 
grace  and  assistance,  to  deny  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy 


(2)  Dr.  Gbavbs's  Scriptural  Proofs  of  the  Trinity. 


166 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  II, 


Spirit.  For  can  a  creature  be  the  universal  spririL'  and 
fountain  of  divine  firace  and  life  !  Can  &  finite  creature 
be  a  kind  of  universal  soul  to  the  whole  ChrisUan 
Church,  and  to  every  sincere  member  of  it  7  t'aii  a 
creature  make  such  close  application  to  our  minds, 
know  our  thoughts,  set  bounds  to  our  passions,  inspire 
us  with  new  alfections  and  desires,  and  be  more  inti- 
mate to  us  than  we  are  to  ourselves  ?  If  a  creature  be 
the  only  instrument  and  principle  of  grace,  we  shall 
soon  be  tempted  either  to  deny  the  grace  of  (Jod,  or  to 
make  it  only  an  exiernal  thing,  and  entertain  very 
mean  conceits  of  it.  All  those  miraculous  gitis  which 
were  bestowed  upon  the  ajiostles  and  primitive  (Chris- 
tians, for  the  eililiiiition  of  the  church,  all  the  graces 
of  the  Christian  life,  are  the  fruits  of  the  >>pirit.  The 
Divine  Spirit  is  the  princijile  of  immortality  in  us, 
wliich  first  gave  life  to  our  souls,  and  will,  at  the  last 
day,  raise  our  dead  bodies  out  of  the  dust ;  works 
which  sufficiently  proclaim  Ilim  to  be  God,  and  which 
we  cannot  heartily  believe,  in  the  Gospel  notion,  if  lie 
be  not."(3)  All  tliis  has  been  felt  so  Ibrcibly  by  the 
deniers  of  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Sjiirit,  that  they 
have  escaped  only  by  taking  aiioiher  leap  down  the 
gulf  of  error;  and  at  present,  the  Socinians  deny  that 
there  is  any  Holy  Ghost,  and  resolve  the  whole  into  a 
figure  of  speech. 

liut  the  importance  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy 
Trinity  may  be  finally  argued  from  the  manner  in  which 
the  denial  of  it  would  affect  the  credit  of  the  Huly 
Scriptures  themselves;  for  if  this  doctrine  be  not  con- 
tained in  them,  their  tendency  to  mislead  is  obvious. 
Their  constant  language  is  so  adapted  to  deceive,  and 
even  to  compel  the  belief  of  falsehood,  even  in  fuiula- 
mental  points,  and  to  lead  to  the  practice  of  idolatry 
itself,  that  they  would  lose  all  claim  to  he  regarded  as 
a  revelation  from  the  tJod  of  truth,  and  oukIiI  nilher  to 
be  shunned  than  to  be  studied.  A  great  part  of  the 
Scriptures  is  directed  against  idolatry,  which  is  de- 
clared to  be  "  that  abominable  thing  which  the  Lord 
liateth ;"  and  in  pursuance  of  this  design,  the  doctrine 
that  there  is  but  one  God  is  laid  down  in  the  most  ex- 
plicit terms,  and  constantly  confirmed  by  appeals  to 
liis  works.  The  very  first  command  in  the  decalogue 
is,  "  Thou  Shalt  have  no  other  Gods  before  me ;"  and 
the  sum  of  the  law,  as  to  our  duty  to  (iod,  is,  that  we 
love  Him  "  with  all  our  heart,  and  mind,  and  soul,  and 
strength."  If  the  doctrine  of  a  Trinity  of  Divine  per- 
Bons  in  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  be  consistent  with  all 
this,  then  the  style  and  maimer  of  the  Scriptures  are  in 
perfect  accordance  with  the  moral  cn<ls  they  propose, 
and  the  truths  in  which  they  would  instruct  mankind  ; 
but  if  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  creatures,  then  is 
the  language  of  the  sacred  books  most  deceptive  and 
dangerous.  For  how  is  it  to  be  accounted  lor,  in  tliat 
case,  that  in  the  Old  Testament,  God  should  be  spoken 
of  in  plural  terms,  and  that  this  plurality  should  be  re- 
stricted to  three  ?  How  is  it  that  tlie  very  name  Jeho- 
vah should  be  given  to  each  of  them,  and  that  repeat- 
edly and  on  the  most  .solemn  occasions?  How  is  it 
that  the  promised  incarnate  Messiah  should  be  invested, 
in  the  prophecies  of  his  adviMit,  with  the  lolliest  attri- 
butes of  God,  and  that  works  infinitely  superhuman, 
and  divine  honours,  should  be  jiredicted  of  him '!  and 
that  acts  and  characters  of  uneiiuivocal  divinity,  ac- 
cording to  the  common  apprehension  of  mankind, 
should  be  ascribed  to  the  Sjiirit  also!  How  is  it  that, 
in  the  New  Testament,  tlie  name  of  (Iml  should  be 
given  to  both,  and  that  without  any  intimation  that  it  is 
to  be  taken  in  an  inferior  sense?  That  the  creation 
and  coiisenmtton  of  all  tilings  should  be  ascribed  to 
Christ;  that  he  slioulil  be  lenrshipjied  by  angels  and 
by  men;  that  he  should  lie  ri'iireseiited  as  seale<lon  I  be 
throne  of  the  universe,  lo  receive  the  adorations  of  all 
creatures ;  and  that  in  the  vi-ry  Ibrm  of  initiation  by 
baptism  into  his  church,  itself  a  public  and  solemn 
profession  of  faith,  the  baptism  is  enjoined  to  be  pir- 
Ibrmed  hi  the  ojic  nnme  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holj 
Oho."t?  One  (iud  and  two  rrentures I  As  though  the 
very  door  of  entrance  into  the  Christian  church  should 
have  been  purposely  made  tile  gate  of  the  worst  and 
most  corrupt  inn  error  ever  introduced  among  mankind, 
— trvxt  anil  leiirxhij)  in  creatures,  u.h  doil ;  the  error 
which  has  spread  darkness  and  moral  desolation  over 
the  whole  pagan  world  I 
And  here  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  question  is  begged  — 


(3)  SuiERLocx's  Vindication. 


that  more  is  taken  for  granted  than  the  Socinians  will 
allow ;  for  this  argument  does  not  rest  at  all  upon  what 
the  deniers  of  our  Lord's  Divinity  understand  by  all 
these  terms,  and  what  inteqiretations  may  be  put  upon 
them.  This  is  the  popular  view  of  the  subject  which 
has  just  been  drawn  from  the  Scriptures ;  and  they 
themselves  acknowledge  it  by  resorting  to  the  arts  and 
labours  of  lar-li;tched  criticism,  in  order  to  attach  to 
these  passages  of  Scripture  a  sense  dillerent  to  the  ob- 
vious and  pojiular  one.  But  it  is  not  merely  the  popular 
sense  of  .Scripture.  It  is  .so  taken,  and  has  been  taken 
in  all  ages,  by  the  wisest  men  and  most  competent 
critics,  to  be  the  only  consistent  sense  of  the  sacred 
volume ;  a  circumstance  which  still  more  strongly 
proves,  that  if  the  Scriptures  were  written  on  Socinian 
principles,  they  are  more  unfortunately  expressed  than 
any  book  in  thv.  world  ;  and  they  can,  on  no  account,  be 
considered  a  Divine  Revelation,  not  because  of  their 
obscurity,  for  they  are  not  obscure,  but  because  terms 
are  used  in  them  which  convey  a  sense  different  from 
what  the  writers  intended,  if  indeed  they  were  Soci- 
nians. Uut  their  evidences  prove  them  to  be  a  revela- 
tion of  truth  from  the  God  of  truth,  and  they  cannot 
therefore  be  so  written  as  to  lead  men,  who  use  only 
ordinary  care,  into  fundaineiit.il  error;  and  the  con- 
clusion, tliereli)re,  must  incvitaiily  be,  that  if  we  must 
admit  either  on  the  one  hand  what  is  so  derogatory  to 
the  Scriptures,  and  so  subversive  of  all  confidence  in 
them,  or,  on  the  other,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Divinity 
of  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  is  there  explicitly  taught, 
ttiere  is  no  medium  between  absolute  infidelity  and  the 
ac^kiiowledgment  of  oiu:  Lord's  Divinity ;  and  indeed, 
to  adopt  the  representation  of  a  great  divine,  it  id 
ratlier  to  rave  than  to  reason,  lo  suppo.se  that  he  whom 
the  Scriiuures  teach  us  to  regard  a.s  the  Saviour  of  our 
souls,  and  lus  our  wisdom,  righteousness,  sanciification, 
and  redemption;  he  who  hears  our  prayers  and  is 
always  present  with  his  Church  throughout  the  world, 
who  sits  at  the  right  hand  of  (iod,  in  the  glory  of  his 
Father,  and  who  shall  come  at  the  last  day,  in  glory 
and  majesty,  ac-c(iiiipaiiied  with  ministering  angels,  to 
judge  ail  mankind  and  to  bring  to  light  the  very  secrets 
of  their  hearts,  should  be  a  mere  man,  or  a.  created  being 
of  any  kind.(-l) 

1  close  this  view  of  the  importance  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  with  the  observations  of  Dr.  Waterland. 

"  While  we  consider  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as 
interwoven  with  the  very  frame  and  texture  of  the 
(.'liristian  religion,  it  appears  to  me  natural  to  conceive 
that  the  whole  scheme  and  economy  of  man's  redemp- 
tion was  laid  with  a  princiiial  view  to  it,  in  order  to 
bring  mankind  gradually  into  an  acquaintance  with  the 
three  Divine  persons,  one  (;od  blessed  for  ever.  I 
would  sjieak  with  all  due  modesty,  caution,  and  reve- 
rence, as  becomes  us  always  in  what  concerns  the  un- 
searchable councils  of  heaven  :  but  I  say,  there  ap- 
jiears  lo  me  none  so  natural,  or  so  jirobable  an  account 
of  the  Divine  ilispi;n>atioiis,  from  first  to  last,  as  what 
I  have  pisi  menlioned,  namely,  that  such  a  redemption 
w;i.s  prosided,  Micb  an  expiation  lor  sills  required,  such 
a  mclliod  olsanclifiraiion  appointed,  and  then  revealed, 
that  so  mull  might  know  that  there  are  three  divine 
persons,  might  hr.  ap|)ri/.ed  how  infinitely  the  world 
is  indebted  to  Ihein,  and  iniglil  accordingly  be  both  in- 
structed anil  inclined  to  love,  honour,  and  adore  them 
here,  because  that  must  he  a  considerable  part  of  tlieir 
employment  and  happiness  liercal1cr."(5) 


(4)  OtKoi'iOfua,  qua;  ipsi  tribnitur,  UcoXoyiav  neces- 
sario  su)i])onit,  ipsumque  omiiino  staluit.  Quid  enim  ? 
Messiam  sive  Christum  pra'dicant  sacne  noslrae  literal 
et  creilere  nos  prolitemur  oiiines,  qui  sit  animarum 
xosjiitator,  qui  noliis  sit  .•<apinitia,justitia,  sanclficatio, 
et  redemplio —i\u\  preces  suorum,  ubivis  .sacrosanctum 
i^ns  iionien  invocanlinni,  illico  exaudiat — ijui  ecclesise 
sua'  per  iiniversuni  tcrrariini  orbem  disseminata,  sem- 
per pra'sto  sil — qui  Deo  I'atrl,  <riii'0|ioroi;,  el  in  eadem 
-sedc  coUocatns  sit— qui  demquc,  in  exitu  mundi,  im- 
meiisa  gloria  et  majestale  refulgens.  angelis  ministris 
stipatus,  veiiiel  orbem  judicatnrus,  non  modo  facta  om- 
nia, sed  et  cordis  secrcta  omnium  iinotquot  fuere  ho- 
minum  in  luccin  proditurus,  A^c.  lla'ccjno  omnia  in 
purum  koininem,  aut  creaturam  aliquam  competcrc? 
Fidenter  tlico,  qui  ita  sential,  non  modo  contra  Fidem, 
sed  ct  rationem  ipsam  insanire.  -Hull,  Judic.  Eccl. 
Vatk. 

(5)  Importance  of  the  Doclruic  of  the  Trinity. 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


Chap.  IX.] 

In  orilcr  to  bring  this  great  (•ontroversy  in  sacli  an 
order  bcrorc  ttin  rnader,  as  ma)'  assist  liini  to  onter  with 
aJvaiilasji:  into  it,  Islmll  first  carci'ully  oollocl  the  lead- 
ing testimonies  ol'  SoriiJlure  on  the  doctrine  oC  tlic 
Trinity  and  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit,— 
adduce  the  opinions  of  the  Jewish  and  (Jtiristian 
churclies, — answer  objections, — explain  the  chief  mo- 
dem hergsies  on  this  subject,  and  give  their  Scrijitural 
confutation.  An  observation  or  two  on  the  diffirvUiea  in 
■which  the  doctrine  of  a  Trinity  of  persons  in  the  Unity 
of  om  undivided  Godhead  is  said  to  involve  us,  may 
properly  close  this  chapter. 

Mere  difficulty  in  conceiving  of  what  is  wholly  proper 
and  peculiar  to  God,  forms  no  objection  to  a  doctrine. 
It  is  more  rationally  to  be  considered  as  a  presumption 
of  its  truth,  since  in  the  nature  of  God  there  must  be 
mysteries  far  above  the  reach  of  the  human  mind.  All 
his  natural  attributes,  though  of  some  of  them  we  have 
images  in  ourselves,  are  utterly  incomprehensible ;  and 
the  manner  of  his  existence  cannot  be  less  so.  All  at- 
tempts, however,  to  show  that  this  great  doctrine  im- 
plies a  contradiction,  have  failed.  A  contradiction  is 
only  where  two  contraries  are  predicated  of  the  same 
thing,  and  tii  the  name  respect.  Let  this  be  kept  in 
view,  and  the  sophisms  re.sorted  to  on  this  point  by  the 
adversaries  of  the  faith,  will  be  easily  detected.  They 
urge,  that  the  same  thing  cannot  be  three,  and  one,  that 
is,  if  the  proposition  has  any  meaning  at  all,  not  in  the 
sami  respect;  the  three  persons  are  not  one  pcison, 
and  the  o?ie  God  is  not  three  Gods.  But  it  is  no  con- 
tradiction to  say,  that  in  diffurent  respects  the  three 
may  be  one ;  that  is,  that  in  respect  of  persons,  they 
shall  be  three,  and  in  respect  of  Godhead,  essence,  or 
nature,  they  shall  be  one.  The  manner  of  the  thing  is 
a  perfectly  distinct  qtiestion,  and  its  incomprehensi- 
bility proves  nothing  but  that  we  are  finite  creatures, 
and  not  God.  As  for  difficulties,  we  shall  certainly  not 
be  rslieved  by  running  either  to  the  Arian  or  the  So- 
cinian  hypothesis.  The  one  ascribes  the  first  formation 
and  the  perpetual  government  of  the  universe,  not  to 
the  Deity,  but  to  the  wisdom  and  power  of  a  creature ; 
for,  however  e.xalted  the  Arian  inferior  Deity  may  be, 
he  is  a  creature  still.  The  other  makes  a  mere  man 
the  creator  of  all  things.  For  whatever  is  meant  by 
"the  Word  in  St.  John's  gospel,  it  is  the  same  Word  of 
which  the  evangelist  says,  that  all  things  were  made 
by  it,  and  that  itself  was  made  flesh.  If  this  Word  be 
the  Divine  attribute  wisdom,  then  that  attribute  in  the  de- 
gree which  was  equal  to  the  formation  of  the  universe, 
in  this  view  of  the  Scripture  doctrine,  was  conveyed 
entire  into  the  mind  of  a  mere  man,  the  son  of  a  .lew- 
ish  carpenter  1  A  much  greater  difficulty,  in  my  appre- 
hension, than  any  that  is  to  be  found  in  tlic  Catholic 
faitU,"(6) 


CHAPTER  IX. 

Trinity. — Scripture  Testimony. 

!.■<  adducing  the  doctrine  of  a  Trinity  of  Divine  per- 
sons in  tiie  Unity  of  the  Godhead  from  tlie  sacred  vo- 
lume, by  exhibiting  some  of  its  numerous  and  decisive 
testimonies  as  to  this  being  the  mode  in  which  the  Di- 
vine nature  subsists,  the  explicit  manner  in  which  it 
is  there  laid  dovm,  that  there  is  but  one  God,  must 
ag.ain  be  noticed. 

This  is  the  foundation  and  the  key-stone  of  the  whole 
fabric  of  Scriptural  tlieology ;  and  every  argument  in 
favour  of  the  Trinity  Hows  from  this  principle  of  tlie 
absolute  Unity  of  God,  a  principle  which  the  heresies 
at  which  we  have  glanced  fancy  to  be  inconsistent  with 
the  orthodox  doctrine. 

The  solemn  and  unequivocal  manner  in  which  the 
Unity  of  God  is  stated  as  a  doctrine,  and  is  placed  as 
the  foundation  of  all  true  religion,  whether  devotional 
or  practical,  need  not  again  be  repeated  ;  and  it  is  here 
sullicient  to  refer  to  the  chapter  on  the  Unity  of  God. 

Of  this  one  God,  the  high  and  peculiar,  and,  as  it  has 
been  truly  called,  the  appropriate  name  is  Jkhovah  ; 
which,  like  all  the  Hebrew  names  of  God,  is  not  an  in- 
significant and  accidental  term,  but  a  name  of  revela- 
tion, a  name  adopted  by  God  himself  for  tho  purpose  of 
iHaking  known  the  mystery  of  his  naiure.  To  what 
has  been  already  said  en  tiiis  appellation,  I  may  add, 

(6)  HoRSLE^'s  Letters. 


167 


that  the  most  eminent  critics  derive  it  from  niH  /"^^ 
cxt-ttd  ;  which  in  Kal  signifies  to  be,  and  in  Hiplfel  to 
cause  to  he.  Buxtorf,  m  his  definition,  includes  botli 
these  ideas,  and  makes  it  signify  a  being  existing  from 
himself  from  everlasting  to  everlastmg,  and  communi- 
cating existence  to  others,  and  adds  that  it  signifies  the 
Being  who  is,  and  xvas,  and  is  to  come.  Its  dcrivniion 
has  been  variously  stated  by  critics,  and  some  lancilul 
notions  have  been  formed  of  the  import  of  its  stviral 
letters  ;  but  in  this  idea  of  absolute  existence  all  agree. 
"  It  is  acknowledged  by  all,"  says  Bishop  Pearson, 

"  that  niri'  is  from  riin  01  nTl  and  God's  own  in- 
terpretation proves  no  less,  Exod.  iii.  14.  Some  con- 
tend, that  futurition  is  essential  to  the  name,  yet  all 
agree  the  root  signifieth  nothing  but  essence  or  exist- 
ence, that  is,  TO  civat  or  u7rapx£ii'-''(~)  ^o  appellation 
of  the  Divine  Being  could  therefore  be  more  distinctive 
than  that  which  imports  independent  and  eternal  being; 
and  for  this  reason  ])robabIy  it  was,  that  the  Jews  ii|) 
to  a  very  high  antiquity  had  a  singular  reverence  for  it ; 
carried,  it  is  true,  to  a  superstitious  scrupulosity ;  but 
thereby  showing  that  it  was  the  name  which  unveiled, 
to  the  thoughts  of  those  to  whom  it  was  first  given,  the 
awful  and  overwhelming  glories  of  a  self-existent  Be- 
ing,—the  very  unfathomable  denths  of  bis  eternal  God- 
head.(8) 

In  examining  what  the  Scriptures  teach  of  this  self- 
existent  and  eternal  Bemg,  our  attention  is  first  ar- 
rested by  the  important  fact,  that  this  one  Jehovah  is 
spoken  of  under  plural  appellations,  and  that  not  once 
or  twice,  but  in  a  countless  number  of  instances.  So 
that  the  Hebrew  names  of  God,  acknowledged  by  all 
to  be  expressii^e  and  declaratory  of  some  pecifiiarity  or 
excellence  of  his  nature,  are  found  in  several  cases  in 
the  plural  as  well  as  in  the  singular  form,  and  one  of 
them,  AIjEim,  generally  so;  and,notwith.standing  it  was 
so  fundamental  and  distinguishing  an  article  of  the 
Jewish  faith,  in  opposition  to  the  polytheism  of  almost 
all  other  nations,  there  was  but  one  living  and  true 
God.  1  give  a  few  instances.  Jehiniah,  if  it  has  not  a 
plural  form,  has  more  than  one  personal  application. 
"  Then  the  Lord  rained  upon  Sodom  and  upon  flomor- 
rah  brim.stone  and  fire  from  the  Lord  out  of  heaven." 
We  have  here  the  visible  Jehovah,  who  had  talked  with 
Abraham,  raining  the  storm  of  vengeance  Irom  another 
.Jehovah,  out  of  heaven,  and  who  was  therefore  invisi- 
ble. Thus  we  have  twoJehovahs  expressly  mentioned, 
"  the  Lord  rained  from  the  Lord,"  and  yet  we  have  it 
mo.st  solemnly  asserted  in  Deut.  vi.  4,  "  Hear,  O  Israel, 
Jehovah  our  God  is  one  Jehovah." 

The  very  first  name  in  the  Scriptures  under  which 
the  Divine  Being  is  introduced  to  us  as  the  Creator  of 
heaven  and  earth,  is  a  plural  one,  CDTIvX  Ai.kim  ; 
and  to  connect,  in  the  same  singular  manner  as  in  the 
foregoing  instance,  plurality  with  unity,  it  is  the  nomi- 
native case  to  a  verb  singular.  "  In  the  beginning, 
Gods  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth."  Of  this 
form  innumerable  instances  occur  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. That  the  word  is  plural,  is  made  certain  by  its 
being  often  joined  with  adjectives,  pronouns,  and  verbs 
plural;  and  jet  when  it  can  mean  nothing  else  than 
the  true  God,  it  is  generally  joined  in  its  plural  fonn 
with  verbs  singular.  To  render  this  still  more  striking, 
the  Aleim  are  said  to,  be  Jehovah,  and  Jehovah  the 
Aleim  :  thus  in  Psalm  c.  3,  "  Know  ye,  that  Jehovali, 
he,  the  Aleim,  he  hath  made  us,  and  not  we  ourselves." 
And  in  the  passage  before  given,  "Jehovah  our  Ai.eim, 
(Gods,)  is  one  Jehovah."  7X  Al,  the  mighty  one,  an- 
other name  of  God,  has  its  plural  □''Sx  Ai>im,  the 
mighty  ones.  The  ibrmer  is  rendered  by  Tronmiius 
ecog,  the  latter  Ocot-  T'^X  Abir,  the  potent  one,  has 
the  plural  D"'T3N  Abirisi,  the  potent  ones.  Man  did 
eat  the  bread  of  the  Atiirim,  "angel's  food,"  conveys 
no  idea ;  the  manna  was  the  bread  [irovided  miracu- 
lously, and  was  therefore  called  the  food  of  the  power- 
ful ones,  of  them  wlio  have  power  over  all  nature,  the 
one  God. 

(7)  Exposition  of  the  Creed. 

(8)  Maimonides  tells  us,  that  it  was  not  lawful  to 
utter  this  name,  except  in  the  sanctuary,  and  by  the 
priests.  "  Nomen,  i(uod,  ut  nosti,  non  proferre  licet, 
nisi  in  sanctuario,  et  a  sacerduiibus  Dei  Sanctis,  solum 
in  benedictione  sacerdotum,  ul  ct  a  sacerdote  magno  in 
die  jejunii." 


168 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Pakt 1L 


D'JnX  Adonim  is  the  plural  fomi  of  jITN  Adon, 
a  Governor.  "  11"  I  be  Adonim,  mfixtcrx,  where  is  my 
fear  ?"  Mai.  i.  6.  Many  other  instances  iiiitrht  be  given, 
as  '•  Remember  thy  Creators  in  the  days  dlihy  youth."' 
"  The  knowli-dge  of  the  Holy  Ones  is  iindrrtiWrnliii','." 
"There  be  /uif/tfr  than  tliey."  Hcb.  He^'li  onix ;  and 
in  Daniel,  "  Tlic  Watchrrx  and  the  Holy  ones.'' 

Other  i)lural  forms  of  speech  also  occur  when  tlie 
one  true  (;od  only  i.s  spoken  of.  "  And  (;od  said,  let  us 
make  man  in  our  own  image,  after  our  likeness." 
"And  the  Lord  (ion  said.  Behold  the  man  is  become 
like  one  of  lis."  "  And  the  Lord  said,  letwsgo  down." 
"  Because  there  (ion  apj)eared  to  him."  lleb.  "  God 
they  appeared,''  the  verb  being  phiral.  These  instances 
need  not  be  multij)Iied  :  they  are  the  common  forms  of 
speech  in  the  .sacred  Scrijitures,  whali  no  criticism  has 
been  able  to  resolve  into  mere  idioms,  ami  wliich  only 
the  doctrine  of  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  unity  of  the 
Godhead  can  satisfactorily  explain.  If  they  were  mere 
idioms,  they  could  not  have  been  misunderstood  by 
those  to  whom  the  Hebrew  tongue  was  native,  to  imply 
plurality  ;  but  of  this  we  have  sufficient  evidence, 
which  shall  be  adduced  when  we  speak  of  the  faith  of 
the  .Jewish  church.  They  have  been  acknowledged  to 
form  a  striking  singularity  in  the  Hebrew  language, 
even  by  those  who  have  objected  to  the  conclusion 
drawn  from  them ;  and  the  question,  therefore,  has  been 
to  find  an  hypothesis  which  should  account  for  a  pecu- 
liarity which  is  found  in  no  other  language  with  the 
same  circumstances. (9) 

Some  have  supposed  angels  to  be  associated  with 
God  when  these  plural  forms  occur.  For  this  there  is 
no  foundation  in  the  texts  themselves,  and  it  is  besides 
a  manifest  absurdity.  Others,  that  the  style  of  royalty 
was  adopted,  whicli  is  refuted  by  two  considerations — 
that  Almighty  God  in  other  instances  speaks  in  the 
singular,  and  not  in  tlie  plural  number;  and  that  this 
was  not  the  style  of  the  sovereigns  of  tlie  earth,  when 
Moses  or  any  of  the  sacred  penmen  composed  their 
writings;  no  instance  of  it  being  found  in  any  of  the 
inspired  books.  A  third  opinion  is,  that  the  plural  form 
of  speaking  of  God  was  adopted  by  the  Hebrews  from 
their  ancestors,  who  were  polytheists,  and  that  the  an- 
cient tlieoldglcid  term  was  retained  aller  the  unity  of 
God  was  acknowledged.  This  assumes  what  is  totally 
without  iiroof,  tliat  the  ancestors  of  the  Hebrews  were 
polytheists  ;  and  could  that  be  made  out,  it  would  leave 
it  still  to  be  accounted  lor,  why  other  names  of  the 
Deity,  equally  ancient  for  any  thing  that  appears  to  the 
contrary,  are  not  also  plural,  and  especially  the  high 
name  of' Jehovah ;  and  why,  more  particularly  the  very 
api)ellation  in  question,  Aletm,  should  have  a  singular 
fonn  also,  n7X)  'n  the  same  language.  The  gramma- 
tical reasons  which  have  been  offered  are  equally  un- 
satisfactory. If,  then,  no  hypothesis  explains  this  pe- 
culiarity, but  that  which  concludes  it  to  indicate  that 
mode  of  the  Divine  existence  which  was  e.xi)ressed  in 
later  theology  by  the  phrase,  a  Trinity  of  Persons, — the 
inferenc(!  is  too  ijowerful  tobeeasil)  risisii  d,  thai  these 
plural  forms  must  be  considered  as  intended  lo  iiilimalc 
the  plurality  of  persons  in  essential  connexion  with 
one  supreme  and  adoralile  Deity. 

This  argument,  however,  taken  alone,  powerful  as  it 
has  often  been  justly  dc:cmcd,  does  not  contain  the 
strength  of  the  case.  For  natural  as  it  is  to  expect, 
presuming  this  to  be  the  mode  of  the  Divine  e.xislence, 
that  some  of  his  names,  which,  according  to  tin'  expres- 
sive and  simple  character  of  the  Hebrew  hlllgll:i;;r,  :iri' 
descriptions  of  nY(/(7/c,v,  and  that  some  of  tlic  iikhI.s 
of  expression  adopted  even  in  the  earliest  revclalioiis, 
should  carry  some  intimation  of  a  /art,  which,  as  es- 
sentially connected  with  redemptiou,  the  future  com- 
plete revelation  of  the  redeeming  scheme  was  intended 


(9)  The  argument  for  the  Trinity  drawn  fi-om  the 
plural  appellations  given  to  God  in  the  Ili^brew  Si-rip- 
tures,  was  opposed  by  the  younger  Buxtorl';  who  yet 
admits  tli.at  lliis  argniueiit  should  not  altogether  be  re- 
jected among  Clinstians  ;  "for  upon  tlie  same  princi- 
ple on  which  not  a  few  of  the  .lews  relir  this  emphali- 
cal  application  of  the  plural  number  to  a  plurality  of 
powers  or  of  influences,  or  of  operations,  that  is,  ad 
extra  ;  why  may  we  not  refer  it  ad  laira,  to  a  plurality 
of  persons  and  lo  personal  works  ?  Yea,  trim  certainly 
'  knows  what  that  was  which  the  ancient  .lews  ujidur- 
Btood  by  tlus  plurality  of  powers  and  faculties  ?" 


fully  to  unfold ;  yet.  were  these  plural  titles  and  forms 
of  construction  blotted  out,  the  evidence  of  a  plurality 
of  Divine  piirsons  in  the  (Jodhead  would  still  remain 
in  its  strongest  form.  For  that  evidence  is  not  merely 
that  God  has  revealed  himself  under  plural  appellations, 
nor  that  these  are  constructed  with  sometimes  singular 
and  sometimes  plural  forms  of  speech ;  but  that  tAree 
persons,  and  three  iiersons  r>/i/y  are  sjioken  of  in  the 
Scriptures  uiidir  Divine  titles,  each  having  the  i)eculiar 
attributes  of  Divinity  ascribed  to  lum ;  and  yet  that  the 
first  and  leading  principle  of  the  same  book,  which 
sjieaks  thus  of  the  character  and  works  of  these  per- 
sons, should  be,  that  there  is  hut  onk  God.  This  point 
being  once  established,  it  may  be  asked,  wliich  of  the 
hypotheses,  the  Orthodox,  the  Arian,  or  the  Socinian, 
agrees  best  with  this  plain  and  explicit  doctrine  of 
Holy  Writ.  Plain  and  explicit,  I  say ;  not  as  lo  the 
mode  of  the  Divine  existence,  not  as  to  the  comprehen- 
sion of  it,  but  as  to  this  particular,  that  the  doctrine 
itself  is  plainly  stated  in  the  Scriptures. 

Let  this  point,  then,  be  examined,  and  it  will  be  seen 
even  that  the  very  number  three  has  this  pre-eminence; 
that  the  application  of  these  names  and  powers  is  re- 
strained to  it,  and  never  strays  beyond  it ;  and  that 
those  who  conlide  in  the  te.stimony  of  (.'od  rather  than 
in  the  opiniiiiis  of  men,  have  sullicieni  Scriptural  rea- 
son lo  (listiiiijuish  their  faith  from  the  unljelief  of  others 
by  avowing  lliciiiselves  Trinil(iriaii.^.{\) 

The  solemn  form  of  bcm diction,  in  which  the  Jew- 
ish high-priests  were  commainled  to  bless  the  children 
of  Israel,  has  in  it  this  peculiar  indication,  and  singu- 
larly answers  lo  the  tonn  of  benediction  so  general  in 
the  close  of  the  apostolic  E|iistles,  and  which  so  appro- 
liriately  closes  the  solemn  services  of  Christian  wor- 
ship. It  is  given  in  Numbers  vi.  24 — 27. 
Jehovaii  bless  thee  and  kee])  thee : 
Jehovah  make  his  face  to  stiine  upon  thee,  and  be 

gracious  unto  thee : 
Jehovah  lilt  his  countenance  upon  thee,  and  give 
thee  peace. 

If  the  three  members  of  this  form  of  benediction  be 
attentively  considered,  they  will  be  found  to  agree  re- 
spectively to  the  three  persons  tak?n  in  the  usual  order 
of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  The 
Father  is  the  author  of  hlessins;  and  preservation ;  illu- 
mination and  grace  are  from  the  Son ;  ilhnninaticm 
a.ni  peace  from  the  Spirit,  the  Teacher  of  Irulh,  and  the 
Comforter.(2) 

"  The  first  member  of  the  formula  exjiresscs  the  be- 
nevolent '  love  of  (;od  ;'  the  father  of  mercies,  and  foun- 
tain of  all  good :  the  second  well  comports  with  the 
redeeming  ami  reconciling  '  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ;'  and  the  last  is  appropriate  to  the  purity,  con- 
solation, and  joy.  which  are  received  from  the '  conunu- 
liion  of  the  lioly  Sjiirit.' "(3) 

The  conntixioii  of  certain  specific  blessings  in  this 
form  of  beiiedictiim  with  the  .leliovah  mentioned  three 
times  distinctly,  and  those  whi<'h  are  represented  as 
flowing  from  liie  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  iii  the  apostolic 
form,  would  be  a  singular  coincidence,  if  it  even  stoo<l 
alone  ;  but  the  light  of  the  .same  emineiii  truth,  though 
not  yet  fully  revealed,  bn^aks  tbrlli  Irom  other  partings 
of  the  clouds  of  the  early  morning  of  revelation. 

The  inner  part  of  the  .Icwisli  sanctuary  was  called 
the  Holy  of  Holies,  that  is,  the  holy  place  of  the  Holy 
Ones;  and  the  number  of  these  is  indicated  and  limited 
to  three,  in  the  celebrated  vision  of  Isaiah,  and  that  with 
;;r(at  explicilness.  The  scene  of  that  vision  is  the  holy 
place  oniic'fciriple,  and  lies  tlierefore  in  the  very  abode 
and  residence  ol  the  Holy  Ones,  here  celeliraled  by  the 
seraphs  who  veiled  their  faces  before  them.  And  one 
cried  unto  another,  and  said,  '^Holy,  Holy,  Holy,  is  the 
Lord  of  Hosts."  This  passage,  if  it  stood  alone,  might 
be  eluded  by  saying,  that  tliis  act  of  (/(ivdc  adoration 
here  mentioned  is  merely  emphatic,  or,  in  the  II<brew 
mode  of  expressing  it,  a  sujierlalive ;  lliough  that  is 
assumed,  and  by  no  means  proved.  It  is,  however, 
worthy  of  serious  notice,  that  this  distinct  trine  act  of 
adoration,  xvhich  has  been  soolleii  sujiposed  to  mark  a 
liluralily  of  persons  as  the  objects  of  it,  is  answered  by 
a  voice  from  that  excellent  glory  which  overwhelmed 
the  mind  of  the  projihet  when  he  was  favoured  with 


(1)  The  word  rpiai,  trinitas,  came  into  use  ill  the 
second  century. 

(2)  Vide  JoNKs's  Catholic  Doctrine. 

(3)  SaiTB'e  Pcreou  of  Christ. 


Chap.  IX.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


169 


the  vision,  responding  in  the  same  language  of  plurality 
in  which  the  doxolog)'  oC  the  seraphs  is  expressed. 
"Also  I  heard  the  voice  of  the  Lord,  saying,  Whom 
shall  I  send !  and  who  will  go  lor  us  V  But  this  is  not 
the  only  evidence,  that  in  tlus  passage,  the  Holy  Ones, 
who  were  addressed  each  by  his  appropriate  and  eijual 
designation  ol'  hvly,  were  the  three  divine  subsistences 
in  the  Godhead.  The  being  addressed  is  the  "  Lord  of 
Hosts."  This  all  acknowledge  to  include  the  Father; 
but  the  Evangi^list  ,Iohn,  xii.  41,  in  manifest  reference  to 
this  transaction,  observes,  "  These  things  said  Esaias, 
when  he  saw  his  (Christ's)  glory  and  spake  of  him." 
In  this  vision,  therefore,  we  have  the  So/i  also,  whose 
glory  on  this  occasion  the  prophet  i.s  said  to  have  be- 
held. Acts  xxviii.  25,  determines  that  there  was  also 
the  presence  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  "  Well  spake  the 
Holy  Ghost  by  Esaias  the  prophet  unto  our  fathers, 
saying.  Go  unto  this  people  and  say.  Hearing  ye  shall 
hear  and  not  understand,  and  seeing  ye  shall  see  and  not 
perceive,"  &c.  These  words,  quoted  from  Isaiah,  the 
Apostle  Paul  declares  to  have  been  spoken  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  Isaiah  declares  them  to  have  been  spoken  on 
this  very  occasion  by  the  "  Lord  of  Hosts."  "  And  he 
said,  go  and  tell  this  people, '  Hear  ye  indeed  and  under- 
stand not,  and  see  ye  indeed  but  perceive  not,'  "  &c. 

Now  let  all  these  circumstances  be  placed  together — 
THE  PLACE,  the  holy  place  of  the  holy  ones  ;  the  repeti- 
tion of  the  homage,  three  times,  Holy,  Holy,  Holy — 
the  ONE  Jehovah  of  liosts,  to  whom  it  was  addressed, 
— the  plural  pronoun  used  by  this  one  Jehovah,  rs ; 
the  declaration  of  an  Evangelist,  that  on  this  occasion 
Isaiah  saw  the  glory  of  Chkisi  ;  the  declaration  of  St. 
Paul,  that  the  Lord  of  Hosts  who  spoke  on  that  occa- 
sion was  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  the  conclusion  will  not 
appear  to  be  without  most  jiowerful  authority,  both  cir- 
cumstantial and  declaratory,  that  the  adoration,  Holy, 
Holy,  Holy,  referred  to  the  Divine  Three,  in  the  one  es- 
sence of  the  Lord  of  Hosts.  Accordingly,  in  the  book  of 
Revelations,  where  "  the  Lamb'"  is  so  constantly  repre- 
sented as  sitting  upon  the  divine  throne,  and  where  he 
by  name  is  associated  with  the  Father,  as  the  object  of 
the  eijual  homage  and  praise  of  saints  and  angels ;  this 
scene  from  Isaiah  is  transferred  into  the  4th  Chapter, 
and  the  "  living  creatures,"  the  Seraphim  of  the  Projihet, 
are  heard  in  the  same  strain,  and  with  the  same  trine 
repethion,  saying,  "Holy,  Holy,  Holy,  Lord  God  Al- 
mighty, which  \eas,  and  is,  and  is  to  come."  Isaiah 
xlviii.  16,  also  makes  this  threefold  distinction  and  limit- 
ation. "And  now  the  Ziorti  G'otZ  and  his  ISpirit  hath 
sent  me."  The  words  are  manifestly  spoken  by  Mes- 
siah, who  declares  himself  sent  by  the  Lord  God,  and  by 
his  :ipirit.  Some  render  it,  hath  sent  me  and  his  Sjiint, 
the  latter  term  being  also  in  the  accusative  case.  This 
strengthens  the  application,  by  bringing  the  phrase 
nearer  to  that  so  of^eii  used  by  our  Lord  in  his  discourses, 
who  speaks  o(  himself  mid  the  Spirit  being  sent  by  the 
Father.  "The  Father  which se?i<  me — the  Comlbrter 
whom  I  will  send  unto  you  from  the  Father,  who  pro- 
ceedeth  from  the  Father."  Isaiah  xxxiv.  Ki,  "  Seek  ye 
out  of  the  Book  of  the  Lord,  and  read,  lor  my  mouth  it 
hath  commanded,  and  his  spirit  it  hath  gathered 
theuL"  "Here  is  one  person  speaking  oi  the  Spirit, 
another  person. "(2)  Hag.  ii.  5. 7,  "  I  am  with  you,  saith 
the  Lord  of  Hosts,  according  to  the  word  that  I  cove- 
nanted with  you  when  you  came  out  of  Egypt,  so  my 
Spirit  remaineth  among  you ;  fear  ye  not.  For  thus 
saith  the  Lord  tf  Hosts,  I  will  shake  all  nations,  and  the 
desire  of  all  nation.s  shall  come."  Here  also  we  have 
three  persons  distinctly  mentioned ;  the  Lord  of  Hosts, 
his  Spirit,  and  the  Desire  of  all  nations. 

Many  other  passages  might  be  given,  in  which  there 
is  this  change  of  persons,  sometimes  enumerating  two, 
sometimes  three,  but  never  ynore  than  three,  arrayed  in 
these  eminent  and  Divine  characters.  The  passages  in 
the  New  Testament  are  familiar  to  every  one  :  "  Bap- 
tizing them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  "  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Love  of  God,  and  the  communion  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  with  others  in  which  the  sacred  three, 
and  three  only,  are  thus  collocated  as  objects  of  ei/ual 
trust  and  honour,  and  equally  the  fountain  and  the 
source  of  grace  and  benediction. 

On  the  celebrated  passage  in  1  John  v.  7,  "There  arc 
three  that  bear  record  in  heaven,"  1  say  nothing,  because 
authorities  against  its  genuineness  are  found  in  the 


(2)  Jones  on  the  Trinity. 


ranks  of  the  orthodox,  and  among  those  who  do  not 
captiously  make  objections ;  and  because  it  would 
scarcely  be  fair  to  adduce  it  as  a  proof  unless  the  argu- 
ments on  each  side  were  exhibited,  which  would  lead 
to  discussions  which  lie  beside  the  design  of  this  work, 
and  more  properly  have  their  place  in  separate  and  dis- 
tinct treatises.  The  recent  revival  of  the  inquiry  into  the 
genuineness  of  this  text,  however,  shows  that  the  point 
is  far  from  being  critically  settled  against  the  jiassage, 
as  a  true  portion  of  Holy  Writ,  and  the  argument  from 
the  context  is  altogether  in  favour  of  those  who  advo(tate 
it,  the  hiatus  in  the  sense  never  having  been  satisfactorily 
supplied  by  those  who  reject  it.  This  is  of  more  weight 
in  argimients  of  this  kind  than  is  often  allowed.  As  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  text,  it  has  elsewhere  abundant  proof. 

It  has  now  been  shown,  that  while  the  Unity  of  God 
is  to  be  considered  a  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, laid  do\vn  with  the  utmost  solemnity,  and  guarded 
with  the  utmost  care,  by  precepts,  by  threatenings,  by 
promises,  by  tremendous  punishments  of  polytheism 
and  idolatry  among  the  Jews,  the  very  names  of  God, 
as  given  in  the  revelation  made  of  himself,  have  plural 
forms  and  are  connected  with  plural  modes  of  speech  ; 
that  other  indications  of  plurality  are  given  in  various 
parts  of  Holy  Writ ;  and  that  this  plurality  is  restricted  to 
three.  On  those  texts,  however,  which  in  their  terms  de- 
note a  [ilurality  and  a  trinity,  the  proof  does  not  wholly  or 
chiefly  rest,  and  they  have  been  only  adduced  as  introduc- 
tory to  instances  too  numerous  to  be  all  examined,  in 
which  two  distinct  persons  are  spoken  of,  sometimes  con- 
nectedly and  sometimes  separately,  as  associated  with 
God  in  his  perfections  and  incommunicable  glories,  and 
as  perlbrming  works  of  unequivocal  Divine  majesty  aiid 
infinite  power,  and  thus  together  manifesting  that  tri- 
unity  of  the  Godhead  which  the  true  Church  has  in  all 
ages  adored  and  magnified.  This  is  the  great  proof  upon 
which  the  doctrine  rests.  The  first  of  these  two  persons 
is  the  Son, the  second  the  Spirit.  Of  the  former,  it  will  be 
observed  that  the  titles  of  Jehovah,  Lord,  God,  King,  King 
of  Israel,  Redeemer,  Saviour,  and  other  names  of  God, 
are  ascribed  to  him, — that  he  is  invested  witli  the  attri- 
butes of  Eternity,  Omnipotence,  Ubiquity,  Infinite  Wis- 
dom, Holiness,  Goodness,  &,c., — that  he  was  the  Leader, 
the  visible  King,  and  the  object  of  the  worship  of  the 
Jews, — that  he  forms  the  great  subject  of  jirophecy,  and 
is  s]ioken  of  in  the  predictions  of  the  pro])hets  in  lan- 
guage, which  if  applied  to  men  or  to  angels  would  by 
the  Jews  have  been  considered  not  as  sacred  but  idola- 
trous, and  which,  therefore,  except  that  it  agreed  with 
their  ancient  faith,  would  totally  have  destroyed  the 
credit  of  those  writings, — that  he  is  eminently  known 
both  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  the  New,  as  the  Son 
of  God,  an  appellative  which  is  sufficiently  proved  to 
have  been  considered  as  implying  an  assumption  of  Di- 
vinity by  the  circumstance  that,  for  asserting  it,  our 
Lord  was  condemned  to  die  as  a  blasphemer  by  the 
Jewish  Sanhedrim,— that  he  became  incarnate  in  our 
nature, — wrought  miracles  by  his  own  original  power, 
and  not,  as  his  servants,  in  the  name  of  another, — that 
he  authoritatively  forgave  sin, — that  for  the  sake  of 
his  sacrifice  sin  is  forgiven  to  the  end  of  the  world, 
and  for  the  sake  of  that  alone, — that  he  rose  from 
the  dead  to  seal  all  these  pretensions  to  Divinity, — 
that  he  is  seated  upon  the  tlirone  of  the  universe,  all 
power  behig  given  to  liipi  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  that 
his  inspired  apostles  exliibit  liim  as  the  Creator  of  all 
things  visible  and  invisible;  as  the  true  God  and  the 
eternal  life  ;  as  the  king  eternal,  immortal,  invisible,  the 
only  wise  God  and  our  Saviour, — that  they  offer  to  him 
the  highest  worship, — that  they  trust  in  him,  and  com- 
mand all  others  to  trust  in  him  for  eternal  life,— that  he 
is  the  head  over  all  things, — that  angels  worship  him 
and  render  him  service, — that  he  will  raise  the  dead  at 
the  last  day,— judge  the  secrets  of  men's  hearts,  and 
finally  determine  the  everlasting  state  of  the  righteous 
and  the  wicked. 

This  is  the  outline  of  Scriptural  testimony  as  to  the 
Son.  As  to  the  Divine  character  of  the  Spirit,  it  is 
equally  explicit.  He  too  is  called  Jehovah  ;  Jehovah 
of  Hosts ;  God.  Eternitv,  omnipotence,  ubiquity,  infi- 
nite wisdom,  and  other  attributes  of  Deity,  are  ascribed 
to  him.  He  is  introduced  as  an  agent  in  the  work  of 
the  creation,  and  to  him  is  ascribed  the  conservation  of 
all  living  beings.  He  is  the  source  of  the  inspiration 
of  Prophets  and  Apostles  ;  the  object  of  worship ;  the 
efficient  agent  in  illuminating,  comforting,  and  sancti- 
fying the  souls  of  men.    Ue  makes  intercession  for  the 


170 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  H. 


saints;  quickens  the  dead,  and,  linallv. lie  is  assoriated 
with  tlio  Fattier  and  ttie  Son,  in  llie'l()rm  of  Ijaiillsm 
intotlie  onrnamf  n{ C,oi\,ani]  in  llie  ajioslolii-  lorimil  be- 
nediction, as,  equally  with  them,  the  source  and  lii'in- 
tain  of  grace  and  blesscilncss.  These  derisive  jioints  I 
shall  proceed  to  estahlish  by  the  express  declarations 
of  various  passages,  both  of"  the  Old  and  i\ew  Testa- 
ment. When  that  is  done,  ilic  iir;;iunent  will  then  be, 
that  as  on  the  one  hand  the  docrriiie  of  Scripture  is, 
that  there  is  but  iine  Gou  ;  and,  on  the  other,  that 
throughout  both  Testaments,  llirtc  persons  are,  in  un- 
equivocal language,  and  by  unequivocal  circumstances, 
declared  to  be  Oiriiiv;  the  only  conclusion  which  can 
harmonize  these  otherwise  ojijiDsitc,  contradir.tory,  and 
most  misUadinii  propo.^umiis  and  declarations  is,  that 
the  Thkee  1'krsons  aku  onk  Gon. 

In  the  prevalent  faith  of  the  (,'hristian  Church,  neither 
of  these  views  is  for  a  monient  lost  sight  of.  Thus  it 
exactly  harmoni/.es  with  the  Scriptures,  nor  can  it  be 
charged  with  greater  mystery  than  is  assignable  to  them. 
The  Trinity  is  asserted,  but  the  Unity  is  not  obscured  ; 
the  Unity  is  confessed,  but  without  denial  of  the  Tri- 
nity. No  figures  of  speech,  no  unnatural  modes  of  in- 
terpretation are  reported  lo,  to  reconcile  these  views 
with  human  conceptions,  which  tin  y  must  infinitely 
transcend.  This  is  the  character  ollln-  Imrisies  which 
have  ari.sen  on  this  subject.  'l'lu,-y  all  spring  IVoiii  the 
attempt  to  make  this  mystery  o(  (iod  conceivable  by  the 
human  mind,  and  less  a  stone  of  slumbllng  to  the  jiride 
of  rea.son.  On  the  contrary,  "  the  faith  of  Cod's  elect," 
as  imbodied  in  the  creeds  and  confessions  of  all  truly 
evangelical  churches,  follow  the  example  of  the  Scrip- 
tures in  entirely  overlooking  these  low  considerations, 
and  "declaring  the  thing  as  it  is,"  with  all  its  mystery 
and  incomprehensibleiiess,  to  the  Jews  a  stumbling 
block,  and  to  the  (Ireeks  foolishness.  It  declares  "  that 
we  worship  one  (Jod  in  Trinity,  and  Trinity  in  Unity ; 
neither  confounding  the  persons  nor  dividing  the  sub- 
stance ;  for  there  is  one  person  of  the  Father,  another 
of  the  Son,  and  another  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  but  the  God- 
head of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
is  all  one  ;  the  glory  equal,  the  majesty  co-eternal.  So 
the  Father  is  God,  the  Son  is  God,  anil  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  God ;  and  yet  there  are  not  three  Gods,  but  one 
God."(3)  Or,  as  it  is  well  expressed  by  an  eminent 
modern,  as  great  a  master  of  rea.son  and  science  as  he 
was  of  theology,  "  There  is  one  Divine  Nature  or  Es- 
sence, c«mmon  unto  three  persons  incomprehensibly 
united,  and  inell'ably  distinguished  ;  united  in  essential 
attributes,  distinguished  by  peculiar  idioms  and  rela- 
tions;  all  equally  intinite  in  every  Divine  perfection, 
each  different  from  the  other  in  order  and  manner  of 
subsistence;  that  there  is  a  nnitual  existence  of  one  in 
all,  and  all  in  one;  a  communication  without  any  de- 
privation or  diminution  in  the  coniinunicaiil  ;  an  eternal 
generation,  and  an  eternal  procession  without  ]irece- 
dence  or  succession,  without  proper  causality  or  depend- 
ence; a  Father  imparting  his  own,  and  a  Son  receiving 
his  Father's  life,  and  ;i  Spirit  issuing  from  both,  without 
any  division  or  nuilti|iliiaiiiin  of  essence.  These  are 
notions  which  may  well  pn/./.le  our  reason  in  conceiv- 
ing how  tliey  agree;  but  ought  not  to  stagger  our  faith 
in  assertnig  ihai  they  are  true ;  for  if  the  llnly  Scrijiture 
teac  lieili  us  plainly,  and  freiiuently  dotii  inculcate  upon 
us  that  there  is  but  one  true  God  ;  if  it  as  manilestly 
doth  ascribe  to  the  three  persons  of  the  blessed  Trinity, 
the  same  august  names,  the  same  peculiar  characters, 
the  same  Divine  attributes,  the  same  superlatively  ad- 
mirable operations  of  creation  and  ]irovidence;  if  it 
also  doth  prescribe  to  tln'ni  the  siime  supreme  honours, 
services,  praises,  and  acknowledgments  to  he  jiaid  to 
them  all ;  this  may  be  abundantly  enough  to  satisfy  our 
minds,  to  stop  our  mouths,  to  smother  all  doubt  and  dis- 
pute about  this  high  and  holy  mystery ."(4) 

One  observation  more,  belbre  we  jiroceed  to  the 
Scriptural  evidence  of  the  positions  above  laid  down, 
shall  close  this  ehaiiter.  The  proof  of  th<'  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  I  have  said,  grounds  itself  on  the  firm 
/bundalion  of  the  Divine  llnily,  and  it  closes  with  it; 
and  this  may  set  the  true  believer  at  rest,  when  he  is 
assailed  by  the  sophistical  enemies  of  his  liiith  with 
the  charge  of  dividing  his  regards,  as  he  directs  his 
jirayers  to  one  or  otlier  of  the  three  pensoiis  of  the 
tiiMlhead.     For  the  time  at  least,  he  is  said  to  honour 

(3)  Athanasian  (Veed. 

(4)  Dr.  Uakhow's  Dcfuiice  of  the  Trinity. 


one.  to  the  exclusion  of  the  others.  The  true  Scrip- 
tural doctrine  of  the  Unity  of  God  will  remove  tlufl 
objection.  It  is  not  the  Socinian  notion  of  unity. 
Theirs  is  the  unity  ol' mie,  ours  the  unity  of  tlirre.  We 
do  not,  however,  as  they  seem  to  suppose,  think  the 
Divine  I'issence  divisible,  and  jtarticiyatcd  by,  and 
■thiirid  among,  three  jicrsons ;  hut  wholly  and  undi- 
videdly  possessed  and  enjoyed.  Wlielher,  therefore, 
we  aildress  our  jirayers  aiid  adorations  to  the  Father. 
Son,  or  Holy  tJliost,  wo  address  the  same  adorable  Be- 
inif,  the  one  living  and  true  God.  "  Jehovah,  our 
Aleim,  is  one  Jehovah."  With  reference  to  the  i;ela- 
tions  which  each  person  bears  to  us  in  the  redeeming 
(economy,  our  approaches  to  the  Father  are  to  be  made 
through  the  mciliaiion  of  the  Son,  and  by,  or  with  de- 
pendiince  iqion,  the  assistance  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Yet, 
as  the  uulliority  of  the  New  Testament  shows,  this 
does  not  iirecUide  dircrt  jirayer  to  C'hrist  and  lo  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  direct  ascrijitions  of  glory  and  honour 
to  each.  In  all  this  we  glorify  the  one  "  God  over  all, 
blessed  for  evermore." 


CHAPTER  X. 

TaiNiTv. — Pre-existence  of  Christ. 

By  establishing,  on  Scriptural  authority,  the  pre-ex- 
istence of  our  Lord,  we  take  the  first  step  in  the  demon- 
stration of  his  absolute  Divinity.  His  jire-existence, 
indeed,  simply  considered,  does  not  evince  his  God- 
head, and  is  not,  therefore,  a  proof  against  the  Arian 
hypothesis ;  hut  it  destroys  the  Socinian  notion,  that 
he  was  a  man  only.  For  since  no  one  contends  for  the 
pre-existence  of  human  souls,  and  if  th^y  did,  the  doc- 
trine would  be  refuted  by  their  own  consciousness,  it 
is  clear,  that  if  Christ  existed  before  his  incarnation, 
he  is  not  a  mere  man,  whatever  his  nature,  by  other 
arguments,  may  be  proved  to  be. 

This  point  has  been  felt  to  press  so  heavily  upon  the 
doctrine  of  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ,  that  both 
ancient  and  modern  Socinians  have  bent  against  it  all 
those  cirt.y  of  interpretation  which,  more  than  any 
thing  elsi',  show  liolli  the  liopi.-lessne.ss  of  their  cause, 
and  the  perliiiaciiy  with  which  they  cling  to  oft  and 
easily  refuted  ermr.  1  shall  dwell  a  little  on  this  point, 
bicause  it  will  introduce  some  instances  in  illustration 
of  the  p<:cu!iar  character  of  the  Socinian  mode  of  per- 
verting the  ."Scriiitnres. 

The  existence  of  our  Lord  prior  to  his  incarnation 
might  be  forcibly  argued  from  the  declarations  that  he 
was  "  sent  into  tiie  world  ;"  that  "  he  cujne  in  the  llesh  ;" 
that  "  he  ioot  yor?  of  fiesh  and  blood;"  that  he  was 
'•found  in  fashion  as  a  man;"  and  other  similar 
phrases.  These  are  modes  of  speech  whii-h  are  used 
of  no  other  ])or.son ;  which  are  never  adiqiied  to  ex- 
press the  natural  birth,  and  the  conimencenient  of  the 
existence  of  ordinary  men;  and  which  .*>ocinianism, 
therehire,  leaves  without  a  reason,  and  without  an  ex- 
planation, when  used  of  Christ.  IJut  arguments  drawn 
from  these  jihra.scs  are  rendered  wholly  unnecessary, 
by  the  freipient  occurrence  of  passages  which  exi>li- 
citly  declare  his  pre-existence,  and  by  which  the  inpe- 
iinity  of  iinsiibinissive  criticism  has  been  always 
foiled  ;  the  interpretations  given,  being  too  forced,  and 
too  unsu|iported,  either  by  the  common  rules  of  criti- 
cism or  by  the  idioms  of  language,  to  jiroduce  the 
least  impression  upon  any,  not  jireviously  disposed  to 
torture  the  word  of  God  in  order  to  make  it  subservient 
to  an  error. 

The  first  of  these  proofs  of  the  pre-existence  of 
Christ  is  from  the  testimony  of  the  Unptist,  John  i.  15, 
"  He  that  Cometh  after  me  is  preferred  before  me,  for 
he  iteis  before  vne  ;"  or,  as  it  is  in  verse  30,  "  After  mo 
Cometh  a'man  wliicU  is  preferred  before  me,  for  he  was 
before  /iie." 

The  Socinian  exposition  is,  "Tlic  Christ,  who  is  to 
beuin  his  niinislry  after  me,  has,  by  the  Divine  appoint- 
ment, been  pi  eliTred  before  me,  because  he  is  my  chief 
or  princijial."  'J'hus  they  interpret  the  last  clause, 
'■for  he  was  before  me,"  in  the  sense  of  dignity,  and 
not  of  lime,  though  St.  John  uses  the  same  word  to 
denote  priority  of  lime,  in  several  places  of  Ids  Gosjiel. 
"If  the  worlii  halo  yon,  jou  know  that  it  hated  mo 
before  it  haled  you ;"  and  cii.  i.  11  ;  viii.  7  ;  xx.  4—8.  If 
tliey  t.akc  the  phrase  in  the  second  clause,  t/TpoffOc' 
liu  ytyovt)' in  the  sense  of  "preferred,"  then,  by  their 


Chap.  X.J 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


171 


mode  of  rendering  the  last  clause,  as  Bishop  Pearson 
has  observed,  "  a  tliin"  Is  made  the  reason  of  itself, 
which  is  a  great  absurdity  and  a  vain  tautolof^y." — 
"  He  is  preferred  before  me,  because  he  is  my  chief;" 
whereas  by  takm;;  nowros  (is  in  the  sense  of  time,  a 
reason  for  this  preference  is  given.  There  is,  how- 
ever, another  rendering  of  the  second  clause,  whicli 
makes  the  passage  still  more  impracticable  in  the  ^sells(■ 
of  the  Sornnans.  Kixirpoalkv  is  never  in  the  Septiia- 
gint  or  in  this  Nevif  Testament  used  for  dignity  or  rank  ; 
but  refers  either  to  plnre  or  li/>u;  and  if  taken  in  the 
sense  of  time,  the  rendering  will  be,  "  He  that  comcth 
after  me  was  before  me  ;"  and  on,  in  the  next  clause, 
signifying  "  certainly"  "  truly  "(5)  the  last  clause 
"Will  be  made  emphatical,  "certainly,  he  was  before 
me,"  and  is  to  be  considered,  not  as  giving  a  reason  for 
the  sentiment  in  the  preceding  clause,  or  as  tautolo- 
gical, but  as  explanatory  and  impressive;  a  mode  of 
speaking  exceedingly  natural  when  so  great  a  doctrine 
and  so  high  amysiery  was  to  be  declared,  that  he  who 
was  born  after  John,  was  yet,  in  point  of  existence,  be- 
fore him  ; — "  certainly,  he  was  before  me."  This  ren- 
dering of  the  second  clause  is  adopted  by  several  emi- 
nent critics;  but  whether  this,  or  the  common  version 
be  preferred,  the  verb  in  the  last  clause  he  was  before 
me,  sufficiently  fixes  mpwro?  in  the  sense  of  priority  of 
time.  Had  it  referred  to  the  rank  and  dignity  of  Christ, 
it  would  not  have  been  "he  was,"  but  "he  is  before 
me,"  £5-1  not  m'- 

The  passages  which  express  that  Christ  came  down 
from  heaven  are  next  to  be  considered.  He  styles 
himself  "  the  bread  of  God  which  coineth  down  from 
heaven. — The  livnig  bread  which  came  down  from 
heaven. — He  that  cometh  /ro/n  «/<oi!e  is  above  all ;  he 
that  is  of  the  earth  is  earthly,  and  speaketh  of  the 
earth  ;  he  that  coineth  from  heaven  is  above  all;"  and 
in  his  discourse  with  Nieodemus,  "  No  man  hath  as- 
cended up  to  heaven,  but  he  that  came  down  from 
heaven,  even  the  Son  of  man  which  is  in  heaven.-'  In 
what  manner  are  declarations  so  plain  and  unequi- 
vocal to  be  eluded,  and  by  what  arts  are  they  to  be  in- 
terpreted, into  nothinur)  This  shall  be  considered. 
Socmus  and  his  early  disciples,  in  order  to  account  for 
these  phrases,  supposed  that  Christ,  between  the  time 
of  his  birth  and  entrance  upon  his  olhce,  was  transla- 
ted into  heaven,  and  there  remained  some  time,  that  he 
might  see  and  hear  those  things  which  he  was  to  pub- 
lish in  the  world.  This  hypothesis,  however,  only 
proves  the  difficulty  or  rather  the  impo.ssibility  of  in- 
terpreting these  passages,  so  as  to  turn  away  their 
hostile  aspect  from  the  errors  of  man.  It  is  sujjported 
by  no  passage  of  Scripture,  by  no  tradition,  by  no 
reason  in  the  nature  of  the  thing,  or  in  the  discourse. 
The  modern  Socinians,  therefore,  finding  the  ])osition 
of  their  elder  brethren  untenable,  resolve  the  whole 
into  figure,  the  most  convenient  method  of  evading 
the  difficulty,  and  tell  us,  that  as  we  should  naturally 
Bay,  that  a  person  who  would  become  ac(iuainted  with 
the  secret  purposes  of  God,  must  ascend  to  heaven  to 
converse  with  him,  and  return  to  make  thein  known, 
so  our  Lord's  words  do  not  necessarily  imply  a  literal 
ascent  and  descent,  but  merely  this,  "  that  he  alone 
was  admitted  to  an  intimate  knowledge  of  the  Di- 
vine will,  and  was  commissioned  to  reveal  it  to 
men. "(6) 

In  the  passages  quoted  above,  as  declarations  of  the 
pre-existence  of  Christ,  it  will  be  seen,  that  there  are 
two  phra.ses  to  be  accounted  for, — ascending  into 
heaven — and  co?ning  down  frmn  heaven.  The  former 
is  said  to  mean  the  being  admitted  to  an  intimate  know- 
ledge of  the  Divine  counsels.  Ilut  if  this  were  the 
sense,  it  could  not  be  true  that  "  no  man"  had  thus  as- 
cended, but  "  the  Son  of  man ;"  since  Moses  and  all 
the  prophets  in  succession  had  been  admitted  to  "  an 
intimate  knowledge  of  the  Divine  counsels,"  and  had 
been  "  commissioned"  to  reveal  them.  It  is  nothing  to 
say  that  our  Lord's  acijuaintance  with  the  Div-ine 
counsels  was  more  deep  and  comprehensive.  The 
ca.se  is  not  stated  cumparatively,  but  exclusively, — 
"No  man  hath  ascended  into  hcaviui,  but  the  Son  of 
man ;"  no  man,  but  himself,  had  been  in  heaven. (7) 
Allowiiig  therefore  the  principle  of  the  Socinian  gloss. 


(5)  ScHLKUSNKR  sub  Voce. 

(6)  Belsham's  Calm  Imj. 

(7)  "  No  man.  except  myself,  ever  was  in  heaven."— 
Pearg£. 


it  is  totally  inapplicable  to  the  text  in  question,  and  ia 
in  fact  directly  refuted  by  it. 

But  the  principle  is  lalse,  and  it  may  be  denied,  that 
"  to  ascend  into  heaven"  is  a  Hebrew  phrase  to  express 
the  knowledge  of  high  and  mysterious  things.  So 
utterly  does  this  pretence  fail,  tliat  not  one  of  the  pas- 
sages they  adduce  in  proof  can  be  taken  in  any  other 
than  its  literal  meaning  ;  and  they  are  therefore,  as  are 
oihcr.s,  directly  agaln.st  them.  Dent.  x.\x.  11,  is  first 
ailduccd.  "  Who  shall  go  up  for  us  into  heaven,  and 
bring  it  unto  us?"  This,  we  are  told,  we  must  take 
figuratively ;  but  then,  unhaiipily  for  them,  it  is  also 
immediately  subjoined,  "neither  is  it  beyond  the  sea, 
that  thou  shouldst  say.  Who  shall  go  over  the  sea  for 
us  .'"  If  the  ascent  into  heaven  in  the  first  clause  is  to 
be  taken  figuratively,  then  the  going  beyond  the  sea, 
cannot  be  taken  literally,  and  we  shall  still  want  a 
figurative  interpretation  for  this  part  of  the  declaration 
of  Moses  respecting  the  law,  which  will  not  so  easily 
be  furnished.  The  same  observation  is  applicable  to 
Romans  x.  fi,  in  which  there  is  an  adaptation  of  the 
passage  in  Deuteronomy  to  the  gospel.  "  Who  shall 
ascend  into  heaven  .'  that  is,  to  bring  Christ  down 
from  above,"  Arc,  words  which  have  no  meaning 
unless  place  be  literally  understood,  and  which  show 
that  the  Apostle,  a  sutficient  judge  of  Hebrew  modes 
of  expression,  understood,  in  its  literal  sense,  the  pas- 
sage in  Deuteronomy.  A  second  passage  to  which 
they  trust  is  I'rov.  xxx.  4,  "Who  hath  ascended  and 
descended,"  but  if  what  immediately  follows  be  added, 
"  who  hath  gathered  the  winds  in  his  fists,  who  hath 
bound  the  waters  in  a  garment,"  &c.,  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  passage  has  no  reference  to  the  acquisition  of 
knowledge  by  a  servant  of  God,  but  expresses  the  va- 
rious operations  in  nature  carried  on  by  God  himself. 
"  Who  hath  done  this  ?  What  is  his  name,  and  what 
is  his  son's  name,  if  thou  canst  tell  ?" 

Ill  Baruch  iii.  29,  it  is  asked  of  Wisdom,  "  Who  hath 
gone  up  into  heaven,. and  taken  her,  and  brought  her 
down  from  the  clouds .'"  but  it  is  here  also  added, 
"  Or  who  hath  gone  over  the  sea  for  her  ?"  Wisdom 
is,  in  this  jias.sage,  clearly  personified  ;  a  place  of  ha- 
bitation is  assigned  her,  which  is  to  be  sought  out  by 
those  who  woidd  attain  her.  This  apocryphal  text, 
therefore,  gives  no  countenance  to  the  mystical  notion  of 
ascending  into  heaven,  advanced  by  Socinian  expositors. 

If  they  then  utterly  fail  to  establish  their  forced  and 
unnatural  sense  of  ascending  into  heaven,  let  us  ex- 
amine whether  they  are  more  successful  in  establish- 
ing their  opinion  as  to  the  meaning  of  "  coming  down 
from  heaven."  Tliis,  they  say,  means  "  to  be  commis- 
sioned to  reveal  the  will  of  God  to  men  ;"(8)  but  if  so, 
the  plirases,  "  to  ascend  up  into  heaven,"  and  "  to  come 
down  from  thence,"  which  are  manifestly  opposed  to 
each  other,  lose  all  their  opposition  in  the  interpreta- 
tion, which  is  suflicient  to  show,  that  it  is,  as  to  both, 
entirely  gratuitous,  arbitrary,  and  contradictory.  For, 
as  Dr.  Magee  has  acutely  remarked,  "it  is  observed 
by  the  Editors  of  the  Unitarian  Version,  and  enforced 
with  much  emphasis  by  Mr.  Belsham  and  Dr.  Carpen- 
ter, that  to  'ascend  into  heaven'  signifies  'to  become 
acquainted  with  the  truths  of  God,'  and  that  conse- 
ijuently  the  'correlative'  to  this  (the  oppo.n1e  they 
should  have  said),  to  '  descend  from  heaven'  must  mean 
'  to  bring  and  to  discover  those  truths  to  the  world.' 
Imp.  Vers.  p.  208,  Calm  Inq.  p.  48.  Now,  allowing 
those  gentlemen  all  they  wish  to  establish  as  to  the 
first  clause, — that  to  go  vp  into  heaven  means  to  learn 
and  become  acquainted  with  the  counsels  of  God, — 
what  must  follow  then,  if  they  reasoned  justly  upon 
their  own  principles?  Plainly  "this,  that  to  come  down 
from  heaven,  being  precisely  the  opposite  of  the 
former,  must  mean  to  unlearn  or  to  lose  the  knoivledge 
of  those  counsels:  so  that,  so  far  from  bringing  and 
discovering  those  counsels  to  mankind,  our  Lord  must 
have  disqualified  himself  from  bringing  any.  Had  in- 
deed 'ascending  into  heaven'  meant  'bringing  the 
truth  (any  where)  from  men,'  then  '  descknting  from 
heaven'  might  justly  be  said  to  mean  'bringing  it 
back  to  men.'  Whatever,  in  short,  asc  enuino  maybe 
supposed  to  signify  in  any^j^wrc,  ukscknding  must 
signify  the  opposite,  if  the  figure  be  abided  by :  And 
therelbrc,  if  to  ascend  be  to  learn,  to  descend  must 
be  to  7inlearn."{9) 


(8)  Belsham's  Calm  Inquiry. 

(9)  Discourses  on  the  Atonement. 


172 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.^ 


[Part  U. 


It  is  farther  fatal  to  this  opinion,  that  "  if  to  come 
from  lieavon;  to  ilestend  from  heaven,"  «Vc.,  signify 
receiving  a  divine  conitnission  to  teach ;  or,  more  sim- 
ply, to  communicate  truth  alif r  it  has  t)c(n  learni'd,  it 
is  never  used  with  reference  to  Moses,  ur  to  any  of 
the  Prophets  or  divinely  appointed  nislrunients  who, 
from  time  to  time,  were  raised  U|)  ainoiii,'  llie  .lews. 
We  may  tlierelbre  conclude, that  tlu'  Mii:iiun^  attached 
to  these  phrases  by  SociniaM  wrjti  rs  of  ilii-  present  day, 
who,  in  this  rcs|)e(a  as  in  many  olliers,  liave  ventured 
a  step  beyond  their  predecessors  who  never  denied  their 
literal  acceptation,  was  unknown  among  the  Jews, 
and  is  a  mere  subterfuge  to  escape  from  the  plain 
testimony  of  Holy  Writ  on  a  point  so  fatal  to  their 
scheme. 

The  next  passage  which  may  be  quoted  as  express- 
ing, in  une(juivocal  terms,  the  pre-existence  of  ('hrist, 
occurs  .lohn  vi.  ti2,  and  is,  if  possible,  still  more  out  of 
Ihe  reach  of  that  kin<l  of  criticism  wliich  has  just  been 
exhibited.  The  occasion,  too,  fixes  the  sense  beyond 
all  perversion.  Our  Lord  had  told  the  Jews,  that  he 
■was  the  bread  of  lile,  ■which  came  doirn  from  hea- 
ven. This  the  Jews  understood  lilfTnUii,  and  there- 
fore asked,  "  Is  not  this  the  son  of  Joseph,  whose  la- 
ther and  mother  we  know,  how  is  it  then  that  he  saith, 
/  ciuiu  diiini  fiDin  hraveii'i"  "His  disciples  too  .so 
undiTsiooil  Ins  words,  for  they  also  "  murmured."  Hut 
our  Lord,  .so  far  from  removing  that  impression,  so  far 
from  giving  them  the  most  distant  hint  of  a  mode  of 
meeting  the  dilliculty  like  that  resorted  to  by  Soci- 
nian  writers,  streiiKtheiis  the  assertion,  and  makes  his 
profession  a  stuiril)lnis;-bliM-k  still  more  formidable, 
"  Doth  this  offend  yon  '."  rdcrring  to  what  he  had  ju.st 
said,  that  he  had  descended  from  heaven,  "  What  and 
if  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  ascend  np  wiikrk  he 
Was  befork."  Language  cannot  be  more  explicit ; 
though  Mr.  Belshain  has  ventured  to  tell  us  that  this 
means,  "  What  if  I  go  farther  out  of  your  reach,  and 
become  more  perjdexing  and  mysterious  !"  And,  in- 
deed, perplexing  and  mysterious  enough  would  be  the 
words  both  of  (Christ  and  his  apostles,  if  they  re(|uired 
such  criticisms  for  their  elucidation. 
»  The  phrase  to  be  "  sent  (ioni  (!od,"  they  think  they 
sufficiently  avert,  by  urging  that  it  is  said  of  the  Bap- 
tist, "  There  was  a  man  sent  frain  God,  whose  name 
was  John."  This,  they  urge,  clearly  evinces,  "  that 
to  come  from  God  is  to  be  rjimrnissinncd  by  him.  If 
Jesus  was  sent  from  God,  so  was  John  the  Baptist ;  if 
the  former  came  down  from  heaven,  so  did  the  latter." 
This  reasoning  must  be  allowed  to  be  fallacious,  if 
it  can  be  shown  that  it  contradicts  other  Scriptures. 
Now  our  Lord  says,  John  vi.  41),  "  i\o  one  hath  seen 
the  Father,  save  he  who  is  from  God,  he,  ovros,  hath 
seen  the  Father;"  namely,  this  one  person,  for  it  is  sin- 
gular and  no  one  else  hath  seen  the  Father.  Therefore, 
if  Christ  was  that  person,  as  will  not  be  disputed,  John 
could  not  he  "  sent  from  God,"  in  the  same  7/iunncT 
that  Christ  was.  What  does  th<'  Haptist  say  of  him- 
self? Does  he  conlirni  the  Socinian  gloss?  Si)eakiiig 
of  Christ  andofhiniscll'hc  says,  "  He  that  cnmHhfrom 
above  is  above  all ;  he  that  is  (f  the  e.nrth  is  earthly,  he 
that  conieth  from  heaven  is  above  all,"  John  iii.  31. 
Here  John  contrasts  his  earthly  origin  with  Christ's 
heavenly  origin.  Christ  is  "  from  above;"  John  from 
"  the  earth,"  ck  tik  yrii;.  ('Iirist  is  "  above  all,"  which 
he  could  not  be,  if  every  other  prophet  came  in  like 
manner  from  heaven,  and  from  above ;  and  therelbrc  if 
John  was  "  sent  from  God,"  it  cannot  be  in  the  same 
sense  that  Christ  was  sent  from  him,  which  is  enough 
to  silence  the  ohjection.(l)  Thus,  says  Dr.  Nares, 
"  we  have  nothing  but  the  positive  contradictions  of 
the  Unitarian  party,  to  prove  to  us  that  Christ  did  not 
come  from  heaven,  though  he  says  of  himself  he  did 
come  from  heaven  ;  anil  though  \w  declares  he  had  seen 
the  Father,  he  had  not  seen  the  Father  ;  that  though  he 
assures  us,  that  he,  inamost/i(':///.j((;and.vi/(i;///Hrirmn- 
ner  came  forth  from  God  {ck  t.w  Oc.v  tii/MIn',  a  strong 
and  singular  expression),  he  came  from  hirn  no  other- 
wise than  like  the  prophets  of  old,  and  his  own  imme- 
diate f()rerunner."(2) 

Several  other  eijually  striking  passaircs  might  claim 
our  attention;  hut  it  will  be  sullicieiit  for  the  argu- 
ment, to  (-lose  it  with  two. 

"  Before  Abraham  was,  I  am,"  John  viii.  59.    Wlie- 


(1)  IIoi.nKN's  Scripture  Testimonies. 

(2)  Kumarks  on  tliu  Imp.  Version. 


ther  the  verb  tipi  "  /  am,"  may  be  understood  to  bfi 
equivalent  to  the  incommunicable  name  Jehovah,  shall 
be  considered  in  another  itlace.  The  obvious  sense  of 
Ihe  passage  at  least  is,  "  Before  Abraham  was,  or  was 
born,  I  was  in  existence."  Abraham,  the  patriarch, 
was  the  p<rson  spoken  of;  for  the  Jews  having  said, 
"  'J'hou  art  not  yet  lilly  years  old,  and  hast  thou  seen 
Abraham  l"  our  Lord  de<'lares,  with  his  peculiarly  so- 
lemn mode  ot  introduction,  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto 
yi)U,  before  Abraham  was,  I  am."  I  had  priority  of 
existence,  "  together  with  a  continuation  of  it  to  the 
present  time."(3)  Nor  did  the  .lews  mistake  his 
meaning,  but  being  tilled  with  indignation  at  so  ma- 
nifest a  claim  of  divinity,  '•  they  took  up  stones  to  stone 
him." 

How  then  do  the  Socinians  dispose  of  this  passage  ? 
The  two  hypotheses  on  which  they  have  rested,  for 
one  wouhl  not  sulhci;,  arc. Jirst,  "  That  Christ  existed 
before  the  j)atriarch  Abraham  had  become,  according 
to  the  imjiort  ofhis  name,  the  I'ather  of  many  nations, 
that  is,  before  the  (Jenliles  W('re called  ;"  which  was  as 
true  of  the  Jews  who  were  iliscoursing  with  him  as 
of  himself.  'I'hti  second  is,  '•  before  .\braham  was  born 
I  am  he,  i.  e.  the  Christ,  in  the  destination  and  appoint- 
ment ol'God  ;"  which  also  was  saying  nothing  peculiar 
of  Christ ;  since  the  existence  and  the  jiart  which  every 
one  of  his  hearers  was  to  act,  were  as  much  in  the  iles- 
tinatiori  and  appointment  of  God  as  his  own.  Both 
these  absurdities  are  well  exposed  by  Bishop  Pear- 
.son  : 

"  The  first  interpretation  makes  our  Saviour  thus  to 
speak  :  Do  ye  so  muih  wonder  how  I  should  hurtseeti 
Abraham  who  am  imt  yrt  fifty  yearsoldl  Do  ye  ima- 
gine so  great  a  conlraiiiciion  in  this  ?  I  tell  you,  and 
be  ye  most  assured,  that  what  1  speak  unto  you  at  this 
timeismosteertainly  and  iniiiUibly  true,  and  most  wor- 
thy of  your  observation,  which  moves  me  not  to  deliver 
it  wilhont  this  solemn  asseveration  {Verily,  verily,  I 
sal/  iiiifu  i/uu),  before  Abraluun  shall  perfectly  become 
that  which  was  signifii'd  in  his  name,  the  father  of 
many  nations,  before  the  (.'cnlilcs  shall  come  in,  /  am. 
Nor  be  ye  troubled  at  this  answer,  or  think  in  this  I 
magnify  myself;  for  what  I  speak  is  as  true  of  you 
yourselves  as  it  is  of  me:  before  Abram  be  thus  made 
Abraham,  ye  ore.  Doubt  ye  not,  therefore,  as  ye  did, 
nor  ever  make  that  question  again,  whether  I  have  seen 
Abraham." 

"  The  second  explication  makes  a  sense  of  another 
nature,  but  with  the  same  impertinency :  Do  ye  con- 
tinue still  to(|uestion,  and  with  so  much  admiration  do 
ye  look  ujion  my  age  and  ask,  Ilast  thou  seen  Abra- 
ham ?  I  confess  it  is  more  than  eighteen  hundred 
years  since  that  patriarch  died,  and  less  than  forty 
since  I  was  born  at  Bethlehem:  but  look  not  on  this 
computation,  for  before  Abraham  was  born  I  iriis.  Bui 
mistake  me  not,  I  mean  that  I  was  u\  Iheforekitowlidge 
and  decree  of  (;od.  Nor  do  I  magnify  inyself  in  this, 
for  ye  also  were  so.  How  either  of  these  answers 
should  give  any  reasonable  satisliiction  to  the  question, 
or  the  least  occasion  of  the  J<  tcs'  exasperation,  is  not  to 
be  uiider.stood.  And  that  our  Saviour  should  speak  of 
any  such  impcrtuitncii-s  as  these  interpretations  bring 
l(n'[li,isnot  by  aClirisiKUi  tube  conceived.  Wheretore, 
as  the  plain  and  most  obvious  sense  is  a  proper  and  full 
answer  to  the  question,  and  most  likely  to  exasjierato 
the  utilu^lieving  Jkws  ;  as  those  strained  exi)licatioiis 
render  the  words  of  (Christ  not  only  impertinent  to  the 
occasion,  but  vain  and  useless  to  the  hearers  of  them  ; 
as  our  Saviour  gave  this  answer  in  words  of  another 
language,  most  probaby  incapable  of  any  such  inter- 
l)retatiotis  :  we  must  adhere  unto  that  literal  sense  al- 
ready delivered,  by  which  it  apjieareth  CAri.vt  had  a 
being,  as  before  John,  so  al.so  liefore  Abraham,  and 
c-oiis(  quently  by  that  he  did  exist  two  thousand  years 
bclbrf  lie  was  born,  or  conceived  by  the  virgin. "(4) 

The  ol)servatioiis  of  Whitaker  on  this  decisive  pas- 
sage, are  in  his  usual  energetic  manner  : 

"  Vour  lather  Abraham,"  says  our  Saviour  lo  the 
Jews, "  rejoiced  lo  see  my  day  ;  and  he  saw  it  and  was 
glad."  Our  Saviour  thus  proposes  himself  to  his  coun- 
trymen, as  their  Messiah ;  that  grand  object  of  hope 
aiid desire  to  their  fathers,  and  particularly  to  this  first 
father  of  the  faithful,  Abraham.  But  his  countrymen, 
not  acknowledging  his  claim  to  the  character  of  Mes- 


(3)  Pkarson  on  the  Creed. 
(1)  ExpoBitiou  of  the  C'rceil. 


Chap.  XI.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


173 


siah,  and  therefore  not  allowing  his  supernatural  pri- 
ority of  existence  to  Atiraliain,  chose  to  consider  liis 
words  in  a  signification  merely  human.  '  Then  said 
the  Jews  unto  him,  'I'hou  art  not  filly  years  old,  and 
hast  thou  seen  Abraham  ('  But  what  does  our  Saviour 
reply  to  this  low  and  gross  comment  upon  his  intiina- 
lion?  Does  he  retract  it  by  warping  his  languai^e  to 
their  poor  pcrverseness,  and  so  waiving  his  jiielcnsioris 
to  the  assumed  dignity  .'  No !  to  have  so  acted,  would 
liave  l)ecn  derogatory  to  Ins  dignity,  and  miuiious  to 
llinr  interests.  He  actually  repeats  his  claim  to  the 
cliaracter.  He  actually  enforces  his  pretensions  to  a 
suiiernalunil  priority  of  existence.  He  even  heightens 
lioth.  He  mounts  up  lar  beyond  Abraham.  He  as- 
cends lie\  Olid  all  the  orders  of  creation.  And  he  places 
himself  'with  God,  at  the  head  of  the  universe.  He 
thus  arrogates  to  himself  all  that  liigh  pitch  of  dignity, 
which  the  Jews  e.vpected  their  Messiah  to  assume. 
This  he  does  too  in  the  most  energetic  manner,  that 
his  simplicity  of  language,  so  natural  to  inherent  great- 
ness, would  ])ossibly  admit.  He  also  introduces  what 
lie  .says  with  much  solemnity  in  the  Ibrm,  and  with 
more  in  the  repetition.  '  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,' 
he  cries,  '  Before  Abraham  was,  I  am.'  He  says  not 
of  himself,  as  he  says  of  Abraham,  '  Before  he  was,  I 
was.'  This,  indeed,  would  have  been  sufficient  to  af- 
lirm  his  existence  previous  to  Abraham.  But  it  would 
not  have  been  sufficient  to  declare  what  he  now  meant 
to  assert,  his  full  claim  to  the  majesty  of  the  Messiah. 
He  therefore  drops  all  forms  of  language  that  could 
be  accommodated  to  the  mere  creatures  ol  God.  He 
arrests  one,  that  was  appropriate  to  the  Godhead  itself. 
'  liefore  Abraham  was,'  or,  still  more  properly,  '  Before 
Abraham  was  made,'  he  says,  '  I  am.'  He  thus  gives 
himself  the  signature  of  uncreated  and  continual  ex- 
istence, in  direct  opposition  to  contingent  and  created. 
He  says  of  himself, 

That  an  eternal  now  for  ever  lasts 
with  him.  He  attaclies  to  himself  that  very  stamp  of 
eternity,  which  God  appropriates  to  his  Godhead  in  the 
Old  Testament ;  and  from  which  an  apostle  afterward 
describes  '  Jesus  Christ'  expressly,  to  be  '  the  same 
yesterday,  and  to-day,  and  lor  ever.'  Nor  did  the  Jews 
pretend  to  misunderstand  liim  now.  They  could  not. 
Tliey  heard  him  directly  and  decisively  vindicating  the 
noblest  rights  of  their  Messiah,  and  the  highest  honours 
of  their  God  to  himself.  They  considered  him  as  a 
mere  pretender  to  those.  They  therefore  looked  upon 
him  as  a  blasphemous  arrogator  of  these.  '  Then  took 
they  up  stones  to  cast  at  him'  as  a  blasphemer;  as 
what  indeed  he  was  in  his  pretensions  to  be  God,  if  he 
had  not  been  in  reality  their  Messiah  and  their  God  in 
one.  But  he  instantly  proved  himself  to  their  very 
senses  to  be  both ;  by  exerting  the  energetic  powers  of 
his  Godhead  upon  them.  For  he  '  hid  himself;  and 
went  out  of  the  temple,  going  through  the  midst  of 
them;  and  so  passed  by.' " 

The  last  passage  which  I  shall  quote,  may  properly, 
both  from  its  dignity  and  explicitness,  close  the  whole. 
John  xvii.  5,  "  And  now,  O  Father,  glorily  thou  me  with 
thine  own  self,  with  the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  be- 
fore the  world  was."  Whatever  this  glory  was,  it  was 
possessed  by  Christ  before  the  world  was  ;  or,  as  he  af- 
terward expresses  it,  "  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world."  That  question  is,  therefore,  not  to  be  con- 
founded with  the  main  point  which  determines  the  pre- 
existence  of  our  Lord;  lor  if  he  was  with  the  Father, 
and  had  a  glory  wiih  him  before  the  world  was,  and  of 
which  "  he  emptied  himself"  when  he  became  man, 
then  he  had  an  existence,  not  only  before  lus  incarna- 
tion, but  before  the  very  '•  foundation  of  the  world."  The 
Socinian  gloss  is,  "  the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  in 
thy  immutable  decree,  before  the  world  was ;  or  which 
thou  didst  decree  bil'ore  the  worldwas,togiveme."    But 


r)  tixov  u>apa  tjoi. 


which  I  had  with  tluic,"  cannot  bear 


any  such  sense.  The  occasion  was  too  jieculiar  to  ad- 
mit of  any  mystical,  forced,  or  parabolic  modes  of  speech. 
It  was  in  tlie  hearing  of  his  disciples,  just  before  he 
went  out  into  the  garden,  that  these  words  were 
spoken  ;  and,  as  it  has  been  well  observed,  it  is  remark- 
able that  he  introduces  tlie  mention  of  this  glory, 
when  it  was  not  necessary  to  complete  the  sense  of 
any  proposition.  And  yet,  as  if  on  purpo.se  to  prevent 
the  apostles,  who  heanl  his  prayer,  from  suiiposing  that 
he  was  asking  that  which  he  had  not  possessed  in  any 
former  period,  he  adds,  "  with  the  glory  which  I  had 


with  Ihcc  before  the  world  was."  Po  decisive  is  this 
liass.it;c,  llial.as  Dr.  M;irw(Mid  s;i\s,  "  Were  there  no  in- 
tinialKiii  111  the  wliole  New  'l'c.<ii'inieijt  of  the.pre-e.xist- 
eiice  of  Christ,  this  sinf;lr  |i;iss;ig<' would  irrcfragably 
demonstrate  and  cstiiblisU  il.  ( )ur  Siiviimr,  here  in  a 
solemn  act  of  devotion,  declaii'sto  the  ,\hnighty  that  he 
had  glory  with  him  belurc  the  world  was,  and  ftTvently 
supplicates  that  he  would  be  graciously  pleased  to  re- 
instate him  in  his  Ibriut  r  imcily.  The  language  is 
plain  and  clear.  Every  word  has  great  moment  and 
em])liasis  : — '  Glorify  thou  me  with  that  glory  which  I 
enjoyed  in  thy  presence,  be/ore  the  world  was.  Upon 
this  single  text  I  lay  my  finger.  Here  I  posit  iny  sys- 
tem. And  if  plain  words  be  designedly  employed  to 
convey  any  determinate  meaning,— if  the  modes  of  hu- 
man speech  have  any  precision,  1  am  convinced,  that 
this  plahi  declaration  of  our  Lord,  in  an  act  of  devotion, 
exhibits  a  areat  and  important  truth,  which  can  never 
be  subverted  or  invalidated  by  any  accurate  and  satis- 
factory criticism.'"(5) 

Whatever,  therefore,  the  true  nature  of  our  Lord  Je- 
sus Christ  may  be,  we  have  at  least  discovered  from 
the  plainest  possible  testimonies,— testimonies  which  no 
criticism,  and  no  unlicensed  and  paraphrastic  com- 
ments have  been  able  to  shake  or  to  obscure,  that  he 
had  an  existence  previous  to  liis  incarnation,  and  pre- 
vious to  the  very  "  foundation  of  the  world."  If  then 
we  find  that  the  same  titles  and  works  which  are  as- 
cribed to  him  in  the  New  Testament,  and  ascribed 
to  a  Divine  Person  in  the  Old,  who  is  yet  represented 
as  distinct  from  God  the  Father,  and  especially  to  one 
who  was  to  come  into  the  world  to  fulfil  the  very  of- 
fices which  our  Lord  has  actually  fulfilled,  we  shall 
have  olitained  another  step  in  this  imiuiry,  and  shall 
have  exhibited  loRy  proof,  not  only  of  the  jire-existence 
of  Christ,  but  also  of  his  Divinity.  This  will  be  the 
subject  of  the  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER  XL 

Trinity.- /esMS  Christ  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old 
Testament. 

In  reading  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  is 
impossible  not  to  mark,  with  serious  attention,  the  fre- 
quent visible  appearances  of  God  to  the  patriarchs  and 
prophets  ;  and,  what  is  still  more  singular,  his  visible 
residence  in  a  cloud  of  glory,  both  among  the  Jews 
in  the  wilderness  and  in  their  sacred  tabernacle  and 
temple. 

The  fact  of  such  appearances  cannot  be  disputed  ; 
they  are  allowed  by  all,  and  in  order  to  point  out  the 
bearing  of  this  fact  upon  the  pomt  at  issue,  the  Divi- 
nity of  Christ,  it  is  necessary, 

1.  To  show  that  the  person  who  made  these  appear- 
ances was  truly  a  Uivine  person. 

The  jiroofs  of  this  are,  that  he  bears  the  names  of  Je- 
hovah, God,  and  other  Divine  appellations ;  and  that  he 
dwelt  among  the  Israelites  as  the  object  of  their  su- 
jireme  worship  ;  the  worship  of  a  people,  the  first  pre- 
cept of  whose  law  was,  "  thou  shall  have  no  other 
Gods  before  me."  The  proofs  are  copious,  but  quota- 
tions shall  not  be  needlessly  multiplied. 

W'hen  the  angel  of  the  Lord  found  Hagar  in  the  wil- 
derness, "  she  called  the  name  of  Jehovah  that  spake 
to  her.  Thou,  God,  seest  me."— Jehovah  appeared  unto 
Abraham  in  the  plains  of  Mamre.  Abraham  lifted  up 
his  eyes,  and  three  me7i,  three  persons  in  human  form, 
"  stood  by  him."  One  of  the  three  is  called  Jehovah. 
And  Jp;hovah  said,  "  Shall  I  hide  from  Abraham  the 
thing  tliat  I  io.V'  Two  of  the  three  depart,  but  he  to 
whom  this  lligh  appellation  is  given  remains,  "  but 
Abraham  stood  yet  before  Jehovah."  This  Jehovah  Is 
called  by  Abraham  in  the  conversation  whuli  fallowed, 
"the  Judge  of  all  the  earth;"  and  the  arcnuiit  ol  the 
.solemn  interview  is  thus  closed  by  the  liislorKin,  "  the 
Lord  (Jehovah)  went  his  way  as  soon  as  he  had  left  olT 
communing  with  Abraham."  Appearances  of  the 
same  jiersonage  occur  to  Isaac  and  to  Jacob,  under  the 
name  of  "the  God  of  Abraham,  and  of  Isaac."  After 
one  of  these  manifestations,  Jacob  says,  "  I  have  seen 
God  face  to  face  ;"  and  at  another,  "  Surely  the  Lord 
(Jehovah)  is  in  tliis  place."  The  same  Jehovah  was 
made  visible  to  Moses,  and  gave  liim  his  commission, 


(5)  Socinlau  Scheme. 


174 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


ana  God  said,  "  I  am  that  1  am  ;  tliou  shall  say  to  llic 
children  oi  Israel,  I  am  hath  sent  iik-  unto  you."'  'J'hu 
same  Ji:noVAii  went  belbre  the  Israclili's  liy  day  in  a 
pillar  ot'  cloud,  and  by  night  in  a  pillar  ol'  lire  ;  and  by 
hini  the  law  was  given  amid  terrible  displays  of  jiower 
and  majesty  from  iMount  Sinai.  "  I  am  tile  Lord  (.Ik- 
hovah)  thy  God,  which  have  brouL'ht  thee  out  of  the 
land  i}t'  Egypt,  out  of  tin:  house  of  bondage,  thou  shalt 
have  no  other  fJods  bcfori'  nie.  Ace.  Did  ever  peojjle 
hear  the  voice  nf  Gud,  speaking  out  of  the  midst  of  the 
fire,  as  thou  Imsi  hcird,  and  live  .'"'  'I'lussame  person- 
age conimaiidi'd  llic  Isr.iclucs  Id  build  Imn  a  sanctuary, 
that  he  might  reside  ainoug  them ;  and  when  it  was 
erected  he  took  possession  of  it  in  a  visible  form,  which 
was  called  "  the  glory  of  the  Lord."  There  the  Sche- 
nii.NAH,  the  visible  token  of  the  presence  of  Jehovah, 
rested,  above  the  ark  ;  there  he  was  consulted  on  all 
occasions,  aiul  there  he  received  their  worship  from 
age  to  age.  Sacrifices  were  olTered  ;  sin  was  confessed 
and  pardniifil  hy  him  ;  and  the  book  of  I'salins  is  acol- 
leriioii  of  I  be  b\nins  which  Were  sung  to  his  honour 
in  tile  tabcrnaiie  and  temple  services,  where  he  is  con- 
stanlly  lelcbraled  as  .Ikhovaii  the  God  of  Israel ;  the 
"  Jfliiivali  V,oA  of  their  fathers;"  and  the  object  of  their  i 
own  exclusive  h»pn  and  trust:  All  the  works  of  crea- 
tion are  in  those  sublime  compositions  ascribed  to  him; 
and  he  is  hoiiounil  and  adored  as  the  governor  of  all 
nations,  and  the  sole  rub  r  among  the  children  of  men. 
In  a  word,  to  mark  Ins  divmity  in  the  strongest  possi- 
ble manner,  all  blessings,  temporal,  spiritual,  and  eter- 
nal, "  hghl  and  defence,  grace  and  glory,"  are  sought  at 
his  hands. 

Thus  the  same  glorious  being,  bearing  the  appella- 
tion of  Jehovah,  is  seen  as  the  object  of  the  worship 
and  trust  of  ages,  and  that  under  a  visible  manifestation  ; 
displaying  attributes,  engaged  in  operations,  and  assum- 
ing dignities  and  honours,  which  unequivocally  array 
him  with  the  in  ije.sty  of  absolute  Divinity. 

To  this  the  objections  which  have  been  made  admit 
of  a  most  satisfactory  answer. 

The  first  is,  that  this  personage  is  also  called  "  the 
Angel  of  the  Lord."  This  is  true ;  but  if  that  Angel 
of  the  Lord  is  the  same  person  as  he  who  is  called  Je- 
hovah; the  same  as  he  who  gave  the  Law  in  his  own 
■name,  then  it  is  clear  that  the  term  "  Angel"  does  not 
indicate  a  created  being,  and  is  a  designation  not  of  ?ia- 
<tt/7,',  but  of  o^ce,  which  will  be  just  now  accounted 
for,  and  is  not  at  all  inconsistent  with  his  true  and  pro- 
per divinity. 

The  collation  of  a  few  passages,  or  of  the  different 
jiarts  o(  the  same  passages  of  S(ri|)tiire,  will  show  that 
Jehovah  and  "  the  Angel  of  the  I.ord,"  when  used  in 
ttiis  eminent  sense,  are  the  same  person.  Jacob  says  of 
Bethel,  where  he  had  exi'Iainn-d,  "Surely  Jehovah  is  in 
this  place:"  "The  .!/(:,•(/ of  (lud  npiiearcd  to  ine  in  a 
dream,  saying,  I  am  the  tiod  of  netliel."  Upon  his 
deathbed  he  gives  the  names  of  God  and  Angel,  to  this 
same  iier.son.  "  The  God  which  fed  me  all  my  life  long 
unto  this  day,  tlie  Angel  wliicii  redeemed  me  fi-om  all 
evil,  bless  ihe  lads."  So  in  Ilosea  xii.  2.  5,  it  is  said, 
"  Jty  Ins  siriiiglli  he  had  power  with  God,  yea,  he  had 
])Ovvcr  over  the  Angel  and  prevailed."  ''  We  Ibund  him 
in  Bethel,  and  there  he  spake  with  us,  even  the  Lord 
God  of  Ildsfx,  the  Lord  is  his  memorial."  Here  the 
same  (lerson  has  the  names  God,  Angel,  and  Lord  God 
of  Hosts.  "The  Angel  (/the  Lord  called  to  Abraham 
a  second  lime  from  heaven,  and  said,  Hy  myself  have 
I  sworn,  sailh  the  Lord  (Jehovah),  that  since  thou  hast 
donelliis  thing,  in  blessing  I  will  bless  thee."  The  Aa- 
gcl  of  the  Lord  ap|»arcd  to  Moses  in  a  llame  of  fire; 
but  this  same  angel  of  the  Lord  "called  to  him  out  of 
the  bush,  and  .said,  I  am  thetJodof  thy  fathers,  the  (;od 
of  Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  ol' Jacob,  and 
Mo.sesfhid  his  face,  for  he  was  afraid  to  look  upon  tJod." 
To  omit  many  olher  jmssagi-s,  St.  Sicplicn,  :ii  alhidiiig  to 
this  part  of  the  history  of  Moses,  in  Ins  s|pcrihbi'lore  the 
council, . says,  there  apiieared  lo  Alosrs,  in  llie  wilderness 
of  Mount  Sinai,  an  Angel  of  the  Lord  in  a  llame  of  lire," 
showing  th.al  that  |)liraseology  was  in  use  among  the 
Jews  in  his  day,  and  that  this  angel  and  Jiliovah  were 
regarded  as  the  same  beiiiL',  lor  lieadds,  "  Mosn-i  wasiii 
the  church  in  the  wilderness  with  Ihe  Angel  which 
spoke  untohimin  iMoniil  Sinai."  There  is  one  pari  ol'tlic 
history  of  the  Jews  in  the  wildcrmss,  which  so  fully 
Bhowsth.it they  distinguisbiil  iliisaimd  of.leliovah  from 
all  created  angid.s,  as  to  deserve  pailiciilar  alleiillou.  In 
Exodus  .\,uil.  au,  (Jud  makes  ihis  promise  lo  Moses  and 


[P.^RT  II. 

the  Israelites,  "  Behold  I  send  an  Angel  before  thee  to 
keep  thee  in  the  way,  and  to  bring  thee  into  the  ])lace 
whicdi  I  have  jireparcd ;  beware  of  hiin,  and  obey  his 
voice,  provoke  him  not ;  lor  he  will  not  pardon  your 
transgressions,  lor  my  name  is  in  him."  Of  tliis  angel 
let  it  be  observeil,  that  he  is  here  represented  as  the 
guide  and  protector  of  the  Israelites;  to  him  they  were 
to  owe  their  concjuests  and  their  settlement  in  the  pro- 
mised land,  which  are  in  other  places  often  attributed 
to  the  immedidle  aginicy  of  God — that  they  are  cau- 
tioned to  "  beware  of  him,"  to  reverence  and  stand  in 
dread  of  him — that  the  pardoning  of  transgressions  be- 
longs to  him — finally,  "  that  the  /lartic  of  God  was  in 
him."  This  name  must  be  understood  of  God's  own 
peculiar  name,  Jkiiovaii,  I  am,  wliich  he  assumed  as 
his  distinctive  appellation  at  his  first  appearing  to  Mo- 
ses; and  as  the  names  of  God  are  indicaliveof  his  na- 
ture, he  who  had  a  right  to  bear  the  peculiar  name  of 
God,  must  also  have  his  essence.  This  view  is  put  be- 
yond all  donbt  by  the  fact,  that  Moses  and  the  Jews  so 
understood  the  jiromise ;  for  afterward,  when  their 
sins  had  [irovoked  God  to  threatennottogoupwiththem 
himself,  but  to  commit  them  to  "an  Angel  who  should 
drive  out  the  Canaanitc,  &c.,"  the  people  mourned  over 
this  as  a  great  calamity,  and  Moses  betook  himself  to 
special  intercession,  and  rested  not  until  he  obtained 
the  repeal  of  the  threat,  and  the  renewed  promise,  "  my 
presence  shall  go  with  thee  and  I  will  give  thee  rest."" 
ISotliing,  tlierel()re,  can  be  more  clear  than  that  MoseS 
and  the  Israelites  considered  the  promise  of  the  Angel, 
in  whom  was  "  the  name  of  God,"  as  a  promise  that 
God  himself  would  go  with  them.  With  this  uncre- 
ated Angel,  tins  presence  of  the  Lord,  they  were  satis- 
fied, but  not  with  "an  angel"  indefinitely — with  an  an- 
gel, not  so  by  office  only,  as  was  the  appearing  Angel 
of  the  Old  Testament,  but  who  was  by  nature  of  that 
order  of  beings  usually  so  called,  and  therefore  a  created 
being.  At  the  news  of  God's  determination  not  to  go 
uj)  with  them,  Moses  hastens  to  the  tabernacle  to  make 
his  intercessions,  and  refuses  an  inferior  conductor. 
"  If  thy  presence  go  not  with  me,  carry  us  not  up 
hcnce."((i) 

That  the  angol  of  Jehovah  is  constantly  represented 
as  Jehovah  himself,  and  therefore  as  a  Divine  person,  is 
so  manifest,  that  the  means  resorted  to,  to  evade  Ihe 
force  of  the  argument  which  so  immediately  flashes 
from  it,  acknowledge  the  fact.  Those  who  deny  Ihe 
Divinity  of  our  Lord,  however,  endeavour  to  elude  the 
consecpicncc  according  to  their  respective  creeds.  The 
Arians,  who  think  the  appearing  angel  to  have  been 
(.'hrist,  but  who  yet  deny  him  to  be  Jehovah  hiin-self, 
assume  that  this  glorious  but  created  being  per.sonated 
the  Deity,  and  as  his  ambassador  and  rcjiresentaiive, 
s]ioke  by  his  authority,  and  took  his  name.  Thus  a 
moilern  Arian  observes,  "  The  Angel  takes  Ihe  name 
of  .lehovah  because  it  is  a  common  mii\iin,  loquitur  le- 
gatusser/iioiie  nultenlis  eiim,  as  an  ambassador  in  the 
name  of  his  King,  or  the  fecinlis  when  he  denounced 
war  in  the  name  of  the  Roman  people  ;  and  what  is 
done  by  the  angel  is  said  to  be  done  by  God,  according 
to  another  ma.\\m,  qui  facit  per  alium,  facit  per  se."(J) 

(0)  From  this  remarkable  passage  it  appears  to  me 
very  dear,  that  the  Messenger  or  Angel  of  God,  whom 
he  here  promises  to  be  the  J  .cader  of  his  people,  is  not  a 
creature,  much  less  Moses  or  Joshua,  but  an  uncreated 
Angel.  For,  1,  the  clause.  He  teill  not  pardon,  your 
sins,  is  not  ajijilicable  to  any  created  being,  whether 
Angel  or  man  :  2,  The  next  words,  my  name  is  in  kim, 
cannot  be  explained  to  signify,  he  shall  act  in  my  name, 
that  is,  under  my  command  or  by  authority  received 
from  me,  for  in  that  case  another  word,  he  will  act.  or 
he  will  spenlc,  or  the  like,  would  have  been  added:  :!, 
The  same  conclusion  is  established  by  a  comparison  of 
this  passage  with  chap,  x.x.xii.  31  (;!!id  .\x.xii.  2),  where 
<;od  expnsses  his  inilignation  ,againsl  the  Israelites  for 
their  idolatry,  by  declaring  that  not  him.sclf,  but  an  an- 
gel, should  iie  henceforth  their  guide;  butlhis  the  peo- 
))le  and  Mo.ses  most  earnestly  deprecate  |as  a  calamity 
and  a  judgment,  whensis  the  preseni  inslance  is  a  pro- 
mise of  Ihvour  and  mercy,  ami  is  so  acknowledged  in 
Is.  Ixii.  H].  "That  angel,  therefore,  is  perfectly  differ- 
ent from  him  who  is  spoken  of  in  this  passage  beforo 
us,  who  is  tlic  same  that  appeared  to  Mo.ses,  chap.  iii. 
2,  iii.d  iheie  likewisi'  both  speaks  auU  acts  as  God  liiin- 
sell."     Datliii  rnitaicuc'hus. 

(7)TAVL.oit,  U'.-n  Mordecui. 


Chap.  Xl.J 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


17= 


Tlic  answer  to  this  is,  that  tboucli  ainhassailurs  speak 
in  llie  name  of  their  niastcr.s,  tliey  do  not  ajiply  the 
names  and  titles  of  ttieir  masters  to  lhcmselves,(8) — 
that  the  uiKniestlonahly  ereated  AmjicIh,  meiitioneit  In 
S.-ri|itur<'  as  apiieanm;  lo  iiien,  declare  that  they  were 
sent  bvt.'cid,  and  uc^er  personate  him,— that  the  pro- 
jihcls  uiiilbriiilv  declare  their  eonmiission  to  be  frimi 
lied,— that  (iodhimsidrdeelares,  ".lehovah  is  my  name 
and  my  nlory  inll  I  not  ^im-  to  am>thn;"—m\A  yet  that 
the  appeariiif,'  An::<d  ealls  himsell',  as  we  have  seen,  by 
lliis  niromiiMiiucable  name  in  almost  innumerable  in- 
si:iiires.  and  that  though  the  object  of  the  Mosaic  dis- 
jicii^alioii  was  to  preserve  men  from  idolatry,  yet  this 
An^'el  idaims  and  receives  the  exclusive  worship  both 
of  the  Patriarchs  to  whom  he  occasionally  appeared, 
and  the  Jews  among  whom  he  visibly  resided  for  ages. 
It  is  therefore  a  proposition  too  monstrous  to  be  for  a 
moment  sustained,  that  a  created  being  of  any  kind 
should  thus  allure  men  into  idolatry,  by  acting  the 
Deity,  assuming  liis  name  and  attributing  to  himself 
(iod's  peculiar  and  incommunicable  perfections  and 
honour.  (9)  The  Arian  hypothesis  on  this  subject  is 
well  answered  by  even  a  Socinian  writer.  "  The  whole 
transaction  on  Mount  Sinai  shows  that  Jehovah  was 
present,  and  acted,  and  not  another  for  him.  It  is  the 
(Jod  that  haii  delivered  them  out  of  Egypt,  with  whom 
tliry  were  to  enter  into  covenant  as  their  God,  and  who 
thcreuiion  accepted  them  as  his  people,  who  was  the 
author  of  their  religion  and  laws,  and  who  himself  de- 
livered to  them  those  ten  commands,  the  most  sacred 
])art.  There  is  nothing  to  lead  us  to  imagine  that  the 
person,  who  was  their  Goil,  did  not  speak  in  his  own 
name;  not  the  least  intimation  that  here  was  another 
representing  him."(l) 

Th(!  author  of "  the  Essay  on  Spirit"  attempts  to  meet 
this,  by  alleging  that  "  the  Hebrews  were  far  from 
being  explicit  and  accurate  in  their  style,  and  that  it 
was  customary  for  prophets  and  angels  to  speak  in  the 
iiaine  and  character  of  God."  The  reply  of  Dr.  Ran- 
dolpli  is  .able  and  decisive,  and  as  this  is  a  point  of 
great  importance,  its  introduction  vrill  not  apjiear  un- 
necessary. 

"Some,  to  evade  these  strong  proofs  of  our  Lord's 
Pivinity,  have  asserted  that  this  was  only  a  created 
aii'xel  apiiearing  in  the  name  or  person  of  the  Father; 
It  being  customary  in  Serii)ture  for  one  person  to  sus- 
tain the  character,  and  act  and  speak  in  the  name  of 
another.  But  tlnse  asserl ions  want  proof.  I  find  no 
instances  of  one  person  aclingand  speaking  in  the  name 
of  another,  without  first  declaring  in  whose  name  he 
acts  and  speaks.  The  in.stances  usually  alleged  are 
nothing  to  the  ])urpose.  If  we  sometimes  find  an  angel 
in  the  book  of  Revelations  speaking  in  the  name  of 
God,  yet  from  the  context  it  will  be  easy  to  show  tliat 
this  angel  was  the  great  angel,  the  angel  of  the  cove- 
nant. Rut  if  there  should  be  some  instances  in  the 
jmetical  or  prophetical  p.arts  of  Scripture  of  an  abrupt 
change  of  jiersons,  where  the  person  speaking  is  not 
particularly  specified,  this  will  by  no  means  come  up 
lo  the  case  before  us.  Here  is  a  per.son  sustainnig  the 
name  and  character  of  the  most  liigh  God,  from  one  end 
of  the  IJible  to  the  other ;  bearing  his  glorious  and 
tearful  name,  the  incommunicable  name  Jehovah,  ex- 
pressive of  his  necessary  existence  ;  sitting  in  the  throne 
of  God  ;  dwelling  and  presiding  in  his  temple  ;  deliver- 
ing laws  in  his  name;  giving  out  oracles;  hearing 
jirayers ;  forgiving  sins.  And  yet  these  writers  would 
persuade  us  that  this  was  only  a  tutelary  angel ;  that 
a  creature  was  the  (;od  of  Israel,  and  that  to  this  crea- 
ture all  their  service  and  worship  was  directed  ;  that 
the  great  God,  'whose  name  is  jealous,'  was  pleased 
to  give  his  glory,  his  worship,  his  throne,  to  a  crea- 
ture.   What  is  this  but  to  make  the  law  of  (Jod  him- 


(8)  "  An  earthly  ambassador  indeed  represents  the 
person  of  his  prince,  is  supposed  to  be  clothed  with  his 
authority,  and  speaks  and  acts  in  his  name.  But  who 
ever  heard  of  an  ambassador  assuming  the  very  name 
of  his  sovereign,  or  being  honoured  with  it  by  others? 
Would  one  in  this  character  be  permitted  to  say,  / 
ilp.orge,  I  Loiiia,  I  Frederick  ?  As  the  idea  is  ridiculous, 
the  action  would  justly  be  accounted  high-treason.'' 
— Jamieson's  YiinUration. 

CO liistrioniam  e.xercnisse.  In  i|ua  Dei  nomen 

assumat.et  omnia,quaj  Uci  sunt,  silii  attnbuut.— Bishop 
Crr,!,. 

(1)  LlNDSK^'s  Apol. 


.self  introductory  of  the  same  idolatry  that  was  prac- 
tised by  all  the  nations  of  the  heathen  I  But  we  are 
told,  that  bold  figures  of  speech  are  connnon  in  tho 
Hebrew  language,  which  is  not  to  be  tied  down  in  its 
interi>retation  to  the  severer  rules  of  modern  criticism. 
We  may  be  assured  that  these  oiiinions  are  indefen- 
sible, which  cannot  be  supported  without  cliarging  the 
word  of  God  with  want  of  proiiriety  or  pfrs|)jcuily. 
Such  pretences  might  be  borne  with,  if  the  ipieslion 
were  about  a  phrase  or  two  in  the  poetical  or  propheti- 
cal parts  of  Scripture.  But  this,  if  it  be  a  figure,  is  a 
figure  which  runs  through  the  whole  Scnpture.  And 
a  bold  interpreter  must  he  be,  who  supposes  that  such 
figures  are  per|ictually  and  uniformly  made  use  of  in 
a  point  of  such  nnporlancc,  without  any  meaning  at  all. 
This  is  to  confound  the  use  of  bmguage,  to  make  the 
Holy  Scripture  a  mysterious,  unuitelligible  book,  sufli- 
cient  to  prove  nothing,  or  rather  to  |irove  any  tiling 
which  a  wild  imagination  shall  suggest. "(2) 

If  the  Arian  account  of  the  angel  of  .[ehovah  be  un- 
tenable, the  Socinian  notion  will  be  found  etiually  un- 
supported, and  indeed  ridiculous.  Dr.  Priestley  as- 
sumes the  marvellous  doctrine  of  "  occasional  person- 
ality," and  thinks  that  "  in  some  cases  angels  were 
nothing  more  than  temporary  appearances,  and  no 
permanent  beings ;  the  mere  organs  of  the  Deity,  as- 
sumed for  the  purpose  of  making  himself  known."  Ho 
speaks,  therefore,  of  "  a  power  occasionally  emitted, 
and  tlien  taken  back  again  into  its  source ;"  of  this 
power  being  vested  with  a  temporary  personality,  and 
thinks  this  possible  I  Little  cause  had  the  doctor  and 
his  adherents  to  talk  of  the  mystery  and  absurdity  of 
the  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  one  Godhead,  who  can 
make  a  person  out  of  a  power,  emitted,  and  then  drawn 
back  again  to  its  sour<« ;  a  temporary  person,  without 
individual  subsistence  !  The  wildness  of  this  fiction 
is  Its  own  refutation  ;  but  that  the  angel  of  .lehovah 
was  not  this  temporary  occasional  person,  produced  or 
"emitted"  for  the  occasion  of  these  appearances,  is 
made  certain  by  Abraham's  "  walking  before  this  angel 
of  the  Lord,"  that  is,  orderinghis  life  aiid  conversation 
in  his  sight  all  the  days  of  his  life ;  by  .lacob  calling 
hun  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  who  had  "  fed  him  all  his  life 
long ;"  and  by  this  also,  that  the  sanie  person,  who 
was  called  by  himself  and  by  the  Jews  "the  God  of 
Abraham,  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob,"  was  the  God  of  the 
chosen  people  in  all  their  generations.  Mr.  Lindsey 
says,  "  that  the  outivard  token  of  the  presence  of  Goii 
is  what  is  generally  meant  by  the  angel  of  God,  when 
not  particularly  specified  and  appropriated  otherwise; 
that  which  manifested  his  appearance,  whatever  it 
was ;"  and  this  opinion  commonly  obtains  among  the 
Socinians.  "The  angel  of  lUe  Lord  was  the  visible 
symbol  of  the  Divine  prescnce."(3)  This  notion,  how- 
ever, involves  a  whole  train  of  absurdities.  The  li;rm 
"  the  Angel  of  .Tehovah"  is  not  at  all  accounted  for  by 
a  visible  symbol  of  clouds,  light,  fire,  &c.,  unless  that 
symbol  be  considered  as  distinct  from  Jehovah.  We 
have  then  the  name  .lehovah  given  to  a  cloud,  a  light, 
a  fire,  <fec.  ;  the  fire  is  the  Angel  of  the  Lord,  and  yet 
the  Angel  of  the  liOrd  calls  to  Moses  out  oftliejire. 
This  visible  symbol  says  to  Abraham,  "  By  myselk  I 
have  swoni,"  for  these  are  said  to  be  the  words  of  tlic 
Angel  of  .lehovah  ;  and  this  Angel,  the  visible  symbol, 
spake  to  Moses  on  Mount  Sinai :  such  are  the  absurdi- 
ties which  flow  from  error  1  Rlost  clearly,  therefore, 
is  it  determined  on  the  testimony  of  several  Scriptures, 
and  by  necessary  induction  from  the  circumstances  at- 
tending the  numerous  appearances  of  the  Angel  of 
Jehovah  in  the  Old  Testament,  that  the  person  thus 
manifesting  himself,  and  thus  receiving  supreme  wor- 
ship, was  not  a  created  angel,  as  the  Arians  would 
have  it,  nor  a  meteor,  an  atmospheric  appearance,  the 
worthy  theory  of  modem  Socinians,  but  that  he  was  a 
Divine  Person. 

2.  It  will  be  necessary  to  show  that  tliis  Divine  per- 
son was  not  God  the  Father. 

The  following  argument  has  been  adopted  in  proof 
of  this.  "  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time.  Ye 
have  neither  heard  his  voice  at  any  lime,  nor  seen  his 
shape.  Not  that  any  man  hath  seen  tin-  Father.  It  is, 
however,  .said  in  the  Old  Teslamcnt,  thai  God  Iriqueiitly 
appeared  under  the  Patriarchal  and  Levilical  dispensa- 


(2)  Randoli-u's  Vindication  of  the  Doctrine  of  til© 
Trinity. 

(I!)  Belsham. 


176 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


tions,  and  therefore  we  rmist  conclude  that  the  God  who 
appeared  was  (lod  the  Son." 

Plausililc  as  this  ari;ument  is,  it  cannot  be  depended 
upon  ;  for  lliat  the  Father  never  inaiiil'rstcd  himself  to 
men,  as  distinet  from  the  .Snn,  is  ri)iilr;iill<-ted  by  two 
exjiress  lestjinonies.  We  liave  seiTi  Itiiit  the  aii^'el  in 
whom  was  the  name  of  (Jod,  ))romised  as  ilie  con<luclor 
of  tlie  Israehtes  tlirough  the  wilderness,  was  a  Divine 
person.  Hut  he  who  promised  to  "  send  him,"  must 
be  a  dilTerent  person  to  the  an!;el  sent,  and  that  person 
could  be  no  other  than  the  Father.  "  fiehold,  1  send  an 
angel  before  thee,"  &c.  On  this  occasion,  therefore, 
Mose.s  heard  the  voice  of  the  Father.  Again,  at  the 
baptism  of  Jesus,  the  voice  of  the  Father  was  heard, 
declaring,  "  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am 
well  pleased."  The  above  passages  must  be  therefore 
interpreted  to  accord  with  these  facts.  They  e.xjiress 
the  pure  spirituality  and  invisibility  of  God,  and  can 
no  more  be  argued  against  a  sensible  manifestation  of 
<Jod  by  audible  sounds  and  appearances,  than  the  decla- 
ration to  Moses,  "No  man  can  see  7ny  face  mnl  live." 
There  was  an  important  sense  in  which  Moses  neither 
did  nor  could  see  God;  and  yet  it  is  eiiually  true,  that 
he  both  .saw  him  and  heard  him.  He  saw  the  "  back- 
ward  parts,"  but  not  the  "fare  of  God. "(4) 

The  manifestation  of  the  Father  was  however  very 
rare ;  as  ajjpears  from  by  far  the  greater  part  of  these 
Divine  apjiearances  being  expressly  called  appearances 
of  the  AiigeL  of  the  Lord.  The  Jehovah  who  ai>i)eared 
to  Abram  in  the  case  of  Sodom,  was  an  angel.  The 
Jehovah  who  appeared  to  Ilagar  is  said  also  to  be  "  tlie 
Angel  (if  the  Lord."  It  was  "the  Ansel  of  Jehovah 
from  heaven"  who  sware  by  Imnselflo  Abraham.  "  In 
blessing  I  will  bless  thee."  Jacob  calls  the  "  God  of 
Bethel,"  that  is,  the  God  who  appeared  to  him  there, 
and  to  whom  lie  vowed  his  vows,  ''  the  Angel  of  God." 
In  blessing  Joseph,  he  calls  the  God  "  in  whose  pre- 
sence my  Fathers,  Abraham  and  Isaac,  have  walked," 
the  Angel  who  had  redeemed  him  from  all  evil.  "  I 
AM  THAT  I  AM,"  When  he  spoke  to  Moses  out  of  the 
bush,  is  termed  the  Angel  of  Jehovah.  The  God  who 
spake  these  words,  and  said,  "  Thou  shalt  have  no  other 
(!ods  before  me,"  is  called  the  Angel  who  spake  to 
Moses  in  the  Mount  Sinai.  Thelieing  who  dwelt  in  a 
fiery  cloud,  the  visible  token  of  the  presence  of  God, 
and  took  up  his  residence  over  the  ark,  in  the  holiest 
place,  and  there  received  the  constant  worship  of  the 
Jews,  is  called  the  Angel  of  the  Lord ;  and  so  in  many 
other  instances. 

Nor  is  there  any  rea.son  for  stretching  the  point,  to 
exclude  in  all  cases  the  visible  or  audible  agency  of  the 
Father  from  the  Old  Testament  ;  no  advantage  in  the 
Ica.st  is  gained  by  it,  and  it  cannot  be  maintained  with- 
out sanctioning  by  example  the  conduct  of  the  oppo- 
sers  of  truth,  in  giving  forced  and  unnatural  exposi- 
tions to  several  passages  of  Seri]iturc.  This  ought  to 
be  avoidetl,  and  a  consistency  of  fair,  honest  interpreta- 
tion be  mainlained  throughout.  It  is  amply  sullicieiit 
(or  the  important  argument  with  which  we  are  now 
concerned,  to  jirove,  not  that  the  Father  was  never 
manifested  in  his  own  person;  but  that  the  Angel  of 
the  Ijord,  whose  appearances  are  so  often  recorded,  is 
not  the  Father.  This  is  clear  from  his  appellation 
angel,  with  respect  to  which  there  can  be  but  two  in- 
terjirelations.  It  is  either  a  name  descriptive  of  nature 
or  of '///(>('.  In  the  lirst  view  it  is  generally  employed 
in  the  sacnxl  Scriptures  to  di;sigMale  one  of  an  order  of 
intelligences  suiierior  to  man,  and  often  employed  in 
the  service  of  man  as  the  ministers  of  God,  hut  still 
beings_/in((e  and  created.  We  have,  however,  already 
proved  that  the  angel  of  the  Loril  is  not  a  creature,  and 
he  is  not  therefore  called  an  angel  with  reference  to 
his  nature.  The  term  must  then  be  considered  as  a 
term  of  office.  lie  is  called  the  Angel  of  the  Lord,  be- 
cause he  was  the  nie.ssensir  ol'  the  Lord;  because  he 
was  sent  to  execute  his  will,  and  to  he  his  visible  image 
anil  representative.  His  ollice,  th(;relore,  under  this 
appellation,  was  ministerial ;  hiil  miiiisiralinn  is  never 
attributed  to  the  Father.  He  wlm  was  sent  must  lie  a 
distinct  person  from  him  by  ifhnni  he  was  sent  ;  the 
vie.isenger  from  him  whose  message  he  brou'^ht,  and 
whose  will  he  performed.  The  angel  ol'  Jehovah  is 
therefore  a  dilTerent  ))erson  from  the  Jidiovah  whose 
messenger  lie  w.us,  and  yet  the  tmgel  himself  is  Jeho- 


(4)  Impcrscrulaliileni  Dei  csscntiani  et  nwjcstutciii. 
— Vatablk. 


vah,  and  as  we  have  proved,  truly  Divine.    Thus  does 
the  Old  Testament  most  clearly  reveal  to  us  in  the 
case  of  Jehovah  and  the  angel  of  Jehovah,  two  IHxnne 
Persons,  while  it  still  maintains  its  great  fundainen-  %  ^ 
tal  principle,  that  there  is  but  one  God.  ^ 

3.  The  third  step  in  this  argument  IS,  that  the  Divine       * 
Person,  called  so  often  the  Angel  of  Jehovah,  in  the  Old 
Testament,  was  the  promised  and  future  Christ,  and 
consequently  Jesus,  the  Lord  and  Saviour  of  the  Chris- 
tian church. 

We  have  seen  that  it  was  the  Angel  of  Jehovah  who 
gave  the  law  to  the  Israelites,  and  that  in  his  own 
name,  though  still  an  angel,  a  messenger  in  the  trans- 
action ;  being  at  once  .servant  and  Lord,  Angel  and  Je- 
hovah, circumstances  which  can  only  be  explained  on 
the  hypothesis  of  his  Divinity,  and  for  which  neither 
Arianism  nor  Socinianism  can  give  any  solution.  He 
therefore  was  the  person  who  made  the  covenant  usu- 
ally called  the  Mosaic  with  the  children  of  Israel.  The 
jiropliet  Jeremiah,  however,  expressly  says,  that  the 
new  covenant  with  Israel  was  to  be  made  by  the  same 
person  who  had  made  the  old.  "  Heboid,  the  days 
come,  sailh  the  Lord,  that  I  jeill  7nake  a  new  covenant 
with  the  house  of  Israel,  and  with  the  house  of  Judah ; 
not  according  to  the  covenant  that  /  77i«<;e  with  their 
fathers  in  the  day  that  I  took  them  by  the  hand  to  bring 
them  out  of  the  land  of  Eg^■pt."  The  angel  of  Jehovah, 
who  l('d  the  Israelites  out  of  Egypt  and  gave  thern 
their  law,  is  here  iilainly  introduced  as  the  author  of 
the  new  covenant.  If,  then,  as  we  learn  from  the 
Apostle  Paul,  this  new  covenant  predicted  by  Jeremiah 
is  the  Christian  dispc-nsation,  and  (;hrist  be  its  author, 
the  Christ  (if  the  New  Testament,  and  the  Angel  of  Je- 
hovah of  the  Old,  are  the  same  person. 

Equally  striking  is  the  celebrated  prediction  in  Mala- 
chi,  the  last  of  the  [irophets.  "  Behold,  I  will  send  my 
messenger,  and  he  shall  prepare  my  way  before  me  ; 
and  the  Lord  whom  ye  seek  shall  suddenly  come  to  his 
temple,  even  the  messenger  of  the  covenant  whom  ye 
delight  in ;  behold,  he  shall  come,  saith  the  Lord  of 
Hosts." 

The  characters  under  which  the  person  who  is  the 
subject  of  this  projihecy  is  described,  are,  the  Lord,  a 
Sovereign  ruler,(5)  the  owner  of  the  temple,  and  there- 
fore a  Divine  prince  or  governor,  he  "  shall  come  to  his 
temple."  "The  temple,"  says  Bishop  Horsley,  "in 
the  writings  of  a  Jewish  prophet,  cannot  be  otherwise 
understood,  according  to  the  literal  meaning,  than  of 
the  temple  at  Jerusalem.  Of  this  temple,  therelbre, 
the  person  to  conic  is  here  expressly  called  the  Lord. 
The  lord  of  any  temple,  in  the  language  of  all  writers, 
and  in  the  natural  meaning  of  the  phrase,  is  the  divi- 
nity to  whose  worship  it  is  consecrated.  To  no  other 
divinity  the  temple  of  .lerusalem  was  consecrated  than 
the  true  and  everlasting  God,  the  Lord  Jehovah,  the 
Maker  of  heaven  and  earth.  Here,  then,  we  have  the 
exjiress  tesiiniony  of  iMalachi,  that  the  Christ,  the  De- 
liverer, whose  eoiiiiiig  he  announces,  was  no  other 
than  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament.  Jehovah  had 
delivered  tlie  Israelites  from  the  Egyptian  bondage; 
and  the  same  Jehovah  was  to  come  in  person  to  his 
temple,  to  effect  the  greater  and  more  general  deli- 
verance, of  which  the  former  was  but  an  imperfect 
type." 

"  He  bears  also  the  same  title,  angel  or  messenger,  as 
he  whose  appearances  in  the  Old  Testament  have  been 
enumerated. 

"  The  Messenger  of  the  Covenant,  therefore,  is  Jeho- 
vah's messenger  ;— if  his  me.'ssengtr,  his  servant ;  for 
a  message  is  a  service :  it  implies  a  person  sending,  and 
a  person  sent.  In  the  pcr.soii  who  .seiideth  there  must 
be  authority  to  send,— submission  to  thai  authority  in 
the  person  sent.  The  Messenger,  therefore,  of  the 
Covenant  is  the  servant  of  the  I.onl  Jehovah  :  but  the 
same  person  who  is  the  Messenger  is  the  Lord  Jehovah 
himself,  not  the  same  person  with  the  sender,  but  bear- 
ing the  same  name  ;  because  united  in  that  mysterious 
nature  and  tindivided  suhstance  which  the  name  im- 
ports. The  same  person,  thereliire,  is  servant  and 
Lord;  and,  by  uniting  these  cliaraclers  in  the  same 
person,  what  does  the  prophet  but  describe  that  great 
mystery  of  the  gospel,  the  union  of  the  nature  which 


(5)  The  same  word  is  often  applied  to  magistrates, 
and  even  fathers;  but  J.  11.  MichaClls  says,  that  when 
it  occurs  as  in  this  plat*;  wiili  the  prclix,  it  is  appropri- 
ated only  to  God, 


Cbap.  XL] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


177 


governs  and  the  nature  which  serves,— the  union  of 
the  Divine  and  human  nature  in  the  person  of  the 
Christ  ?•'((■)) 

Now,  tliis  prophecy  is  expressly  applied  to  Christ  by 
St.  Mark.  "The  beginning  of  the  gospel  of  Jesu.s 
Christ,  the  Sou  of  God,  as  it  is  written,  Behold  I  send 
my  MRssent'cr  before  thy  face,  which  shall  prepare  tliy 
way  betore  thee."  It  follows  from  this,  that  .lesus  is 
the  Lord,  the  Lord  of  the  Temple,  the  Messen<,'er  of  the 
Covenant  mentioned  in  the  proiihecy ;  and  bearing  these 
exact  characters  of  the  appearins  Angel  Jehovah  of  the 
Old  Testament,  who  was  the  Kiin;  of  the  Jews ;  whose 
temple  wm  his,  because  he  resided  in  it,  and  so  was 
called  "  the  house  of  the  Lord ;"  and  who  wa.s  "  the 
Messenger"  of  their  Covenant;  the  identity  of  the  per- 
sons cannot  be  mistaken.  One  coincidence  is  singu- 
larly striking.  It  has  been  proved,  that  the  Angel  Jeho- 
vah had  his  residence  in  the  Jewish  tabernacle  and 
temple,  and  that  he  took  posse.ssioii,  or  came  .suddenly 
to  both,  at  their  dedication,  and  filled  them  with  his 
glory.  On  one  occasion  Jesus  himself,  though  in  his 
state  of  humiliation,  comes  in  public  proiession  to  the 
temple  at  .lerusalem,  and  calls  it  "  Ins  own,"  thus  at 
once  declaring  that  he  was  the  ancient  and  rightful 
Lord  of  the  Temple,  and  appropriating  to  himself  tliis 
eminent  prophecy.  Bishop  Horsley  has  introduced 
this  circumstance  in  his  usual  striking  and  convincing 
manner. 

"A  third  time  .lesus  came  still  more  remarkably  as 
the  Lord  to  his  temple,  when  he  came  up  from  Galilee 
to  celebrate  the  last  passover,  and  made  that  public 
entry  at  Jerusalem  which  is  described  by  all  the  Evan- 
gelists. It  will  be  necessary  to  enlarge  upon  the  par- 
ticulars of  tliis  interesting  story  :  for  the  right  under- 
standing of  our  Saviour's  conduct  upon  this  occasion 
depends  so  much  upon  seeing  certain  leading  circum- 
stances in  a  proper  light, — upon  a  recollection  of  an- 
cient prophecies,  and  an  attention  to  the  customs  of  the 
Jewish  people, — that  I  am  apt  to  suspect,  few  now-a- 
days  discern  in  this  extraordinary  transaction  what 
was  clearly  seen  in  it  at  the  time  by  our  Lord's  dis- 
ciples, and  in  some  measure  understood  by  his  ene- 
mies. I  shall  present  you  with  an  ordinary  detail  of 
the  story,  and  comment  upon  the  particulars  as  they 
arise :  and  I  doubt  not  but  that  by  God's  assistance  I 
shall  teach  you  to  perceive  in  this  public  entry  of  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  (if  you  have  not  perceived  it  before),  a 
conspicuou.s  advent  of  the  great  Jehovah  to  his  temple. 
Jesus,  on  his  last  journey  from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem, 
stops  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Olivet,  and  sends  two  of  his 
disciples  to  a  neighbouring  village  to  provide  an  ass's 
colt  to  convey  him  from  that  place  to  the  city,  distant 
not  more  than  half  a  mile.  The  colt  is  brought,  and 
Jesus  is  seated  upon  it.  This  first  circumstance  must 
be  well  considered ;  it  is  the  key  to  tlie  whole  mystery 
of  the  story.  What  could  be  his  meaning  in  choosing 
this  singular  conveyance?  It  could  not  be  tliat  the 
fatigue  of  the  short  journey  which  remained  was  likely 
to  be  too  much  for  him  a-foot ;  and  that  no  better  ani- 
mal was  to  be  procured.  Nor  was  the  ass  in  these  days 
(though  it  had  been  in  earlier  ages)  an  animal  in  high 
esteem  in  the  East,  used  for  travelling  or  for  state  by 
persons  of  the  first  condition — that  ihi.s  conveyance 
should  be  chosen  for  the  grandeur  or  propriety  of  the 
apiiearance.  Strange  as  it  may  seem,  the  coming  to 
Jerusalem  upon  an  ass's  colt  was  one  of  the  proi)hetical 
characters  of  the  Messiah  ;  and  the  great  singularity 
of  it  had  perhaps  been  the  rea.son  that  this  cliaracter 
had  been  more  generally  attended  to  than  any  other; 
so  that  there  was  no  Jew  who  was  not  apprized  that 
the  Messiah  was  to  come  to  the  holy  city  in  that  man- 
ner. 'Rejoice  greatly,  O  daughter  of  Zion  !  shout,  O 
daughter  of  Jerusalem '.'  saith  Zechariah ;  '  Behold  thy 
King  Cometh  unto  thee  I  He  is  just,  and  having  salva- 
tion ;  lowly,  and  riding  upon  an  ass,  even  a  colt,  the 
foal  of  an  ass  I'  And  this  prophecy  the  Jews  never 
■understood  of  any  other  person  than  the  Messiah.  Jesus, 
therefore,  by  seating  himself  upon  the  ass's  colt  in 
order  to  go  to  Jerusalem,  without  any  possible  induce- 
ment eitlier  of  grandeur  or  convenience,  openly  de- 
clared himself  to  be  that  King  who  was  to  come,  and 
at  whose  coming  in  that  manner  Zion  was  torcjoice. 
And  so  the  disciples,  if  we  may  judge  front  whaj  im- 
ine(hately  followed,  understood  this  proceeding ;  forno 
sooner  did  they  see  their  master  seated  on  the  colt,  than 

(0)  lIoRsLEv's  Sermons. 


they  broke  out  into  transports  of  the  highest  joy,  as  if 
in  this  great  sight  they  had  the  full  contentment  of 
their  utmost  wishes;  conceiving,  as  it  should  seem, 
the  sanguine  hope  that  the  kingdom  was  this  instant 
to  be  restored  to  Israel.  They  strewed  the  way  which 
.Tesus  was  to  pass  with  the  green  branches  of  the  trees 
which  grew  beside  it ;  a  mark  of  honour,  in  the  East, 
never  paid  but  to  the  greatest  eiiipcrors  on  occasions  of 
the  highest  pomp.  They  proclaimed  him  the  long-ex- 
pected heir  of  David's  throne, — the  Blessed  One  com- 
ing in  the  name  of  the  Lord ;  that  is,  in  the  language 
of  iMalachi,  the  Messenger  of  the  Covenant :  and  they 
rent  the  skies  with  the  exulting  acclamation  of  'Ilo- 
sanna  in  the  highest !'  On  tlieir  way  to  Jerusalem, 
they  arc  met  by  a  great  multitude  from  the  cit\,  whom 
the  tidings  had  no  sooner  rea<died  than  they  ran  out  in 
eager  joy  to  join  his  triumph.  When  they  reached 
Jerusalem,  '  the  whole  city,'  says  the  blessed  evan- 
gelist, '  was  moved.'  Here  recollect,  that  it  was  now 
the  season  of  the  passover.  The  passover  was  the 
highest  festival  of  the  Jewish  nation,  the  anniversary 
of  that  memorable  night  when  .lehovah  led  his  armies 
out  of  Egypt  with  a  high  hand  and  an  extended  arm, — '  a 
night  much  to  be  remembered  to  the  Lord  of  the  cliil- 
dren  of  Israel  in  their  generations  ;'  and  much  indeed 
it  was  remembered.  The  devout  Jews  flocked  at  this 
season  to  Jerusalem,  not  only  from  every  corner  oi" 
Judea,  but  from  the  remotest  countries  whither  (iod 
had  scattered  them  ;  and  the  nuinbers  of  the  strangers 
that  were  annually  collecteil  in  Jerusalem  during  this 
festival  are  beyond  imagination.  These  strangers,  who 
living  at  a  distance  knew  little  of  what  had  been  pass- 
ing in  Judea  since  their  last  visit,  were  they  who  were 
moved  (as  well  they  might  be)  with  wonder  and  asto- 
nishment, when  Jesus,  so  humble  in  his  equipage,  so 
honoured  in  his  numerous  attendants,  appeared  within 
the  city  g.ates ;  and  every  one  asks  his  neighbour, 
'  Who  is  this  V  It  was  replied  by  some  of  the  natives 
of  Judea, — but,  as  I  conceive,  by  none  of  the  disciples 
for  any  of  them  at  this  time  would  have  given  another 
answer, — it  was  replied,  '  This  is  the  Nazarene,  the 
great  prophet  from  Galilee.'  Through  the  throng  of 
these  astonished  spectators  the  procession  passed  by 
the  jiublic  streets  of  Jerusalem  to  the  temple,  where 
iniineiUately  the  sacred  porticoes  resound  with  the  con- 
tinued hosannas  of  the  multitudes.  The  chief  priests 
and  scribes  are  astonished  and  alarmed ;  they  request 
,!esus  himself  to  silence  his  followers.  Jesus,  in  the 
early  part  of  his  ministry,  had  always  been  cautions  of 
any  public  display  of  personal  consequence ;  lest  the 
malice  of  Ills  enemies  should  be  too  soon  provoked,  or 
the  unadvised  zeal  of  his  friends  should  raise  civil 
commotions.  But  now  that  his  work  on  earth  wa.s 
finished  in  all  but  the  last  painful  part  of  it,— now  that 
he  had  firmly  laid  the  foundations  of  God's  kingdom  in 
the  hearts  of  his  disciples, — now  that  the  apostles  were 
prejiared  and  instructed  for  their  office, — now  that  the 
days  of  vengeance  on  the  Jewish  nation  were  at  hand, 
and  it  mattered  not  how  soon  they  should  incur  the 
displeasure  of  the  Romans  their  masters, — .lesus  lays 
aside  a  reserve  which  could  be  no  longer  useful ;  and, 
instead  of  checking  the  zeal  of  his  followers,  he  gives 
a  new  alarm  to  the  chief  priests  and  scribes,  by  a  direct 
and  firm  assertion  of  his  right  to  the  honours  that  were 
so  largely  shown  to  him.  'If  these,'  says  he,  'were 
.silent,  the  stones  of  this  building  would  be  endued  with 
a  voice  to  proclaim  my  titles  :'  and  then,  as  on  a  former 
occasion,  he  drove  out  the  traders ;  but  with  a  higlior 
tone  of  authority,  calling  it  his  own  house,  and  s;i>  uig, 
'  My  house  is  the  house  of  prayer,  but  ye  have  made  il 
a  den  of  thieves.'  You  have  now  the  story,  in  all  its 
circumstances,  faithfully  collected  froin  the  lour  evan- 
gelists ;  nothing  exaggerated,  but  set  in  order,  and  per- 
haps somewliat  illustrated  by  an  application  of  old  pro- 
phecies, and  a  recollection  of  Jewish  customs.  Judge 
lor  yourselves  whether  this  was  not  an  advent  of  the 
Lord  Jehovah  tailing  personal  possession  of  his  tem- 
ple."(7) 

But  it  is  not  only  in  these  passages  tliat  the  name 
Jehovah,  the  appellation  of  the  appearing  Angel  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  other  titles  of  divinity,  are  given 
to  Messiah  ;  and  if  Jesus  be  Messiah,  then  are  they  Lis 
titles  and  as  truly  mark  his  Divinity. 

"  The  voice  of  him  that  crieth  in  the  wihierncss,  pre- 
liarc  ye  the  way  of  the  Lord  (Jehovah),  makt) straight 


(7)  Horsley. 


178 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  IL 


in  the  desert  a  highway  for  our  Ood  Everj-  valley 
shall  be  exaltcii,  and  every  mountain  shall  be  made 
low ;  and  the  crooked  shall  be  made  straight,  and  the 
rough  places  plain,  and  the  glory  ollhe  Lord  (.Iehov  aii) 
shall  be  revealed,  and  all  /lesh  shall  see  it  together." 
This  being  spoken  of  him  of  whom  .lolin  the  IJaptist 
was  to  be  the  fororuimer  ;  and  the  a|ipIiration  having 
been  afterward  expressly  made  by  (he  liaplist  to  our 
Lord,  it  is  evident  that  iik  is  the  person  "  to  whom  the 
prophet  attributes  the  incommunicable  name  of  Jkuo- 
VAJi,  and  styles  him  '  our  Cod.'  "(8) 

"  Now,  all  this  was  done  that  it  might  be  fulfilled 
which  was  spoken  of  the  Lord  by  the  prophet,  saying, 
behold  a  virgin  shall  conceive,  and  shall  bring  forth  a 
Son,  and  they  shall  call  his  name  Kmasikl,  which 
being  interpreted  is  Cod  with  us."  Here  another  pre- 
diction of  Isaiah  is  expressly  applied  to  Jesus.  "  Thou 
siialt  bring  Ibrth  a  son,  and  shalt  call  his  name  Jesus, 
and  he  shall  be  great,  and  the  Lord  Cod  shall  give  to 
him  the  throne  of  his  father  Uavid,  and  he  shall  reign 
over  the  hou.se  of  Jacob  for  ever  and  ever,  and  of  his 
kingdom  there  sliall  be  no  end."  These  are  the  words 
of  the  Arigel  to  Mary,  and  obviously  apply  to  our  Lord 
the  words  of  Isaiah,  "  Unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us 
a  son  is  given,  and  the  government  shall  be  upon  his 
shoulder,  and  his  name  shall  be  called  Wonderful, 
Counsellor,  the  mighty  God,  the  everlasting  Father,  the 
Prince  of  Peace.  Of  the  increase  of  his  government 
and  i)Ower  there  shall  be  no  end,  upon  the  tlirone  of 
David  to  order  and  establish  it  for  ever."  It  is  unne- 
cessary at  present  to  (juote  more  of  those  immerous 
passages  which  speak  of  the  future  Messiah  under 
divine  titles,  and  which  are  apiilied  to  Jesus  as  that 
Messiah  actually  manifested.  They  do  not  in  so  many 
words  connect  the  Angel  of  Jehovah  with  Jesus  as  the 
same  person  ;  but,  taken  with  the  passages  above  ad- 
duced, they  present  evidence  of  a  very  weighty  cha- 
racter in  favour  of  that  i)osition.  A  plurality  of  i)er- 
sons  in  the  one  Godhead  is  mentioned  in'  the  Jewish 
Scriptures  ;  this  plurality  is  restricted  to  three ;  one  of 
then  I  appears  as  "the  acting  God"  of  the  Patriarchal 
and  Mosaic  age  ;  the  prophets  speak  of  a  Divine  person 
to  come  as  the  Messiah,  bearing  precisely  the  same 
titles  ;  no  one  supposes  this  to  be  the  Holy  Ghost ;  it 
cannot  be  the  Father,  seeing  that  Messiah  is  God's  ser- 
vant and  God's  mes.senger ;  and  the  only  conclusion  is, 
that  the  Messiah  predicted  is  he  who  is  known  under 
the  titles.  Angel,  Son  of  God,  Word  of  t;od,  in  the  Old 
Testament ;  and  if  Jesus  be  that  Messiah,  he  is  that 
Son,  that  Word,  that  .Servant,  that  Messenger ;  and 
bearing  the  same  divine  characters  as  the  Angel  of 
Jehovah,  is  that  angel  himself,  and  is  entitled  in  the 
t'hristian  (Jhurch  to  all  that  homage  and  woi-ship  which 
was  jjaid  to  him  in  the  Jewish. 

There  are,  however,  a  few  passages  wluch  in  a  still 
more  distinct  manner  than  any  whicli  have  been  intro- 
duced, except  that  from  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah, 
identify  Jesus  Christ  with  the  Angel  of  Jehovah  in  the 
Patriarchal  and  Levitical  disi)ensations ;  and  a  brief 
consideration  of  them  will  leave  this  important  point 
completely  established. 

Let  it  then  be  recollected,  that  he  who  dwelt  in  the 
Jewish  tabernacle,  between  the  Cherubim,  was  the 
Angel  Jeh(/vah.  In  Psalm  Ixviii.,  which  was  written 
on  the  removal  of  the  Ark  to  Mount  Zion,  lie  is  ex- 
pressly addressed.  "This  is  the  hill  whu-h  liod  de- 
sireth  to  dwell  in;"  and  again,  "  Thi  y  have  seen  thy 
goings,  O  (JotI,  my  King,  in  thy  sanctuary."  Itm  the 
Apostle  Paid,  Eph.  iv.  8,  apjdies  this  I'salm  to  Christ, 
and  considers  this  very  asr.inl  of  the  Angel  Jehovah  to 
Mount  Zion  as  a  jirophetic  type  of  llie  ascent  of  Jesus 
to  the  celestial  Zion.  "  Wherefore  he  saith,  when  he 
ascended  on  high  he  led  captivity  captive,"  &c.  The 
conclusion,  therefore,  is,  that  the  Angel  Jehovah  who 
is  addressed  in  the  I'salm,  and  (.Uirisl.  are  the  same 
person.  This  is  marked  with  eipial  strength  in  verse 
29.  The  Psalm,  let  it  be  observed,  is  dt^termined  by 
apostolical  authority  to  be  a  prophecy  of  Christ,  as  in- 
deed its  terms  intimate;  and  Willi  rcliniic<;  lotlie  futures 
conquests  of  Messiah,  the  prophet  exclaims,  "  Ihicause 
of  til II  temple  at  Jerusalem  shidl  kings  bring  priisents 
unto  thee."  The  fulnre  Christ  is  sjioken  of  as  one  hav- 
ing then  alcmiilc  at  Jerusalem. 

It  was  the  glory  of  the  Angel  Jehovali,  Iho  resident 
Cod  of  the  Temple,  which  Isjuah  saw  in  the  vision 


ifi)  Wogau. 


recorded  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  his  prophecy  before 
adduced;  but  the  evangelist  John  exjircssly  declares 
that  on  that  occasion  the  prophet  saw  the  glory  of 
Christ  ami  sjiake  of  him.  Christ  therefore  was  the 
Lord  of  Hosts  whose  glory  filled  the  temple. 

St.  Peter  calls  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah,  by  which  the 
prophets  "  jirophesied  of  the  grace  that  should  come, 
the  Sjarit  of  Christ."  He  also  informs  us  that  "  Christ 
was  put  to  death  in  the  flesh  but  quickened  by  the 
Spirit,  by  which  also  he  Went  and  preached  unto  the 
spirits  in  prison,  which  some  time  were  disobedient 
when  once  the  long-suffering  of  God  waited  i/(  the 
days  of  yoah,  wlulc  the  Ark  was  preparing."  Now, 
whatever  may  be  the  full  meaning  of  this  difficult  pas- 
sage, Christ  is  clearly  represented  as  preaching  by  his 
Spirit  in  the  days  of  Noah,  that  is,  inspiring  Noah  to 
preach.  Let  this  he  collated  with  the  declaration  of 
Jehovah  before  the  Hood,  "  My  Spirit  shall  not  always 
strive  with  man,  for  that  he  is  flesh,  yet  his  days  shall 
be  a  hundred  and  twenty  years,"  during  wliicli  period 
of  delay  and  long;-sufferjng,  Noah  was  made  by  him, 
from  whom  alone  inspiration  can  come,  a  preacher  of 
righteousness ;  and  it  is  clear  that  Christ,  and  the  ap- 
pearing Jehovah  of  the  antediluvian  world,  are  supposed 
by  St.  Peter  to  have  been  the  same  person.  In  the  11th 
chapter  of  the  Hebrews,  Moses  is  said  to  have  esteemed 
the  reproach  «f  Christ  greater  riches  than  the  treasures 
of  Egypt;  a  ijassage  of  easy  interpretation,  when  it  is 
admitted  that  the  Jehovah  of  the  Israelites,  whose  name 
and  worship  Mo.ses  professed,  and  Christ,  were  the 
same  person.  For  this  worship  he  was  reproached  by 
the  Egyptians,  who  preferred  their  own  idolatry,  and 
treated,  as  all  apostates  do,  the  true  religion,  the  pure 
worship  of  former  ages  from  which  they  had  departed, 
with  contempt.  To  be  reproached  for  the  sake  of  Jeho- 
vah, and  to  be  rejiroached  for  Christ,  were  convertible 
phrases  with  the  Apostle,  because  he  considered  Jeho- 
vah and  Christ  to  be  the  same  jierson. 

"  In  St.  Paul's  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  we 
read,  'Neither  let  us  tempt  Christ,  as  some  of  them 
(that  is,  the  Jews  in  the  wilderness)  also  tempted,  and 
were  destroyed  by  serpents,'  x.  9.  The  pronoun  him, 
avTOv,  must  be  niiderslood  after  '  tempted,'  and  it  it; 
found  in  soiii<'  MSS.,  tliouch  not  sufticienlly  numerous 
to  warrant  iis  insertion  in  the  text.  It  is,  however,  7je- 
e.essariUj  implied,  and  ri'lcrs  to  Christ  just  helbre  Tnen- 
tioned.  The  J(-\vs  in  llie  wil.leriiiss  here  are  said  to 
have  tempted  some  person:  and  to  uiiderslaiid  liy  that 
person  any  other  Ihan  ( 'lirist,  who  is  just  befbr<'  named, 
is  against  all  grammar,  which  never  allows  without 
absolute  necessity  any  other  accusative  to  be  under- 
stood by  the  verb  than  that  of  some  iiers(ui  or  tiling  be- 
fore mentioned  in  the  same  sentence.  The  conjunction 
Ktn,  «/.vo,  establishes  this  interpretation  beyond  doubt: 
'Neither  let  us  tempt  Christ  as  some  o(  them  also 
lempted'-^lemiiteil  whom?  The  answer  clearly  is,  as 
Iliey  also  i(  nijitr  d  C'lirist.  If  Christ  then  was  the  per- 
son whom  the  Israelites  tempted  in  the  wilderness,  he 
unavoidably  becomes  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testa- 
nient."(9) 

This  is  rendered  the  more  striking,  when  the  passage 
to  which  the  apostle  refers  is  given  at  length.  "  Ve 
shall  not  tenii)t  the  Lord  your  God,  as  ye  templed  hint 
in  Massah."  Now  what  could  lead  the  ajiostle  to  sub- 
stitnle  Christ,  in  the  place  of  the  Lord  your  (Jod  .' — • 
"Neither  let  us  tempt  Christ,  as  some  of  them  also 
lempted"  Christ,  lor  that  is  the  accusative  which  must 
be  siipjilied.  Nothing  certainly  but  that  the  idea  was 
familiar  to  him,  that  Christ,  and  the  Angel  Jehovah, 
who  conducted  and  governed  the  Israelites,  wpre  the 
same  person. 

Heb.  xii.  25,  2fi.  "  See  that  ye  refuse  not  him  that 
speaketh;  for  if  they  escaped  not  who  refused  him  that 
sjiake  on  earth,  much  more  shall  not  we  escape,  if  wc 
turn  away  from  him  that  speaketh  from  heaven. 
Wlio.se  voice  then  shook  the  earth,  but  now  he  hath 
promised,"  Ac. 

This  passage  also  is  decisive  as  a  proof  that  the 
Angel  ol'  Jehovah,  and  our  Lord,  are  the  same  perstin.^ 
"V/^mlhat  speaketh  from  heaven,"  the  context  deter- 
mines to  be  Christ ;  "/uw  that  spake  on  earth"  is  pro- 
bably Moses.     The    "voice"    that  then  "shook  the 

(9)  IIoi.dkn's  Testimonies.  See  this  text,  so  fatal 
to  the  Socinian  scheme,  triumphantly  established 
against  the  liherly  of  their  criticisms,  in  Dr.  Maole's 
Poslscripl  to  Appendix,  p.  211,  &c. 


Chap.  XL] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


179 


earth,"  was  the  voice  of  him  that  gave  the  law,  at  the 
sound  of  which  the  mountain  trembled  and  shook.  He 
who  gave  the  law  we  have  already  proved,  from  the 
authority  of  Scripture,  to  have  buen  the  Angel  of  Jeho- 
vah, and  the  ajiostle  declares  that  the  same  person 
now  speaks  to  us  "  from  heaven,"  in  the  gospel,  and  is 
therefore  the  Lord  Christ.  Ur.  AlacKnight  says,  that 
it  was  not  tke  Son's  voice  which  shook  the  earth,  be- 
cause it  was  not  the  Son  who  gave  the  law.  In  this 
he  is  clearly  contradicted  by  St.  Stephen,  and  the  whole 
.Jewish  History.  The  proto-martyr  in  his  defence,  ex- 
l>r^^ssly  says,  tliat  it  was  ''  the  Angel"  who  spake  with 
JMoses  in  the  .Mount;  and  here  the  apostle  Paul  de- 
clares, th.U  it  was  the  voice  of  Christ  which  then  shook 
the  earth.  Nothing  can  more  certainly  prove  than  this 
collation  of  Scriptures,  that  the  Son  gave  the  law,  and 
lh;it  "  the  Angel"  who  spake  to  Moses,  and  Christ,  are 
the  same  person. 

The  above  passage,  in  its  necessary  grammatical 
construction,  so  certainly  marks  out  Christ  as  the  per- 
son whose  voice  shook  the  earth  at  the  giving  of  the 
law,  that  the  Socinians,  in  their  New  Version  of  the 
Testament,  have  chosen  to  get  rid  of  a  testimony  whicli 
no  criticism  could  evade,  by  daringly  and  wilfully  cor- 
rupting the  text  itself,  and  without  any  authority  what- 
ever, thay  read,  instead  of  "  See  that  ye  not  refuse 
him  that  speaketh,"  "  See  that  ye  refuse  not  God  that 
speaketh;"  thus,  introducing  a  new  antecedent.  This 
instance  of  a  wilful  perversion  of  the  very  text  of  the 
word  of  God,  has  received  its  merited  reprobation  from 
those  eminent  critics  who  have  exposed  the  disho- 
nesties, the  ignorance,  and  the  licentious  criticisms  of 
what  is  called  an  "  Improved  Version"  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament. 

These  views  are  confirmed  by  the  testimonies  of  the 
early  Fathers,  to  whom  the  opinions  of  the  apostles,  on 
this  subject,  one  not  at  all  afiected  by  the  controversies 
of  the  day,  would  naturally  descend.  The  opinions  of 
the  ancient  .Tews,  which  arc  also  decidedly  confirma- 
tory, will  be  given  in  their  proper  place. 

.lustin  Martyr  has  delivered  his  sentiments  very 
freely  upon  the  Divine  appearances.  "  Our  Christ,'"  he 
says,  "  conversed  with  Moses  out  of  the  bush,  in  the 
appearance  of  fire.  And  Mo.ses  received  great  strength 
from  Christ,  who  spake  to  him  in  the  appearance  of 
tire."  Again  : — "  The  .Tews  are  justly  reproved,  for 
imagining  that  the  Father  of  all  things  spake  to  Moses, 
when  indeed  it  was  the  Son  of  God,  who  is  called  the 
Angel  and  the  Messenger  of  the  Father.  He  formerly 
appeared  in  the  form  of  fire,  and  without  a  human 
shape,  to  Moses  and  the  other  prophets :  but  now — be- 
ing made  a  man  of  the  Virgin,"  &c. 

IrencBUS  says,  "  The  Scripture  is  full  of  the  Son  of 
God's  appearing ;  sometimes  to  talk  and  eat  with  Abra- 
ham, at  other  times  to  instruct  Noah  about  the  mea- 
sures of  the  ark ;  at  another  time  to  seek  Adam ;  at 
anotlier  time  to  bring  down  judgment  upon  Sodom ; 
then  again,  to  direct  Jacob  in  the  way ;  and  again,  to 
converse  with  Moses  out  of  the  bush." 

TertuUian  says,  "  It  was  the  Son  who  judged  men 
from  the  beginning,  destroying  that  lofty  tower,  and 
confounding  their  languages,  punishing  the  wliole  world 
with  a  flood  of  waters,  and  raining  fire  and  brimstone 
upon  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  the  Lord  pouring  it  down 
from  the  Lord :  for  he  always  descended  to  hold  con- 
verse with  men,  from  Adam  even  to  the  patriarchs  and 
prophets,  in  visions,  in  dreams,  in  mirrors,  in  dark  sen- 
tences, always  preparing  his  way  from  the  beginning  : 
neither  was  it  possible,  that  the  God  who  conversed 
with  men  upon  earth,  could  ■  be  any  other  than  that 
Word  which  was  to  be  made  flesh." 

Clemens  Alexandrinus  says,  "  The  Pedagogus  ap- 
peared to  Abraham,  to  Jacob,  wrestled  with  him,  and, 
lastly,  manifested  himself  to  Mo.ses."  Again :  "  Christ 
gave  the  world  the  law  of  nature,  and  the  written  law 
of  Moses.  Wherefore,  the  Lord  deriving  from  one 
fountain  both  the  first  and  second  precepts  which  he 
gave,  neither  overlooked  those  who  were  before  the 
law,  so  as  to  leave  them  without  law,  nor  suffered  those 
who  minded  not  the  philosophy  of  the  barbarians  to  do 
as  they  pleased.  He  gave  to  the  one  precepts,  to  the 
other  philosophy,  and  concluded  them  in  unbelief  till 
his  coming,  when,  whosoever  believes  not  is  without 
excuse." 

Origen  says,  "  My  Lord  Jesus  Christ  descended  to 
the  earth  more  than  once.    He  came  down  to  Esaias, 
£0  Moses,  and  to  every  one  of  the  prophets."    Again : 
M2 


— "  That  our  blessed  Saviour  did  sometimes  become  as 
an  angel,  we  may  be  induced  to  believe,  if  we  consider 
the  appearances  and  speeches  of  angels,  who  in  some 
texts  Tiave  said,  '  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the 
God  of  Isaac,'  "  &c. 

Theophilus  of  Antioch  also  declares,  "that  it  was 
the  Son  of  God  who  appeared  to  Adam  immediately 
after  the  fall,  v/ho,  assuming  the  jierson  of  the  Father 
and  the  Lord  of  all,  came  in  paradise  under  the  person 
of  God,  and  conversed  with  Adam." 

The  .Synod  of  Antioch :— "  The  Son,"  say  they,  "  is 
sometimes  called  an  Angel,  and  sometimes  the  Lord, 
sometimes  C^od.  For  it  is  impious  to  imagine,  that  the 
God  of  the  universe  is  any  where  called  an  angel.  But 
the  messenger  of  the  Father  is  the  Son,  who  himself  is 
Lord  and  God :  for  it  is  written,  The  Angel  of  the  great 
council.''^ 

Cyprian  observes,  that  "the  angel  who  appeared  to 
the  patriarch  is  Christ  and  God."  And  this  he  confirms 
by  producing  a  number  of  those  passages  from  the  Old 
Testament,  where  it  is  said,  that  an  angel  of  the  Lord 
appeared  and  spake  in  the  name  of  God. 

Hilary  speaks  to  the  same  purpose: — "He  wlio  is 
called  the  angel  of  God,  the  same  is  Lord  and  God. 
For  the  Son  of  God,  according  to  the  prophet,  is  the 
Ajige.l  of  the  great  council.  That  the  distinction  of 
persons  might  be  entire,  he  is  called  the  Angel  of  God ; 
for  he  who  is  God  of  God,  the  same  also  is  tliei' Angel 
(or  Messenger)  of  God :  and  yet,  at  the  same  time,  that 
due  honour  might  be  paid,  he  is  also  called  Lord  and 
God." 

St.  Basil  says,  "  Wlio  then  is  it,  that  is  called  both 
an  angel  and  God  ?  Is  it  not  he,  whose  name,  we  are 
told,  is  called  the  Angel  of  the  great  covejiant  ?  For 
though  it  was  in  afler-time's  that  he  became  the  angel  of 
the  great  covenant,  yet,  even  before  that,hechd  not  dis- 
dain the  title  of  an  Angel,  or  Messenger."  Again : — 
"  It  is  manifest  to  every  one,  that  where  the  same  per- 
son is  styled  both  an  Angel  and  God,  it  must  be  meant 
of  the  only-Oegottcn,  who  manifests  himself  to  mankind 
in  different  generations,  and  declares  the  will  of  the 
Father  to  his  saints.  Wherefore,  he  who,  at  his  ap- 
pearing to  Moses,  called  himself  I  am,  cannot  be  con- 
ceived to  be  any  other  person  than  God,  the  Word  who 
was  in  the  beginning  with  God." 

Other  autiiorities  may  be  seen  in  Waterland's  De- 
fence of  Queries,  that  decidedly  refutes  Dr.  Samuel 
Clarke,  who  pretends,  in  order  to  cover  his  Arianism, 
that  the  Fathers  represent  the  angel  as  speakuig  in  the 
person  of  the  Father. 

Two  objections  to  this  doctrine,  taken  from  the 
Scriptures,  are  answered  without  difficulty.  "God, 
who  at  sundry  times,  and  in  divers  manners,  spake  in 
time  past  unto  the  fathers  by  the  prophets,  hath  in  these 
last  days  spoken  unto  us  by  his  Son."  To  tho.se  only 
vvho  deny  the  manifestation  and  agency  of  the  Father  in 
every  case  in  the  Old  Testament,  this  passage  presents 
a  difficulty.  God  the  Father  is  certainly  meant  by  the 
apostle,  and  he  is  said  to  have  spoken  by  the  prophets. 
Hut  this  is  no  difficulty  to  those  who,  though  they  con- 
tend that  the  ordinary  appearances  of  the  Deity  were 
tho.se  of  the  Son,  yet  allow  the  occasional  manifesta- 
tion of  the  Father.  He  is  the  fountain  of  inspiration. 
The  Son  is  sent  by  the  Father,  but  the  Spirit  is  sent  by 
the  Father  and  by  the  Son.  This  is  the  order  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  also,  as  many  passages  show,  in 
the  Old.  The  Spirit  sent  by  the  Father,  qualified  tlie 
jirophets  to  speak  unto  "our  fathers."  The  apostle, 
however,  says  nothing  more  than  that  there  was  an 
agency  of  the  Father  in  sending  the  prophets,  which 
does  not  exclude  that  of  the  Son  also ;  for  the  opposi- 
tion lies  in  the  outward  visible  and  standing  means  of 
conveying  the  knowledge  of  the  will  of  God  to  men, 
which  under  the  law  was  by  mere  men,  though  pro- 
phets; under  the  gospel,  by  the  incarnate  Son.  Com- 
munication by  prophets  under  the  law,  did  not  exclude 
other  communications  by  the  Son  in  his  Divine  cha- 
racter; and  cuiiimuiacation  by  ihe  Son  under  the  gos- 
pel, does  not  exclude  other  communications  by  apos- 
tles, evangelists,  and  Christian  prophets.  The  text  is 
not  therefore  an  exclusive  proposition  either  way.  It 
is  not  clear,  indeed,  that  any  direct  opposition  at  all  is 
intended  in  the  text,  but  a  sinijile  declaration  of  the 
«/»/(/  authority  of  both  dispensations,  and  the  peculiar 
glory  of  the  latter,  whose  human  minister  and  revealer 
was  the  Son  of  God  in  our  nature. 
The  second  objection  rests  upon  a  passage  in  the  same 


180 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  IL 


epistle.  "  If  the  word  spoken  by  angels  was  steadfast, 
and  every  fransijrcsslon  arul  ilisobcdience  received  a 
just  rcfoiuiifiisc  of  reward,  how  stiall  we  escape  if  we 
iieKlci't  so  1,'roat  salvation,  which  at  first  fjegan  to  be 
spoken  liy  ///(■  IjordP'  To  understand  this  passage,  it 
is  I"  be  noted,  that  the  apostle  refers  to  the  jwi/cMi/law 
of  i\loses,  which  had  lis  presenlied  iiciialty  for  every 
"  lrans>.'ressii)n  ami  disobeilnMiee."  i\o\v,  this  law  was 
not,  hke  tbe  Decalogue,  spoken  l»y  (Jod  himself,  but  by 
angels.  For  alter  the  voice  of  (lod  had  spoken  the  ten 
comuiandrncnts,  the  people  (Mitrcated  that  God  would 
not  speak  to  them  any  more.  Accordingly,  Moses 
says,  Deut.  v.  22,  "  These  words,"  the  Decalogue,  "the 
I.()rd  spake  unto  all  your  assembly  In  the  mount,  out  of 
tlie  midst  of  the  fire,  with  a  great  voice,  and  he  added 
no  more,  and  he  wrote  them  in  two  tables  of  stone,  and 
delivered  them  unto  me."  The  rest,  "  both  the  judicial 
and  the  ceremonial  law,  was  delivered,  and  the  cove- 
nant was  made,  by  the  mediation  of  Moses:  and  there- 
fore the  apostle  says.  Gal.  iii.  I'J,  The  law  was  ordained 
by  angels  in  the  hand  of  a  mediator:  hence  it  is  called 
the  law  of  Mo,ses.  And  the  character  given  of  it  in  the 
I'entateuch  is  this, — these  are  the  statutes,  and  judg- 
ments, and  laws,  which  the  Lord  made  between  him 
and  the  children  of  Israel  iu  Mount  Sinai,  by  the  hand 
of  Moses. "(I) 

Nor  does  the  apostle's  argument  respect  the  avthnr 
of  the  law,  lor  no  one  can  suppose  that  angels  were  its 
authors,  nor  the  giver  of  the  law,  for  angels  have  no 
such  authority;  but  the  j/iedtum  through  which  it  was 
communicated,  or  "  spoken."  In  the  case  of  the  Deca- 
logue, that  medium  was  the  Lord,  the  Angel  Jehovah 
hnnself  in  majesty;  but  in  the  body  of  judicial  and 
ceremonial  laws,  to  which  he  clearly  refers,  angels  and 
Moses.  The  visible  vit-dium  by  which  the  gospel  was 
communicated,  was  the  Son  of  God  made  flesh.  That 
word  was  "  sjioken  by  the  Lord,"  not  only  in  his  per- 
sonal, but  in  his  mediatorial  character;  and,  by  that 
wonderful  condescension,  its  importance,  and  the  dan- 
ger of  neglecting  it,  were  marked  in  the  most  eminent 
and  impressive  inaiimr. 

II  has  now  ilnnlbre  been  established  that  the  Angel 
JehoVah,  an<l  .le.sus  Christ  our  Lord,  are  the  same  per- 
son ;  and  this  is  the  first  great  argument  by  which  his 
Divinity  is  established.  He  not  only  existed  before  his 
incarnation,  but  is  seen  at  the  head  of  the  religious  in- 
stitutions of  his  own  church,  up  to  the  earliest  ages. 
We  trace  the  manifestations  of  the  same  person  from 
Adam  to  Abraham;  from  Abraham  to  Moses;  from 
Moses  to  the  [irophets;  from  the  prophets  to  Jesus. 
Under  every  manifestation  he  has  appeared  in  the  form 
of  God,  never  thinking  it  robbery  to  be  equal  with 
t;od.  "  Dres.sed  in  the  appropriate  robes  of  God's 
state,  wearing  God's  crown,  and  wielding  God's  scep- 
tre," he  has  ever  received  Divine  liomage  and  honour. 
No  name  is  given  to  the  Angel  .Jehovah,  which  is  nut 
given  to  .Tehovah  .lesus;  no  attribute  is  ascribed  lo  tlu; 
one  which  is  not  ascribed  to  the  other;  the  worship 
which  was  paid  to  the  one  by  patriarchs  aii<l  prophels, 
was  paid  lo  the  other  by  evangelists  and  aiiostles  ;  and 
the  Scri(Hures  dc^clare  them  to  be -the  same  august  i)er- 
aon, — the  imag(>  ol'  llie  Invisible,  whom  no  man  can 
sec  and  live;— 7'/ic  Jinlii/niiia:  Angel,  the  Redceiniiig 
Kimnnnn,  and  Ihr  Huh  (in  in  g  Cod. 

Tb.-it  Ibe  titles  wilb  which  our  Lord  is  invested  are 
une<|\nv()(al  derlanilioiis  ol'  absolute  Divinity,  will  be 
the  subject  of  the  nc.vt  chapter. 


CHAPTER  Xn. 

The  Titlks  of  Christ. 

Various  proofs  were  a<lduced,  in  the  last  chapter, 
that  the  visible  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament  is  to  be 
regarded  as  a  Being  distinct  from  the  Fatiikr,  yet 
having  Divine  titles  ascribed  to  him,  being  arrayed  with 
Divine  attributes,  and  piTlonning  Divine  works  eiinid 
to  his.  That  this  august  Heing  was  the  saiiie  who  af- 
terward apjieared  as  "Tiik  (ImuJ-r,"  in  the  person  of 
Jksus  of  Nazareth,  was  also  ]iroved4^and  tb(!  conclu- 
sion of  that  branch  of  the  argiimeitt  was,  ibut  Jesus 
t^hrist  is,  in  an  absolute  sense,  a  Divmcl'erson,  and,  as 
such,  is  to  be  received  and  adored. 

It  is  difficult  to  conceive  any  point  more  satisfactorily 

(1)  lUNDOLPii,  Pr»l.  Tbcolog. 


established  in  the  Scriptures  tlian  the  personal  ap- 
pearance of  our  Lord,  during  the  Patriarchal  and  Mosaic 
dispensations,  under  a  Divine  character;  but  this  argu- 
ment, so  fiir  from  having  exhausted  the  proof  of  his 
G'odhead,  is  only  another  in  that  series  of  rising  steps 
by  which  we  are,  at  length,  conducted  to  the  most  un- 
c(iuivocal  and  ample  demonstration  of  this  great  and 
fundamental  doctrine. 

The  next  argument  is  stated  at  the  head  of  this 
chapter.  If  the  titles  given  to  Christ  are  such  as  can 
designate  a  Divine  Being,  and  a  Divine  Being  only,  then 
is  he,  to  whom  they  are  by  inspired  authority  ascribed. 
Divine ;  or,  otherwise,  the  Word  of  Truth  must  stand 
charged  with  practising  a  direct  deception  upon  m<m- 
kind,  and  that  in  a  fundamental  article  of  religion.  This 
IS  our  argument,  and  we  proceed  to  the  illustration. 

The  first  of  these  titles  which  calls  for  our  attention 
is  that  of  Jp:novAH.  Whether  "the  Angel  Jehovah" 
were  the  future  Christ  or  not,  does  not  alJTect  this  case. 
Even  Socinians  acknowledge  Jesus  to  be  the  Messiah; 
and,  if  tins  is  one  of  the  titles  of  the  promised  Messiah, 
it  is,  consequently,  a  title  of  our  Lord,  and  must  be  as- 
crib(^d  to  him  by  all  who  believe  Jesus  to  be  the  Messiah. 

.So  many  instances  of  this  were  given,  in  the  pre- 
ceding chajiter,  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  repeat  them; 
and  indeed  the  fact,  that  the  name  Jehovah  is  applied  to 
the  Messi.ah  in  many  jiassages  of  the  Old  Testament,  is 
admitted  by  the  manner  in  which  the  argument  deduced 
from  this  fact  is  objected  to  by  our  opponents.  "'Hie 
Jewish  Cabalists,"  says  Dr.  Priestley,  "  might  easily 
admit  that  the  Messiah  might  be  called  Jehovah,  without 
supposing  that  he  was  any  thing  more  than  a  man,  who 
had  no  existence  before  his  birth." — "Several  things  in 
the  Scriptures  are  called  by  the  name  of  Jehovah ;  as, 
.lerusalem  is  called  Jehovah  our  I{ighteousness."(I) 
They  are  not,  however,  the  Jewish  interpreters  only 
who  give  the  name  Jehovah  to  Messiah ;  but  the  inspired 
prophets  themselves,  in  passages  which,  by  thee(|ually 
inspired  evangelists  and  apostles,  are  applied  to  Jesus. 
No  histance  can  be  given  in  which  any  being,  acknow- 
ledged by  all  to  be  a  created  being,  is  called  Jehovah  in 
the  Scriptures,  or  was  so  called  among  the  Jews.  The 
peculiar  sacredness  attached  to  tliis  name  among  them 
was  a  suflicient  guard  against  such  an  application  of  it 
ni  their  common  language ;  and  as  for  the  Scriiilures, 
they  explicitly  represent  it  as  peculiar  to  Divinity  it.self. 
"/  am  .ImiovAii,  that  ix  my  name,  and  my  glory  will  I 
not  give  to  another."  "  I  am  Jkhovah,  and  there  is 
none  else,  there  is  no  God  licsides  me."  "  Thmi,  ivhnse 
NAME  ALONK  2.9  Jehovah,  art  the  most  high,  above  all 
the  earth."  The  peculiarity  of  the  name  is  often 
strongly  stated  by  Jewish  commentators,  which  su/li- 
ciently  refutes  Dr.  Priestley,  who  affirms  that  they  could 
not,  on  that  account,  conclude  the  Messiah  to  be  more 
than  a  man.  Kimschi  paraphrases  Isaiah  xliii.  8,  "Jk- 
hovah, that  is  my  name" — "  that  name  is  }>rnpirtome.'' 
On  Ilosea  xii.  5,  "Jehovah  his  memorial,"  he  says, 
'■  In  the  name  El  and  Elohim,  he  coinniunicafes  with 
ot  beis ;  but,  in  this  name,  he  communicates  with  none.'' 
Alien  llzra,  on  Exodus  iii.  14,  proves,  at  length,  that 
this  name  is  proper  to  (i'od.(2) 

"It  is,  surely,  ;i  iiiismvMc  pretence  to  allege,  that  this 
name  is  soniiiinns  l'H(  ii  lo  ;/iacc.?.  It  is  so  ;  but  only 
in  composition  wiili  some  othc^r  "word,  and  not  surely  as 
indicative  of  any  quality  in  the  places  themselves,  but 
,'is  MicMoniM.s  of  the  acts  and  goodness  of  Jkhovah 
himself,  as  manifested  in  those  localities.  So  "  Jehiv 
vab-Jireli,  in  the  mount  of  the  Lord  it  shall  be  seen," 
or,  "  the  Lord  will  see  or  provide,"  referred  to  his  inter- 
position to  save  Isaac,  and  probably  to  the  prorisioa 
of  the  future  sacrifice  of  Christ.  The  same  observation 
may  be  made  as  to  Jehovah-JVissi,  Jehnvah-Shallum, 
&e. :  they  are  names  not  descriptive  of  /i/nrcs.  but  of 
events  connected  wilb  Ibeni,  which  marked  the  interpo- 
sition and  <bar:ieterof  (;od  himself.  It  is  an  unsettled 
point  among  craics,  whether  Jah,  which  is  sometimes 
found  in  composition  as  a  proper  name  of  man,  as 
Abijiih.  Jehov,ili  is  my  father,  Adoniiah.  Jehovah  is  my 
lord,  be  an  abbreviation  of  .lehovah  or  not,  so  that  the 
case  will  alT<)rd  no  ground  of  argument.  But,  if  it 
were,  it  would  avail  nothing,  lor  it  is  found  only  in  a 
combined  form,  and  evidently  relates,  not  to  the  persons 
who  bore  these  names,  ns"a  descriptive  appellation,  but 
to  some  connexion  which  existed,  or  was  suppcscd  to 

(1)  History  of  Early  Opinions. 

(2)  IlooBNUBCK,  Socin,  Coiifut. 


Chap,  XII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


181 


exist,  between  tliem  and  the  .Tehovah  they  acknow- 
l(Hl!;eil  as  their  (Jod.  The  cases  would  have  been  pa- 
ralicl,  had  our  Lord  been  called  Ahijali,  "  Jehovah  is  my 
father,"  or  Jedcdiah,  "  the  beloved  of  Jehovah."  No- 
tluiig,  in  that  case,  would  have  been  furnished,  so  lar 
as  inere  name  was  concerned,  to  distinguish  him  from 
his  countrymen  bearing  the  same  appellatives  ;  but  he 
is  called  Jihinah  himself,  a  name  which  the  Scriptures 
give  to  no  person  whatever  except  to  each  of  the  sacred 
TnRKK  who  stand  forth,  in  the  pages  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  crowned  with  this  supreme  and  ex- 
clusive honour  and  eminence. 

Nor  is  it  true,  that,  in  Jeremiali  xxxiii.  16,  Jerusalem 
is  called  "  Jehovah  our  Righteousness."  The  parallel 
passage  in  the  same  book,  chap.  xxih.  5,  6,  sullicieiitly 
shows  that  this  is  not  the  name  of  Jenisakm,  but  the 
tiaineof  "TiiK  Branch."  Much  criticism  has  been 
bestowed  upon  tliese  passages  to  establish  the  point, 
whether  the  clause  ought  to  be  rendered,  "And  this  is 
the  name  by  which  the  Lord  shall  call  him,  our  Right- 
eousness ;"  or,  "  this  is  the  name  by  which  he  shall  be 
called,  the  Lord  our  Righteousness  f  which  last  has,  I 
think,  been  decisively  established  ;  but  he  would  be  a 
very  exceptionable  critic  who  should  conclude  either  of 
them  to  be  an  appellative,  not  of  Messiah,  but  of  Jeru- 
salem, contrary  both  to  the  scope  of  the  passage  and  to 
the  literal  rend';riiig  of  the  words,— words  capable  of 
somewhat  dilfereiit  constructioiiB,  but  in  no  case  capable 
of  being  applied  either  to  the  people  of  Judah,  or  to  the 
city  of  Jerusalem. 

The  force  of  the  argument  from  the  application  of  the 
name  Jehovah  to  Messiah  may  be  thus  stated  : 

Whatever  belongs  to  Messiah,  that  may  and  must  be 
attributed  to  Jesus,  as  being  the  true  and  only  Christ; 
and  accordingly  we  have  seen,  that  the  evangelists  and 
apostles  apply  those  passages  to  our  Lord,  in  which  the 
Messiah  is  une(iuivoc3lly  called  Jehovah.  But  this  is 
the  peculiar  and  ap])ropriate  name  of  God ;  that  name 
by  which  ho  is  distinguished  from  all  other  being.s,  and 
■which  imports  perfections  so  high  and  ai)propriate  to 
the  only  living  and  true  God,  such  as  self-existence  and 
eternity,  that  it  can,  in  truth,  be  a  descriptive  appellation 
of  no  other  being.  It  is,  however,  solemnly  and  re- 
jieatedly  given  to  the  Messiah  ;  and,  unless  we  can 
suppose  Scrijiture  to  contradict  itself,  by  making  that  a 
peculiar  name  which  is  not  peculiar  to  him,  and  to  es- 
tablish an  inducement  to  that  iilolatry  which  it  so  sternly 
condemns,  and  an  excuse  for  it,  then  this  adorable  name 
itself  declares  the  absolute  Divinity  of  him  who  is 
invested  with  it,  and  is  to  him,  as  well  as  to  the  Father, 
a  name  of  revelation,  a  name  descriiitive  of  the  attri- 
butes which  can  pertain  only  to  essential  Godhead. 

This  conclusion  is  corroborated  by  the  constant  use 
of  the  title  "  Lord"  as  an  appellation  of /es««,  the  Mes- 
siah, when  manifest  in  the  flesh.  His  disciples  not  only 
afiplied  to  him  those  passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  in 
which  the  Messias  is  called  Jehovah,  but  salute  and 
worship  him  by  a  title  which  is  -of  precisely  the  sairie 
original  import,(3)  and  which  is,  therefore,  to  be  consi- 
dered in  many  places  of  the  Septuagint  and  the  Tvew 
Testament  an  exact  translation  of  the  august  name 
.Tehovah,  and  fully  equivalent  to  it  in  its  import.  It  is 
allowed,  that  it  is  al.so  used  as  the  translation  of  other 
names  of  God,  which  import  simply  dominion,  and  that 
it  is  applied  also  to  merely  human  masters  and  rulers. 
It  is  not,  Iherelbre,  like  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, an  incomminiicahle  name,  but,  in  its  highest 
sense,  it  is  universally  allowed  to  belong  to  God  ;  and 
if,  in  tliis  highest  sense,  it  is  applied  to  Christ,  then  is 
the  argument  valid,  that  in  the  sacred  writers,  whether 
used  to  express  the  self  and  independent  existence  of 
liim  who  bears  it,  or  that  dominion  which,  from  its  nature 
and  circumstances,  must  be  Divine,  it  contains  a  nota- 
tion of  true  and  absolute  Divinity. 

The  first  proof  of  this  is,  that,  both  in  the  Septuagint 
and  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  it  is  the  term 
by  which  the  name  Jehovah  is  translated.  The  Soci- 
nians  have  a  fiction,  that  Kufxos  properly  answers  to 
Adonai,  because  the  Jews  were  wont,  in  reading  to  sub- 
stitute that  name  in  place  of  Jehovah.  But  this  is  stif- 
ficiently  answered  by  Bishop  Pearson,  who  observes. 


(3)  Bishop  Pearson,  on  the  second  article  of  the 
Creed,  thus  concludes  a  learned  note  on  the  etymology 
of  Kiipios,  Lord:  "From  all  which  it  undeniably  ap- 
peareth,  that  tl»  ancient  signification  of  Kupw  is  tlie 
same  with.ti//(,1i>ijiT«pxw,  su7n,  I  am." 


that  "  it  is  not  probable  that  the  LXX.  should  think 
Kvpioi  to  be  the  proper  interpretation  of ''JTX>  and  yet 
give  it  io  Jehovah,  only  in  the  place  of  Adonai;  for,  if 
they  liad,  it  would  Jiave  followed,  that  when  Adonai 
and  JtAoi'rt/i  had  met  in  one  sentence,  they  would  not 
have  put  another  word  for  Adonai,  and  placed  Kvpioj 
for  Jehovah,  to  which,  of  itself,  according  to  their  ob- 
servation, it  did  not  belong."—"  The  reason  also  of  the 
assertion  is  most  uncertain  ;  for,  though  it  be  confessed 
that  the  Masoreths  did  read  Adonai  when  they  found 
Jehovah,  and  Josephus  before  them  expresses  the  sense 
of  the  Jews  of  his  age,  that  the  TtTpayaiinamv  wannot 
to  be  pronounced,  and  before  him  Pliilo  speaks  as  much, 
yet  it  fblloweth  not  from  thence  that  the  Jews  were  so 
superstitious  above  three  hundred  years  before,  which 
must  be  proved  before  we  can  be  assured  that  the  LXX. 
read  Adonai  tor  Jehovah,  and  for  that  reason  translated 
it  Kupiof."(4)  The  supposition  is,  however,  wholly 
overturned  by  several  passages,  in  which  such  an  inter- 
change of  the  names  could  not  be  made  in  the  original, 
without  manifestly  depriving  them  of  all  meaning,  and 
which  absurdity  could  not,  therefore,  take  place  in  a 
translation,  and  be  thus  m.ade  permanent.  It  is  suffi- 
cient to  instance  Exodus  vi.  2,  3,  "  I  am  the  Lord  (Je- 
liovah) :  I  appeared  unto  Abraham,  unto  Isaac,  and  unK) 
Jacob,  by  the  name  of  God  Almighty,  but  by  my  name 
Jehovah  was  I  not  known  unto  them."  This,  it  is  true, 
is  rather  an  obscure  passage ;  but,  whatever  may  be  its 
interpretation,  this  is  clear,  that  a  substitution  of  Adonai 
for  Jehovah  would  deprive  it  of  all  meaning  whatever, 
and  yet  here  the  LXX.  translate  .Jehovah  by  Kvpiog. 

Kvnios,  Lord,  is,  then,  the  word  into  which  the  Greek 
of  the  Septuagint  renders  tiie  name  Jehmmh  ;  and,  in  all 
passages  in  which  Messias  is  called  by  that  peculiar 
title  of  Divinity,  we  have  the  authority  of  this  version 
to  apply  it,  in  its  full  and  highest  signification,  to  Jesus 
Christ,  who  is  himself  that  Messias.  For  this  reason, 
and  also  because,  as  men  inspired,  they  were  directed 
to  fit  and  proper  terms,  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment apply  this  appellation  to  their  Master,  when  they 
(juote  these  prophetic  passages  as  fulfilled  in  him.  They 
found  it  used  in  the  Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament, 
in  its  highest  possible  import,  as  a  rendering  of  Jehovah. 
Had  they  thought  .lesus  less  than  God,  they  ought 
to  have  avoided,  and  must  have  avoided,  giving  to  him  a 
title  which  would  mislead  their  readers  ;  or  else  have 
intimated,  that  they  did  not  use  it  in  its  highest  sense 
as  a  title  of  Divinity,  but  in  its  very  lowest,  as  a  term 
of  merely  human  courtesy,  or,  at  best,  of  human  do- 
minion. But  we  have  no  such  intimation;  and,  if 
they  wrote  under  the  inspiration  of  the  Spirit  of  Truth, 
it  follows,  that  they  used  it  as  being  understood  to  be 
fully  equivalent  to  the  title  Jehovah  itself.  This  their 
quotations  will  show.  The  evangelist  Matthew  (in.  3) 
quotes  and  applies  to  Christ  the  celebrated  prophecy  of 
Isaiah  xl.  3 :  "  P'or  this  is  he  that  was  spoken  of  by  the 
prophet  Esaias,  saying.  The  voice  of  one  crying  in  the 
wilderness.  Prepare  ye  the  way  of  the  Lord,  make  his 
paths  straight."  The  other  evangelists  make  the  same 
application  of  it,  representing  John  as  the  herald  of  Je- 
sus, the  "Jehovah"  of  the  prophet,  and  their  "  Kupio?." 
It  was,  therefore,  in  the  liighest  possible  sense  that 
they  used  the  term,  because  they  used  it  as  fully  equi- 
valent to  Jehovah.  So,  again,  in  Luke  i.  Iti,  17  :  "And 
many  of  the  children  of  Israel  shall  he  turn  to  the 
Loud  their  Gon, and  he  shall  go  before  him  in  the 
spirit  and  power  of  Ellas."  "  Him,"  unquestionably 
refers  to  "  the  Lord  their  God  ;"  and  we  have  here  a 
proof  that  Christ  bears  that  eminent  title  of  Divinity, 
so  frequent  in  the  Old  Testament,  "the  Lokp  (;od," 
Jehovah  Aleim  ;  and  also  that  Ifupio;  answered,  in  the 
view  of  an  inspired  writer,  to  the  name  Jehovah. 
On  this  point  the  Apostle  Paul  also  adds  his  testimony, 
Romans  x.  13,  "  Whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name 
of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved  ;  which  is  quoted  from 
.loel  ii.  .^2,  "  Whoever  shall  call  on  the  name  of  Jeho- 
vah shall  be  delivered."  Other  passages  might  be 
added,  but  the  argument  does  not  rest  upon  their  num- 
ber ;  these  are  so  explicit,  that  they  are  amply  suffi- 
cient to  establish  the  important  eonclu.sion,  that  in 
whatever  senses  the  term  "  Lord"  may  be  used,  and 
though  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  like  our- 
selves, use  it  occasionally  in  a  lower  sense,  yet  they 
use  it  also  in  its  highest  possible  sense  and  in  its 
loftiest  signification,  when  they  intended  it  to  be  under- 


(4)  Discourses  on  Creed. 


182 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  IL 


stood  as  eiiuivalont  to- Jehovah,  and,  in  that  sense,  they 
apply  It  to  Christ. 

Hut,  even  when  the  title  "  Lorp"  is  not  rmployrd  to 
render  the  name  Jehovah,  in  passages  iiiioliil  rrnni  the 
Old  Testament,  but  is  used  as  the  conjuien  niipellation 
ot"  Christ,  after  his  resurreetioii,  the  disciples  so  ron- 
neet  it  with  oilier  terms,  and  with  eircuriisi;iiiiis  which 
so  clearly  imi)ly  IJivinity,  that  it  cannot  rc:is()nal)ly  be 
made  a  question  but  that  they  themselv('s  i-unsidered 
it  as  a  Difitif  title,  and  intended  liiat  it  should  be  so 
understood  by  their  readers.  In  that  sense  they  ap- 
plied it  to  the  Father,  and  it  is  clear  that  they  did  not 
use  it  ill  a  lower  sense  when  they  gave  it  to  the  Son. 
It  is  put  absohitihj,  and  by  way  of  eminence,  "  ihk 
l/ORii."  It  is  joined  Avith  "  Gon  ;"  so  in  the  passage 
above  quoted  from  St.  Luke,  where  Christ  is  called  the 
Lord  God  ;  and  when  Thomas,  in  an  act  of  adoration, 
calls  hun  "  My  Lord  (md  my  God."  When  it  is  used 
to  e.xprcss  dominion,  that  dominion  is  represented  as 
absolute  and  universal,  and  tlierefore  divine.  "  He  is 
hoRV  of  all."  "King  of  kinss,  and  Lokv  of  lords." 
"  Thou,  Lori>,  in  the  beginning  hast  laid  the  founda- 
tion of  the  earth  ;  and  tiie  heavens  are  the  works  of 
thy  hands.  They  shall  perish ;  but  thou  remainest : 
and  they  shall  all  wax  old,  as  doth  a  garment,  and  as 
a  vesture  shalt  thou  change  them,  and  they  shall  be 
changed  ;  but  thou  art  the  same,  and  thy  years  shall 
not  fad.'' 

Thus,  then,  the  titles  of  "  Jehovah"  and  "  Lord''  both 
prove  the  Divinity  of  our  Saviour ;  "  for,"  as  it  is  re- 
marked by  Dr.  Waterland,  "  if  Jehovah  signify  the 
eternal  immutable  God,  it  is  manifest  that  the  name  is 
incoimnvnicahle,  since  there  is  but  one  God  ;  and,  if 
the  name  be  inconnmimrablc,  then  Jehovah  can  sig- 
luty  nothing  but  that  one  God,  to  whom,  and  to  whom 
oahj.  It  IS  applied.  And  if  both  these  parts  be  true,  and 
if  it  be  true,  likevvise,  that  this  name  is  applied  to 
Christ,  the  consequence  is  irresistible,  that  (,'lirist  is 
the  same  one  God,  not  the  same  person,  with  tlie  Fa- 
ther, to  whom  also  the  name  Jehovah  is  attributed,  but 
the  same  substance,  the  same  being,  in  a  word,  the 
same  Je/touaA,  thus  revealed  to  be  .more  persons  than 
one." 

GoD.  That  this  title  is  attributed  to  Christ  is  too 
obvious  to  be  wholly  denied,  though  some  of  the  pas- 
sages which  have  been  allegeil  as  instances  of  this  ap- 
plication of  the  term  have  been  controverled.  Even  m 
this  a  great  point  is  gained.  Jesus  Christ  is  called 
God  ;  this  the  adversaries  of  his  Divinity  are  obliged 
to  confess,  and  this  confession  admits  that  the  letter  of 
Scripture  is,  therefore,  in  favour  of  orthodo.\  opini- 
ons. It  is,  indeed,  said,  that  the  term  God,  like  the 
term  Lord,  is  used  in  an  inferior  sense ;  but  nothing 
is  gained  by  this  ;  nothing  is,  on  that  account,  proved 
against  the  Deity  of  Christ ;  for  it  must  still  be  allowed, 
that  it  is  a  term  used  in  Scripture  to  express  the  Divine 
^ature,  and  that  it  is  so  used  generally.  The  question, 
tlKTcfore,  is  only  limited  to  this,  whether  our  Lord  is 
called  God,  hi  the  higliest  sense  of  that  appellation. 
This  might,  indeed,  be  argued  from  these  passages  in 
the  Old  Testament  in  wliich  the  title  is  given  to  the 
acting,  manifested  Jehovah,  "  the  Lord  God"  of  the  Old 
Testament ;  but  this  having  been  anticipated,  1  confine 
myself  chielly  to  the  evangelists  and  ajiostles. 

Before  that  jiroof  is  adduced,  which  will  most  une- 
quivocally show  that  Jesus  Christ  is  called  God,  in  the 
highest  sense  of  that  term,  it  will,  however,  be  neces- 
sary to  .show  that,  in  its  highest  sense,  it  involves  the 
notion  of  absolute  Divinity.  This  has  been  denied. 
Sir  Isaac  Newton,  who,  on  theological  subjects,  as 
Bishop  Horsl(;y  observes,  "  went  out  like  a  common 
man,"  says  that  the  word  God  "is  &  relative  term,  and 
has  a  regard  to  servants;  it  is  true,  it  denotes  a  Ueing 
eternal,  infinite,  and  absolutely  perfect ;  but  a  Being, 
however  eternal,  infinite,  and  absolutely  perfect,  with- 
out dominion,  would  not  be  (;od."(5)  This  relative 
notion  of  the  term,  as  itself  importing  strictly  nothing 
more  than  (/oHii/no/i,  was  adoiiled  by  Dr.  S.  Clarke, 
and  made  use  of  to  support  his  semi-Arianism  ;  and  it 
seems  to  have  been  thought,  thai,  \>\  lonfining  tlic  term 
to  express  mere  sovereignty,  tin'  torcr  of  all  lliose  pas- 
wages  of  Scripture  in  which  ('hn.>l  IS  called  (ioil,  and 
from  which  his  absolute  Diviiidy  is  argued,  nnglit  be 
avoided.  Ills  words  are,  "  The  word  Oco?,  God,  has, 
in  Scripture,  and  in  all  books  of  morality  and  religion, 


a  relative  signification,  and  not,  as  in  metaphysical 
books,  an  absolute  one  :  as  is  evident  from  the  relative 
terms  which,  in  moral  writings,  may  always  be  joined 
with  it.  For  instance  :  in  the  same  manner  as  we  say, 
MY  father,  my  king,  and  the  like;  so  it  is  proper  also 
to  say  MY  God,  the  (iod  of  [.■irael,  the  God  of  the  V7ii- 
verse,  and  the  like  :  which  words  are  expressive  of  do- 
minion and  government.  But  in  the  metaphysical  way, 
it  cannot  be  said  my  Inriihle  Substance,  the  Infinite 
Substance  of  Jsruel,  or  the  like." 

To  this  Dr.  Waterland's  rejily  is  an  ample  confuta- 
tion. "  I  shall  only  observe  here,  by  the  way,  that  the 
word  Star  is  a  relative  word,  for  the  same  reason  with 
that  which  the  Doctor  gives  for  the  other.  For  the 
Star  of  your  God  Re?n]ilian  (Acts  vii.  43)  is  a  proper 
expression ;  but,  in  the  metajihysical  way,  it  cannot 
be  said,  the  luminous  substance  of  your  God  Rcmphan. 
So  again,  water  is  a  relative  w  ord ;  for  it  is  proper  to 
say  the  water  of  Israel ;  but,  in  a  metaphy.s-ical  way,  it 
cannot  be  said,  the  fluid  substance  of  Israel.  The 
expression  is  improper.(())  By  parity  of  reason,  we 
may  make  rrlatct'e  words  almost  as  many  as  we  please. 
But  to  proceed ;  I  maintain  that  dominion  is  not  the 
full  import  of  llie  word  God  in  Scrijiture  ;  that  it  is  but 
a  part  of  the  idea,  and  a  small  part  too ;  and  (hat  if  any 
person  be  called  God  merely  on  account  of  dominion, 
he  is  called  so  by  way  of  figure  and  resemblance  only ; 
and  is  not  properly  (;od,  according  to  the  Scripture  no- 
tion of  it.  We  may  call  anyone  a  king,  wholives  free 
and  independent,  subject  to  no  man's  will.  He  is  a  king 
so  far,  or  in  some  respects ;  though,  in  many  other 
resjiects,  nothing  like  one  ;  and,  therefore,  not  properly 
a  king.  If,  by  the  same  figure  of  speech,  by  way  of 
allusion  and  resemblance,  any  tiling  be  called  (Jon,  be- 
cause resembling  God  in  one  or  more  particulars,  we 
are  not  to  conclude  that  it  is  properly  and  truly  Ood. 

"  To  enlarge  somttthing  farther  ujion  this  iiead,  and 
to  illustrate  the  case  by  a  few  instances.  Part  of  the 
idea  which  goes  along  with  the  woril  God  is,  that  his 
habitation  is  sublime,  and  his  du-elling  not  teilhjiesh, 
Dan.  ii.  11.  This  part  of  the  idea  is  ajjiilicable  to  an- 
gels or  \.o  saints,  Aw\  therefore  they  may  llius  far  be 
reputed  gods ;  and  are  sometimes  so  styled  in  Scrii)titre 
or  ecclesiastical  writings.  Another  part  of  the  com- 
plex idea  of  God  is  giving  orders  from  above,  and  pub- 
lishing commands  from  heaven.  This  was,  in  some 
sense,  applicable  to  Moses,  who  is,  therelbre,  called  a 
god  unto  Pharaoh  ;  not  as  being  properly  a  god  ;  but 
instead  of  God,  in  that  instance,  or  that  resembling  cir- 
cumstance. In  the  same  respect,  every  prophet  or 
apostle,  or  even  a  minister  of  a  parish,  might  be  figu- 
ratively called  God.  Dominion  goes  along  with  the 
idea  of  God,  or  is  a  proof  of  it;  and  therefore.  Icings, 
princes,  and  magistrates,  resembling  God  in  tliat 
respect,  may,  by  the  like  figure  of  sjiecch,  be  styled 
gods  ;  not  properly ;  for  then  we  miglil  as  |iroi)erly  say, 
God  David,  God  .Solomon,  or  God  Jeroboam  as  King 
David,  &c. ;  but  by  way  of  allusion,  and  in  regard  to 
some  imperfect  rciseniblance  which  they  bear  to  God  in 
some  particular  respects  ;  and  that  is  all.  It  belongs 
to  God  to  receive  worship,  and  sacrifice,  and  homage. 
Now,  because  the  Ilmithen  idols  so  far  resembled  (Jod 
as  to  be  made  the  objects  of  worship,  ice,  therefore 
they  also,  by  the  same  figure  of  sjieech,  are  by  the 
Scripture  denominated  goj/s,  though,  at  the  same  time, 
they  are  declared,  in  a  proper  .sense,  to  be  no  gods. 
The  belly  is  called  the  god  of  the  luxurious,  Phil.  iii. 
Ul,  li(  iiiusc  some  are  as  much  devoted  to  the  service  of 
Ihiir  hi  this  as  others  are  to  the  service  of  (;od,  and 
because  their  lusts  have  got  the  dominion  over  them. 
This  way  of  speaking  is,  in  like  miiniicr,  grounded  on 
some  iiiiperrecl  reseinblaiice,  ami  is  easih  understood. 
The  prince  ol  the  devils  is  siipjiosed  by  most  interpre- 
ters, to  be  called  llie  god  of  this  trorld,  "i  Cor.  iv.  4.  If 
so,  the  reason  may  be,  either  because  the  men  of 
this  n'o^ld  are  entirely  devoted  to  his  service;  or  that 
he  has  got  the  power  and  dominion  over  them. 


(5)  Pliilos,  Nat.  Mathie.  in  calcc. 


(fi)  It  is  very  obvious  to  perceive  where  the  impro- 
priity  of  such  expressions  lies.  The  word  .tubstance, 
accordiii;;  to  I  lie  common  use  of  language,  when  used 
in  the  singular  iiiimber,  is  supposed  to  be  intri7i.iic  to 
the  thing  spoken  of,  whose  substance  it  is ;  and,  indeed, 
to  be  the  thing  itself.  My  substance  is  myself;  and 
the  substance  of  l.irael  is  Israel.  And  hei  .c  it  evinces 
to  be  inqiroper  to  join  substance  with  tjlc  relative  tevTns, 
understanding  it  of  any  thing  intrinnc. 


Chap.  XII.] 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


183 


"  Thus  we  see  liow  tlni  word  0<id,  ai-corilinj;  to  the 
P'jpular  way  ol  speaking,  liashiiri  aii|>lii'il  to  angels,  or 
to  men,  or  to  things  hiuninialc  ami  insensible  ;  because 
some  part  of  the  uka  belonging  to  (ind  has  been  con- 
ceived to  belong  to  them  also.  To  argue  from  hence, 
that  any  of  them  is  [jniprrly  Gml,  is  making  the  whole 
of  a  part,  and  reasoiniig  fallaciously  a  liicto  xtr.uviluiii 
quid,  as  the  schools  speak,  ad  dictum  siiiijiliciter.  If 
we  inquire  carefully  into  the  Scripture  notion  of  the 
word,  wo  shall  find,  that  neither  dominion  singly,  nor 
all  the  other  instances  of  resemblance  make  up  the 
idea ;  or  are  sullicient  to  denominate  any  thing  properly 
God.  When  the  Prince  of  Tyre  pretended  to  be  God, 
Ezek.  x.wiii.  2,  he  ttiought  of  something  more  than 
mere  donunioii.  to  make  him  so.  He  thought  of 
strength  invincible  and  power  irresistible;  and  God 
was  ple;ised  to  convince  him  of  his  folly  and  vanity, 
not  by  telling  him  how  scanty  his  dominion  was,  or 
llow  low  his  ofjirc;  but  how  weak,  frail,  and  perishing 
his  nature  was  ;  that  he  was  man.  only  and  7iot  God 
(Ezek.  x.wiii.  2 — 9),  and  should  surely  find  so  by  tiie 
event.  When  the  Lycaonians,  upon  the  sight  of  a  mira- 
cle wrought  by  St.  Paul  (Acts  .\iv.  11),  took  hrnt  and 
Barnnba.'i  lor  gods,  they  did  not  think  so  much  of  rfo- 
■minioa,  as  oi power  and  ability,  beyond  human;  and 
when  the  Apostles  answered  them,  they  did  not  tell 
them  that  their  dominion  was  only  human,  or  that 
their  ojice  was  not  divine ;  but  that  they  had  not  "  a 
diuine  nature.  They  were  weak,  frail,  and  feeble 
men  ;  of  like  infirmities  with  the  rest  of  their  species, 
and,  therefore,  no  gods. 

"  If  we  trace  the  Scripture-  notion  of  what  is  truly 
and  properly  UoA,  we  sliall  find  it  made  up  of  these 
several  ideas  :  infinite  wisdom,  power  invincible,  all- 
sntficiency,  and  the  like.  These  are  the  ground  and 
foundation  of  dominion,  which  is  but  a  secondary 
notion,  a  consecjuence  of  the  former ;  and  it  must  be 
dominion  .supreme,  and  none  else,  which  will  suit  with 
the  Scripture  notion  of  God.  It  is  not  that  of  a 
governor,  a  ruler,  a  protector,  a  lord,  or  the  like,  but  a 
•VoixTf  it'Ti  Kuler,  an  Almighty  i'roteclor,  an  Omniscient 
and  Omnipresent  Governor,  an  eternal,  immutable,  all- 
sutficient  Creator,  Preserver,  and  Protector.  What- 
ever falls  short  of  this  is  not  properly,  in  the  Scripture 
notion,  God,  but  is  only  called  so  by  way  of  figure,  as 
has  before  been  explained.  Now,  if  you  a.sk  me  why 
the  relative  terms  may  projierly  be  applied  to  the  word 
God,  the  reason  is  plain,  because  there  is  something 
relative  in  the  whole  idea  of  God,  namely,  the  notion  of 
gmternor,  protector,  &c.  If  you  ask  why  they  cannot 
so  properly  be  applied  to  the  word  God  In  the  meta- 
physical sense,  liesides  the  reason  before  given,  there 
is  another  as  plain,  because  metaphysics,  taking  in 
only  one  part  of  the  idea,  consider  the  nature  ab- 
stracted from  the  relation,  leaving  the  relative  part 
out." 

To  these  observations  may  be  added  the  argument 
of  Dr.  Randolph.(7)  "  If  God  be  a  relative  term, 
which  has  reference  to  subjects,  it  follows,  that  wlien 
there  were  no  subjects  there  was  no  God  ;  and,  conse- 
<iueiitly,  either  the  creatures  must  have  been  some  of 
them  eternal,  or  there  must  have  been  a  time  when 
there  was  no  God."  The  matter,  tiowever,  is  put 
beyond  all  doubt,  by  the  express  testimony  that  it  is 
not  dominion  only,  but  excellence  of  nature  and  attri- 
butes exclusively  divine  which  enter  mto  the  notion 
of  God.  Thus,  in  Psalm  xc  ,"  Before  the  mountains 
were  brought  forth,  or  ever  thou  hadst  formed  the  earth 
and  the  world,  even  from  everlasting  to  everlasting, 
thou  art  Goo."  Here  the  idea  of  eternity  is  attached  to 
the  term,  and  he  is  declared  to  be  God  "from  ever- 
lasting," and,  consequently,  before  any  creature's  exist- 
ence, and  so  before  he  could  have  any  "  subjects,"  or 
exercise  any  "  dominion." 

The  import  of  the  title  God,  in  its  highest  sense, 
being  thus  established  to  include  all  the  excellences  and 
glories  of  the  Divine  Nature,  on  which  alone  such  a 
dominion  as  is  ascribed  to  (Jod  could  be  maintained, 
if  that  title  be  found  ascribed  to  Christ,  at  any  period, 
in  this  its  highest  sense,  it  wdl  prove,  not  as  the  Ari- 
ans  would  have  it,  his  dominion  only,  but  his  Divinity; 
and  it  is  no  answer  to  this  at  all  to  say  that  men  are 
sometimes  called  gods  in  the  Scripture.  In  the  New 
Testament  the  term  God,  in  the  singular,  is  never  ap- 
plied to  any  man ;  and  it  is  even  a  debated  matter, 

(7)  Vindication  of  Christ's  Divinity. 


I  whether  it  is  ever  a  human  appellation,  either  in  the 
I  singular  or  the  plural,  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  pas- 
I  sages  quoted  being  probably  elliptical,  or  capable  of 
another  explanatioii.(8)  But  thi.s  i?  not  important :  if, 
in  its  highest  sense,  it  is  found  iiseil  of  Christ,  it  mat- 
ters not  to  how  many  fiersons  it  is  ai)plied  in  its  lower, 
or  as  a  merely  figurative  appellation. 

Matthew  i.  23.  "Now  all  this  was  done,  that  it 
might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  of  the  Lord  by  the 
prophet,  saying.  Behold,  a  virgin  shall  be  with  chi'.d, 
and  shall  bring  forth  a  son,  and  they  .shall  call  his  name 
E.MMANL'EL,  which,  being  interpreted,  is,  God  with  us." 
This  is  a  portion  of  Scripture  which  the  Socinians,  in 
their  "  Improved  Version,"  have  printed  in  italics,  as  of 
"  doubtful  authority,"  though  with  the  same  breath, 
they  allow  that  it  is  found  "  in  all  the  manuscripts  and 
versions  which  are  now  extant."  The  ground,  there- 
fore, on  which  they  have  rested  their  objection  is  con- 
fessedly narrow  and  doubtful,  and,  frail  as  it  is,  it  has 
been  entirely  taken  from  them,  and  the  authority  of 
this  Scripture  fully  established. (9)  Ttie  reason  of  an 
attempt,  at  once  so  bold  and  futile,  to  expunge  this  pas- 
sage, and  the  following  part  of  St.  Rlatthew's  history 
which  is  connected  with  it,  may  be  found  in  the  exjili- 
citness  of  the  testimony  which  it  bears  to  our  Lord's 
Divinity,  and  which  no  criticism  could  evade.  The 
prophecy  which  is  quoted  by  the  evangelist  has  its  difti- 
culties ;  but  they  do  not  in  the  least  aflect  the  argu- 
ment. Whether  we  can  explain  Isaiah  or  not,  that  is, 
whether  we  can  show  in  what  manner  the  prophecy 
had  a  primary  accomplishment  in  the  propliet's  day  or 
not,  St.  Matthew  is  sufficiently  intelligible.  He  tells 
us,  that  the  words  spoken  by  the  prophet  were  spoken 
of  Christ ;  and  that  his  miraculous  conception  took 
place,  "  that,"  in  order  that,  "  they  n:ight  be  fulfilled  ;" 
a  mode  of  expression  so  strong,  that  even  those  who 
allowed  the  prophets  to  be  quoted  sometimes  by  way 
of  accommodation  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, except  tliis  instance,  as  having  manifestly,  from 
the  terms  used,  the  form  of  an  argument,  and  not  of 
a  mere  allusion. (1)  Farther,  says  the  sacred  lustorian, 
"  and  they  shall  call  his  name  Emmanuel ;"  that  is, 
according  to  the  idiom  of  Scripture,  where  any  thing  is 
said  to  be  called  what  it  in  reality  is,  he  shall  be  "  Em- 
manuel," and  the  interpretation  is  added,  "  God 
with  us." 

It  is,  indeed,  objected,  that  the  Divinity  of  Christ 
can  no  more  be  argued  from  this  title  of  Emmanuel 
than  the  Divinity  of  Eli,  whose  name  signifies  my 
God,  or  of  Eliliii,  which  imports  my  God  himself;  but 
it  is  to  be  remarked,  that  by  these  names  such  indivi- 
duals were  commonly  and  constantly  known  among 
those  with  whom  they  lived.  But  Immanuel  was  not 
the  personal  name  of  our  Lord,  he  was  not  so  called  by 
his  friends  and  countrymen  familiarly :  the  personal 
name  which  he  received  was  Jesus,  by  Divine  direction, 
and  by  this  he  was  known  to  the  world.  It  follows, 
therefore,  that  Immanuel  was  a  descriptive  title,  a 
name  of  revelation,  expressive  of  his  Divine  character. 
It  is  clear,  also,  that  in  this  passage  he  is  called  God ; 
and  two  circumstances,  in  addition  to  that  just  men- 
tioned, prove  that  the  term  is  used  in  its  full  and  high 
est  sense.  In  Isaiah,  from  which  the  passage  is  quoted 
by  the  evangelist,  the  land  of  Judea  is  called  the 


(8)  Exodus  vii.  1.  "  See,  I  have  made  thee  a  god  to 
Pharaoh."  This  seems  to  be  explained  by  chapter  iv. 
10 :  "  Thou  Shalt  be  to  him  instead  of  God."  Psalin 
Ix.xxn.  1.  "God  standeth  in  the  congregation  of  the 
mighty  [Heb.  of  God]  :  he  judgoth  among  the  gods." 
This  passage  is  rendered  by  Parkhurst,  "  The  Aleim 
stand  in  the  congregation  of  God ;  in  the  midst  the 
Aleim  will  judge."  And  on  verse  (5,  "  I  have  said  ye 
are  gods,"  he  supposes  an  ellipsis  of  Caph,  '•  I  have 
said  ye  are  as  gods.'  As  this  is  spoken  of  judges, 
who  were  professedly  God's  vicegerents,  this  is  a  very 
natural  ellipsis,  and  there  appears  nothing  against  it  in 
the  argument  of  our  Lord,  John  x.  31.  The  term,  as 
used  in  all  these  passages,  does  not  so  much  apjiear  to 
be  used  in  a  lower  sense,  as  by  figurative  application 
and  ellipsis. 

(9)  \'ide  Nare's  Remarks  on  the  New  Version. 

(1)  "Formula  citandi  qua  Evangclista  utitur  cap.  i. 
22,  Tovro  St  o)^ov  ycyovev,  iva  7rA)70w5j/  r«  ptjctv  mani- 
feste  est  argumentantis,  non  coni])aranti.s,  qua;  magno- 
pere  diversa  est  ab  alia  ejusdcm  Evangelistac,  et  alio- 
rum,"  Scc—Dathe,  in  Isa.  vii.  4. 


184 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


land  of  this  Immanucl  more  than  seven  ctnturics 
before  Iio  whs  born.  Ami  he  (the  Assyrian)  shall 
pass  thri)Uf;h  Jmiali;  ho,  shall  ovcrllow  and  :.'o  over,  he 
Mhall  rtarh  even  to  Uie  neck,  and  the  slntclung  out  of 
Ills  wind's  shalllill  the  brea(itlH>r//j  (/ /((/(f/,  O I M  M  ANiiEi-," 
chap.  viii.  H.  Thus  is  Clinst,  al•(!o^lul^;  id  the  arpu- 
meilt  in  a  fonnor  chapter,  rejiresenlcil  as  <  xistin^ 
before  his  birth  in  .lurtea,  and,  as  ihi:  (lodof  ihe.Iiws, 
the  proprietor  of  the  land  of  Israel.  This,  also,  gives 
the  true  e.xplanaiion  ofSt.  John's  words.  "  lie  eaine 
unto  his  own  [natioiil,  and  his  oif/t  [people]  received 
him  not."  The  second  i-ircunistance  which  proves  the 
term  (Jod,  in  the  title  Imnianuel,  to  he  u.sed  in  its 
highest  sense  is,  that  the  sann-  iiersun,  in  the  following 
chapter  of  Isaiah,  is  called  "  Cod,"  with  the  epithet  of 
"mighty," — "Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the  Mighty 
God."  Thus,  as  Uishop  Pearson  observes,  "  First,  he 
is  '  Immanu.,'  that  is  with  us,  for  he  hath  dwelt  among 
us  ;  and  when  he  parted  from  the  earth,  he  sairl  to  his 
disciples,  '  I  am  with,  you  alwmj,  even  to  tlie  cud  of  the 
world.'  Secondly,  he  is  Ei,,  and  that  name  was  given 
him,  as  tlio  sarni' ])i-opliet  testified,  '  bis  name  sliall  be 
called  Woiulnjul,  Cixiauilor,  the  Miimitv  (ioi).'  He 
then  who  is  both  projxTly  called  lOi.,  that  is  God,  and  is 
also  really  Im.manu,  that  is  with  us,  must  infallibly  ho 
that  '  iMMANiiEi.'  who  is  '  God  ivith  vs.'  ISo  inferior 
lieity,  but  invested  with  the  full  and  com])lete  attri- 
butes of  absolute  Divinity — '  the  Mighty  (iod.'  " 

In  Lukei.  10,  17,  it  is  said  of  .lohn  Baptist,  "And 
many  of  tlio  children  of  Israel  shall  he  turn  to  the  I,oi(i> 
THKIR  God,  and  he  shall  go  before  ihm  in  the  spirit 
and  i)owcr  of  Elias."  This  passage  has  been  already 
adduced  to  prove,  that  the  title  "  Loiiu"  is  used  of 
Christ  in  the  import  of  Jkhovah.  But  he  is  called  rii is 
liOKi)  their  God,  and,  as  the  term  Lord  is  used  in  its 
highest  sense,  so  must  also  the  term  God,  which 
proves  that  this  title  is  given  to  our  Saviour  in  its  full- 
est and  most  extended  meaning — "  to  Jehovah  their 
Cod,"  or  "  to  tlieir  God  Jehovah,"  for  the  meaning  is 
the  same. 

John  i.  1.   "Tn  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and 
the  Word  was  with  God,   and  the  Word  was  God." 
When  we  come  to  consider  the  title  "  The  Word," 
Aoyoi,  this  passage  will  be  examined  more  at  large. 
Here  it  is  adduced  to  prove,  ttiat  the  Logos,  by  whom 
all  understand  Christ,  is   called  Gon  in  the  liigliest 
sense.     1.  Because,  when  it  is  used  of  the  I'ather,  in  the 
preceding  clause,  it  must  be  used  in  its  full  import.    2. 
IJecause  iiiiiiieduitely  to  call  our  Lord  by  the  same  naiiK! 
as  the  l'"alli(r,  willinut  any  hint  of  its  being  usi'd  in  a 
lower  sense,  would  have  been  to  mislead  the  reader  on 
a  most  important  (lueslion,  if  St.  John  had  not  regarded 
him  as  equal  to  the  Father.     3.-  Because  the  creation  is 
ascribed  to  the  "Word,"  who  is  called  God.    "All 
things  were  made  by  liiin,  and  without  him  was  not 
any  thing  made  that  was  made."    By  this,  the  absolute 
Divinity  of  Christ  is  infallibly  determined,  unless  we 
should  run  into  the  absurdity  of  supposing  it  possible 
for  a  creature  to  create,  and  not  only  to  create  all  other 
created  things,  but  himself  also.     For,  if  Christ  be  not 
God,  he  is  a  creature  ;  and  if  "  not  any  thing  that  was 
made"  was  made  "  without  him,"  then  he  made  himself. 
'I'liisdecKled  passage,  as  may  be  supposed,  has  been 
subjected  to  much  critical  scrutiny  by  the  enemies  ol' 
.>tl)e  fiiilh,  and  many  attempts  have  hn'.n  made  to  resist 
ife  force.     It  is  objected,  that  the  Fal  her  is  called  i^cos, 
iiid  the  "Word"  simply  ^fyj,  without  the  article.    To 
"^hicjl  Dr.  Middleton  replies  :('2) 
•     "  Certain  critics,  as  is  well  known,  have  inferred 
fruni  the  ab.sence  of  the  article  in  this  place,  that  Oco.,- 
is  here  used  in  a  subordinate  sense  ;  it  has,  however, 
been  so  satisfactorily  answered,  that,  in  whatever  ac- 
ception  Ucoi  is  to  he  taken,  it  properly  rejects  the  arti- 
cle, being  here  the  predicate  of  the  proposition ;  and 
Jieugel  instances  the  I.XX.,  1  Kings  xviii.  24,  uTosOtos, 
as  similar  to  the  present  passage.    It  may  be  added, 
that  if  we  had  read  6  otos.  'he  proposition  woiiUl  have 
assumed  the  convertible  form,  and  Ibc  iiieainii;;  would 
have  been, that  whatever  m.\y  be  allirm<d  or  denied  of 
God  the  Father,  may  also   be  allirmed  or  denied  of 
the  f/Ogos,  a  position  which  would  accord  as  little  with 
the  Trinitarian  as  with  the  Hocinian  hypotheses.    It  is, 
therclbre,  unreasonable  to  infiT,  that  the  word  Otof  is 
here  used  in  a  loiinr  sense :  for  the  writer  could  not 
have  written  h  Ocng  without  manilesl  absurdity," 

(2)  Doctrine  of  the  Greek  A.rticle. 


[Part IL 

In  many  passages,  too,  in  which,  without  dispute 
&to(  is  meant  of  the  Supreme  Being,  the  article  is  not 
used.  Matthew  xix,  20,  "  With  men  this  is  imiiossi- 
ble,  but  Willi  <;o(l  (Ocu))  all  things  are  iios.sibje,"  Luke 
xvi.  13,  "  Ve  cannot  serve  (;od  (Mfw)  and  Mammon," 
John  i,  18.  '■  No  man  hath  seen  God  (Otur)  at  any  time," 
,Iohn  ix.  33,  "  If  ibis  man  were  not  of  God  (Ocu)  he 
couhl  do  nothing,"  John  xvi.  .30,  "  By  this  we  believe 
that  thou  earnest  from  (Jod,"  (Ocu.)  Many  other  instan- 
ces might  be  given,  but  these  amjily  reply  to  the 
objection. 

To  evade  the  force  of  the  argument  drawn  from  the 
creation  (being  ascribed  to  the  Word,  a  circumstance 
which  fixes  his  title  "  God"  in  its  highest  possible 
sense,  it  is  alleged,  that  the  word  yivoi^iu  never  signi- 
fies to  create,  and  the  Socinian  version,  therefore,  ren- 
ders the  text,  "  All  things  were  done  by  hirii,"  and  the 
translators  inform  us,  in  a  note,  this  means,  that  "  all 
things  in  the  Christian  ihspensation  were  done  by 
t'hrist,  that  is,  by  his  authority,"  But  what  shall  we 
say  to  this  bold  assertion,  that  ytn^ivai  is  never  used 
with  reference  to  creative  acts  in  the  New  Testament, 
when  the  following  passages  may  be  adduced  in  refu- 
tation ?  lleb,  iv,  3,  "  Although  the  works  were 
FtNisiiKD  from  the  foundation  of  the  world."  Hcb,  xi, 
3,  "  So  that  things  which  are  seen  were  not  madk  of 
things  that  do  appear,"  James  iii,  9,  "  Men  which 
are  made  atler  llie  similitude  of  God,"  In  all  these 
passages,  and  in  some  places  of  the  Septuagint  also, 
that  very  word  is  used  which,  they  tell  us,  never  ex- 
presses, in  Scripture,  the  notion  of  creation.  Even  the 
same  clKi|iler,  verse  10.  gives  an  instance  of  the  same 
use  of  llie  won!,  "  He  was  in  the  world,  and  the 
world  was  made  (eyevcro)  by  him,"  For  this,  of 
course,  they  have  a  criticism  ;  but  the  manner  in  which 
this  passage,  so  directly  in  refutation  of  their  assertion, 
is  disposed  of  in  their  "  Improved  Version,"  is  a  strik- 
ing idiiliiniation  of  the  entire  impossibility  of  accom- 
modating Scripture  to  their  system,  "The  world  was 
nindf:  by  him,"  says  the  evangelist,  "  ITie  world  was 
enlightened  by  liim,"  say  the  Socinian  translators, 
without  the  slightest  authority,  and  in  entire  contra- 
diction to  the  scope  of  the  passage.  Why  did  they  not 
render  the  word  as  in  the  preceding  verse,  "  The  world 
was  do7ie  by  him  V  which,  in  point  of  fact,  makes  no 
difl'erence  in  the  sense,  when  rightly  considered.  The 
diiiiig,  ascribed  to  the  Eternal  Word,  is  of  a  specific 
character — doing  in  the  sense  o(  framing,  making,  or 
creating  (jtuitu)  "  all  things," 

The  Sociniaiis  have  not,  however,  fully  satisfied 
theinselve.-!  with  this  notable  criticism  in  their  "  Im- 
jiroved  Version  ;"  and  some  of  them,  therelbre,  render 
"  all  tilings  were  made  by  him,"  "  all  things  were 
made  for  him,"  But  these  criticisms  cannot  sttuid  to- 
gether. If  the  verb  ytvonai  is  to  be  deprived  of  the 
imjiort  of  creation,  then  it  is  imjio.ssible  to  retain  the 
rendering  of  "  all  things  were  made  /or  him,"  since 
his  own  acts  of  ordering  the  Christian  dispensation  and 
"  enlightening"  the  world  could  nol  be  "/or  him,"  but 
must  havi'  been  done  "  by  him,"  If,  on  the  contrary, 
lliey  will  have  it  that  all  things  were  doneybr  him,  then 
ylvl)^l(^l  must  be  allowed  to  import  creation,  or  their 
production  by  the  omnipotence  of  God,  Both  criti- 
cisms they  cannot  holil,  and  thus  they  confess  that  one 
destroys  the  other.  Their  rendering  of  i^i'  avrov  can- 
not, however,  be  supported  ;  for  i^iu,  with  a  genitive, 
denotes  not  the  j^'rta/,  but  the  effiriint  cause,(.3)  The 
introduction  to  St,  John's  (Jospel  may,  therefore,  be 
considered  as  an  inex|nigriable  proof  that  Deity,  in  its 
highest,  and  in  no  secondary  or  subordinate  sense  is 
ascribed  to  our  Saviour,  under  his  title  God — "  and 
the  Word  was  Gou."  Nor  in  any  other  than  the 
liighest  sense  of  the  term  God  i-an  the  confession  of 
Thomas,  John  xx,  28,  be  tindi'rstood,  "  And  Thomas 
answered  and  said  unto  him.  My  Lord  and  my 
God,"  The  Socinian  Version,  in  its  note  on  this  pas- 
sage, intimates  that  it  may  be  considered  not  as  a  con- 
fession, but  as  an  e.rclainalion,  "  My  Lord  I  and  my 
God  !"  thereby  choosing  to  put  profane,  or,  at  least, 
vulgar  language  into  the  mouth  ol'  this  apostle,  of 
which  degradation  we  havt'  cerlainly  no  example  in 


(3)  So  it'.i  is  used  throughout  St.  John's  Gospel;  and 
in  Heb,  ii,  10,  it  is  said  of  the  Failier,  i^t'  on  ra  navra, 
"  by  whom  are  all  thiiics,"  So  also  Rom,  xi,  30,  "  Of 
him,  and  through  him  (c)i'  avroi')-  ant'  'o  liim  arc  all 
things," 


Chap.  XII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


185 


the  narration  of  the  evanfrellsts.  Mtchadis  lias  justly 
observed,  that  if  Thomas  liad  spoken  Girmitu  (he 
might  have  added  KnKlish,  I'reiicU,  or  Itahan),  it  mi},'ht 
have  been  contended,  with  some  plausiliihty,  tliat 
"  My  Lord  and  my  (iod"  was  only  an  irreverent  ejacu- 
lation; but  that  Jewish  astonisliment  was  thus  ex- 
pressed is  wholly  williout  proof  or  support.  Add  to 
this,  that  the  words  are  introduced  with  ciircv  avT<o, 
said  to  him,  that  is,  to  Christ;  a  mere  ejaculation, 
such  as  that  here  supjiosed,  is  rather  an  appeal  to  Hea- 
ven. Our  Saviour's  rejdy  makes  it  absolutely  certain 
that  the  words  of  Thomas,  though  they  are  in  the  form 
of  an  exclamation,  amount  to  a  confession  of  faith,  and 
were  equivalent  to  a  direct  assertion  of  our  .Saviour's 
Divinity.  Christ  commends  Thomas's  ackiiowlcdg- 
nient,  while  he  condemns  the  tardiness  with  which  it 
is  made  ;  but  to  what  did  this  acknowledgment  amount  ? 
That  Christ  was  Lord  and  Ctni>.('i) 

In  Titus  ii.  13,  "  Looking  for  that  blessed  hoiio,  and 
the  glorious  appearing  of  the  Great  (Jod  and  our  Sa- 
viour Jesus  Christ,"  our  Lord  is  not  only  called  God, 
but  the  Gkk.^t  God,  which  marks  the  sense  in  which 
llie  li'rni  is  used  by  the  apostle,  and  gives  unequivocal 
cvuliiice  of  his  ojiinioiis  on  the  subject  of  Christ's 
Divinity.  Socinian  and  Arian  interpreters  tell  us,  that 
"  the  Great  God  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ"  are 
two  persons,  and  therefore  refer  the  title  "  Great  God" 
to  the  Father.  Tlu;  Socinian  Version  accordingly  ren- 
ders the  text,  '•  the  glorious  appearance  of  the  fJreat 
(Jod  and  of  our  S.iviour  .lesus  (  liiist."  To  this  iiiter- 
jiretation  there  are  satislUctory  answers.  l)r.  Whitby 
observes : 

"  Here  it  descrveth  to  be  noted,  that  it  is  highly  pro- 
bable, that  Jesus  Christ  is  styled  the  Great  God,  1. 
liecausp,  in  the  original,  the  article  is  prefixed  only  be- 
t(>re  the  Great  God,  ami  therefore  seems  to  require  this 
coiistruction,  theajipearance  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Great 
(;o<l  and  our  Saviour.  2.  Because,  as  God  the  Father 
is  not  said  properly  to  appear,  so  the  word  cTn4)avtia 
never  occurs  in  tlie  New  Testament,  but  when  it  is  ap- 
plied to  Jesus  ('hrist  and  to  some  coming  of  his;  the 
l)laces  hi  which  it  is  to  be  found  being  only  these, 
2Thess.  ii.  8;  1  Tim.  vi.  14;  2  Tim.  i.  10,  and  iv.  1,  8. 
3.  Because,  Christ  is  emphatically  styled  '  our  kope,' 
'  the  hoye  of  glory ^  (.'ol.  i.  23  ;  1  Timothy  i.  1.  And 
liistly,  because,  not  only  all  the  ancient  commentators 
on  the  place  do  so  interpret  this  text,  but  the  anti- 
Nicene  fathers  also;  Ilyppolilus,  speaking  of  the  ap- 
pearance of  our  (iod  and  Saviour  Jesus  (-'hrist;  and 
Clemens  of  Alexandria  proving  Christ  to  be  both  God 
and  man,  our  creator,  and  the  author  of  all  our  good 
things,  from  these  very  words  of  St.  l'aul."(5) 

Independent  of  the  criticism  which  rests  upon  the 
absence  of  the  article,  it  is  sufficient  to  establish  the 
claim  of  our  Saviour  to  the  l  itle  of  "  the  Great  Ciod" 
in  this  passage,  that  c-mipavtia,  "  the  appearing,"  is 
never,  in  the  New  Testament,  spoken  of  the  Father, 
but  of  the  Son  only;  but,  since  the  time  of  this  critic, 
the  doctrine  of  the  Greek  article  has  undergone  arnph; 
and  acute  investigation,  and  has  placed  new  guards 
around  this  and  some  other  passages  of  similar  con- 
struction against  the  perversions  of  heresy.  It  has,  by 
these  investigations  been  established,  that  the  (Jreek 
idiom  forbiiLs  Ocou  and  crojnjpoi-  to  be  understood  except 
of  the  same  person;  and  Mr.  Granville  Sharp,  there- 
lore,  translates  the  text,  "  expecting  the  blessed  hope 
and  ajipearance  of  our  Great  God  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ:"  cvKpnvctav  tiis  (5o^i;j  tuv  pityaXov  ciuv  kui 
coirrims  iifjini'  lijrTOo  Xrnarov- 

"  This  interpretation  ilepends  upon  the  rule  or  canon 
brought  forwards  into  notice  not  many  years  ago  by  Mr. 
Granville  Sharp.  It  excited  a  controversy,  and  Unita- 
rians either  treated  it  with  ridicule,  or  denied  its  appli- 
cability to  the  New  Testament.  But  alter  it  had  been 
shown  by  Mr.  Wordsworth,  that  most  of  the  texts  to 
which  the  ride  applies  were  understood  in  the  way 
Mr.  Sharjt  exjdained  them  by  the  ancient  fathers,  who 
must  surely  have  known  the  idiom  of  their  native 
tongue ;  and  after  the  doctrine  of  the  Greek  article  had 
been  investigated  with  so  much  penetration  and  learn- 
ing by  Dr.  Middleton,  all  who  have  paid  attention  to  the 
subject  have  acquiesced  in  the  i;anon."((5) 

This  important  canon  of  criticism  is  thus  stated  by 
Dr.  Middleton: 

(4)  Middleton.  (5)  E-^position. 

(0)  ^o^,D«^'8  Tcatimonies. 


"  When  two  or  more  attributes,  joined  by  a  copula- 
live  or  copulatives,  are  uxxiimrd  of  the  same  person  or 
thing,  before  the  first  attributive  the  article  is  inserted, 
before  the  remaining  ones  it  is  omitted."  The  limita- 
tions of  this  rule  may  be  seen  in  the  leanicd  author's 
work  itself,  with  the  reasons  on  which  they  rest.  They 
are  found  in  "  names  of  substances,  coiusidered  as  suh- 
slanr.e.i,  proper  names,  or  names  of  abstract  ideas ;" 
and  with  such  exceptions,  and  that  of  plurals  occa- 
sionally, the  rule  unilbrmly  holds.(7) 

Another  passage,  in  which  the  appellation  God  is 
given  to  Christ,  in  a  connexion  wliich  necessarily 
obliges  us  to  understand  it  in  its  highest  sense,  is  Heb. 
i.  8.  "  But  unto  the  Son  he  saith.  Thy  throne,  (J  Con, 
is  lor  ever  and  ever."  The  argument  of  the  ajiostlo 
here  determines  the  sense  in  which  he  calls  Jesus,  the 
Son,  "God,"  and  the  views  he  entertains  of  his  nature. 
Angels  and  men  are  the  only  rational  created  beings  in 
the  universe  wliiidi  are  mentioned  by  the;  sacred  writers. 
The  ajiosllc  argues,  that  Christ  is  superior  even  to  an- 
gels; that  they  are  but  ministers,  he  a  sovereign, 
seated  on  a  throne;  that  they  (I'or.vAi))  him,  and  that 
he  receives  their  worship ;  that  they  are  creatures,  but 
he  creator.  "  Thou,  Lord,  in  the  beginning  hast  laid 
the  Ibundation  of  the  earth  ;  and  the  heavens  are  the 
works  of  thine  hands ;"  and,  full  of  these  ideas  of  su- 
preme Divinity,  he  ajiplies  a  passage  to  him  out  of  the 
45th  Psalm,  which  is  there  addressed  to  the  Messiah, 
"  Tliy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever." 

The  Socinian  Version  renders  the  passage,  "  But  to 
tjie  Son  he  saith,  God  is  thy  throne  for  ever  and  ever," 
and  in  this  it  Ibllows  Wakefield  and  some  others. 

Tlie  first  reason  given  to  support  this  rendering  is, 
that  0  Wtoj  is  the  nominative  case.  But  the  nominative, 
both  in  common  and  in  Attic  Greek,  is  often  used  liir 
the  vocative.  It  is  so  used  frequently  by  the  LXX  ,  and 
by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament.  The  vocative 
form,  indeed,  very  rarely  occurs  in  either,  the  nomina- 
tive almost  exclu.sively  supplying  its  place;  and  in  this 
passage  it  was  so  taken  by  the  Greek  fathers.(*)  Tlie 
criticism  is,  therefore,  groundless. 

The  second  is,  that  a.s  tlie  words  are  addressed  to 
Solomon  in  the  psalm  from  which  they  are  (luoted,  they 
must  he  understood  to  declare,  that  God  was  the  sup- 
port of  his  throne.  But  the  opinU)n  that  the  psalm 
was  composed  concerning  Solomon's  marriage  with 
Pharaoh's  dauglitcr,('J)  has  no  Ibuudatioii,  eflher  in 
Scripture  or  in  anti(|Uity,  and  is,  iiidied,  coiitnidicted  by 
both.     f)n  this  subject  Bi-shop  Ilorslcy  remarks: 

"  The  circurn.stances  whicli  are  characteristic  of  the 
king,  who  is  the  hero  of  this  poem,  are  every  one  of 
tliem  utterly  inapplicable  to  Solomon ;  insomuch,  that 
not  one  of  them  can  be  ascribed  to  him,  without  con- 
tradictuig  the  history  of  his  reign.  The  hero  of  this 
poem  is  a  warrior,  who  girds  his  sword  upon  his  thigh ; 
rides  in  pursuit  of  Hying  foes ;  makes  havoc  among 
them  with  his  sharp  arrows ;  and  reigns,  at  last,  by 
conquest,  over  his  vanquished  enemies.  Now,  Solo- 
mon was  no  warrior ;  he  enjoyed  a  long  reign  of  forty 
years  of  uninterrupted  peace. 

"  Another  circumstance  of  distinction  in  the  great 
personage  celebrated  in  this  psalm,  is  his  love  of  right- 
eousness and  hatred  of  wickedness.  The  original  ex- 
pre.sses,  that  he  had  set  his  heart  upon  righteousness, 
and  bore  an  antipathy  to  wickedness.  His  love  of  right- 
eousness and  hatred  of  wickedness  had  been  so  much 
the  ruling  principles  of  his  whole  conduct,  that,  for  this, 
he  was  advanced  to  a  condition  of  tlnhighest  bliss,  and 
endless  perpetuity  was  promised  to  his  kiugdoni.  The 
word  we  render  '  righteousness,'  in  its  strict  and  projier 
meaning,  signifies  '  justice,'  or  the  constant  and  per- 
petual observance  of  the  natural  distinctions  of  right 
and  wrong  in  civil  society  ;  and  principally  with  re- 
spect to  property  in  private  persons,  and,  in  a  magis- 


(7)  See  Middleton  on  the  Greek  article ;  also,  re- 
marks at  the  close  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  and 
the  Epistle  to  Titus,  in  Dr.  A.  Clarke's  Commentary; 
Wonn.sHORTii's  Letters  to  Sharp;  Dr.  1'.  Smith's 
Person  of  Christ. 

(8)  "  Omnes  (Patres)  uno  consensu  o  dcn^  hoc  in  loco 
vocative  accejierunt,  prout  in  Psalmis  frequente  a  LXX. 
usurpatur,  et  alioijui  familiare  est  Gra-cis,  Atticis  prae- 
sertiin,  nominandi  casmn  vocative  sumere." — Bishop 
Bull. 

(9)  This  notion  appears  to  have  originated  with  Cal- 
vin. 


1T56 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES, 


[Part IL 


trate  or  sovRreign,  in  the  impartial  exercise  of  judicial 
authority.  J{ut  ttie  word  we  render  '  wickedness,'  de- 
notes not  only  '  injustice,'  but  whatever  is  contrary  to 
mora!  purity  in  the  indulgence  of  the  appetites  of  the 
individual,  and  whatever  is  contrary  to  a  princijile  of 
true  piety  towards  (Jod.  Now,  the  word '  righteousness,' 
being  here  opposed  to  this  wicki-dncss,  must,  certainly, 
be  taken  as  generally  as  the  word  to  which  it  is  op- 
posed in  a  contrary  signiiication.  It  must  signify, 
therefore,  not  merely  '  justice,'  in  the  sense  we  have 
explained,  but  purity  of  private  manners,  and  piety 
towards  God.  Now,  Solomon  ^vas  certainly,  upon  the 
whole,  a  good  king,  nor  was  lie  without  piety  ;  but  his 
love  of  righteousness,  in  the  large  sense  in  which  we 
have  shown  the  word  is  to  be  taken,  and  his  anti- 
pathy to  the  contrary,  fell  very  far  short  of  what  the 
P.salmist  ascribes  to  bis  arvM  king,  and  procured  for 
liiin  no  sucli  stability  of  bis  nion,in-by. 

"  Another  circumstance  wholly  inapplicable  to  Solo- 
mon, is  the  numerous  ])rogeny  of  sons,  the  issue  of 
tlie  marriage,  all  of  whom  were  to  be  made  princes 
over  all  the  earth.  Solomon  had  but  one  son,  that  we 
read  of,  that  ever  came  to  be  a  king — his  son  and  suc- 
cessor Rchoboam;  and  so  far  was  he  from  being  a 
prince  over  all  the  earth,  that  he  was  no  sooner  seated 
on  the  throne  than  he  lost  the  greater  part  of  his  fa- 
ther's kingdom. 

"  For,  would  it  be  said  of  him  that  his  kingdom, 
which  lasted  only  forty  years,  is  eternal?  It  was  not 
even  eternal  in  liis  posterity.  And,  with  respect  to  his 
loving  righteousness  and  hating;  wickedness,  it  but  ill 
applies  to  one  who  in  his  old  age,  became  an  encourager 
of  idolatry,  through  the  intluence  of  women.  Tiiis 
jisalm,  therefore,  is  applicable  only  to  the  Christ. 
Farther,  Solomon's  marriage  with  Pharaoh's  daughter 
being  expressly  condemned  as  contrary  to  the  law 
(1  Kings  xi.  2),  to  suppose  that  this  psalm  was  com- 
posed in  honour  of  that  event  is  certainly  an  ill-founded 
imagination.  Estius  informs  us,  that  the  Rabbins,  in 
their  eoitimentaries,  affirm,  that  Psalm  xlv.  was  written 
wholly  concerning  the  Messiah.  Accordingly,  they 
translate  the  title  of  the  psalm  as  we  do,  a  Song  of 
Loves ;  the  LXX.  wfrj  vxep  th  ayavriTu,  a  song  con- 
cerning the  beloved;  Vulgate,  prodilecto  :  a  title  justly 
given  to  Messiah,  whom  God,  by  voices  from  heaven, 
declared  his  beloved  Son.  Besides,  as  the  word  Mes- 
chil,  which  signifies  for  instruction  (LXX.  £is  tjvvtaLv., 
Vulgate,  ad  iatellectimi),  is  inserted  in  the  title,  and  as 
no  mention  is  made  in  the  ]isalm  of  Solomon,  from  an 
account  of  whose  loves,  as  Pearce  observes,  the  .lewish 
church  was  not  likely  to  gain  much  instruction,  we 
are  led  to  understand  the  psalm,  not  of  Solomon,  but 
of  Messiah  only." 

The  interpretation  "  God  is  thy  throne"  is,  more- 
over, monstrous,  and  derives  no  support  from  any  pa- 
rallel figurative  or  elliptical  mode  of  expression  in  the 
sacred  writings — God  the  throne  of  a  creature!  And, 
linally,  as  stated  by  Middleton,  had  that  been  the  sense 
of  the  ])assage,  the  language  requires  that  it  should 
have  been  written  Opnvng  aov  h  (koj,  not  6  0,O())'of,(l) 
which,  on  the  Socinian  interpretation,  is  the  predicate 
of  the  proposition.  So  futile  are  all  these  attempts  to 
shake  the  ivhIcmcc  which  this  text  gives  to  the  abso- 
lute (Jodbcad  of  our  Saviour. 

"  And  wo  know  that  tile  Son  of  God  is  come,  and 
hath  given  us  an  understanding,  that  we  may  know 
Ilim  that  is  true,  and  we  are  in  Him  that  is  true,  even 
ill  his  Son  Jksi's  Christ.  'I'his  is  thk  trik  God 
AND  Eternai,  I,ikv:,"  1  .Tohn  V.  20.  Here  our  Saviour 
is  called  the  tme  God  and  Eternal  Life.  The  means 
by  which  this  testimony  is  evaded,  is  to  interpret  the 
clause  "  Him  that  is  true"  of  the  Father,  and  to  refer 
the  pronoun  this,  not  to  the  nearest  antecedent,  "  his 
Son  .lesus  Christ,"  but  to  the  most  remote,  "  Him  that 
is  true."  All,  however,  that  is  pretended  by  the  Soci- 
nian critics  on  this  iiassage  is,  not  that  this  construc- 
tion miLSt,  but  that  it  maij  take  jilace.  Vet  even  this 
feeble  opposition  to  the  riceivcd  rendering  cannot  be 
maintained:  for,  1.  To  intt^prct  the  clause  "Him  that 
is  true"  of  the  Father,  is  entirely  arbitrary;  and  the 
scope  of  the  epistle,  which  was  to  prove  that  .lesus  the 
tJhrist  was  the  true  Son  of  (;od,  and,  therefore,  DiWne, 
against  those  who  denied  his  Divinity,  and  that  "  He 
had  come  in  the  flesh,"  in  oiiposition  to  the  heretics 


(1)  Doctrine  of  the  Greek  Article. 


who  denied  his  liuinanity,(2)  obliges  us  to  refer  that 
jihrase  to  the  Son,  and  not  to  the  Father.  2.  If  it  coulil 
be  established,  that  the  Father  was  intended  by  "  Him 
that  is  true,"  it  would  be  contrary  to  grammatical  usage 
to  refer  the  pronoun  this,  is  the  "  true  God  and  Eternal 
Life,"  to  the  remote  antecedent,  without  obvious  and 
indisputable  necessity. 

"  Whose  are  the  liithers,  and  of  whom,  as  concern- 
ing the  llesh,  (_'hrist  came,  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed 
for  ever,"  Rom.  ix.  5. 

With  respect  to  this  text,  it  is  to  be  noted, 

1.  That  it  continues  an  enumeration  of  the  particular 
privileges  of  the  .lewish  nation  which  are  mentioned  in 
the  preceding  verses,  and  the  apostle  adds,  "whose  are 
the  fathers,"  the  patriarchs  and  prophets,  and  of  whom 
"the  Christ  came." 

2.  That  he  throws  in  a  clause  of  limitation  with  re- 
spect to  the  coming  of  Christ,  '^  acconling  to  thefte.sh,"' 
which  clearly  states  that  it  was  only  according  to  the 
Jlesh,  the  humanity  of  Christ,  that  lie  descended  from 
.the  Jewish  nation,  and,  at  the  same  time,  intimates 
that  he  was  more  l\ia.n  flesh,  or  mere  human  nature. 

3.  The  sentence  does  not  end  here ;  the  apostle  adds, 
"  wlu)  is  over  alh,  God  blessed  lor  ever ;"  a  relative  ex- 
pression which  evidently  refers  to  the  antecedent 
Christ ;  and  thus  we  have  an  antithesis,  which  shows 
the  reason  why  the  apostle  introduced  the  limiting 
clause,  "  according  to  the  llesh  ;"  and  explains  why 
Christ,  in  one  respect,  did  descend  from  the  Jews  ;  and 
in  another,  that  this  could  not  be  allirmed  of  him :  he 
was  "  God  over  all,"  and,  therefore,  only  "  according  to 
the  flesh"  could  he  be  of  human  descent. 

4.  That  this  completes  the  apostle's  purpose  to  mag- 
nify the  privileges  of  his  nation :  after  enumerating 
many  others,  he  crowns  the  whole  by  declaring,  that 
"God  over  all,"  when  he  became  incarnate  for  the 
sake  of  human  salvation,  took  a  body  of  the  seed  of 
Abraham. 

Criticism  has,  of  course,  endeavoured,  if  possible,  to 
weaken  the  argument  drawn  from  this  lofty  and  im- 
pregnable passage;  but  it  is  of  such  a  kind  as  greatly 
to  confirm  the  truth.  For,  in  the  first  place,  various 
readings  of  manuscripts  cannot  here  be  resorted  to  for 
rendering  the  sense  dubious,  and  all  the  ancient  versions 
support  the  present  reading.  It  has,  indeed,  been 
alleged,  on  the  authority  of  Grasinus,  that  though  the 
word  "  God"  is  found  in  all  our  present  cojiies,  it 
was  wanting  in  those  of  Cyprian,  Hilary,  and  Cliry- 
sostoin.  But  this  has  been  abundantly  proved  to  be 
an  error,  that  word  being  Ibund  in  the  manuscripts  and 
bi.i^t  ccbtioiis  (if  Cypnan  and  Hilary,  and  even  Si.Chry- 
sostoni  allurds  decisive  lesliniony  to  the  common  read- 
ing; in  short,  "the  word  God  in  this  text  is  found  in 
ei'ery  known  jnanvscript  of  tliis  epistle,  2?i  every  ancient 
version  extant,  and  in  ei^ry  father  who  has  had  occa- 
sion to  quote  the  passage  :  so  that,  in  truth,  there  can 
scarcely  be  instanced  a  text  in  the  New  Testament  in 
which  all  the  ancient  authorities  more  satisfactorily 
agree. "(3)  The  only  method  of  dealing  with  this  jias- 
sage  left  to  Arians  and  Soeinians  was,  therelbre,  to 
attempt  to  obtain  a  different  simse  from  it  by  shifting 
the  punctuation.  By  this  device,  some  read,  "  and  of 
whom  is  the  (Christ  according  to  the  flesh.  God,  who 
is  over  all,  be  blessed  for  ever."  Others,  "and  of 
whom  is  the  Christ,  according  to  tlie  flesh,  who  is  over 
all.  Blessed  be  God  for  ever."  A  critic  of  their  own, 
Mr.  Wakefield,  whose  authority  they  acknowledge  to 
be  very  great,  may,  however,  here  be  turned  against 
them.  Both  these  con.structions,  he  acknowledges,  ap- 
pear so  awkward,  so  abrupt,  so  incoherent,  that  he  never 


(9)  These  were  the  Docetai,  who  taught  that  our  Lord 
was  a  man  in  appearance  only,  and  sulfcrcd  and  died 
in  a)ii)(^aranceonly.  On  the  contrary,  the  Ccrintbianp, 
and  others,  believed  that  the  Son  of  God  was  nulled  to 
the  human  nature  at  his  baptism,  departed  irom  it  be- 
fore his  passion,  and  was  reunited  to  it  after  his  resur- 
rection. According  to  the  former,  Christ  was  man  in 
appearance  only:  according  to  the  latter,  he  was  the 
Son  of  God  at  the  time  of  his  passion  and  death  in  ap- 
pearance only.  We  see,  then,  the  reason  why  St.  John, 
who  writes  against  these  errors,  so  often  calls  Christ 
"  Him  that  is  tnic,"  true  God  and  true  man,  not  either 
in  appearance  only. 

(3)  Magkk  on  Atonement.  See  also  Narks  on  the 
New  Version. 


Chap.  XII.] 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


187 


could  be  brought  to  relish  them  in  the  least  degree  ;(4) 
and  Dr.  S.  Clarke,  who  xvas  well  disposed  to  evade  this 
decisive  passage,  acknowledges  that  the  common  read- 
ing is  the  most  obvious.  But,  independent  of  the  au- 
thority of  critics,  there  are  several  direct  and  fatal  ob- 
jections to  this  altered  punctuation.  It  leaves  the 
limiting  clause,  "  according  to  the  llesh,"  wholly  un- 
accounted for;  for  no  ])ossible  reason  can  be  given  for 
that  limitation  on  the  Sociiiian  scheme.  If  the  apo.stle 
had  regarded  Christ  simjily  as  a  man,  he  could  have 
come  in  no  other  way  than  "  according  to  the  tlesh  ;" 
nor  is  this  relieved  at  all  by  rendering  the  phrase,  as  in 
their  "  Improved  Version,"  by  "natural  descent,"  for  a 
mere  man  could  only  appear  among  men  by  "  natural 
descent."  Either,  therefore,  the  clause  is  a  totally  un- 
meaning and  an  impertinent  parenthesis,  or  it  has  re- 
spect to  the  natural  antithesis  which  follows — his  su- 
preme Divinity,  as  "  God  over  all."  Thus  the  scope  of 
the  passage  prohibits  this  license  of  punctuation.  To 
the  latter  clause  being  considered  as  a  doxology  to  God 
the  Father,  there  is  an  insuperable  critical  ditTiculty. 
Dr.  Middleton  observes : 

"  It  has  been  deemed  a  safer  expedient  to  attempt  a 
construction  different  from  the  received  one,  by  making 
the  whole  or  part  of  the  clause  to  be  merely  a  doxology 
in  praise  of  the  Father,  so  that  the  rendering  will  be 
either  '  God,  who  is  over  all,  be  blessed  for  ever,'  or,  be- 
ginning at  Qcoi,  '(Jod  be  blessed  forever.'  These  in- 
terpretations also  have  their  dilliculties ;  for  thus 
tuXoyj/roj  will  properly  want  the  article.  On  the  first, 
however,  of  these  constructions,  it  is  to  be  observed, 
that  in  all  the  doxologies  both  of  the  LXX.  and  of  the 
New  Testament,  in  which  iv\o}T]TOi  is  used,  it  is  placed 
at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence :  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment there  are  five  instances,  all  conspiring  to  prove 
this  usage,  and  in  the  LXX.  about  forty.  The  same 
arrangement  is  observed  in  t\\e formula  of  ci  rsing,  in 
which  £7ri)caraporoj  always  precedes  the  mention  of  the 
person  cursed.  The  reading,  then,  would,  on  this  con- 
struction, rather  have  been  iv\o)'t]To!;  o  wv  ittl  tzuvtoiv 
Otoi  £if  rug  aiu)vas.  Against  the  other  supposed  doxo- 
logy, the  objection  is  still  stronger,  since  that  would 
require  us  not  only  to  transpose  cv}^oyr!ros,  but  to  read 
5  fltof.  Accordingly,  in  all  instances  where  a  doxo- 
logy is  meant,  we  find  evXoyrjTos  bdeos."{o) 

Whitby  also  remarks : 

"  The  words  will  not  admit  of  that  interpunction  and 
interpretation  of  Erasmus,  which  will  do  any  service 
to  the  Arians  or  Socinians,  namely,  that  a  colon  must 
be  put  after  the  words  Kara  (rnpKa,  after  the  flesh  ;  and 
the  words  following  must  be  an  ecphonema,  and  grate- 
ful exclamation  for  the  blessings  conferred  upon  the 
Jews :  thus,  God,  who  is  over  all,  he  blessed  for  ever. 
For  this  exposition  is  so  harsh,  and  without  any  like 
example  in  the  whole  New  Testament,  that  as  none  of 
the  orthodox  ever  thought  upon  it,  so  I  find  not  that  it 
ever  came  into  the  head  of  any  Arian.  Socinus  him- 
self rejects  it  for  this  very  good  reason,  that  diog 
tv\oyrjTOi,  God  be  blessed,  is  an  unusual  and  unnatural 
construction ;  for,  wherever  else  these  words  signify 
blessed  be  God,  sv^oyriTog  is  put  before  God,  as  Luke  i. 
68  ;  2  Cor.  i.  3 ;  Eph.  i.  3 ;  1  Peter  i.  3 ;  and  deog  hath 
an  article  prefixed  to  it  ;  nor  are  they  ever  immediately 
joined  together  otherwse.  The  phrase  occurs  twenty 
times  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  in  every  place 
ev)ioyr]rog  goes  before,  and  the  article  is  annexed  to  the 
word  Gorf,  which  is  a  demonstration  that  this  is  a  per- 
version of  the  sense  of  the  apostle's  words." 

The  critical  discussion  of  this  text  is  farther  pursued 
by  the  writers  just  quoted ;  by  Dr.  Nares,  in  his  Re- 
marks ;  Mr.  Wardlaw,  in  his  Discourses ;  Archbishop 
Magee,  and  others ;  and  we  may  confidently  say  of  it, 
■with  Doddridge,  that  it  is  ''  a  memorable  text,  and  con- 
tains a  proof  of  Christ's  proper  Deity  which  the  oj)- 
posers  of  that  doctrine  have  never  been  able,  nor  will 
ever  be  able,  to  answer."  So  it  was  considered  and 
quoted  "  by  the  fathers,"  says  Whitby,  "  from  the  be- 
ginning ;  and,"  continues  the  same  commentator,  "  if 
these  words  are  spoken  by  the  Spirit  of  God  concerning 
Christ,  the  arguments  hence  to  prove  Him  truly  and 
properly  God  are  invincible;  for,  first,  b  Ocog  etti  Tavrwv, 
God  over  all,  is  the  periphrasis  by  which  all  the  hea- 
then philosophers  did  usually  represent  the  supreme 
God ;  and  so  is  God  the  Father  described  both  in  the 


(4)  Inquiry  into  Opinions,  &c. 

(5)  Doctrine  of  Greek  Article. 


Old  and  New  Testaments,  as  S  tm  navriov,  he  that  is 
over  all,  Eph.  iv.  0.  Secondly,  This  is  the  constant 
epithet  and  periphrasis  of  the  Great  (;od  in  the  Old 
Testament,  that  he  is  cvXoyijrog  tij  rov  atwva,  God 
blessed  for  evermore,  1  Chron.  xvi.  36;  Psalm  xli.  13, 
and  Ixxxix.  52 ;  and  also  in  the  New,  where  he  is  styled 
the  God  Of  canv  tvXoyrjroi  ug  rag  aiunug,  who  is 
blessed  for  eoeTinore." 

Numerous  other  passages  might  be  cited,  where 
Christ  is  called  "  Goo  ;"  these  only  have  been  selected, 
not  merely  because  the  proof  does  not  rest  upon  the 
number  of  Scriptural  testimonies,  but  upon  their  ex- 
jilicitness ;  but  also  because  they  all  associate  the  term 
God,  as  applied  to  our  Saviour,  with  other  titles,  or 
with  circumstances  which  demonstrate  most  fully,  that 
that  term  was  used  by  the  inspired  penmen  in  its  high- 
est sense  of  true  and  proper  Deity  when  they  ajipljed 
it  to  Christ.  Thus  we  have  seen  it  associated  with 
Jehovah ;  with  Lord,  the  New  Testament  rendering  of 
that  ineffable  name;  with  acts  of  creative  energy,  as 
in  the  introduction  to  the  gospel  of  St.  .lohn ;  with  the 
supreme  dominion  and  perpetual  stability  of  the  throne 
of  the  Son,  in  the  finst  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews.  In  the  Epistle  to  Titus,  he  is  called  "  the 
Great  God ;"  in  1  John,  "  the  truk  God,"  and  the 
giver  of  "  ETERNAL  life;"  and  in  the  last  text  exa- 
mined his  twofold  nature  is  distinguished— man,  "  ac- 
cording to  the  flesh,"  and,  in  his  higher  nature,  God, 
"  God  over  all,  blessed  for  evermore."  These  passages 
stand  in  full  refutation  of  both  the  Arian  and  Socinian 
heresies.  In  opposition  to  the  latter,  they  prove  our 
Saviour  to  be  more  than  man,  tor  they  assert  him  to  be 
God ;  and  in  opposition  to  the  former,  they  prove  that 
He  is  God,  not  in  an  inferior  sense,  but  "  the  Great  God,'' 
^' the  true  God,"  and  "  God  over  all,  blessedfor  evermore." 

I  pass  over,  for  the  sake  of  greater  brevity,  other 
titles  more  rarely  ascribed  to  our  Saviour,  such  as  the 
"  Lord  of  Glory,"  1  Cor.  ii.  8  ;  "  King  of  kings  and 
Lord  of  lords,"  on  which  it  w'ould  be  easy  to  argue, 
that  their  import  falls  nothing  short  of  absolute  Di- 
vinity. A  few  remarks  on  three  other  titles  of  our 
Lord,  of  more  frequent  occurrence,  may  close  this 
branch  of  the  argument.  These  are,  "King  of 
Israel,"  "Son  of  God,"  and  "The  Word."  The 
first  bears  evident  allusion  to  the  pre-existence  of 
Christ,  and  to  his  sovereignty  over  Israel  under  the  law. 
Now,  it  has  been  already  established,  that  the  Jehovah, 
"the  King  oj  the  Jews,"  "the  Holy  One  of  Israel  out 
King,"  "  the  Kins,  the  Lord  of  Hosts,"  of  the  Old 
Testament,  is  not  the  Father ;  but  another  Divine  Per- 
son, who,  in  the  New,  Testament,  is  affirmed  to  have 
been  Jesus  Christ.  This  being  the  view  of  the  sacred 
writers  of  the  evangelical  dispensation,  it  is  clear  that 
they  coiUd  not  use  the  appellation  "The  Kino  of 
Israel"  in  a  lower  sense  than  that  in  which  it  stands 
in  the  Old  Testament ;  and  there,  indisputably,  even 
by  the  confession  of  opponents,  it  is  collocated  with 
titles,  and  attributes,  and  works  which  unequivocally 
mark  a  Divine  character.  It  is  with  clear  reference  to 
this  liis  peculiar  property  in  the  Jewish  people  that  St. 
John  says,  "  He  came  unto  his  oivn,  and  his  own  re- 
ceived him  not :"  a  declaration  which  is  scarcely  sense, 
if  Judea  was  in  no  higher  a  meaning  his  own  coun- 
try(6)  than  it  was  the  country  of  any  other  person  who 
happened  to  be  born  there;  for  it  is,  surely,  a  strange 
method  of  expressing  the  simple  fact  that  he  was  bom 
a  Jew  (were  nothing  more  intended),  to  say  that  he 
came  into  his  own  country,  for  this  every  person  does 
at  his  birth,  wherever  he  is  born.  Nor  is  it  any  aggra- 
vation of  the  giiilt  of  the  Jews,  that  they  rejected 
merely  a  countryman,  since  that  circumslance  gave 
him  no  greater  claim  than  that  of  any  other  Jew  to  be 
received  as  the  Messiah.  The  force  of  the  remark  lies 
in  this,  that  whereas  the  prophets  had  declared  that 
"  the  King  of  Israel,"  "  the  Lord  of  Hosts,"  "Jehovah," 
should  become  incarnate,  and  visit  his  own  people ;  and 
that  Jesus  had  given  sufficient  evidence  that  he  was 
that  predicted  and  expected  Personage ;  yet  the  Jews, 
"  his  own  people"  and  inheritance,  rejected  him.  The 
same  notion  is  conveyed  in  ou.  Lord's  parable,  when 
the  Jews  are  made  to  say  "this  is  the  heir,"  he  in 
whom  the  right  is  vested  :  "  let  us  kill  him,  and  the 
inheritance  shall  be  ours."(') 


(6)  "  He  came  into  his  own  countr)',  and  his  country- 
men received  him  not."— Capp's  Version. 

(7)  Venit  ad  sua,  et  sui  non  receperunt  eum,  id  est. 


188 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


It  is  sufficient,  however,  here  to  sliow,  that  the  title 
"  KiNu  OK  Israel"  was  unilersloud,  by  .lows,  to  inii)ly 
Divinity.  NathaiKiel  exolaiiiis,  "  Kabbi,  tliou  art  tlio 
Son  of  fioi),  thou  art  the  King  of  Israkl."  This  was 
said  upon  such  a  proof  of  his  Messi.ilisliip  as,  from  his 
aciiuaiutuiice  with  some  matter  private  to  IVathaiiael 
alone  when  ho  was  "  under  the  lig-tree,"  was  a  full  de- 
monstration of  Oinni.scitnce :  a  circumstance  which 
also  determines  the  Divine  import  of  "  Son  of  CJod," 
the  title  which  is  here  connected  with  it.  lioth  were 
certainly  understood  by  Nalbaiiael  to  imply  an  assump- 
tion of  Godhead. 

" '  As  our  Saviour  hun^  upon  the  cross,'  says  St. 
Matthew,  '  they  that  passud  by  reviled  him  wagging 
their  heads  and  saynig,  'i'luui  lluit  dislroyest  the  temple 
and  buildest  it  in  three  days,  save  thyself;  if  thou  be 
the  Son  of  Gop,  come  down  from  the  cross.  Likewise 
also  the  chief  priests  mockiiiK  him,  with  the  scribes 
and  elders,  said,  1  [e  saved  others  ;  himself  he  cannot 
save.  If  he  be  the  King  of  Israel,  let  him  now  come 
down  from  the  cross,  and  we  will  believe  him.  He 
trusted  in  tlod ;  let  Him  deliver  him  now,  if  He  will 
have  hha:  for  lie  said,  I  am  the  Smn  of  God.  The 
thieves  also,  which  were  crucified  with  him,  cast  the 
SAME  in  his  teeth.  [One  of  them  saying.  If  thou  be 
(yURisT,  save  thyself  and  us;  but  the  other  s;iid 
unto  Jesus,  Lord,  remember  me,  when  thou  comc-st 
i/ito  thij  kingdom.]  [And  the  soldiers  also  mocked 
him,  coming  to  hiin,  and  olfering  him  vinegar,  and 
saying,  if  thou  be  the  King  of  the  .Iews,  save  thy- 
self.] Now  when  the  centurion,  and  they  that  were 
with  him  watching  .lesus,  saw  ilie  earthijuake,  and 
those  things  that  were  done,  they  feared  greatly,  saying, 
[Certainly  tliis  was  a  righteous  man]  Truly  this  was 
THE  Son  of  God.'  Here  we  see  the  Jews,  and  the 
Gentiles  residents  among  them,  uniting  to  speak  in  a 
language  that  stamjis  Divinity  upon  the  title  used  by 
them  both.  The  Jewish  ]iassengers,  ujion  the  road  over 
the  top  of  (Calvary,  stood  still  near  the  cross  of  our 
Saviour,  insultingly  to  nod  at  hiin,  to  rejiroach  him 
with  his  assumed  appellative  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  to 
challenge  him  to  an  exertion  of  that  Divinity  which 
both  he  and  they  anix<'d  to  it,  by  coming  down  from 
the  cross,  and  saving  himself  from  death.  'I'lie  elders, 
the  scribes,  and  the  chief  priests  ciiually  insulted  him 
■with  the  same  assumption,  and  e(iiially  challenged  him 
to  the  same  exertion,  calling  upon  lum  now  to  show  he 
was  truly  the  Kino  of  Israel,  or  the  Lord  and 
Sovereign  of  their  nation  in  all  ages,  by  jiulting  forth 
the  power  of  his  Divine  royalty,  and  coming  down 
from  the  cross."(8) 

Such  is  the  testimony  of  the  .lews  to  the  sense  in 
which  our  Saviour  applied  these  titles  to  himself.  The 
title  "Son  of  God'*  demands,  however,  a  larger  consi- 
deration ;  various  attempts  having  been  made  to 
restrain  its  significance,  in  direct  opposition  to  this 
testimony,  to  the  mere  humanity  of  our.  Saviour, 
and  to  rest  its  ajiplicatiou  upon  his  miraculous  con- 
ce|)tion. 

It  is  true  that  this  notion  is  held  by  some  who  hesi- 
tate not  to  acknowledge  that  Jesus  Christ  is  a  Divine 
person;  but,  by  denying  his  Deity  as  "TiiK  Son  of 
God,"  they  both  de|)art  from  the  faith  of  the  church  of 
Christ  m  the  earliest  times,  and  give  up  to  the  Soci- 
liians  the  whole  argument  for  the  Divinity  of  Christ 
which  is  founded  upon  that  eminent  appellation.  On 
this  account,  so  freijuent,  and  indeed  so  general  a  title 
of  our  Lord,  deserves  to  be  more  |)ar!icularly  consi- 
dered, that  the  fomidiitioii  wliich  it  lays  for  the  demon- 
stration of  the  Divinity  of  (.Christ  may  not  be  untliink- 
ingly  ri^liminislicd  ;  and  that  a  door  of  error,  which  has 
been  umoiiscionsly  opened  by  the  vague  reasonings  of 
men,  ill  oihir  respects  orthodox,  may  be  closed  by  the 
authority  of  Holy  Writ. 

That  the  title  "  Son  of  God"  was  applied  to  Christ 
is  a  fact.  His  disciples,  occasionally  before  and  fre- 
•jucntly  after  his  resurreclioii,  give  him  this  appelbi- 
tion ;  he  assumes  it  himself;  and  it  was  iiidign.-iiuly 
denied  to  him  by  the  .lews,  who,  by  that  very  deiiiaf, 
acknowledge  that  it  was  daimid  m  its  highest  sense 


venit  ad  iiossessionem  suam,  et  qui  possessionis  ipsius 
crant,  eum  non  receperunt:  quod  explicatur.  Matt,  xxi., 
ubi  filius  dicitur  missus  ad  ecclesiam  Judaicam  w; 
K^i/povunoi  £(f  Tijv  K^Tipovoftiav  avTu- — LuJov.  de  Dicu, 
in  loc. 
(6)  WuiTiKttii':j  Origin  of  Arianisni. 


[Paut  n. 

by  him,  and  by  his  disciples  for  him.  The  question 
therefore  is,  what  this  title  unportcd. 

Those  who  think  that  it  was  assumed  by  Christ,  and 
given  to  him  by  his  disciples,  because  of  his  mirai^ulous 
conception  are  obviously  in  error.  Our  Lord,  when  he 
adopts  the  ajipellation,  never  urges  his  miraculous 
birth  as  a  proof  of  his  Sonship;  on  the  contrary,  this 
is  a  subject  on  which  he  preserves  a  total  silence,  and 
the  Jews  were  lell  to  consider  him  as  "  the  son  of  Jo- 
sejih ;"  and  to  argue  from  his  being  born  at  "  Nazareth," 
as  they  supposed,  that  he  could  not  be  the  Messiah ;  so 
ignorant  were  they  of  the  circumstances  of  his  birth, 
and  therefore  of  the  manner  of  lus  conception. 

Again,  our  Lord  calls  God  his  Father,  and  grounds 
the  proof  of  it  upon  his  'miracles.  The  Jews,  too, 
clearly  conceived,  that,  in  making  this  profession  of 
Sonship  with  reference  to  Goil,  he  assumed  a  Divine 
character,  and  made  himself  "  ecjual  with  God."  They 
therefore  took  up  stones  to  stone  him.  In  that  impor- 
tant argument  between  our  Ijord  and  the  Jews,  in 
which  his  great  object  was  to  establish  the  point,  that, 
in  a  peculiar  sense  God  was  his  father,  there  is  no  re- 
ference at  all  to  the  miraculous  conception.  On  the 
contrary,  the  title  "  Son  of  (;od"  is  assumed  by  Christ 
on  a  ground  totally  different ;  and  it  is  disputed  by  the 
Jews,  not  by  thiur  questioning  or  denying  the  fact  that 
he  was  miraculously  conceived,  but  on  the  a.ssumed 
impossibility  that  he,  being  a  man,  should  be  ei/i/a/  to 
Hod ;  which  they  allirmed  that  title  to  import. 

Nor  did  the  disciples  themselves"  give  him  this 
title  with  reference  to  his  conception  by  the  Holy 
(Jhost.  Certain  it  is,  that  Nalhanael  did  not  know  the 
circumstances  of  his  birth;  for  he  was  announced  to 
liim  by  Philip  as  Jesus  ol  Nazareth,  •'  the  Hoti  of  Jo- 
seph ;"  and  he  asks,  "  Can  any  good  thing  come  out  of 
Nazareth!"  He  did  not  know,  theretbre,but  that  Jesus 
was  the  son  of  Joseph;  he  knew  nothing  of  his  being 
born  at  licthlehem,  and  yet  he  confesses  him  to  be 
"the  Son  of  God,  and  the  King  of  Israel." 

It  may  also  be  observed,  that,  in  the  celebrated  con- 
fession of  Peter,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
i.iviNO  God,"  there  is  no  reference  at  all  to  the  miracu- 
lous conception ;  a  fact,  at  that  time  probably  not  known 
even  to  the  apo.stles,  and  one  of  the  things  which  Mary 
kept  and  pondered  in  her  heart,  till  tlic  Spirit  was  given, 
and  the  full  revelation  of  Christ  was  made  to  the  apos- 
tles. But  even  if  the  miraculous  conceiition  were 
known  to  St.  Peter,  it  is  clear,  from  the  answer  of  our 
Lord  to  him,  that  it  formed  no  part  of  the  ground  on 
which  he  confesseil  "  the  Son  of  Man"  to  be  the  "  Son 
OF  God;"  for  our  Lord  replies,  "  Ulessed  art  thou, 
Simon  Barjona,  for  llesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  this 
unto  thee,  but  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven."  He 
had  been  specially  taught  this  doctrine  of  the  Sonship 
of  Christ  b\  (;ocl;  an  unnecessary  thing,  certainly,  if 
the  miraculous  conceiition  had  been  the  only  ground  of 
that  Sonship;  for  the  evidence  of  that  fact  nii-ibt  have 
been  collected  Irom  Christ  and  the  Virgin  mother,  and 
there  was  no  aiiparent  necessity  of  a  revelation  from 
the  Father  so  particular,  a  teaching  so  special,  as  that 
mentioned  in  our  Lord's  reply,  and  which  is  given  as 
an  instance  of  the  peculiar  "  blessethiess"  ot^  Simon 
liarjona. 

This  ground,  therefore,  not  being  tenable,  it  has  been 
urged  that  "  Sun  ok  Gou"  was  simply  an  apiiellation  of 
Messiah,  and  was  so  used  among  liic  Jews;  in  other 
words,  that  it  is  an  nfficiai  designation,  am!  not  a  jier- 
lonal  one.  Against  this,  however,  the  evangelic  his- 
tory affords  decisive  proof.  That  tlie  Messiah  w.as  to 
be  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament  is  plain  from  the 
texts  adduced  in  a  former  chapter,  and  tins,  therefore, 
is  to  be  considered  the  faith  of  the  ancient  Jewish 
church.  It  is  however  certain,  that  at  the  period  of 
our  Lord's  advent,  and  for  many  years  prcvicmsly,  the 
learned  among  the  .Jews  had  mingled  much  of  the  jihi- 
losophy  which  they  had  learned  from  the  heathen 
schools  with  their  theological  speculation  ;  and  that 
their  writings  pnseut  olien  a  singular  conqiound  of 
crude  metaphysical  notions,  allegories,  cabalistic  mys- 
teries, and  occasionally  great  and  sublime  truths.  The 
age  of  our  Lord  was  an  age  of  great  religious  corrup- 
tion and  error.  The  Sadducees  were  materialists  and 
skeptics;  and  the  Pharisees  had  long  cultivated  the 
opinion,  that  the  Messiah  was  to  be  a  temporal  mo- 
narch ;  a  notion  wliich  served  to  vitiate  their  conceti- 
tions  of  his  character  and  ollice,  and  to  darken  all  tlio 
prophecies.    Two  things,  however,  amid  all  tliis  con- 


Chap.  XII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


1G9 


f\iaion  of  opinions,  and  this  iircvalence  of  great  errors 
appearcxcuedinply  c!i;ir  from  tlip  pvangclists.  1.  Tliat 
tlio  Jews  recognised  the  existence  of  such  a  Being  as 
the  "  Son  of  (.'od ;"  and  that,  for  any  person  to  profess 
to  be  the  Hon  off;od,  in  this  pecnliar  sense,  was  to 
commit  Masptiorny.  2.  That  for  a  person  to  profess  to 
lie  the  Mfssiali  simply  was  not  considered  tilaspliemy, 
and  did  not  exaajierate  tlie  .lews  to  tal<e  np  stones  to 
stone  tlie  cdfender.  Our  Lord  certainly  professed  to  lie 
the  Messiah  ;  many  of  the  Jews  also,  at  dilferent  times, 
believed  on  him  as  such. ;  and  yet,  as  apjiears  from  St. 
.John's  {.'osjkU,  these  same  Jews,  who  '•  helieved"  on 
liim  as  Messiah,  were  not  only  "  olfcnded,"  but  took  up 
Ktones  to  stone  him  as  a  blasphemer,  when  he  declared 
himself  to  be  the  "Son  of  fJod,"  and  that  (Jod  was  his 
"  proper  Father."  It  follows  from  these  facts,  that  the 
.lews  of  our  Lord's  times,  generally,  having  lieen  per- 
verted from  the  faith  of  their  ancestors,  did  not  exjiect 
llie  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  "  the  Son  of  God,"  the 
Divine  Memra,  or  Logos,  to  be  the  Messiah.  Others 
indeed,  had  a  dim  and  uninlluential  apj>rehension  of 
this  truth;  there  were  who  indulged  various  other 
speculations  on  the  subject ;  bul  the  true  doctrine  was 
only  retained  among  llie  faillil'ul  few,  as  Simeon,  who 
explicitly  ascribes  Uivinily  to  tlie  Messiah,  wliom  he 
held  in  liis  arms;  Nathanael,  who  connects  "Son  or 
OoD  and  Kino  of  Israki."  together,  one  the  designa- 
tion of  the  Divine  nature,  the  other  of  the  office  of 
Messiah ;  and  the  apostles  of  our  Lord,  whose  minds 
were  gradually  opened  to  this  mystery  of  faith,  and 
brought  off  from  the  vulgar  notion  of  the  r(i)/7  character 
and  mere  human  nature  and  human  work  of  Mtwsiah, 
by  the  inspiration  and  ti;aclnng  of  Ood — "  flesh  and 
blood  did  not  reveal  it  to  them,  but  the  Fathnr." 

We  cannot,  therefore,  account  for  the  use  of  the  title 
"  Son  of  fioo,"  among  the  .lews  of  our  Lord's  time, 
whether  by  his  disciples  or  his  enemies,  by  consider- 
ing it  as  synonymous  with  "  Messiah."  The  .lews  re- 
garded the  former  as  necessarily  involving  a  claim  to 
Divinity,  but  not  the  latter ;  and  the  di.seiples  did  not 
conceive  that  they  fully  confessed  their  Master  by  call- 
ing him  the  Messiah,  without  adding  to  it  his  higher 
personal  designation.  "  Thou  art  the  Ciirist,"  says 
St.  Peter;  but  he  adds,  "  tiik  Son  ok  the  living 
God  :"  just  as  Nathanael,  under  the  influence  of  a  re- 
cent proof  of  his  omniscience,  and  consequently  of  his 
Divinity,  salutes  him  first  as  "  .Son  of  Oud,"  and  then 
as  Messiah,  "  Kino  of  Israki.." 

We  are  to  seek  for  the  origin  of  the  title  "Tiir  Son 
OF  God"  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  where 
a  Divine  Son  is  spoken  of  in  passages,  some  of  which 
have  reference  to  him  as  Messiah  also,  and  in  others 
which  have  no  such  reference.  In  both,  however,  we 
shall  find  that  it  was  a  pcrsoiial  designation;  a  name 
of' rtrvelalion,  not  oi  office ;  that  it  was  essential  in  him 
to  be  a  Son,  and  accidental  only  that  he  was  the  Mks- 
siah;  that  he  was  the  first  by  nature,  the  second  by 
appointment;  and  that,  in  constant  association  with 
the  name  of  "Son,"  as  given  to  him  alone,  and  in  a 
sense  which  shuts  out  all  creatures,  however  exalted, 
are  found  ideas  and  circumstances  of  full  and  absolute 
Divinity. 

Under  the  designation  "  .Son,"  Son  of  God,'he  is  intro- 
duced in  the  second  I'salm:  "The  Lord  hath  said  unto 
me,  Thou  art  my  Son  ;  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee." 
From  apostolic  authority  we  know  that  the  "  Son,"  here 
introduced  as  speaking,  is  Christ ;  this  application  to 
him  being  explicitly  made  at  least  twice  in  the  New 
Testament.  Now  if  we  should  allow  with  some,  that 
'■^  the  day"  here  spoken  of  Ls  the  day  of  Christ's  Resurrec- 
tion, anil  should  interiiret  his  beiii^'  "  begotten"  of  the 
Father  of  the  act  itself  of  raising  liim  from  the  dead,  it 
is  clear  that  the  miraculous  conception  of  Christ  is  not, 
in  this  passage,  laid  down  as  theirroundof  his  Sonshi)). 
The  reference  is  clearly  made  to  another  transaction, 
namely,  his  resurrection.  So  fiirthis  passage,  thus  in- 
terpreted, furnishes  an  instance  in  which  the  Messiah 
is  called  "  The  Son  of  Gok,"  on  some  ground  entiicly 
independent  of  the  mode  of  his  iruarnation.  Hut  he  is 
so  freiiucntly  called  llii'  Son,  wliirc  ilicre  isno  rclerenee. 
even  to  his  resurrection,  th.il  I  Ins  carniot  be  considered 
as  the  ground  of  that  relation  ;  and  indeed,  the  point  is 
sullicienlly  settled  by  St.  i'aul,  who,  in  his  Epistle  to 
the  Romans,  tells  us,  that  the  resurrection  of  Christ 
was  the  dcclarat ton  ol'lm  Son.ship,  not  the  ground  of  it 
— "  deilarku  to  be  the  Son  of  <;od  with  power,  by  the 
resurrection  from  the  dead."    We  perceive,  too,  from 


the  I'salm,  that  the  mind  of  the  inspired  writer  is  filled 
with  ideas  of  bis  Divinity,  of  his  claims,  and  of  his 
works  as  Cod.  Tliis  Son  the  nations  of  the  earth  are 
called  to  "  kiss,  lest  he  be  aiigrv  and  they  perish  (roin 
the  way;"  and  every  one  is  pronounced  blrsscd  who 
"putteth  his  trust  in  him  ;"  a  declaration  of  uneciuivo- 
cal  Divinity,  because  Ibund  in  a  book  which  pronounceM 
every  man  cursed  "  who  trusteth  in  man,  and  maketli 
Jle.ih  his  arm." 

"  It  is  obvious,  at  first  view,  that  the  higli  titles  and 
honours  ascribed  in  this  I'salm  lo  the  extraordinary 
person  who  is  the  chief  subject  of  it,  far  tianscind  any 
thing  that  is  ascribed  m  Scripture  toanv  mere  creature. 
Hut  if  the  I'salm  Ik- inquired  into  more  narrowly,  aiHl  com- 
pared with  parallel  prophecies;  if  it  be  duly  considered, 
that  not  only  is  the  e.xlriiordiiiary  person  bene  spoken 
of  called  the  Son  of  God,  but  that  lille  is  so  avcnbcd  to 
him,  as  to  imply  that  it  belongs  to  liim  m  a  manner  tiial 
is  absolutely  singular  and  peculiar  to  him.sclf,  seeing 
he  is  said  to  be  begotten  of  God  (verse  12),  and  is  called 
by  way  of  eminence,  the  Son  (verse  12);  that  the 
danger  of  provoking  him  to  anger  is  spoken  ol  in  so 
very  different  a  manner  from  what  the  Scripture  uses 
in  speaking  of  the  anger  o(  any  mere  creature ;  '  Kiss 
the  Son,  lest  he  be  angry,  and  ye  perish  from  tlie  way 
when  his  wrath  is  kindled  hut  a  little  ;'  that  when  the 
kings  and  judges  of  the  earth  are  commanded  to  serve 
Cod  with  fear,  ttiey  are,  at  the  same  time,  commanded 
to  kiss  the  Son,  which,  in  those  times  and  places,  was 
fnujuently  an  expression  of  adoration ;  and  particularly, 
that  whereas  other  Scriptures  contain  awful  and  just 
threateiiings  against  those  who  trust  in  any  mere  man, 
the  I'.salmist  expressly  calls  them  blessed  who  trust  in 
the  Son  here  spoken  of.  All  these  things,  taken  toge- 
ther and  compared  with  (he  other  prophecies,  make  up 
a  character  of  Divinity  ;  as,  on  the  other  hand,  when  it 
is  said  that  (Jod  would  set  this  his  Son  as  his  king  on 
his  holy  hill  of  Zion  (vcr.se  6).  These  and  various 
other  expres.sions  in  this  I'salm  contain  charai'Iers  of 
the  subordination  which  was  to  he  appropriated  lo  that 
Divine  Person  who  was  to  be  incarnate. "('.)) 

Neither  the  miraculous  conception  of  Clirist,  nor  yet 
his  resurrection  from  the  dead,  is  therefore  the  founda- 
tion of  his  being  called  the  Son  of  (lod  in  this  Psalm. 
Not  the  first,  fcir  there  is  no  allusion  to  it;  not  the 
seconii,  for  he  was  declared  from  heaven  to  be  the  "  be- 
loved Son"  of  the  Father,  at  his  very  entrance  upon 
his  ministry,  and  consequently  before  the  resurrection; 
and  also,  because  the  very  ajiostle  who  ajiplies  the 
prediction  to  the  resurrection  of  tlhrist,  explicitly  state-s 
that  even  that  was  a  declaration  of  an  antecedent 
Sonship.  It  is  also  to  be  noted,  that  in  the  first  chapter 
of  the  Epi.stle  to  the  Hebrews,  St.  Paul  institutes  an 
argument  upon  this  very  passage  in  the  second  Psalm, 
to  ])rove  the  superiority  of  Christ  to  the  angels.  "  For 
unto  which  of  the  angels  said  he  at  any  time,  Thou  art 
my  Son,  this  day  huv(!  I  begotten  thee?"  "The  force 
of  this  argument  lies  in  the  expression  'begotten,'  im- 
Jiorting  that  the  person  addressed  is  the  Son  of  Cod, 
not  by  creation,  but  by  generation.  Christ's  pre-emi- 
nence over  the  angels  is  here  stated  to  consist  in  this, 
that  whereas  they  were  created,  he  is  begotten ;  and 
the  ajiostle's  reasoning  is  fallacious,  unless  this  expres- 
sion intimates  a  proper  and  peculiar  liliation."(l)  "He 
hath  obtained,"  says  Hishoj)  Hall,  "a  more  exctellcnt 
name  than  the  angels,  namely,  to  lie  called  and  to  In: 
the  Son  of  (;oil,  not  by  grace  and  adoption,  but  by  na- 
ture and  communication  of  essence."  This  argument, 
from  ('hrist's  superiority  to  all  creatures,  even  the  most 
exalted,  shows  the  sentiment  of  St.  Paid  as  to  Divinity 
being  implied  in  the  title  Son,  given  to  the  Messiah  in 
the  second  I'salm.  In  this  several  of  the  ancient  Jew- 
ish commentators  agree  with  him ;  and  here  we  sec 
one  of  the  sources  from  which  the  .lews  derived  their 
notion  of  the  existence  of  a  Divine  Son  of  (iod. 

Though  the  above  argument  stands  indejiendent  of 
the  interpretations  which  have  been  given  to  the  clause 
"this  i>ay  have  I  begotten  tliee,"  the  following  pas- 
sage from  Witsius,  in  some  pans  of  its  argument,  has 
great  weight  :— 

"  Hut  we  cannot  so  easily  concede  to  our  adversaries. 


('^)  Mac  i.AirRiN's  Es.say  on  the  I'rophecics. 

(I)  Hoi.iikn's  Testimonies. — "  Non  dicit  \)evm  ailnp- 
lai'i,  hcd  gi-ruraiiite  ;  quod  conimunicationem  ejusdeiti 
essenti:e  et  iiaiunc  divina^  signilicat,  modotaiueii  pror- 
sus  ineflabile." — Michaclis. 


190 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  IL 


that,  by  the  generation  of  Christ,  mentioned  in  the 
second  I'salin,  his  resurrection  from  the  dead  is  in- 
tended, and  thai  by  tliU  day,  we  are  to  understand  the 
day  on  wtiicli  (jod,  having  raised  1dm  from  the  dead, 
appointed  him  the  king  of  his  church.  For,  1.  To  beget 
signifies  no  where  in  tlie  sacred  volume  to  rescue  from 
death  ;  and  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  coin  new  significa- 
tions of  words.  2  Though,  pos.sibly,  it  were  used  in 
thai  metaphorical  acceptation  (wliich,  however,  is  not 
yet  proved),  it  cannot  be  understood  in  this  passage  in 
any  other  than  its  proper  sense.  It  is  here  adduced  as 
<i  reason  for  whicli  Clirist  is  called  the  Son  of  God. 
Now,  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  not  figuratively,  but  pro- 
perly ;  for  the  Fatlier  is  called  his  yropcr  Father,  and 
he  himself  is  denominated  tin.'  jirnpcr  Son  of  the  Father, 
by  which  ilesignation  he  is  dislingnislied  from  those 
who  are  his  sons  in  a  metaphorical  sense.  3.  Tlicse 
words  are  spoken  to  Christ  with  a  certain  emphasis, 
Willi  which  tliey  would  not  liave  been  addressed  to  any 
of  ttie  angels,  much  less  to  any  of  mankind;  but  if  they 
meant  nothing  more  than  the  raising  of  him  from  the 
dead,  they  would  attribute  notliing  to  Christ  which  he 
dotli  not  i)ossess  in  common  with  many  others,  who, 
in  like  manner,  are  raised  up  by  the  power  of  God  to 
glory  and  an  everlasting  kingdom.  4.  Christ  raised 
himself  from  the  dead,  too,  by  his  own  power ;  from 
which  it  would  follow,  acconling  to  this  interpretation, 
that  he  begat  himself,  and  that  he  is  his  own  Son.  5. 
It  is  not  true,  in  fine,  that  Christ  was  not  begotten  of 
the  Father,  nor  called  his  Son  till  that  very  day  on  which 
he  was  raised  from  the  dead;  for,  as  is  abundantly 
manifest  from  the  Gospel  history,  he  often,  when  yet 
alive,  professed  himself  the  Son  of  God,  and  was  ol\en 
acknowledged  as  such.  6.  To-i/a;/ relers  to  time,  when 
human  concerns  are  in  question  ;  but  this  e.xpression, 
wlien  applied  to  divine  things,  must  be  understood  in  a 
sense  suitable  to  the  majesty  of  the  Godhead.  And,  if 
any  word  may  be  transferred  from  time  to  denote  eter- 
nity, which  is  the  comjilete  and  perfect  possession,  at 
once,  of  an  interminable  life,  what  can  he  better  adapted 
to  express  its  unsuccessive  duration  than  the  term 
to-day  ?  Nor  can  our  adversaries  derive  any  support 
to  their  cause  from  the  words  of  Paul  (Actsxiii.  32,  33), 
'And  we  declare  unto  you  glad  tidings,  how  that  the 
promise  wluch  was  made  uiilo  the  fathers,  God  hath  lul- 
lilled  the  same  unto  us,  their  children,  in  that  he  hath 
raised  up  Jesus,  as  it  is  also  written  in  the  second 
Psalm,  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee.' 
For,  1.  Paul  doth  not  hero  prove  the  resurrei^tion  of 
Jesus  from  the  dead,  from  this  expression  in  the  second 
P.salm  (which,  though  it  describes  him  who  is  rai.sed 
again,  doth  not  prove  his  resurrection),  but  from  Isaiah 
iv.  3,  and  P.salm  xvi.  10 ;  while  he  adds  (verses  34  and 
35 ), '  And  as  concerning  that  he  raised  him  up  from  the 
dead,'  &c.  2.  The  words  '  raised  up  Jesus,'  do  not  even 
relate  to  the  re.surrection  of  Jesus  from  the  dead,  but  to 
the  exhibition  of  him  as  a  Saviour.  This  raising  of 
him  up  is  expressly  distinguished  from  tlie  raising  of 
him  again  from  the  dead,  which  is  subseiiuuntly  spoken 
of,  verse  31.  Tile  meaning  is,  that  God  I'ulliili'd  the 
promise  made  to  the  fathers,  when  he  exhibiied  ( 'lirisi 
to  mankind  in  the  (lesh.  But  what  was  that  promise  .' 
Tliis  appears  from  the  second  I'salni,  where  God  pro- 
mises to  the  church,  that  in  due  time  he  would  anoint 
as  king  over  her  his  own  Son,  begotten  of  himself  i<i- 
PAV  ;  that  i.s,  from  eternity  to  eternity,  for  with  God 
there  is  a  perpetual  to-day.  Grntius,  whose  name  is 
not  offensive  to  our  opposers,  has  remarked,  that  Luke 
makes  use  of  the  same  work  to  signify  exliibilim:,  in 
Acts  ii.  30;  iii.  20.  To  these  we  add  another  instance 
from  chap,  vii.37  :  'A  prophet  shall  the  Lord  your  (Jod 
raise  up  unto  you.'  3.  W(;re  we  to  admit,  tliat  the 
words  of  the  psalm  are  applied  to  the  resurrection  of 
(Jhrist,  which  seemed  proper  to  Calinn,  Cameron,  and 
several  other  Protestant  divines,  the  sense  will  only  be 
this,  that,  by  his  being  thus  raised  up  again,  it  was  de- 
clared and  demonstrated,  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  the 
Fatlier,  begotten  of  him  from  everlasting.  The  Jewish 
Council  condenmcd  hiin  for  blasphemy,  because  he  had 
called  himself  the  Son  of  <;oil.  Hut,  by  raising  him 
again  from  llir  i^rave,  aller  lie  had  been  put  to  death  as 
a  blasphemer,  (Jcid  iii'.ijnitte<l  him  from  that  charge, and 
publicly  rei '>:;nisi  il  hnn  as  his  only-begotten  Son. 
Thus  he  was  ,!■ ,  lar:  d.  i.rhihitrd,  and  disliiit^iiislKd  as 
the  Son  of  (UhI  ini/i  jKxrir,  expressly  and  particularly, 
to  the  entire  exclusion  of  all  others.  The  original  word 
here  employed  by  the  apostles  is  remarkably  expres- 


sive ;  and,  ,is  Liidovicus  de  Dim  has  learnedly  ob- 
served, it  signifies  that  Christ  was  i)laced  between 
such  bounds,  and  so  separated  and  discriminated  from 
others,  that  he  neither  should  nor  can  be  judged  to  be 
any  one  else  than  the  Son  of  God.  The  expression 
'  with  jiower'  may  be  joined  with  '  declared  ;'  and  thea 
the  meaning  will  be,  that  he  was  shown  to  be  the  Son 
of  God  by  a  powerful  argument.  Or  it  may  be  con- 
nected with  the  '  Son  of  (Jod ;'  and  then  it  will  intimate 
that  he  is  the  Son  ol  God  in  the  most  ample  and  exalted 
sense  of  which  the  term  is  susceptible ;  so  that  this 
name,  when  ascribed  to  liiin,  is  '  a  more  excellent  name" 
than  any  that  is  given  to  the  noblest  of  creatures."(2) 

Solomon,  in  Proverbs  viii.  22,  introduces  not  the 
personified,  but  the ;;<i,vo/i.7.' wisdom  of  God,  under  the 
same  relation  of  a  .So«,  and  in  that  relation  ascribes  to 
him  Divine  attributes,  llus  was  another  source  of 
the  notion  which  obtained  among  the  ancient  Jews, 
that  there  was  a  Divine  Son  ol  (;od. 
"  Jehovah  possessed  me  in  the  begiiuiingof  his  way, 
liefore  his  works  of  old. 
i  wa.s  anointed  from  everlasting, 
From  the  beginning,  before  the  world  was, 
When  there  were  no  depths  I  was  born,"  &c.(3) 
Here,  "  from  considering  the  excellence  of  wisdom,  the 
transition  is  easy  to  the  uiidefiled  source  of  it.  Abstract 
wisdom  now  disajipears,  and  the  inspired  writer  pro- 
ceeds to  the  dehneaiion  of  a  Divine  Being,  who  is  por- 
trayed ill  colours  of  such  splendour  and  majesty,  as 
can  be  attributed  to  no  other  than  the  eternal  Son  of 
God."'(4)  "  Jehovah  possessed  ine  in  the  beginning  of 
his  way."  "  The  Father  possessed  the  Son,  had,  or, 
as  it  were,  acquired,  him  by  an  eternal  generation.  To 
say  of  the  attribute  wisdom,  that  God  possessed  it  in 
the  beginning  of  his  work  of  creation  is  trilling ;  cer- 
tainly It  is  too  futile  an  observation  to  fall  i"roin  any 
sensible  xvriler;  how,  then,  can  it  be  attributed  to  the 
wise  Monarch  of  Israel? "(5)  "  I  was  anointed  from 
everlasting."  "  Can  it,  with  propriety,  be  said  of  an 
attribute,  that  it  was  anointed,  invested  with  power  and 
authority  from  everlasting?  In  what  way,  literal  or 
figurative,  can  the  expression  be  predicated  of  a  quality  ? 
liut  it  is  strictly  applicable  to  the  Divine  Logos,  who 
was  anointed  by  the  efl'uslon  of  tlie  Spirit ;  who  was 
invested  with  power  and  dignity  from  everlasting  ;  and 
who,  from  all  eternity,  derived  his  existence  and  es- 
sence from  the  Father;  lor  in  him  ' dwelleth  all  the 
fulness  of  the  (iodhead  bodily.'  "(0) 

It  is  a  confirmation  of  the  application  of  Solomon's 
description  of  wisdom  to  the  .Second  Person  of  the  Tri- 
nity, that  the  ancient  Jewish  writers  (Philo  among  the 
number),  as  Allix  lias  shown,(T)  speak  of  the  genera- 
tion of  VVisdom,  and  by  that  term  mean  "  the  IVwi/,"  a 
personal  appellation  so  familiar  to  them.  Nor  is  there 
any  thing  out  of  the  common  coui-se  of  the  thinking  of 
the  ancient  Hebrews  in  these  passages  of  Solomon, 
when  applied  to  the  personal  wisAmn ;  since  he,  as  we 
have  seen,  must,  like  them,  have  been  well  enough 
acquainted  with  a  distinction  of  persons  in  the  Trinity, 
and  knew  Jehovah,  their  lawgiver  and  king,  under  the 
title  of  "  the  Word  of  the  Lord,"  as  the  Maker  of  all 
things,  and  the  Reve;iler  of  his  will,  in  a  word,  as 
Divine,  and  yet  distinct  from  the  Father.  The  relation 
in  the  {Joilhead  of  Father  and  Son  was  not,  therefore,  to 
the  Jews  an  iinnvcalcd  mystery,  and  sullicienlly  ac- 
counts lor  the  iili-as  ol  Divniiiy  wliuli  they,  in  the  days 
of  Christ,  connected  Willi  the  appclialion  Sonof  (;oii. 

This  relation  is  most  unequivocally  expressed  in  the 
pro|)liecy  of  Micah,  chap.  v.  2,  "liut  thou,  lieibleli.  in 
Fphratah,  though  thou  be  little  among  the  iliousands  of 
Judali,  yvi  out  of  thee  shall  he  come  Ibrth  unto  ini-  that 
is  to  be  ruler  in  Israel ;  whose  goings  forth  have  been 
from  of  old,  from  everlasting  ;''  or  as  it  is  in  the  margin, 
"  from  the  daysof  eternity."(K)    Here  the  person  spoken 


(2)  Wnsius's  Dissertations  on  the  Creed. 

(3)  Holi>ii:n's  Translation  of  Proverbs.  In  (he 
notes  to  chapter  vlii.  the  applicniioii  of  this  description 
of  Wisdom  to  Christ  is  ably  and  learnedly  defended. 

(4)  Holdkn's  Translation  of  Proverbs. 

(5)  Ibid.  (tl)  Il'id. 

(7)  Judgment  of  the  Jewish  Cliurch. 

(8)  So  the  LXX.  and  the  \'ulgate,  and  critics  goDe- 
rallv.  "  Antiquissima  erit  orignic,  ab  leternis  tempori- 
bu.s'."— Dathk.  •'  Irno  a  diebus  aiteriiitatis,  1. 1.  jirius- 
quam  natus  fucrit.jauiuba'tcriio  e.Mitit,"— Kosenhil- 

LlCil. 


Chap.  XII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


191 


of  is  said  to  have  had  a  twolbhl  birth,  or  "  going  f'orth."('J) 
By  a  natural  birth  lio  caiiiu  Ibrth  from  liethlHioiri  of 
Judah  ;  I>y  anotlicr  and  a  liii;her,  lie  was  from  the  days 
of  eternity.  One  is  opposed  to  the  other ;  but  the  last 
is  carried  into  eternity  itself  by  words  which  most 
clearly  intimate  an  existence  prior  to  the  birth  in  Beth- 
lehem, and  that  an  eternal  one  :  while  the  teriri  used, 
and  translated  his  "  t;oiiii,'S  forth,"  conveys  precisely 
the  same  idea  as  the  eternal  generation  of  the  .Son  of 
God.  "  The  passage  carefully  distinguishes  his  human 
nature  from  his  eternal  generation.  The  Prophet  de- 
scribes him  who  was  to  'come  out  of  Bethlehem'  by 
another  more  eminent  coming  or  going  forth,  even  from 
all  eternity.  This  is  so  signal  a  description  of  the 
Divine  generation,  beforeall  time,orof  that  going  forth 
from  everlasting  of  Christ,  the  eternal  Son  of  God  ; 
'  God,  of  the  substance  of  the  Father,  begotten  before 
the  worlds ;'  who  was  afterward  in  time  made  man, 
and  born  into  the  world  in  Bethlehem,  that  the  pro- 
phecy evidently  belongs  to  him,  and  could  never  be 
verified  of  any  other. "(1) 

This  te.xt,  indeed,  so  decidedly  indicates  that  peculiar 
notion  of  the  Dninity  of  our  Lord,  which  is  marked  by 
the  term  and  the  relation  of  Sun,  that  it  is  not  surprising 
that  Socinians  should  resort  to  the  utmost  violence  of 
criticism  to  escape  its  powerful  evidence.  Dr.  Priestley, 
therefore,  says,  "that  it  may  be  understood  concerning 
the  promises  of  tJod,  in  which  the  coming  of  Christ 
was  signified  to  mankind  from  the  beginning  of  the 
world."  But  nothing  can  be  more  forced  or  unsup- 
Jiorted.  The  word  here  employed  never  signifies  the 
work  of  God  in  predicting  future  events:  but  is  often 
used  to  express  natural  birth  and  origin.  So  it  is  un- 
questionably used  ill  the  preceding  clause,  and  cannot 
be  supposed  lo  be  taken  in  a  ditferent  sense,  iriuch  less 
in  a  unique  sense,  in  that  which  follows,  and  especially 
when  a  clear  antithesis  is  markod  and  intended.  He 
was  to  be  born  in  time  ;  but  was  not,  on  that  account, 
merely  a  man :  he  was  "  from  the  days  of  eternity." 
By  his  natural  birth,  or  "  going  forth,"  he  was  from 
Bethlehem;  but  his  "goings  forth,"  his  production, his 
heavenly  birth  or  generation,  was  from  everlasting ;  for 
so  the  Hebrew  word  means,  though,  like  our  own  word 
"  ever,"  it  is  sometimes  accommodated  to  temporal  du- 
ration. Its  proper  sense  is  that  of  eternity,  and  it  is 
used  in  passages  which  speak  of  the  infinite  duration 
of  God  himself. 

Others  refer  "his  goings  forth  from  everlasting"  to 
the  purpose  of  God  that  he  should  come  into  the  world  ; 
but  this  is  too  absurd  to  need  refutation  :  no  such 
strange  form  of  speech  as  this  would  be,  if  taken  in 
this  sense,  occurs  in  the  Scriptures  ;  and  it  would  be 
mere  trifling  so  solemnly  to  affirm  that  of  Messiah, 
which  is  just  as  true  of  any  other  person  born  into  the 
world.  This  passage  must,  then,  stand  as  an  irre- 
futable proof  of  the  faith  of  the  ancient  Jewish  church, 
both  in  the  Divinity  and  tlie  Divine  Sonship  of  Messiah ; 
and,  as  Dr.  Hales  well  observes,(2)  "  This  prophecy  of 
Micah  is,  perhaps,  the  most  important  single  projihecy 
in  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  most  comprehensive  re- 
specting the  personal  character  of  the  Messiah,  and  his 
successive  manifestation  to  the  world.  It  crowns  the 
whole  chain  of  prophecies  descriptive  of  the  several 
limitations  of  the  Blessed  Seed  of  the  woman  to  the 
line  of  Shem,  to  the  family  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
J.icob,  to  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and  to  the  royal  house  of 
David,  here  terminating  in  his  birth  at  Bethlehem,  'the 
city  of  David.'  It  carefully  distinguishes  his  human 
nativity  from  his  eternal  generation  ;  foretels  the  rejec- 
tion of  the  Israelites  and  Jews  for  a  season,  their  final 
restoration,  and  the  universal  peace  destined  to  prevail 
throughout  the  earth  in  '  the  regeneration.'    It  forms. 


(9)  The  word  XV%  'o  come  forth,  is  used  in  refer- 
ence to  birth  frequently,  as  Gen.  xvii.  6;  2  Kings  xx. 
18;  and  so  the  Pharisees  understood  it,  when  referring 
to  this  passage,  in  answer  to  Herod's  inquiry,  where 
Christ  should  be  "  6or«."  The  plural  form,  "  his  goings 
forth"  from  eternity,  denotes  eminence.  To  signify  the 
perfection  and  excellence  of  that  generation,  the  word 
for  birth  is  expressed  plurally  ;  for  it  is  a  common  He- 
braism to  denote  the  emine-nce  or  continvatimi  of  a 
thing  or  action  by  the  plural  number.  God  shall  judge 
the  world  "  m  righteousness  and  equity;"  or  most 
righteously  and  equitably.  Ps.  xcviii.  0.  "  The  angers 
of  the  Lord."  Lam.iv.  10,  &c. 

(1)  Dr.  PococK.  (-2)  Hales"  Atialysis. 


therefore,  tlio  basis  of  the  New  Testament,  which  begins 
\vith  hishumiiii  hirth  at  licililelii'in,  the  miraculous  cir- 
cumstances of  which  are  rei'onlcil  m  the  inlroductiona 
of  Matthew's  and  Luke's  Gosjjels  ;  his  eternal  genera- 
tion, as  the  Oracle,  or  Wi.sdum,  in  ilic  .sublime  intro- 
duction of  .John's  Gospel ;  his  prophetic  iliaiai  ler  and 
second  coming  illustrated  in  the  lour  Gospels  and  tho 
Epistles ;  ending  with  a  prediction  of  the  speedy  ap- 
proach of  the  latter,  in  the  Apocalypse,  Ilev.  xxii.  20." 

The  same  relation  of  Son,  in  the  full  view  of  supreme 
Divinity,  and  where  no  reference  apjiears  to  be  had  to 
the  oflice  and  future  work  of  Messiah,  is  found  in  Pro- 
verbs XXX.  4.  "  Who  hath  ascended  up  into  heaven,  or 
descended  ?  Who  hath  gathered  the  wind  in  his  fists  ? 
Who  hath  bound  tho  waters  in  a  garment !  Wlio  hath 
established  all  the  ends  of  the  earth  .'  What  is  his  name, 
and  what  is  his  Son's  name,  if  thou  canst  telU"  Here 
the  Deity  is  contemplated,  not  in  his  redeeming  acts,  in 
any  respect  or  degree ;  not  as  providing  for  the  recovery  of 
a  lost  race,  or  that  of  the  Jewish  people,  by  the  gift  of  his 
Son  :  he  is  placed  before  the  reverend  gaze  of  the  prophet 
in  his  acts  of  creative  and  conserving  power  only, 
managing  at  will  and  ruling  the  operations  of  nature; 
and  yet,  even  in  these  peculiar  offices  of  Divinity  alone, 
he  is  spoken  of  as  having  a  Son,  whose  "name,^'  that 
is,  according  to  the  Hebrew  idiom,  whose  nature  is 
as  deep,  mysterious,  and  unutterable  as  his  own. 
"  What  is  His  name,  and  what  is  his  Son's  name,  canst 
thou  tein"(3) 

The  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  themselves  in 
this  manner  furnished  the  Jews  with  the  idea  of  a  per- 
sonal Son  in  the  Divine  Nature ;  and  their  familiarity 
with  it  is  abundantly  evident,  from  the  frequent  appli- 
cation of  the  terms  "Son,"  "  Son  of  God,"  "first  and 
only-begogen  Son,"  "  Offspring  of  God,"  to  tlie  Logos, 
by  i'liiLo  ;  and  that  in  passages  where  he  must,  in  all 
fair  interpretation,  be  understood  as  sjieaking  of  a  per- 
sonal, and  not  of  a  personified  L(igii.«.  The  same  terms 
are  also  found  in  other  Jewish  writers  before  the  Chris- 
tian era. 

The  phrase  "  Son  of  God"  was,  therefore,  known  to 
the  ancient  Jews,  and  to  Ihem  conveyed  a  very  definite 
idea ;  and  it  is  no  answer  to  this  to  say,  that  it  was  a 
common  appellative  of  Messiah  among  their  ancient 
writers.  The  question  is,  how  came  "  Son  of  God"' 
to  be  an  appellative  of  Messiah?  "Mkssiah"  is  an 
official  title  ;  "  Sun,"  ^personal  one.  It  is  granted  th.at 
the  Messiah  is  the  Son  of  God;  but  it  is  denied  that, 
therefore,  the  term  Son  of  God  ceases  to  be  a  personal 
description,  andi^iat  it  imports  the  same  with  Messiah. 
David  was  the  "  Son  of  Jesse"  and  the  "  King  of  Israel ;" 
he,  therefore,  who  was  king  of  Israel  was  the  son  of 
Jesse  ;  but  the  latter  is  the  personal,  the  former  only  the 
official  description  ;  and  it  cannot  be  argued  that  "  Son 
of  .lesse"  conveys  no  idea  distinct  from  "  King  of 
Israel."  On  the  contrary,  it  marks  his  origin  and  his 
family ;  for,  before  he  was  king  of  Israel,  he  was  the 
Son  of  Jesse.  In  like  manner,  "Son  of  God"  marks 
the  natural  relation  of  Messiah  to  Cod  ;  and  the  term 
Messiah,  his  official  relation  to  men.  The  personal  title 
cannot  otherwise  be  explained ;  and  as  we  have  seen, 
that  it  was  used  by  the  Jews  as  one  of  the  titles  of 
Messiah,  yet  still  used  personally  and  not  iffirinlly,  and, 
also,  without  any  reference  to  the  miraculous  concep- 
tion at  all,  as  before  proved,  it  follows,  that  it  expresses 
^.natural  relation  to  God,  subsisting,  not  in  the  human, 
but  in  the  higher  nature  of  Messiah ;  and  this  higher 
nattire  being  proved  to  be  Divine,  it  follows,  that  the 


(3)  Dr.  A.  Clarke,  in  his  note  on  this  text,  evidently 
feels  the  difficulty  of  disposing  of  it  on  the  theory  that 
the  term  Son  is  not  a  Divine  title,  and  enters  a  sort  of 
caveat  against  resorting  lo  doubtflil  texts,  as  proofs  of 
our  Lord's  Divinity.  But,  for  all  purposes  for  which 
this  text  has  ever  been  adduced,  it  is  not  a  doubtful  c-ne ; 
for  it  expresses,  as  clearly  as  possible,  that  God  has  a 
Son,  and  makes  no  retei-ence  to  the  incarnation  at  all ; 
so  that  the  words  are  not  s])oken  in  anticipation  of  that 
event.  Those  who  deny  the  Divine  Sonship  can  never, 
therefore,  explain  that  text.  What  follows  ir.  the  note 
referred  to  is  more  objectionable  :  it  hints  at  the  obscu- 
rity of  the  writer  as  weakening  his  autliority.  Who  he 
was,  or  what  he  was,  we  indeed  know  not;  but  his 
words  stand  in  the  book  of  Proverbs :  a  book,  tlie  in- 
spiration of  which  both  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  have 
verified,  and  that  is  enough  :  we  need  no  other  attesta- 
tion. 


192 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  U. 


term  Son  of  God,  as  applied  to  Josus,  is,  therefore,  a 
title  of  absolute  Divinily,  iinjiortiiif;  liisiiarticipatioii  in 
the  very  nature  and  essence  of  God.  Tlie  same  ideas 
of  DiviNK  Sonsliip  are  suggested  tiy  almost  every  pas- 
sage in  which  the  phrase  occurs  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

"  WhenJesu.s  was  baptized,  he  went  up  straightway 
out  of  the  water,  and  lo,  the  heaven*  were  n)ieiied  vmto 
him,  and  he  saw  the  Spirit  of  God  desieiidiiii:  like  a 
dove,  and  lighting  upon  him;  and  lo,  a  voice  from 
heaven.  This  is  my  beloveu  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased."  The  circumstances  of  this  testimony  are  of 
the  most  solemn  and  impressive  kind,  and  tliere  can  be 
no  rational  doulitliut  they  were  designed  anlhoritativtly 
to  invest  our  Lord  with  the  title  "  !*on  of  God"  in  the 
full  sense  which  it  bears  in  tliose  prophecies  in  wliicli 
the  Messias  had  been  introduced  under  tliat  aiiiielhition, 
rendered  still  more  strong  and  emphatic  by  adding-  the 
epithet  "  beloved,"  and  the  declaration,  that  in  him  the 
"  Father  was  well  jileased."  That  the  name  "  Son  of 
God"  is  not  here  given  to  Christ  with  reference  to  his 
resurrection  need  not  be  stated  ;  that  it  was  not  given 
to  hiin,  along  with  a  declaration  of  the  Father's  pleasure 
in  him,  because  of  the  manner  in  which  he  had  fullilled 
the  oltice  of  Messiah,  is  also  obvious,  for  he  was  bnl 
just  then  enleniig  upon  his  office  and  commencing  his 
ininistry  ;  and  it,  therefore,  it  can  be  proved,  that  it  was 
not  given  to  hiin  wilh  reference  to  his  miracidous  con- 
ception, it  must  follow  that  it  was  given  on  grounds 
inilependent  of  his  offir.e,  and  independent  of  the  cir- 
cumstances of  his  birth;  and  that,  therefore,  he  was m 
a  Ingher  nature  than  his  human,  and  for  a  higher  reason 
than  an  offlciM  one,  the  "Son  of  God." 

Now,  this  is,  I  think,  very  easily  and  conclusively 
proved  As  soon  as  the  Baptist  .John  had^ieard  tliis 
testimony,  and  seen  this  descent  of  the  Holy  .~<pinl 
upon  him,  he  tells  us  that  he  "  bore  record  that  this  is 
the  Son  of  God  :"— the  Messiah,  we  grant,  but  not  tin- 
Son  of  God  because  he  was  the  Messiah,  but  Son 
of  God  and  Messiah  also.  Tliis  is  clear,  from  the  opi- 
nion of  the  .lews  of  that  day,  as  before  shown.  It  was 
to  the  .lews  that  he  "  bore  record"  that  .Tesus  was  the 
Si).-'  ii/'God.  But  he  used  this  title  in  the  sense  com- 
monly received  by  his  hearers.  Had  he  simply  testified 
that  he  was  the  Messiah,  this  would  not  to  them  in  ge- 
neral have  expressed  the  idea  which  all  attached  to 
tlie  name  "  Sou  of  God,"  and  which  they  took  to  involve 
a  Divine  character  and  claim.  But  in  this  ordinary 
sense  of  the  title  among  the  Jews,  John  the  Bajitist 
gave  his  testimony  to  him,  and  by  that  shows  in  what 
sense  he  himself  understood  the  testimony  of  God  to  the 
Sonship  of  Jesus.  So,  in  his  closing  testimony  to 
Christ,  recorded  in  John  iii.,  he  makes  an  evident  allu- 
sion to  what  took  place  at  the  baptism  of  our  Lord,  and 
says,  "  The  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  hath  given  all 
things  into  his  hand."  Here  the  love  of  the  Father,  as 
declared  at  his  baptism,  is  represented  as  love  to  him 
as  the  Son,  and  all  things  being  given  into  his  hainls, 
as  the  con.sciiuenceof  his  being  his  beloved  Son.  ''All 
things,"  unquestionably  imply  all  olhoes,  all  power 
and  .authority ;  all  that  is  included  in  the  oinccs  of 
King,  Messias,  Meilialor ;  and  it  is  affirmed,  not  that 
he  is  Son,  and  beloved  as  a  Son,  hncauxe  of  his  being 
invested  with  these  q/fices,  but  that  he  is  invested  with 
them,  because  he  was  the  woU-beloved  .Son  ;  a  circum- 
stance which  fully  demonstrates  that"  Son  of  God"  is 
not  an  official  title,  and  that  it  is  not  of  the  same  im- 
port as  .Messiah.  To  the  tran.saction  at  his  baptism  our 
Lord  himself  adverts  in  John  v.  37.  "  And  the  Fa- 
ther HiMSKLF,  which  hath  sent  me,  hath  borne  wit- 
ness of  me."  For,  as  he  had  just  mentioned  the  wit- 
ness arising  from  his  miraculous  works,  and  in  addition 
to  these,  introduces  the  witness  of  the  Father  himself 
as  distinct  from  the  works,  a  personal  testimony  from 
the  Father  alone  can  be  intended,  and  that  personal 
testimony  was  given  at  Ins  ba|iiism.  Now,  the  wit- 
ness of  the  Father,  on  this  occasion,  is,  that  he  was 
his  beloved  Son;  and  it  is  riiiiiirkabhMliat  our  Lord 

introduces  the   Father's    lestln y    to    his   Sotiship 

on  an  occasion  in  which  the  mailer  in  dispute  with 
the  Jews  was  respecting  his  claim  to  he  the  Son  of 
God.  The  Jews  denied  that  God  was  his  Father  in  the 
sense  in  which  he  had  declared  him  to  be  so,  ami  "  they 
sought  I  he  mure  to  kill  hiiti,  because  he  not  only  had 
broken  Ihc  Sabbath,  but  said  also,  that  God  was  his 
Father,  makins;  himself  eqiini  with  (1ml. "     In  tins  ca.se, 

what  waa  the  conduct  of  our  Lord  .'    lie  rcaflirnia  liia 


Sonship  even  in  this  verj-  objectionable  sense;  asserts 
that  "  the  Son  iloeth  all  things  soever  that  the  Father 
doclh"  (verse  I'.i) ;  tluat  "  as  the  l-'atlier  raiselh  the  dead, 
so  the  Son  ijuickeiiith  whomsoever  he  wiir'(verse21); 
that  "  all  jiidLMMciil  bus  been  committed  to  the  Son,  that 
all  men  should  honour  ihc  Son  even  as  they  honour  the 
Father"  (verse  -JS) ;  thai "  xs  the  Father  hath  life  in 
himself,  so  lialh  he  given  to  the  Son  to  have  lile  in  liim- 
self "  (verse  '2t)) ;  and  then  confirms  all  these  high 
claims  of  eiiuality  wilh  the  Father,  by  aildueing  the 
Father's  own  witness  at  his  bajptism.  "  And  the  Fa- 
ther himself  hath  borne  witness  of  me.  Ve  have  nei- 
ther heard  his  voice  at  any  time,  nor  seen  his  shape; 
and  ye  have  not  his  word  abidmi;  in  you.  for  whom  he 
hath  sent,  him  ye  believe  not."(l)  W'lih  respect  lo 
this  testiiuDiiy,  two  critic^il  remarks  have  been  made, 
winch,  ihougti  not  essi  nti.il  to  the  argument,  tarthcr 
I  onoliiirale  llie  views  just  taken.  The  one  is,  that  in 
all  the  three  evangelists  who  record  the  testimony  of 
the  Father  lo  Christ  at  his  baptism,  tlie  article  is  pre- 
lixcd  both  to  the  sniistantive  and  the  adjective.  Matt. 
iii.  17,  OvToi  cariv  h  vioi  fia  b  iiyii->]ro(,  the  most  dis- 
criminating mode  of  expression  that  could  be  employed, 
as  if  to  sejiarate  .h'Siis  from  every  other  who,  at  any 
time,  had  received  the  appellation  of  the  Son  of  God: 
Thix  is  that  Sun  nf  mine  -.ehi>  is  tlie  belirved.  In  the  .se- 
cond clause, "  in  whom  Iain  well  pleased,"  the  verb  in  all 
the  three  evangelists  is  in  the  lirst  aorist,  iv  w  tveoKijixa. 
Now,  ulihoiigh  weotlen  render  the  (Ireek  aorist  by  the 
lliighsh  present,  ye;  this  can  be  done  with  ))ropr'ely 
only  when  the  jiroposition  is  equally  true,  whether  it 
tie  stated  in  the  present,  in  the  past,  or  in  the  future 
time.  And  thus  the  analogy  of  the  Greek  language  re- 
(juires  ns  not  only  lo  consider  the  name  Son  of  God,  as 
applied  111  a  peculiar  sense  lo  Jesus,  but  also  to  refer 
llii^  e\|iicssK)ii  used  al  bis  bajilism  to  that  intercourse 
which  hail  subsisted  between  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
betbre  tills  name  was  announced  to  men. (5) 

'I'lie  e|jitliet  "  onlv-uehottkn,"  which  .several  times 
occurs  111  the  New  Testament,  affords  farther  proof  of 
till'  Siiiisluii  of  Christ  in  his  Divme  nature.  One  of 
thisi-  insiaiii  rs  only  need  be  selected.  "  The  Word 
was  made  llesh  and  dwelt  among  us,  and  we  beheld 
his  glory,  the  glorv  as  of  theONLY-HKooTi  dn  of  the  Fa- 
ther, Inil  ot'  grace  and  truth."  If  the  e|iithet  l)nly-be- 
gottcn  refern^d  lo  Christ's  miraculous  conception,  then 
the  glory  "  as  of  the  Only-begotten"  must  be  a  glory  of 
the  limiian  nature  of  Christ  only,  for  that  alone  was 
capable  of  being  thus  conceived.  This  is,  however, 
clearly  contrary  lothe  .scope  of  the  passage,  which  does 
not  s|ieak  ol  the  glory  of  the  nature,  "  the  lle.sh,"  which 
"  THE  WoRii'"  a.ssumed,  but  of  the  glory  of  the  Word 
HIMSELF,  who  IS  here  said  to  be  thi;  Only-begotten  of 
the  Fathi^r.  It  is,  Ibi'refore,  the.  glory  of  his  Divine  na- 
ture which  is  here  iiitended.(6)    Such,   too,  was  the 

(4)  Though  the  argument  does  not  at  all  depend  ujxjn 
it,  yet  it  may  be  proper  to  refer  to  Campbell's  transla- 
tion of  these  verses,  as  placing  some  of  the  clauses  in 
this  passage  in  a  clearer  light.  "  Now,  the  Father 
who  sent  mc,  hath  himself  attested  me.  Did  ye  never 
hear  his  voice  or  see  his  form  .'  Or,  have  ye  forgotten 
his  declaration,  that '  ye  believe  not  him  whom  he  hath 
commissioned."'  On  Ibis  translation.  Dr.  Campbell 
remarks,  '•  The  reader  will  observe,  that  the  two  clauses 
which  are  rendered  in  the  Kngli.sh  Bible  as  declara- 
tions, are,  in  this  version,  tra  nslated  as  ijui'stions.  The 
difl(;rence  in  the  original  is  only  in  the  jiointing.  That 
they  ought  to  be  so  read,  wc  need  not,  in  my  opinion, 
stronger  evidence  than  that  they  throw  much  light  upon 
the  whole  pas.sage.  Our  Lord  here  refers  to  the  les- 
liinony  given  al  his  haiitism ;  and  when  you  read  the 
two  clauses  as  questions,  all  the  chief  circumstances 
attending  that  memorable  testimony  are  exactly  pointed 
out .  '  Have  ye  never  heard  his  mice  ilnovi)  iKTuyv  spaviov ; 
nor  seen  his/or»i .'"  the  aMnariKov  fiAoj,  in  which,  St. 
Luke  says,  the  Holy  Ghost  descended.  '  And  have  ye 
not  his  deelaraticfn  aliidiiig  in  you /'  roi/  \o}op,  tUc 
words  which  were  spoken  at  thai  time." 

(5)  "  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son,  iii  whom  I  am  well 
ideased,  that  is,  have  always  been  well  plea.sed,  am  al 
[iresent  well  pleased,  and  will  continue  to  be  well 
pleased."— Mai  KNlcirr. 

(fi)  "  The  glory  ns  of  Ihe  Onlybegoiun,"  Ac  "  The 
particle  iiij,  as,  is  not  here  a  note  ol  similitude,  but  of 
confirmation,"  that  this  Son  was  ihe  Only-bcgoUen  of 
the  Father."— Wunov-    "  Tins  particle  sometimes  an- 


Chap.  XII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


193 


sense  in  which  the  primitive  i;hurcti  and  the  immediate 
followcra  of  the  apostles  uiulerslood  the  title  iwvoycvrig, 
imly-bdiottcH,  or  only  Son,  as  Uistiop  Itull  has  shown 
at  lemith.C?)  and  "to  him  and  others,"  says  Dr.  VVa- 
terlaiid,  "  I  may  refer  for  proof,  that  the  title  Son  of 
(;od,  or  Only-begotten  Son,  m  Scripture,  cannot  be 
reasonably  understood  either  of  our  Lord's  miraculous 
conception  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  of  his  Messialiship, 
or  of  his  being  the  first-begotten  from  the  dead,  or  of 
liis  receiving  all  power,  and  liis  being  appointed  heir  of 
all  things.  None  of  these  circumstances,  singly  con- 
sidered, nor  altogether,  will  be  sufficient  to  account  for 
the  title,  Only  Son,  or  Only-begotten ;  but  it  is  neces- 
sary to  look  higher  up  to  the  pre-existent  and  Divine 
nature  of  the  Word,  who  was  in  the  beginning  witk 
Cod,  and  was  himself  very  God,  before  the  creation, 
and  from  all  eternity.  Angels  and  men  have  been 
called  fSons  of  God,  in  an  improper  and  metaphorical 
sense,  tut  they  have  never  been  styled  '  Oiily-hcgotteit.,' 
nor,  indeed, '.Vojw,'  in  any  such  distinguishmg  and  em- 
jiliatic  manner  as  Christ  is.  They  are  sons  by  adop- 
tion, or  faint  resemblance ;  he  is  truly,  ijroperly,  and 
eminently,  Son  of  God,  and,  therefore,  God,  as  every 
son  of  man  is,  therefore,  truly  man."  The  note  in  the 
Sociinan  version  tells  us,  "  that  this  expression  does 
not  refer  to  any  peculiar  m.ode  of  derivation  or  exist- 
ence ;  but  is  used  to  express  merely  a  liiglicr  degree  ofj 
affection,  and  is  applied  to  Isaac,  though  Abraham  had 
other  sons."  Isaac  is,  however,  so  called,  because  lie 
was  the  only  child  which  Abraham  had  by  his  wife 
Sarah,  and  this  instance  is,  therelbre,  against  them. 
The  other  passages  in  this  Gospel,  and  in  St.  John's 
First  Epistle,  in  which  the  term  is  used,  give  no  coun- 
tenance to  this  interpretation,  and  in  the  only  other 
passages  in  the  New  Testament  in  which  it  occurs, 
it  uncpiestionably  means  an  "  only  son  or  child."  Luke 
vii.  12,  "  Behold  there  was  a  dead  man  carried  out,  tlie 
only  so?iofliis  mother."  Lukeviii.42, "  For  he  had  one 
only  daughter."  Luke  ix.  3S,  "  JMaster,  look  upon  my 
son,  for  he  is  my  only  cliild."  Here,  then,  on  the  one 
hand,  there  is  no  passage  in  which  the  epithet  Only- 
lirgotlcn  occurs,  which  indicates,  by  any  other  phrase 
or  circumstance,  that  it  has  the  force  of  u-ell-bdoved ; 
while  there  are  several,  which,  from  the  circumstances, 
oblige  us  to  interpret  it  literally  as  expressive  of  a  pe- 
culiar relationship  of  the  child  to  the  parent,  an  only, 
an  only-begotten  child.  This  is,  then,  the  sense  in 
which  it  is  used  of  Christ,  and  it  must  respect  either 
his  Divine  or  human  nature.  Those  who  refer  it  to 
his  human  nature,  consider  it  as  founded  upon  his  mi- 
raculous conce]ition.  It  is,  however,  clear  that  that 
could  not  constitute  him  a  Son,  except  as  it  consisted 
in  the  immediate  formation  of  the  manhood  of  our 
Lord  by  the  power  of  God ;  but,  in  this  respect,  he  was 
not  the  "  Only-begotten,"  not  the  "  only  Son,"  because 
Adam  was  thus  also  immediately  produced,  and  for 
this  very  reason  is  called  by  St.  Luke,  "the  Son  of  (!od." 
Seeing,  then,  that  {.wvoycvriq,  Only-bcgotlen,  does  not 
any  where  import  the  affection  of  a  parent,  but  the  pe- 
culiar relation  of  an  only  son ;  and  that  this  pecu- 
liarity does  not  apply  to  the  production  of  the  mere  hu- 
man nature  of  our  Lord,  the  tirst  man  being  in  this 
sense,  and  for  this  very  reason, "  a  Son  of  God,"  thereby 
excluding  Christ,  considered  as  a  man,  from  the  rela- 
tion of  ONLY  Son,  the  epithet  can  only  be  applied  to 
the  Divine  nature  of  our  Lord,  in  which  alone  he  its  at 
once  naturally  and  exclusively  "  the  Son  of  the  living 
God." 

All  those  passages,  too,  which  declare  that "  all  tilings 
were  made  by  the  Soti,"  and  that  God  "  sent  his  Son" 
into  the  world,  may  be  considered  as  declarations  of  a 
Divine  Sonsliip,  because  they  hnply  that  the  Crk-vtor 
was,  at  the  very  period  of  creation,  a  Son,  and  that  he 
was  the  Son  of  God,  when,  and  consequently  before, 
he  was  sent  into  the  world  ;  and  thus  both  will  prove, 
that  that  relation  is  independent  either  of  his  olR- 
cial  appointment  as  Messiah,  or  of  his  incarnation. 
The  only  plausible  objection  to  this  is,  that  when  a  per- 
son is  designated  by  a  particular  title,  he  is  often  said 
to  perform  actions  tinder  that  title,  though  the  designa- 
tion may  have  been  given  to  liim  subsequently.    Ccr- 


swers  to  the  Hebrew  ach,  and  signilies  certe,  truly."— 
Ibid.    SoSchleusner,  invoc.  15,  reufTane/e.  The  clause 
may,  therefore,  he  properly  rendered  "  The  glory  iu- 
dowl,  or  truly,  of  the  Ouly-begotteu  of  the  Father." 
(7)  Judicium  Eccles. 
N       . 


lain  acts  may  be  said  to  have  been  done  by  the  King, 
though,  in  f  ict,  he  performed  tiiem  before  his  advatice- 
ment  to  the  throne;  and  we  ascribe  the"  Principia"  to 
Sir  Isaac  Newton,  though  that  work  was  written  be- 
fore he  received  tlie  honour  of  knighthood.  In  this 
manner,  we  are  told  by  those  who  allow  the  Divinity 
of  Chn.st,  while  they  deny  his  divine  Son.ship,  that,  a.s 
Son  of  God  was  one  of  the  common  a))iicllations  of 
Christ  among  his  disciples,  it  was  natural  for  tluin  to 
ascribe  creation  and  other  Divine  acts  performed  belbrc 
the  incarnation,  to  the  Son,  meaning  merely  that  they 
were  done  by  that  same  Divine  Person,  who,,  in  con- 
sequence of  his  incarnalion  and  miraculous  concep- 
tion, became  the  Son  of  God,  and  was  by  his  disciples 
acknowledged  as  such. 

The  whole  of  this  argument  supposes  that  the  titles 
"  THE  Son,"  "  THE  Son  of  God,"  are  merely  human  ti- 
tles, and  that  they  arc  applied  to  Christ,  when  considered 
as  God,  and  in  his  pre-existent  state,  only  in  conse- 
quence of  that  interchange  of  appellations  to  which  the 
circumstance  of  the  union  of  two  natures.  Divine  and 
human,  in  one  person,  so  naturally  leads.  Thus  it  is 
said,  that  the  "  Lord^of  Glory  "  was  "  crucified ;"  that 
God  purchased  the  church  "  with  liis  oivn  blood:"  that 
"  THE  Son  ok  man"  was  "  in  heaven"  before  the  as- 
cension. So  also,  in  familiar  style,  we  speak  of  the  Di- 
vinity of  Jesus,  and  of  the  Godhead  of  the  Son  ok  Mary. 
An  interchange  of  appellations  is  acknowledged;  but 
then  even  this  supposes  that  some  of  them  are  desig- 
nations of  his  Divine,  while  others  describe  his  as- 
sumed nature ;  and  the  simple  circumstance  of  such 
an  interchange  will  no  more  prove  the  title  Son  of 
God  to  be  a  human  designation,  than  it  will  prove  Son 
ciK  M\RY  to  be  a  Divine  one.  Farther,  if  such  an  in- 
terchange of  titles  be  thus  contended  for,  we  may  then 
ask,  which  of  the  titles,  in  strict  approjiriation,  desig- 
nate the  human  and  which  the  Divine  nature  of  our 
Lord  ■?  If  "  Son  of  God  "  be,  in  strictness,  a  human  de- 
signation, and  so  it  must  be,  if  it  relate  not  to  his  Divi- 
nity, then  we  may  say  that  our  Saviour,  as  God,  has 
no  distinctive  name  at  all  in  the  whol.e  Scrijitures.  The 
title  "  God  "  does  not  distinguish  him  from  the  other  per- 
sons of  the  Trinity,  and  Word  stands  in  precisely  the 
same  predicament  as  Son  ;  for  the  same  kind  of  criti- 
cism may  reduce  it  to  merely  an  official  appellative, 
given  because  of  his  being  the  medium  of  instructing 
men  in  the  will  of  God  ;  and  it  may,  with  equal  force, 
be  said,  that  he  is  called  "  the  Word  "  in  his  pre-existent 
state  only,  because  he,  in  time,  became  the  Word,  in 
like  manner  as  in  time  also  he  became  the  Son.  'I'he 
other  names  of  Christ  are  all  official;  and  as  in  the 
Scriptures  we  have  no  such  phrase  as  "  the  second  per- 
son in  the  Trinity  "  and  other  theological  designations 
since  adopted,  to  express  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  the  de- 
nial of  the  title  Son  as  a  designation  of  Divinity  leads 
to  this  remarkable  conclusion  (remarkable  especially, 
when  considered  as  coming  from  those  who  hold  the 
Deity  of  Christ),  that  we  have  not  in  Scripture,  neither 
in  the  Old  nor  the  New  Testament,  a  single  ajipellation 
which,  in  strictness  and  truth  of  speech,  can  be  used  to 
express  the  Divine  Person  of  him  wlio  was  made  flesh 
and  dwelt  among  us.  If,  then,  an  interchange  of  Di- 
vine and  human  designations  be  allowed,  the  title  '  Son 
of  God"  may  still  be  a  Divine  description  for' any  thing 
which  such  an  interchange  implies ;  if  it  is  not  a  desig- 
nation of  his  Divinity,  vie  are  lett  without  a  name  for 
our  Saviour  as  God,  and  considered  as  e.xisting  before 
the  incarnation,  and  so  there  can  properly  be  no  inter- 
change of  Divine  and  hvunan  titles  at  all. 

But  the  notion,  that  the  title  Son  of  God  is  an  appel- 
lation of  the  human  nature  of  our  Lord,  applied  some- 
times to  him,  when  his  Divine  character  and  acts  are 
distinctly  considered,  by  a  customary  interchange  of 
designations,  is  a  mere  assumption.  There  is  nothing 
to  prove  it,  while  all  those  passages  which  connect  the 
title  "  Son,"  immediately,  and  by  way  of  eminence,  with 
his  Divinity,  remain  wholly  unaccounted  for  on  this 
theory,  and  are,  therefore,  contrary  to  it.  Let  a  few  of 
these  be  examined.  It  is  evident,  that,  in  a  peculiar 
sense,  he  claims  God  as  his  Father,  and  that  with  no 
reference  either  to  the  incarnation  or  resurrection,  or 
to  any  thing  besides  a  relation  m  the  Divine  nature. 
So,  when  he  had  said  to  tlie  Jews,  "  My  Father  work- 
eth  hitherto  and  I  work ;"  the  Jews  so  understood  him 
to  claim  God  lor  Ins  Fathtr  as  to  equal  liimself  with 
<jod — '•  they  sought  the  more  to  kill  him,  because  he 
had  not  only  broken  the  Sabbath,  but  said  also  that 


194 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  IL 


Gotl  was  his  Father,  Trircfxi  ikov,  iiismvNPRnpEU  Fa- 
•luiiR,  making  himself  KQiiAi.  witli  (Jod;"  and,  so  far 
from  correcting  this  as  an  error  in  his  hearers,  wliicli 
he  was  bound  to  do  by  every  moral  consideraiioii,  if 
they  had  so  greatly  mistaken  him,  he  goes  on  to  con- 
lirni  thein  in  tlieir  opinion  as  to  the  extent  of  his  claims, 
declaring,  that  "  what  things  soever  the  Father  doeth, 
these  also  doeth  the  .Snn  likewise ;  and  that  as  the  Fa- 
ther hath  Ufe  in  himself,  so  hath  he  given  the  Son  to 
have  life  in  himself."  In  all  this,  it  is  admitted  by  cm- 
Jyord,  that  whatever  he  is  and  has  is  from,  the  Father ; 
which  is,  indeed,  implied  in  the  very  name  and  relation 
of  Son  ;  but  if  this  communication  be  not  of  so  peculiar 
a  kind  as  to  imply  an  equality  with  Cod,  a  sameness  of 
nature  and  perfections,  tliere  is  not  only  an  unwarrant- 
able presumption  in  the  words  of  our  Lord,  but,  in  the 
circumstances  in  which  they  were  uttered,  there  is  an 
equivocation  in  them  inconsistent  with  the  sincerity  of 
an  honest  man.  This  argument  is  confirmed  by  at- 
tending to  a  similar  passage  in  the  10th  chapter  of  John. 
Our  Lord  says,  "They  shall  never  perish;  my  Father 
which  gave  tliem  me  is  greater  than  I,  and  none  is  able 
to  pluck  them  out  of  my  Father's  hand.  I  and  my  Fa- 
ther ARK  o.sE.  Then  the  Jews  took  up  stones  to  stone 
him."  And  they  assign  for  so  doing,  the  very  same 
reason  which  St.  John  has  mentioned  in  the  5th  chap- 
ter ;  "  We  stone  thee  for  blaspheiny,  because  that  thnu, 
beins  a  man,  makest  thyself  Gody  Our  Lord's  answer 
is :  "  Is  it  not  written  in  your  law,  I  said  ye  are  gods  ? 
If  he  called  them  gods  unto  whom  the  word  of  God 
came,  and  the  Scriptures  cannot  be  broken,"  i.  e.  if  the 
language  of  Scripture  be  unexceptionable,  "  say  ye  of 
liim  whom  the  Father  hath  sanctilied  and  sent  into  the 
world  thou  blasphemest,  because  I  said,  I  am  the  Son 
of  God  ?"  These  words  are  sometimes  quoted  in  support 
of  the  opinion  of  those  who  hold  that  our  Saviouris  called 
the  Son  of  God  purely  upon  account  of  the  commission 
which  he  received.  But  the  Ibrce  of  the  argument  and 
the  consistency  of  the  discourse  require  us  to  affix  a 
much  higher  meaning  to  that  expression.  Our  Lord  is 
reasoning  a  fortiori.  He  vindicates  himself  from  the 
charge  of  blasphemy  in  calling  himself  the  Son  of  God, 
because  even  those  who  hold  civil  offices  upon  earth 
are  called,  in  Scripture,  gods. (8)  Hut  that  he  might 
not  appear  to  put  himself  upon  a  level  with  them,  and 
to  retract  his  Ibrnier  assertion,  '  1  and  my  Father  are 
one,'  he  not  only  calls  himself '  him  whom  the  Father 
hath  sent  into  the  world,'  which  implies  that  he  had  a 
being,  and  that  God  was  his  Father  before  he  was  sent ; 
but  he  subjoins,  '  If  I  do  not  the  works  of  my  Father, 
believe  me  not.  I!ut  if  I  do,  though  you  believe  not 
me,  believe  tlie  works,  that  ye  may  know  and  believe 
that  the  Father  is  in  me,  and  I  in  him,'  expressions 
which  appear  to  be  equivalent  to  his  former  assertion, 
'  I  and  the  Father  are  one,'  and  which  were  certaiidy 
unilerslood  by  the  Jews  in  that  sense,  for  as  soon  as  he 
uttered  them  they  sought  again  to  take  him."(9) 

To  these  two  eminent  instances,  in  which  our  Lord 
claims  God  as  his  Father,  in  reference  solely  to  his  Di- 
vine nature,  and  to  no  circumstance  whatever  con- 
nected with  his  birth  or  his  offices,  may  be  added  his 
unequivocal  answer  on  his  trial,  to  the  direct  question 
of  the  .lewish  conned.—"  Then  said  they  all.  Art  thou 
the  Son  of  (iud  .'  and  he  said  unto  them.  Ye  say  that  I 
am,"  tliat  is,  /  am  that  ye  say ;  thus  declaring  that,  in 
tile  rrry  srii.se  in  which  they' put  the  question,  he  was 
Ihc  Soil  of  God.  In  confessing  himself  to  be,  in  that 
Bcnse.the  Son  of  God,  he  did  more  than  claim  to  bo  the 
Messiali,  for  the  council  judged  him,  for  that  reason, 
guilty  of"  blasphemy  i"  a  charge  which  could  not  lie 
against  any  one  by  the  Jewish  law,  for  professing  to 
be  the  Messiah.  It  was  in  their  judgment,  a  case  of 
blasphemy,  explicitly  provided  against  by  their  "  law," 
which  inliicted  death  upon  the  oflence;  but,  in  the 
whole  Mosaic  Institute,  it  is  not  a  capital  crime  to 
assume  the  title  and  character  of  Messiah.  Why 
then  di<l  the  confession  of  Christ,  that  he  was  the  "  Son 


(8)  "  This  argument,  which  is  Irom  the  less  to  the 
greater,  proceeds  thus:  If  those  who  having  nothing 
Divine  in  them,  namely,  the  jud^'cs  of  the  jjreat  Sanhe- 
drim, to  whom  the  Psalmist  there  speaks,  are  called 
gods  for  tlus  reason  only,  that  they  have  in  them  a 
certain  imperfect  image  of  Divine  powir  and  authority, 
how  much  more  may  I  be  calU^I  (!od,  the  Son  of  God, 
who  am  the  natural  Son  of  God.— Itisllop  Uuli,. 

(•J)  Hill's  Lectured.  ]U 


of  God,"  In  answer  to  the  Interrogatory  of  the  council, 
lead  them  to  exclaim,  "  What  need  we  any  farther  wit- 
ness ?  for  we  ourselves  have  heard  of  his  own  mouth — 
he  is  worthy  of  death."  "  We  have  a  law,  and  by  our 
law  he  ought  to  die  '."  The  reason  is  given,  "  because 
he  made  Aim.vt  //"the  Son  of  God."  Ills  "  blasphemy  " 
was  alleged  to  lie  in  this ;  this  therelbre  im])licd  an  in- 
vasion of  the  rights  and  honours  of  the  Divine  nature, 
and  was,  in  their  view,  an  assumption  of  positive  Di- 
vinity. Our  Lord,  by  his  conduct,  shows  that  they  did 
not  mistake  his  intention.  He  allows  them  to  proceed 
against  him  without  lowering  his  pretensions,  or  cor- 
recting their  mistake;  which,  had  they  really  fallen 
into  one,  as  to  the  import  of  the  title  "  Son  of  God,"  he 
must  have  done,  or  been  accessary  to  his  own  condem- 
nation.(1) 

As  ill  none  of  these  passages  the  title  Son  of  God 
can  possibly  be  considered  as  a  designation  of  his  hu- 
man nature  or  ojfice ;  so  in  the  apostolic  writings,  wc 
find  proof  of  equal  force  that  it  is  used  even  by  way  of 
Ojiposition  and  roiUradistinctioii  to  the  human  and  in- 
ferior nature.  Romans  i.  3,4, "  Concerning  his  Son  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord,  which  was  made  of  the  seed  of  David 
according  to  the  flesh;  and  declared  to  be  the  Son  of 
God  with  power  according  to  the  spirit  of  holiness,  by 
the  resurrection  from  the  dead."  A  very  few  remarks 
will  be  sufficient  to  point  out  the  Ibrce  of  this  passage. 
The  ajwstle,  it  is  to  be  observed,  is  not  speaking  of 
what  Christ  is  officially,  but  of  wliat  he  is  personally 
and  essentially.  For  the  truth  of  all  liis  official  claims 
depends  upon  the  truth  of  his  personal  ones :  if  he  be 
a  Divine  person,  he  is  every  tiling  else  he  assumes  to 
be.  He  is,  therefore,  considered  by  the  apostle  dis- 
tinctly in  l:is  two  natures.  As  a  man  he  was  "  flesh," 
"of  the  seed  of  David,"  and  a  son  of  David;  in  a  su- 
perior nature  he  was  Divine,  ami  the  Son  of  God.  To 
prove  that  he  was  of  the  seed  of  David,  no  evidence  was 
necessary  but  the  Jewish  genealogies:  to  prove  hiin 
Divine,  or,  as  the  apostle  ctiooses  to  express  it,  "  TiiK 
Son  of  God,"  evidence  of  a  higher  kind  was  necessary, 
and  it  was  given  in  his  "  resurrection  from  the  dead." 
That  "  declared  him  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  poiccr," 
or  powerfully  determiiicd  and  ?itarkcd  him  out  to  be 
the  Son  of  i;od,  a  Divine  Person.  That  an  opposition 
is  expressed  between  whatChri.st  was  according  to  tlio 
flesh,  and  what  he  was  according  to  a  higher  nature, 
must  be  allowed,  or  there  is  no  force  in  the  apostle's 
observation ;  and  equally  clear  it  must  be,  that  the  na- 
ture, put  in  opposition  to  the  fleshy  nature,  can  be  no 
other  than  the  Divine  nature  of  Christ,  the  apostoUc 
designation  of  which  is  the  "  Son  (ir  Goi>." 

This  oiijiosition  between  the  two  natures  is  sufli- 
ciently  marked  for  the  purpose  ol'  the  argument,  without 
taking  into  account  the  import  of  the  phrase  in  the  pas- 
sage just  quoted,  "  according  to  the  Spirit  of  Holiness ;" 
which,  by  many  critics,  is  considered  as  equivalent  to 
"  accordias:  to  his  Divine  nature." 

Because  of  the  opposition,  stated  by  the  Apostle,  be- 
tween wliat  Christ  was,  Kara,  aceordinp:  to,  in  re.'tpect 
of,  the  flesh  ;  and  his  being  declared  the  Son  of  God 
with  power,  Kara,  according  to,  in  respect  of,  '■  the  Spi- 
rit of  Holiness;"  Macknight,  Ibllowing  many  others, 
interprets  the  "  Spirit  of  Holiness"  to  mean  the  Divine 
nature  of  (;hrist,  as  "  the  flesh"  signifles  his  whole 
human  nature.  To  this  Schleusner  adds  his  authority, 
sub  voce  ayifDcvvr].  "  Surnma  Dei  majestas  et  pcr^ 
fectio.  Rom.  i.  4,  Kara  nvtv^a  ayioyavvrii-  Quoad 
vim  suam  et  majestatein  divinam.  Similiter  in  vers 
Alex,  non  solum,  Ileb.  Tin  Psalm'exlv.  4,;5,sed  ctiain 
Toi  tynp  respondet.  Psalm  xevii.  12." 

Doddridtr.'  (Iciiuirs  to  this,  on  the  ground  of  its  being 
tmusualiii  Scripture  to  call  the  Divine  Nature  of  Christ 
"  the  Spirit  of  Holiness,"  or  the  "  Holy  Spirit."  This 
is,  liowever,  far  from  a  conclusive  objiclion;  it  is  not 
so  clear  that  there  are  not  sevir.il  iiislaiices  of  this  in 
Scripture;  and  certain  it  is  dial  the  most  ancient  fa- 
thers frequently  use  the  term  "Spirit,"  and  "S;)j- 
rit  of  Ood,"  to  express  the  Divine  nature  of  our  Lord. 
"  Certissiinum  est,"  says  BLshop  Hull,  "  Filium  Dei, 
secundum  Deitatis  hypostasin  m  scriptis  Patrum  titulo 
Spiritus,  et  Spiritus  Dei,  et  Spinttis  Sancti  passim 


(1)  See  this  argument  largely  and  ably  slated  in 
Wilson's  "  Illustration  of  the  Method  of  cxpluiniiiK 
the  Now  Testament,  by  the  early  opuiioiis  of  Jews  luid 
Chrlaliuns  coiiceniiiig  Chri&i." 


Chap.  XII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


195 


insigniri."    To  this  wc  may  add  the  authority  of  many 
other  emiiictit  critics. (2) 

The  whole  arguiiioiit  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  in  the 
first  chapter  of  llie  Epistle  to  tlic  Hebrews,  is  designed 
to  prove  our  Lord  sui)crior  to  aiigi;ls ;  and  lie  adduces, 
as  conclusive  evidence  on  this  point,  that  to  none  of  the 
angels  was  it  ever  said,  "  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day 
have  I  begotten  thee.  And  again,  I  will  be  to  him  a 
Fathkr,  and  he  shall  be  to  me  a  Son."  It  is,  there- 
fore clear,  that,  on  tliis  very  ground  of  Sonship,  our 
Lord  is  argued  to  be  superior  to  angels,  that  is,  supe- 
rior in  7ia^Hr<?,  and  in  natural  relation  to  God;  for  in 
no  other  way  is  the  argument  conclusive.  He  has  his 
title  Son  by  inheritance,  that  is,  by  natural  and 
HKKKPiTARY  right.  It  is  by  '■'■inheritance,^^  that  he 
hath  obtained  a  "  more  excellent  name"  than  angels  ; 
ttiat  is,  by  his  bciitg  of  the  Father,  and,  therefore,  by 
virtue  of  his  Divine  filiation.  Angels  may  be,  in  an 
inferior  sense,  the  sons  of  God  by  creation  ;  but  they 
cannot  inhml  that  title,  for  this  plain  reason,  that  they 
are  created  not  hesotten ;  while  our  Lord  inherits  the 
"  more  excellent  name,"  because  he  is  "  begotten"  not 
created.  "  For  unto  which  of  the  angels  said  he  at 
any  time.  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten 
thee  r'(3)  The  same  ideas  of  absolute  Divinity  con- 
nect themselves  with  the  title  throughout  this  chajiter. 
"  The  Son,"  by  whom  "God  in  these  latter  days  hath 
spoken  to  us,"  is  "  the  brightness,  the  effulgence  of  his 
glory,  and  the  express,  or  exact  and  perfect,  image  of 
his  person."  But  it  is  only  to  the  Divine  nature  of  our 
Lord  that  these  expressions  can  refer.  "  The  bright- 
ness of  his  glory"  is  a  phrase  in  which  allusion  is  made 
to  a  luminous  body,  which  is  made  visible  by  its 
own  effulgence.  The  Father  is  compared  to  the  ori- 
ginal Fountain  of  light,  and  the  Son  to  the  effulgence  or 
tiody  of  rays  streaming  from  it.    Thus  we  are  taught. 


(2)  "We  have  observed  so  often  before,  that  the  Spi- 
rit in  Christ,  especially  when  opposed  to  the  tiesh,  de- 
notes his  Divine  nature,  that  it  is  needless  to  repeat  it. 
Nor  ought  it  to  seem  strange,  that  C'hri.st,  as  the  Son  of 
(Jod,  and  God,  is  here  called  the  Spirit  of  Holiness,  an 
appellation  generally  given  to  the  third  person  of  the 
Divinity,  for  the  same  divine  and  spiritual  nature  is 
common  to  every  Person  of  the  Trinity.  Hence  we 
have  observed  that  Hcrinas,  a  contemporary  of  St.  Paul, 
lias  expressly  called  the  Divine  Person  of  the  Son  of 
God  a  Holy  Spirit." — Bull.  "  When  the  term  Spirit 
relers  to  Christ,  and  is  put  in  opposition  to  the  jiesh, 
it  denotes  liis  Divine  nature." — Sch.*;tt(;en.  Thesame 
view  is  taken  of  the  passage  by  Beza,  Erasmus,  Came- 
ron, Hammond,  Poole,  and  Macknight.  The  note  of 
Dr.  Guysc  contains  a  powerful  reason  for  this  interpre- 
tation. "  If  the  '  Spirit  of  Holiness'  is  here  considered 
as  expressive  of  the  sense  in  which  Christ  is  '  the  Son 
of  God,'  it  evidently  signifies  his  Divine  nature,  in  op- 
position to  what  he  was  according  to  the  flesh ;  and  so 
the  antithesis  is  very  beautiful  between  Kara  -nvcviia-i 
according  to  the  Spirit,  and  Kara  aapKa,  according  to 
the  flesh.  But  if  we  consider  it  as  the  principle  of  the 
power  by  which  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead,  for 
demonstrating  him  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  it  may  sig- 
nify either  liis  own  Divine  nature  or  the  Holy  Spirit, 
the  third  Person  in  the  adorable  Trinity,  and  yet,  unless 
his  own  Divine  nature  concurred  in  raising  him  from 
the  dead,  his  resurrection,  abstractedly  considered  in 
itself,  no  more  proved  him  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  than 
the  resurrection  of  believers,  by  the  power  of  God,  and 
by  his  Spirit  who  dwelleth  in  them' (Rom.  viii.  11),  prove 
any  of  them  to  be  so."  It  is  also  in  corroboration  of 
this  view  that  Christ  represents  himself  as  the  agent 
of  his  own  resurrection.  "  I  lay  down  my  life,  and  I 
HAVE  POWER  to  take  it  again."  "  Destroy  this  temple, 
and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up." 

(3)  It  may  be  granted,  that  KXtjoovojitw  is  not  always 
used  to  express  the  obtaining  of  a  thing  by  strict  heredi- 
tary right ;  but  also  to  acquire  it  by  other  means,  though 
still  the  idea  of  right  is  preserved.  The  argument  of 
the  apostle,  however,  compels  us  to  take  the  word  in 
its  primary  and  proper  sense,  which  is  well  expressed 
in  our  translation  to  obtain  by  inheritance.  "The 
apostle's  argument,  taken  from  the  name  Son  of 
God,  is  this — he  hath  that  name  by  inheritance,  or 
on  account  of  his  descent  fr«m  God ;  and  Jesus,  by 
calling  lumself  the  only-begotten  of  the  Father,  hath 
excluded  from  that  honourable  rchitioii  angels  and 
every  other  beings  whatever."— MACiiNiuHT. 
N2 


that  the  essence  of  both  is  the  same:  that  the  one  is 
insei)arable  from,  and  not  to  be  conceived  of  without 
the  other ;  conseiiuently,  that  neither  of  them  ever  was 
or  could  be  alone.  TIk;  Son  is  declared  to  be  of  the 
same  nature  and  eternity  with  the  Father;  "  And 
from  hence,  more  particularly,  the  church  seems  to 
have  taken  the  occasion  of  confessing  ui  ojiposition  to 
the  Arian  heresy,  as  we  find  it  done  in  one  of  our 
creeds,  that  'Jesus  Christ,  the  only  begotten  Son  of 
God,  was  begotten  of  the  Father  before  all  worlds,  that 
he  is  God  of  God,  Light  of  Light,  very  God  of  very  God, 
of  one  substance  with  the  Father,  by  whom  all  "tilings 
are  made.'  "(4)  Certainly,  this  brightness  or  eflulgelicc 
from  the  Father  is  expressly  spoken  of  the  Son  ;  but  it 
cannot  be  affirmed  of  him  with  reference  to  his  human- 
ity ;  and,  if  it  must  necessarily  be  understood  of  liis 
superior,  his  Divine  nature,  it  necessarily  implies  the 
idea  which  is  suggested  by  Sonship.  For  if  the  second 
Person  of  the  Trinity  were  co-ordinate  and  independ- 
ent, in  no  good  sense  could  he  be  the  effulgence,  the 
lustre  of  the  glory  of  the  Father.  He  might  exhibit 
an  equal  and  rival  glory,  as  one  sun  equally  large  and 
bright  with  another ;  but  our  Lord  would,  in  that  case, 
be  no  more  an  effulgence  of  the  glory  of  the  Father 
than  one  of  these  suns  would  be  an  effulgence  of  the 
other.  The  "  express  image  of  his  person"  is  equally 
a  note  of  filial  Divinity.  The  word  xapaKrtip  signifies 
an  impression  or  mark,  answering  to  a  seal  or  stami>, 
or  die,  and,  therefore,  an  exact  and  perfect  resemblance, 
as  the  figure  on  the  coin  answers  to  the  die  by  which 
it  is  stamped,  and  the  image  on  the  wax  to  the  engrav- 
ing on  the  seal.  It  is  impossible  that  this  should  be 
spoken  of  a  creature,  because  it  cannot  be  true  of  any 
creature;  and,  therefore,  not  true  of  the  htiman  nature 
of  our  Lord.  "  The  sentiment  is,  indeed,  too  high  for 
our  ideas  to  reach.  This,  however,  seems  to  be  fully 
implied  in  it,  that  the  Son  is  personally  distinct  from 
the  Father,  for  the  impression  and  the  seal  are  not  one 
thing,  and  that  the  essentia!  nature  of  both  is  one  and 
the  same,"(5)  since  one  is  so  the  exact  and  perfect  image 
of  the  other,  that  our  Lord  could  say,  '•  He  that  hath 
seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father."(ti)  Still,  however,  the 
likeness  is  not  that  of  one  independent  and  iinrelated 
being  to  another,  as  of  man  to  man ;  but  the  more 
jierfect  one  of  Son  to  Father.  So  it  is  expressly  af- 
firmed; for  it  is  "the  Son"  who  is  this  "express 
image  :"  nor  would  the  resemblance  of  one  independ- 
ent Divine  person  to  another  come  up  to  the  idea  con- 
veyed by  xapaKTrjp  rrjg  vnoaraaewg.  Both  this  and  the 
preceding  phrase,  the  "  brightness  of  his  glory,"  with 
sufficient  clearness  denote  not  only  sameness  oi essence 
and  distinction  oi'  person,  but  dependence  and  comma- 
nication  a)!io;  ideas  which  are  preserved  and  harmo- 
nized in  the  doctrine  of  the  Sonship  of  Christ,  and  in 
no  other. 

In  the  same  conjunction  of  the  term  Son  with  ideas 
of  absolute  Divinity,  the  apostle,  in  a  subsequent  p;irt 
of  the  same  chapter,  applies  that  lolly  passage  in  the 
forty-fifth  Psalm,  "  But  unto  the  Son  he  saith,  Thy 
throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever,"  <kc.  The  Socinian 
criticisms  on  this  passage  have  already  been  refuted ; 
and  it  is  only  necessary  to  remark  on  this  passage  as 
it  is  in  proof  of  the  Dtrniv  Sonship.  It  is  allowed  by 
all  who  hold  his  Deity,  that  Christ  is  here  addressed 
as  a  Being  composed  of  two  natures,  God  and  man. 
"  The  unction  with  the  '  oil  of  gladness.^  and  the  ele- 
vation above  his  ^ fellows,^  characterize  the  manhood ; 
and  the  perpetual  stability  of  his  throne,  and  the  unsul- 
lied justice  of  the  government,  declare  the  Godue  ai)."(") 
He  is,  however,  called  the  Son  ;  but  this  is  a  term 
which  could  not  characterize  the  Hcing  here  introduced, 
unless  it  agreed  to  his  higher  and  Divine  nature.  The 
.Sow.  is  addressed ;  that  Son  is  addressed  as  God,  as 
God  whose  throne  is  for  ever  and  ever ;  and  by  this 
argument  it  is  that  the  apostle  proves  the  Son  to  be 
superior  to  angels. 

A  few  other  passages  may  be  introduced,  which, 
with  equal  demonstration,  attach  the  term  Son,  emi- 
nently and  emphatically,  to  our  Lord's  Divine  nature. 

"  God  sending  his  own  Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful 
flesh,"  Romans  vni.  3.  Here  the  person  entitled  the 
Son  is  said  to  be  sent  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh. 


(4)  Stanhope.  (5)  Dr.  P.  Smith. 

(0)  "  Imago  majcstatis  Divinae,  ita,  ut,  qui  Filiuxn  vi- 
dct,  eliain  Patrem  videat."— SuULEUSNBR. 
(7)  Bishop  lIoRSLlsv. 


196 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part IL 


In  what  other  way  could  he  hare  been  sent,  if  he  were 
Hon  only  as  a  man!  The  apostle  most  clearly  inti- 
mates lliat  he  was  SoM  belbre  he  was  sent :  and  that 
FLESH  was  the  nature  asxiuned  by  the  Son,  but  not 
the  nature  in  which  he  was  the  Son,  as  he  there  uses 
the  term. 

'•  Moses,  verily,  was  faithfUI  in  all  his  house  as  a 
SERVANT,  but  Christ  as  a  Son  over  his  own  house.'" 
"  Tliis  is  illustrative  of  the  posilioa  before  laid  down 
(verse  3),  that  Jesus  was  counted  worthy  of  more 
2lory  than  Moses.  The  Jewish  lawgiver  was  only  as 
a  '  -sKavANT,'  but  Christ '  as  a  Son  ;'  but  if  the  latter 
were  only  a  Son  in  a  metaphorical  sense,  the  contrast 
v/oiild  be  entirely  destroyed  ;  he  could  only  be  a  ser- 
vant like  Moses,  and  the  grounds  of  his  superiority,  as 
a  Son,  would  be  eomiilctely  subverted  ;  he  must,  there- 
lore,  be  a  Son  in  respect  to  his  Divine  nature.  In  con- 
formity with  this  conclusion,  it  is  here  said  that  Moses 
was  faithful  in  all  his  house  as  a  servant  in  the  Jew- 
ish church,  but  Christ  was  faithful  over  his  own 
house ;  over  the  Christian  church  as  its  Lord  and  Mas- 
ter."(8)  "  Moses  orat  ev  tui  oiku,  et  pertinebat  ad  fa- 
miUam ;  Christus  vero  cm  tov  oikov,  supra  familiam, 
ut  ejus  pri'fectus  et  dominius."(U)  "  He  says  that 
Moses  was  faithful  as  a  servant — Christ  as  a  Son,  and 
that  Christ  was  counted  worthy  of  more  glory  than 
Moses,  inasmuch  as  he  who  hath  buildcd  the  house  hath 
more  honour  than  the  house  ;  thai  is,  the  difference  be- 
tween (Christ  and  Moses  is  that  which  is  between  him 
who  creates  and  the  tiling  crcatedy{\)  To  be  a  Sun  is 
then,  m  the  apostle's  sense  of  the  passage,  to  be  a  Cre.- 
utor ;  and  to  be  a  servant  a  creature ;  a  decisive  proof 
that  Christ  is  called  Son,  as  Hud,  because  he  is  put  in 
contradistinction  to  a  creature. 

To  these  may  be  added  all  those  passages  in  which 
the  first  person  is  called  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ;  because  a.s,  when  the  persons  are  distinctly 
spoken  of,  it  is  clear,  that  he  who  produced  the  human 
nature  of  Christ,  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin,  was  the 
third  person,  a  fact  several  times  emphatically  and  ex- 
pressly declared  in  the  New  Testament ;  so,  as  far  as 
natural  relation  is  concerned,  the  first  person  can  only 
have  paternity  with  reference  to  the  Divine  nature  of 
the  Son  ;  and  we  are  reduced  to  admit,  either  that  the 
terms  Father  and  Son  arc  wholly  figurative,  or  that 
they  express  a  natural  relation,  which  relation,  how- 
ever, can  only  subsist  between  these  persons  in  the 
Godhead. 

"  For,  as  it  has  been  very  justly  observed,  "  at  the  very 
same  time  that  our  Lord  most  expressly  calls  i\M  first 
person  of  the  Godhead  his  Father,  he  makes  the  iilain- 
cst  distinction  that  is  possible  between  the  Father  as 
such,  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  By  the  personal  acts  which 
be  ascribes  to  the  Spirit  of  God,  he  distinguishes  the 
first  person  as  his  Father,  from  the  third  perstui  of  the 
Divine  Essence;  for  he  said,  'I  will  pray  the  Father, 
and  he  shall  give  you  another  tlomforter,  that  he  inay 
abide  with  you  for  ever,  even  the  .Spirit  of  truth.'  This 
<;omforter,  said  he,  '  Is  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  Fa- 
ther will  send  in  my  name.  Hut  when  the  Comforter 
i.s  come,  whom  I  will  send  unto  you  from  the  Father 
even  the  Spirit  of  truth,  which  proceedeth  from  the 
Father,  he  shall  testify  of  me.'(2)  Here  our  Lojd  calls 
X\ni  first  person,  most  expressly  and  undeniably, 'the 
Father,'  and  the  third  person,  as  expressly  '  the  Holy 
Gliost.'  It  is  most  evident,  and  beyond  even  the  possi- 
bility of  a  doubt,  that  he  doc'^  not,  by  these  two  appel- 
latives, mean  one  and  the  .self-same  Divine  person  ;  for 
he  says  he  '  will  pray  the  Father'  to  send  the  Comforter 
to  his  church,  calling  him  '  the  Holy  Gho.st,  whom  the 
Father  will  send  in  liis  name.'  And  he  sends  '  the 
Holy  Ghost,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  from  the  Father,  which 
jirocccdeth  from  the  Father.'  Therefore,  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  not  that  Father,  nor  the  self-same  subsistent 
as  that  Father,  nor  is  the  creation  of  the  human  nature 
the  only  begetting,  or  the  Scriptural  Sonship  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  i;hrist;  for  if  this  were  really  so,  the  Father 
would  be  sending  forth  the  Father,  and  tlie  Father 
would  be  proceeding  from  the  Father,  and  the  Son 
would  be  praying  for  all  this.  Hut  these  are  absurdi- 
ties too  glaring  to  be  indulged  for  a  single  moment  by 
common  sense  ;  so  that  we  conceive  it  must  be  a.s  (dear 
as  the  light  of  heaven,  that  the  first  and  second  per- 


(8)  Holden's  TestimonioB. 

(0)   KOSBNMUM.KR.  (1)  Dishop  ToMLlNE. 

(2)  Johnxiv.  IC,  17.20;  xv.  20. 


.sons  of  the  Godhead  are  to  each  other  a  Father  and  a 
Son  in  the  Divine  Essence."(3) 

Thus,  then,  from  the  import  of  these  passages,  and 
many  others  might  be  added,  were  it  necessary,  I  think 
that  It  is  established,  that  the  title  Son  ok  God  is  not  an 
appellative  of  the  human  nature  applied  by  metonymy 
to  the  Divine  nature,  as  the  objectors  say,  and  that  it 
cannot,  on  thishyiioiliesis,  be  e.\]ilained.  As  hltle  truth 
will  be  tbund  in  aiiolher  tiieory,  adopted  by  those  who 
admit  the  Divinity  of  our  Lord,  but  deny  his  eternal 
filiation  ; — that  he  is  called  "  Son  of  God"  on  account 
of  his  iiicarnatiwi ;  that,  in  the  Old  Testament,  he 
was  so  called  in  anficijwtimi  of  this  event,  and  in  the 
New  because  of  the  fact  that  he  was  God  nianil'eBt  in 
the  flesh. 

As,  however,  all  svch  persons  acknowledge  the  title 
"  Son  of  (Jod"  to  be  a  descriptive,  not  an  arbitrary  title, 
and  that  it  has  its  foundation  in  some  real  relation;  so, 
if  the  incarnation  of  Christ  be  the  Ibundation  of  that  title, 
it  must  be  used  with  reference  either  to  the  nature  in 
which  he  was  incarnated,  that  is  to  say,  his  manhood ; 
or  to  that  which  incarnated  itself,  that  is  to  say,  his 
Godhead;  or  to  the  action  oi  incarnation,  that  is,  the 
act  of  assuming  our  nature.  If  the  first  be  allowed, 
then  this  is  saying  no  more  tlian  that  he  is  the  Son  of 
God,  because  of  his  miraculous  conception  in  the  womb 
of  the  Virgin,  which  has  been  already  refuted.  If  the 
second,  then  it  is  yielded,  that,  with  reference  to  the 
Godhead,  he  is  the  Son,  which  is  what  we  contend  for ; 
and  it  is  allowed,  that  the  "  holy  thing,"  or  offspring, 
born  of  Mary,  is,  therefore,  called  the  Son  of  God,  not 
because  his  humanity  was  formed  in  her  womb  imme- 
diately by  God  ;  but,  as  it  is  expressly  stated  in  Luke  i. 
35,  because  "  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and 
the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee,"  the 
effect  of  whK'h  would  be  the  assumption  of  humanity 
by  the  Divine  nature  of  him  who  is,  m  that  nature,  the 
Son;  and  that  the  holy  offspring  should,  on  that  ac- 
count, be  called  the  Son  of  God.  This  would  fully  al- 
low the  doctrine  of  Christ's  Divine  Sonship,  and  is,  pro- 
bably, the  real  import  of  the  important  jiassage  relerrcd 
to.(4)  But  if  tiie  title  Son  is  given  to  Christ,  neither  with 
reference  to  the  miraculous  conception  of  the  human  na- 
ture, nor  yet  because  the  liigher  nature  united  to  it  in  one 
person  is,  eminently  and  peculiarly,  the  Son  of  God ;  then 
it  only  remains  to  those  who  refer  the  tiile  to  the  incarna- 
tion of  our  Lord,  to  urge  that  it  is  given  to  liim  with  refer- 
ence to  the  art  of  incarnation,  that  is  to  say,  the  act  of  as- 
siuniiig  our  nature.  Now,  it  is  impossible  to  maintain 
this,  because  it  has  no  support  fioiii  Si  ripture.  The  pas- 
sage in  Luke  i.  35,  has  been  adduced,  but  that  admits  cer- 
tainly only  ofoneof  the  two  interpretations  above  given. 
Either  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  the  Virgin,  and 
theoversliadowing  of  the  power  of  the  Highest,  refer  to 
the  immediate  jiroduciion  of  the  humanity  by  Divine 
power,  so  that  for  this  reason  he  is  called  the  Son  of  Gwl, 


(3)  Martin  on  the  Eternal  Sonship  of  Christ. 

(4)  Many  interpreters  understand  by  "the  i'owkr  of 
THE  HioiiKST,"'  which  oversh.iclowcil  thu  Virgin,  the 
second  person  of  the  Trinity  who  thin  took  pan  ot'imr 
nature.  See  Wolfii  Cur.  in  loc.  Most  of  them,  how- 
ever, refer  both  clauses  to  the  Holy  Sjiirit.  But  still 
if  the  reason  why  the  "  holy  thing,"  which  was  to  be 
born  of  RIary,  derived  its  special  anil  peculiar  sanctity 
from  the  personal  union  of  the  Diviniiy  with  the  man- 
hood, the  reason  of  its  being  called  the  .Son  of  (;oil  will 
be  found  rather  in  that  to  which  the  humanity  was 
thus  united  than  in  itself.  The  remarks  of  I'rofessor 
Kidd,  in  his  "Dissertation  on  the  Eternal  Sonship  of 
Christ,"  arc  also  worthy  consid*iration.  "Our  Lord's 
human  nature  had  never  subsistence  by  itself."  "  That 
nature  never  had  personality  of  itself."  "  Hence  our 
Lord  is  the  Son  of  (iod,  with  respect  to  his  Divine  na- 
ture, which  alone  was  capable  of  Sonship.  The  ques- 
tion to  be  decided  is,  what  object  was  termed  the  Son  of 
God!  Was  it  the  human  nature  considered  by  itself ? 
This  Ucoidd  not  be, seeing  that  llichumanily  never  exist- 
ed by  itself,  without  inhering  ill  I  he  Diviiiily.  Was  it  the 
humanity  and  Divinity,  wh.n  uiiiied,  which,  in  conse- 
quence of  their  union,  obtained  tins  as  a  mere  a|ipella- 
lion?  We  ai'prdiend  that  it  was  not.  We  <:onccivo 
that  the  peculiarly  appropriate  name  of  our  Lord's  Di- 
vine person  is  Son  of  (iod— that  his  person  w'as  not 
changed  by  tlie  assumption  of  humanity,  and  that  it  is 
his  eternal  person,  in  the  ctunplex  natures  of  Divinity 
and  humanity,  which  ia  denouunaied  Sou  of  God." 


Chap.  XU.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


197 


wliich  might  be  allowed  without  excluding  a  higher  and 
more  emphatic  reason  lijr  the  appellation ;  or  it  ex- 
presses the  assumption  of  human  nature  through  the 
"  power  of  the  Highest,"  by  the  Divine  nature  of  Christ, 
so  that  "the  holy  olfspriiig''  should  be  called  "the  Sou 
of  Cod,"  not  because  a  Divine  person  assumed  human- 
ity, but  because  that  Divine  person  was  antecedently 
tlie  Son  of  Cod,  and  is  Si)okeu  of  as  such  by  the  pro- 
phets. The  mere  act  of  assuming  our  nature  gives  no 
idea  of  the  relationship  of  a  Son ;  it  is  neither  a  paternal 
nor  a  JHUd  act  in  any  sense,  nor  expresses  any  such 
relation.  It  was  an  act  of  the  Son  alone ;  "  forasmuch 
as  the  eliildren  are  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  ns; 
Ai.si)  TOOK  PART  of  the  same ;  and,  as  his  own  act,  it 
could  never  place  him  in  the  relation  of  Son  to  the 
Father.  It  was  done,  it  is  true,  in  pursuance  of  the 
will  of  the  Father,  who  "sent  him"  on  this  errand  of 
mercy  into  the  world ;  but  it  was  still  an  act  done  by 
the  Son,  and  could  not  lay  the  foundation  of  a  filial  title 
.nnd  character.  This  hypothesis  cannot,  therefore,  be 
supported.  If,  then,  the  title  "Son  ok  Cod,"  as  given 
to  our  Lord,  is  not  used  chiefly,  probably  not  at  all, 
with  reference  to  his  miraculous  conception;  if  it  is 
not  an  appellative  of  his  human  nature,  occasionally 
applied  to  him  wlien  Divine  acts  and  relations  are  spoken 
of,  as  any  other  human  appellation,  by  metonyiny, 
might  be  applied ;  if  it  is  not  given  him  simply  because 
of  his  assuming  our  nature ;  if  we  tind  it  so  used,  that 
it  can  be  fully  explained  by  no  office  with  which  he  is 
invested,  and  by  no  event  of  his  mediatorial  undertaking ; 
it  then  follows,  that  it  is  a  title  characteristic  of  his 
rnode  of  existence  in  the  Divine  essence,  and  of  the  rela- 
tion which  exists  between  the  first  and  second  persons 
in  the  ever-blessed  Trinity.  Nor  is  it  to  be  regarded  as 
a  matter  of  indiflTerence,  whether  we  admit  the  eternal 
liliation  of  our  Lord,  provided  we  acknowledge  his  Di- 
vinity. It  is  granted,  that  some  ihvines,  tnily  decided 
on  this  point,  have  rejected  the  Divine  Sonship. 
But  in  this  they  have  gone  contrary  to  the  judgment 
of  the  churches  of  Christ  in  all  ages  ;  and  they  would 
certainly  have  been  r"n1fift,"im"n-  heretics  in  the  tirst 
and  purest  times  of  ihe^^nmitive  church,  as  Bishop 
Hull  has  largely  and  most  satisfactorily  shown  in  his 
"  Judgment  of  the  Catholic  Church ;"  nor  would  their 
professions  of  faith  in  the  Divinity  of  Christ  have  se- 
cured them  from  the  suspicion  of  being  allies  in  some  sort 
of  the  common  enemies  of  the  faith,  nor  have  been  suffi- 
cient to  guard  them  from  the  anathemas  with  ^vhicli 
the  fathers  so  carefully  guarded  the  sacred  doctrine  of 
Scripture  respecting  the  person  of  our  Lord.  Such  theo- 
logians liave  usually  rejected  the  doctrine,  too,  on  dan- 
gerous grounds,  and  have  resorted  to  modes  of  inter- 
pretation, so  forced  and  unwarrantable,  that  if  turned 
against  the  doctrines  which  they  themselves  liold  sa- 
cred, would  tend  greatly  to  unsettle  them.  In  these 
respects  they  have  often  adopted  the  same  modes  of  at- 
tack, and  objections  of  the  same  character,  as  those 
which  Arians  and  So.cinians  have  wielded  against  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  itself,  and  have  thus  placed  them- 
selves in  suspicious  company  and  circimistances.  The 
very  allegation,  that  the  Divine  Sonship  of  Christ  is  a 
mere  speculation,  of  no  importance,  provided  liis  Divinity 
be  held,  is  itself  calculated  to  awaken  vigilance,  since 
the  most  important  doctrines  have  sometimes  been  stolen 
away  "  while  men  have  slept,"  and  the  plea  which  has 
lulled  them  into  security  has  always  been,  that  they 
were  not  fundamental.  I  would  not,  indeed,  say  that 
the  doctrine  in  iiuestion  is  fundamental.  I  am  not  in- 
disposed to  give  vip  that  point  with  Episcopius  and  Wa- 
terland,  who  both  admitted  the  Divine  Sonship,  though  I 
would  not  concede  its  fundamental  character  on  the  same 
grounds  as  the  fonner,  but  with  the  caution  of  the  lat- 
ter, who  had  views  much  more  correct  on  the  question 
of  fundamental  truths.  liut,  though  the  Sonship  of 
Christ  may  be  denied  by  some  who  hold  his  Divinity, 
they  do  not  carry  out  their  own  views  into  their  logical 
conclusions,  or  it  would  appear  that  their  notions  of  the 
Trinity  greatly  differ,  in.  consequence,  from  those 
which  are  held  by  the  believers  in  this  doctrine  ;  and 
that  on  a  point  confessedly  fundamental  they  are,  in 
some  important  respects,  at  issue  with  the  orthodox  of 
all  ages.  This  alone  demands  their  serious  reflection, 
and  ought  to  induce  caution  ;  but  other  considerations 
are  not  wanting  to  show  that  points  of  great  moment 
are  involved  in  the  denial  or  maintenance  of  the  doctrine 
in  question. 
\.  Tile  loose  and  general  manner  in  which  many  pas- 


sages of  Scripture,  which  speak  of  Christ  as  a  Son, 
must  be  explained  by  those  who  deny  the  Divine  filia- 
tion of  Christ,  seems  to  sanction  principles  of  interpreta- 
tion which  would  be  highly  daiiccrous,  or  rather  ab- 
.solutely  fatal,  if  generally  append  to  thi'  Scriptures. 

•2.  The  denial  of  the  Divine  Sonship  destroys  all  rela- 
tiua  among  the  persons  of  the  Cudhead ;  for  no  other 
relation  of  the  hypostases  are  mentioned  in  Scripture, 
save  those  which  are  expressed  by  paternity,  JUuUkiii, 
and  procession  ;  every  other  relation  is  merely  ecano- 
niical ;  and  these  natural  relations  being  removed,  we 
must  then  conceive  of  the  Persons  in  the  Godhead  as 
perfectly  independent  of  each  other,  a  view  wliich  has  a 
strong  tendency  to  endanger  the  unity  of  the  cssence.(5) 

3.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  paternity  only  whicli 
preserves  the  Scriptural  idc9  that  the  Father  is  the 
fountain  of  Deity,  and,  as  such,  i\\e  first,  the  original, 
the  principle.  Certainly,  he  must  have  read  the  Scrip- 
tures to  little  purpose,  who  does  not  perceive  that  this  is 
their  constant  doctrine — that"o/'him  are  all  tilings;" 
that  though  the  Son  is  Creator,  yet  that  it  was  "i'l/  Uie 
Son"  the  Father  made  the  worlds  ;  and  that,  as  to  the 
Son,  he  himself  has  declared,  "  that  he  lives  by  the  Fa- 
ther," and  that  the  Father  hath  given  hun  to  have  likis 
IN  HiMSKLF,  which  Can  only  refer  to  his  Divine  nature, 
nothing  being  the  source  of  life  in  itself  but  what  is 
Divine;  a  view  which  is  put  out  of  all  doubt  by  the 
declaration,  that  by  the  gift  ot  the  Father,  the  Son  liath 
life  in  himself,  "  as  the  Father  hath  life  in  himself 
Eut  where  the  essential  paternity  of  the"  Father  and  hie 
correlative  filiation  of  the  t'on  are  denied,  these  Scrip- 
tural representations  have  no  foundation  in  fact,  and 
are  incapable  of  interpretation.  The  term  Son  at  once 
preserves  the  Scriptural  character  of  the  Father,  and 
sets  up  an  everlasting  barrier  against  the  Arian  heresy 
of  inferiority  of  essence ;  for,  as  Son,  he  must  be  of  the 
same  essence  as  the  Father. 

4.  The  Scriptural  doctrines  of  the  perfect  kquality 
of  the  Son,  so  that  he  is  truly  Cod,  equal  in  glory  and 
perfection  to  the  Father,  being  of  the  same  nature ;  and, 
at  the  same  time,  the  st'BORinNATiON  of  the  Son  to  the 
F'ather,  so  that  he  should  be  capable  of  being  "*'c?tC 
are  only  to  be  equally  maintained  by  the  doctrine  of  the 
Divine  Sonship.  According  to  those  who  deny  this 
doctrine,  the  Son  might  as  well  be  the  first  as  the  se- 
cond Person  in  the  Godhead;  and  the  Fattier  the  se- 
cond as  well  as  the  first.  The  Father  might  have  been 
sent  by  the  Son,  without  incongruity;  or  cither  of  them 
by  the  Holy  Spirit.  On  the  same  ground,  the  order  of 
the  solemn  Christian  Ibrm  of  blessing,  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  so  often  introduced  in  the 
New  Testament,  is  grounded  on  no  reason  whatever, 
and  might  be  altered  at  pleasure.    These  are  most  vio- 

(5)  "  According  to  the  opinion  of  the  ancients,  which 
is  also  the  voice  of  common  sense,  if  there  were  two 
unbegotten  or  independent  principles  in  the  Divinity, 
the  consequence  would  be,  that  not  only  the  Father 
would  be  deprive  d  of  liis  pre-eminence,  being  of  and  from 
himself  alone ;  but  also,  that  there  would  necessarily 
be  two  Gods.  On  the  other  hand,  supposing  the  subor- 
dination, by  wliich  the  Father  is  God  of  himself,  and 
the  Son  God  of  God,  the  doctors  have  thought  both  the 
Father's  pre-eminence  and  the  Divine  monarchy  sale." 
— Bishop  Bull. 

"  As  it  is  admitted,  that  there  are  three  persons  in  the 
Godhead,  these  three  must  exist,  either  independently 
of  each  other,  or  in  related  states.  If  they  exist  inde- 
liendently  of  each  other,  they  are,  then,  each  an  inde- 
pendent Person,  and  may  act  independently  and  sepa- 
rately from  the  rest ;  conseiiuently,  there  would  be  three 
independent  and  separate  Deities  existing  in  the  Divine 
essence." — Kidd. 

The  orthodox  faith  keeps  us  at  the  utmost  distance 
from  this  error.  "  The  Father,"  says  Bishop  Bull,  "  is 
the  principle  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  and  both  are 
propagated  from  him  by  an  interior  production,  not  an 
external  one.  Hence  it  is,  that  they  are  not  only  r/the 
Father,  but  in  him,  and  the  Father  in  them ;  and  that 
one  Person  cannot  be  separate  from  another  in  the  Holy 
Trinity,  as  three  human  persons  or  three  other  subjects 
of  the  same  species  are  separate.  This  kind  of  exist- 
ing in,  if  I  may  so  say,  our  divines  call  circuminces- 
sion,  because  by  it  some  things  are  very  much  distin- 
guished from  one  another  without  separation  ;  are  in, 
and,  as  it  were,  penetrate  one  another,  without  C0T\i\l- 
swn."—Jiuismcnt  of  the  Catholic  Church. 


198 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


lent  and  repulsive  conclusions,  wliichthe  doctrine  of  the 
Sonship  avoids,  and  thus  proves  its  accordance  with 
the  Holy  Scriptures. 

5.  Tlie  love  of  tlie  Father,  in  the  gift  of  his  Son,  a 
doctrine  so  emphatically  and  so  frequently  insisted  upon 
in  Scripture,  can  have  no  place  at  all  in  the  reli<;ious 
system  of  those  who  deny  the  relations  of  Father  and 
Son  to  exist  in  the  Godhead.  This  1  take  to  be  fatal  to 
the  doctrine;  for  it  insensibly  runs  into  the  Sdi-iiiiaii 
heresy,  and  restricts  the  love  of  the  Father,  in  tin  j^iil 
of  his  Son,  to  tlie  gift  of  a  man  only,  if  the  .Sonsliip  of 
Christ  be  human  only  ;  and,  in  that  case,  the  permis- 
sion of  the  suniTinu's  of  Clirist  was  no  greater  a  mani- 
festation of  Gnd's  love  to  the  world  than  his  permitting 
any  other  good  man  to  die  tor  the  benefit  of  his  fellow- 
croatures,— St.  I'aul,  for' instance,  or  any  of  the  mar- 
tyrs. Episcopiiis,  though  he  contends  against  the  doc- 
trine of  tlie  Divuie  Sonsliip  of  our  Lord  being  con.sidorcd 
as  fundamental,  yet  argues  the  truth  of  tlie  doctrine  on 
this  very  urouiid 

"We  have  thus  litr  adduced  those  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture from  whiili  we  believe  it  evident,  that  something 
more  is  ascribed  to  ,Iesus  Christ  than  can  possibly  belong 
to  him  under  the  consideration  of  man  born  of  a  virgin ; 
nay  something  is  attributed  to  him  wliuli  not  obscurely 
argues, that,  bclbre  he  was  bom  ofthc  virgm.he  had  been 
{fiiifse  atfjue  extitisse),  and  had  existed  as  the  Son  of 
Cod  the  Father  The  reasons  derived  from  Scripture 
which  seem  to  demonstrate  this  are  the  following : 

"  First,  from  .lolin  v.  18,  and  x.  33,  it  is  apparent,  that 
.lesns  Christ  had  spoken  in  such  a  manner  to  tin-  Jews, 
that  they  eitlier  understood  or  believed  that  nothing  less 
than  this  was  spoken  by  Christ,  that  he  attributed  to 
himself  something  greater  than  could  be  attributed  to 
a  human  being,"'  &c.  Atler  proceeding  to  elucidate 
these  two  passages  at  some  length,  Episcopius  adds, 

"  The  second  reason  is,  it  is  certain  the  charity  and 
love  of  God  is  amazingly  elevated  and  extolled,  by  which 
he  sent  his  own  and  only-begotten  Son  into  the  world, 
and  thus  gave  him  up,  even  to  the  death  of  the  cross,  to 
save  sinners,  who  are  the  sons  of  God's  wrath. — (John 
jii.  Ki ;  Rom.  v.  10,  and  viii.  32;  1  John  iv.  9,  10.)  I!ut 
if  the  only-begotten  Hon  of  God  has  no  signilication 
except  Jesus  with  regard  to  his  hu?nanity  and  his  being 
horn  of  a  virgin,  the  reason  is  not  so  apparent  why  this 
love  should  be  so  amazingly  enhanced,  as  it  is  when 
God's  nnlij-begottcn  Son  signifies  the  Son  ivlin  was  be- 
gotten of  the  Father  before  all  ages.  For  that  Son,  who 
was  born  of  the  virgin  Mary,  was  born  of  her  for  this 
very  purpose— that  he  might  be  delivered  to  death  for 
sinners.  But  what  pre-eminence  of  love  is  there  in  the 
fact  of  God  delivering  this,  his  Son,  to  death,  whom  it 
was  his  will  to  be  born  of  Mary,  and  to  be  conceived  of 
his  Holy  Spirit,  with  the  intention  that  he  should  die 
for  sinners?  Hut  if  you  form  a  conception  of  the  Son 
of  God,  who  was  begotten  of  his  Father  before  (ante 
secula)  all  worlds;  whom  it  was  not  compulsory  to 
send  into  the  world,  and  who  was  under  no  obligalioii 
to  become  man  ;  whose  dignity  was  greater  than  allowi  d 
him  to  be  involuntarily  sent  or  to  come  into  llesli,  mucli 
less  that  he  .should  be  delivered  to  ileath  ;  nay,  who,  as 
the  only-begott(^ii  and  sole  Son,  appeared  dearer  to  thf 
Father,  than  to  be  thrust  out  from  him  into  this  misery. 
When  you  have  Ibrnnil  this  conception  in  your  mind, 
then  will  the  splendour  and  i;lory  of  the  Divine  charily 
and  love  towards  the  hninan  race  shine  forth  with 
the  greater  intensity  ."(fi) 

To  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  eternal  Sonship  sonic 
objections  have  been  made,  drawn  from  the  sujiposcd 
reason  and  nature  of  things ;  but  they  admit  of  an  easy 
answer.  The  first  is,  "  If  the  Son  lie  of  the  Father  in 
any  way  whatsoever,  there  must  have  been  a  com- 
inenccment  of  his  existence."  To  this  objection  the 
following  is  a  satisfactory  answer: 

"  As  sure,  they  are  reaily  to  argue,  as  every  eflect  is 
posterior  to  its  cause,  so  must  Christ  have  been  pos- 
terior 10  that  fJod  of  whom  he  is  the  eftect,  or  emana- 
tion, or  oll'spring,  or  Son,  or  image,  or  by  whatever 
other  name  you  please  to  call  him.  Hence  a  Socinian 
writer  says,  '  The  invention  of  rnen  lias  been  hmg 
enough  upon  the  rack  to  prove,  in  opposition  to  com- 
mon sense  artd  reason,  that  an  eilici  may  be  co-eternal 
with  the  unoriginate  cause  that  produced  it.  Hut  the 
proposition  has  mystery  and  falsehood  wnlleii  in  its 
forehead,  and  is  only  fit  to  be  joineil  with  transubstan- 


(fi)  Eristopii  Inst.  Theol. 


tiation,  and  other  mysteries  of  the  same  nature.'  If 
these  terms  are  properly  taken,  it  will  be  found,  that 
though  every  edect  may  be  said  to  be  posterior  to  iu 
cause,  it  is  merely  in  the  order  of  nature,  and  not  of 
time;  and,  in  point  of  fact,  every  efTect,  properly  so 
called,  is  co-existent  with  its  cause,  and  must,  of  ne- 
t-essity,  exactly  answer  to  it,  both  in  magnitude  and 
duration  ;  so  that  an  actually  infinite  and  eternal  cause 
iiiiplirs  an  actually  infinite  and  eternal  effect. 

"iNliMiy  seem  to  imagine,  as  (he  words  cause  and 
eflTcct  must  be  placed  one  alter  the  other,  and  the  thing 
intended  by  the  latter  is  dillerent  from  what  is  meant 
by  the  former,  that,  therefore,  a  cause  must  precede  its 
eflect,  at  least  some  very  short  time.  Hut  they  ought 
to  consider,  that  if  any  thing  be  a  cause,  it  is  a  cause. 
It  cannot  be  a  cause  and  the  cause  of  nothing ;  no, 
not  for  the  least  conceivable  sjiace  of  time.  Wliatever 
effect  it  may  produce  hereafter,  it  is  not  the  actual  cause 
of  it  till  it  is  actually  in  being;  nor  can  it  be  in  the  very 
nature  of  things. 

"  Now,  suppose  I  should  call  the  Son  of  God  the  in- 
finite and  eternal  effect  of  an  infinite  and  eternal  cause ; 
however  the  terms  of  the  proposition  niiglit  be  cavilled 
with,  and  however  so|diistry  avail  itself  of  the  imper- 
fection of  human  language  and  the  ambiguity  of  words 
to  puzzle  the  subject,  in  the  sense  in  which  I  take  the 
terms  cause  and  effect,  the  proposition  is  true,  and  can- 
not be  successfully  controverted.  And  though  1  would 
by  no  means  affect  such  language,  yet  1  should  be  jus- 
tified in  its  use  by  the  early  orthodox  writers  of  the 
church,  both  Greek  and  Latin,(7)  who  do  not  hesitate 
to  call  the  Father  the  cause  of  the  Son;  though  the 
Latins  generally  preferred  using  the  term  princijmim, 
which,  in  such  a  connexion,  is  of  the  same  import  as 
cause.  Nor  can  we  consider  the  following  words  of 
our  blessed  Redeemer  in  any  other  view  :  '  1  live  by  the 
Father'  (.John  vi.  57),  and  'As  the  Father  hath  life  in 
himself,  so  hath  he  given  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  him- 
self (John  V.  26).  Such  language  can  never  be  un- 
derstood of  the  mere  humanity  of  Christ.  When  the 
early  ecclesiastical  WTiters  used  the  'terms  in  question, 
it  was  not  with  the  most  distant  intention  of  intimating 
any  iultTiority  of  naturt^  in  the  Son.  And  when  they 
calliil  him  'God  of  God,'  they  never  meant  to  ri^pre- 
sent  liim  as  a  creature.  Therefore,  it  was  added  to  the 
expression,  in  the  Nicene  Creed,  '  Light  of  light,  very 
God  of  very  God,  begotten,  not  jiiaJe,  being  of  one  sub- 
stance,'or  nature,  'with  the  Father  and  the  Maker  of 
all  things.'  They  neither  confound  the  persons,  nor 
divide  the  substance  of  the  Godhead.  And  we  shall 
soon  sec  that,  in  this,  tin  y  followed  the  obvious  and 
undoulited  nicaMing  of  the  Word  of  (Jod.  They  made 
use  of  the  very  Inst  terms  they  could  find  in  human 
language,  to  explain  ihe  truth  of  God,  in  a  most  impor- 
tant article  of  faith,  and  to  defend  it  against  Ihe  insi- 
dious attacks  of  heresy.  And  if  tlio.se  who  affect  to 
despise  them  would  stuily  their  writings  with  candour, 
till  y  would  find  that,  though  they  were  men,  and  as 
Miih  liable  to  err,  they  were  great  men,  and  men  who 
thought  as  well  as  wrote ;  who  thought  deeply  on  the 
things  of  God,  and  did  not  speak  at  random. 

"  .Some  persons  think  they  reduce  the  doctrine  in 
question  to  an  absurdity,  by  saying,  '  If  the  Father 
generate  the  Son,  he  must  either  be  always  generating 
him,  or  an  iii.stant  must  be  supposed  when  his  genera- 
tion was  comi)leted.  On  Ihe  former  supposition,  the 
Son  is  and  must  ever  remain  imperfect,  and,  in  fact, 
ungiMierated ;  on  the  latter,  we  must  allow  that  he  can- 
not be  eternal.'  IVo  one  can  talk  in  this  manner,  who 
has  not  first  confouudedtinie  with  eternity,  thr  creature 
with  the  Creator  ;  beings  whose  existence,  and  modes, 
and  relations  are  swallowed  up  and  lost  in  the  Divine 
eternity  aiid'inimiiisily  with  him  who  is,  in  all  essen- 
tial nspi  els.  (■!<  riial  and  infinite.  The  orthodox  main- 
tain that  the  Sou  ot  God  is  what  he  is  from  everlasting, 
as  well  as  the  Father.  His  generation  no  more  took 
place  in  any  imagmary  point  ol  i  icrnily  llian  it  took 
place  in  time.  liidced,  all  duration  which  is  com- 
menced is  time,  and  lime  it  must  ever  remain.  Though 
it  may  never  end,  it  can  never  be  actual  eternity  ;  nor 
can  any  being,  whoso  existence  has  commenced,  ever 
become  actually  eternal.  The  thing  implies  a  contra- 
diction in  terms. 

"  The  nature  of  God  is  perfect  from  everlasting ;  and 


(7)  Sec  Bull's  Defensio  Fidei  Nicfrna-,  and  the  notes 
01  Bisiioii  PuARsoN's  most  excellent  Work  on  the  Creed, 


Chap.  XII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


199 


the  generation  of  tUe  Son  of  God  was  no  voluntas'  ami 
succossivo  act  of  GoJ,  but  sometliing  essential  to  tliu 
Godliead,  and  tlicrcfbro  natural  and  eternal.  We  may 
illustrate  this  great  subjei-t,  lliougli  we  can  never  luUy 
comprehend  it.  All  natural  agents,  as  we  call  them, 
ai't  or  operate  uniformly  and  necessarily.  If  they 
shonld  change  their  action  or  o])eration,  we  should  im- 
mediately infer  a  change  of  tlieir  nature.  For  their 
existence,  in  a  certain  state,  impUes  that  action  or  o|)e- 
ratiou.  They  act  or  operate  by,  what  we  call,  a  neces- 
sity of  nature,  or,  as  any  plain  uneducated  man  would 
express  himself,  it  is  their  nature  so  to  do.  Thus  the 
fountain  Hows.  Thus  the  sun  shines.  Thus  the  mir- 
ror reflects  whatever  is  before  it.  No  sooner  did  the 
fountain  exist,  in  its  natural  state,  than  it  flowed.  No 
sooner  did  the  sun  exist,  in  its  natural  state,  than  it 
shone.  No  sooner  did  the  mirror  exist,  in  its  natural 
state,  than  it  reflected  the  forms  placed  before  it.  These 
actions  or  operations  are  all  successive,  and  are  mea- 
sured by  time,  because  the  things  from  whence  they 
result  exist  in  time,  and  their  existence  is  necessarily 
successive.  But  had  the  fountain  existed  from  ever- 
lasting, in  its  natural  state,  from  everlasting  it  must 
have  flowed.  Had  the  sun  so  existed,  so  it  must  have 
shone.  Had  the  mirror  so  existed,  so  it  must  have  re- 
flected whatever  was  before  it.  The  Son  of  God  is  no 
voluiitary  effect  of  the  Father's  power  and  wisdom,  like 
the  created  universe,  which  once  did  not  exist,  and 
might  never  have  e.xistod,  and  must,  necessarily,  be 
ever  confined  within  the  bounds  of  time  and  space :  he 
is  the  natural  and  necessary,  and  therefore  the  eternal 
and  infinite  birth  of  the  Divine  fecundity,  the  boundless 
overflow  of  the  eternal  fountain  of  all  existence  and 
perfection,  the  infinite  splendour  of  the  eternal  sun,  the 
unspotted  mirror  and  complete  and  adequate  image,  in 
vvliuni  may  be  seen  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead. 
This  jilaccs  the  orthodox  faith  at  an  eijual  distance 
from  the  8abellian  and  Arian  heresies,  and  will  ever 
make  that  distance  absolutely  mfinite.  This  is  no  figure 
of  speech,  but  a  most  sober  truth."(8) 

In  the  eloquent  and  forcible  passage  just  quoted,  the 
opposition  between  a  necessary  and  a  voluntary  eflect 
is  to  be  understood  of  arbitrary  will ;  for,  otherwise, 
the  ancients  scrui)led  not  to  say,  that  the  generation  of 
the  Son  was  with  the  will  of  the  Father;  some,  that  he 
could  not  but  eternally  will  it,  as  beuig  eternally  good  ; 
others,  that,  since  the  will  of  God  is  God  liimself,  as 
much  as  the  ivisdomoC  God  is  God  himself,  whatever 
is  the  fruit  and  product  of  God,  is  the  fruit  and  product 
of  his  will,  wisdom,  &c. ;  and  so  the  Son,  being  the 
perfect  image  of  the  Father,  is  substance  of  substance, 
wisdom  of  wisdom,  will  of  will,  as  he  is  light  of  light, 
and  God  of  God,  which  is  St.  Austin's  doctrine.  That 
the  generation  of  the  Son  may  be  by  'necessity  of  'na- 
ture, without  excluding  the  concurrence  or  ajiprohation 
of  the  will,  in  the  sense  of  consent,  approbation,  and 
acquiescence,  is  shown  by  Dr.  Waterland,  in  his  "  De- 
fence of  Queries,"  and  to  that  the  reader  who  is  curi- 
ous in  such  distinctions  is  referred.  They  are  distmc- 
tions,  however,  the  subtlety  of  which  will  often  be 
(liflferently  apprehended  by  dilTerent  minds,  and  they 
are,  therefore,  scarcely  allowable,  except  when  used 
defensively,  and  to  silence  an  opposer  who  resorts  to 
subtleties  for  the  propagation  of  error.  The  sure  rock 
is  the  testimony  of  God,  which  admits  of  no  other  con- 
sistent interpretation  than  that  above  given.  This  being 
established,  the  incomprehensible  and  mysterious  con- 
siderations, connected  with  the  doctrine,  must  be  left 
among  those  deep  things  of  God  which,  in  the  present 
state  at  least,  we  are  not  able  to  search  and  fathom. 
For  this  reason,  the  attempts  which  have  been  made  to 
indicate,  though  faintly,  the  manner  of  the  generation 
of  the  Son  are  not  to  be  commended.  Some  of  the 
Flatonizing  fathers  taught,  that  the  existence  of  the  Son 
flowed  necessarily  from  the  Divine  intellect  exerted  on 
itself.  The  schoolmen  agitated  the  question,  whether 
the  Divine  generation  was  effected  by  intellect  or  by  will. 
The  Father  begetting  a  Son,  the  exact  counterpart  and 
equal  of  himself,  by  contemplating  and  exerting  his 
intelligence  upon  himself,  is  the  view  advocated  by 
some  divmes,  both  of  the  Romish  and  Protestant  com- 
iimnions.  Analogies  have  also  been  framed  between 
the  generation  of  the  Son  by  the  Father  and  the  mind's 
generation  of  a  conception  of  itself  in  thought.    Some 


of  these  speculations  are  almost  obsolete ;  others  con- 
tinue to  this  day.  It  ought,  however,  to  be  observed, 
tiiat  they  are  wholly  unconnected  with  the  fact,  as  it  is 
stated,  authoritatively  and  doctrinally  stated,  in  Scrip- 
ture. These  are  atmosjiheric  halos  about  the  sun  of 
revelation,  which,  in  truth,  are  the  product  of  a  lower 
region,  though  they  may  seem  to  surround  the  orb  itself. 
Of  these  notions  Zanchius  has  well  observed,  "As  we 
have  no  proof  of  tlie.se  from  the  word  of  (Jod,  we  must 
reject  them  as  rash  and  vain,  that  is,  if  the  thing  be 
positively  asserted  so  to  be."  Indeed,  we  may  ask, 
with  the  prophet,  "  Who  shall  disclose  his  {jknera- 
TioN  V  On  this  subject  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  wisely 
says,  "  Believe,  indeed,  that  God  has  a  Son ;  but  to 
know  hoiv  this  is  possible  be  not  curious.  For  if  thou 
searchest,  thou  shall  not  find.  Iherefore,  elevate  not 
thyself  (in  the  attempt),  lest  thou  fall.  Be  careful  to 
understand  those  things  alone  which  are  delivered  to 
thee  as  commands.  First,  declare  to  me  who  is  the 
Father,  and  then  thou  wilt  acknowledge  the  Son.  But 
if  thou  canst  not  ascertain  (cognoscere)  the  nature  of 
the  Father,  display  no  curiosity  about  knowing  the 
mode  of  the  Son.  With  regard  to  thyself,  it  is  suffi- 
cient for  all  the  purposes  of  godliness  to  know,  tliat 
God,  has  one  only  Son." 

Proved,  then,  as  I  tldrdt  it  irrefragably  is,  by  Scrip- 
ture testimony,  that  the  title  "  Son  op  God"  contains 
a  revelation  of  the  Divinity  of  our  Lord,  as  a  person  of 
the  same  nature  and  essence  with  the  Father,  we  may 
proceed  to  another  of  the  most  emphatic  and  celebrated 
appellations  of  our  blessed  Saviour — "  Tue  W')RD." 

Under  this  title  our  Saviour  is  abruptly  announced  in 
the  introduction  to  St.  John's  Gospel,  for  that  he  is  in- 
tended eaimot  be  a  matter  of  doubt.  In  the  5th  verse, 
'■'■the  Word"  is  called  ''the  Light."  Inverse  7,  John 
Baptist  is  said  to  bear  witness  of  that  "  Light."  Again, 
in  verse  14,  the  Word  is  said  to  have  been  made  flesh, 
and  to  have  dwelt  among  us;  and,  in  verse  15,  that 
"  John  bears  witness  of  him."  "  The  Word"  and  "  the 
Light,"  to  whom  John  bears  witness,  are  names,  there- 
fore, of  the  same  Being;  and  that  Being  is,  inverse  17, 
declared  to  be  Jesus  Clirist.(9) 

The  manner  in  which  St.  John  commences  liis  Gospel 
is  strikingly  diflerent  from  the  introductions  to  the  his- 
tories of  i;hrist  by  the  other  evangelists ;  and  no  les-s 
striking  and  peculiar  is  the  title  under  which  he  an- 
nounces him — "thk  Word."  It  has,  therefore,  been 
a  subject  of  much  inquiry  and  discussion,  from  whence 
this  evangelist  drew  the  use  of  this  appellation,  and 
what  reasons  led  him,  as  though  intending  to  solicit 
particular  attention,  to  place  it  at  the  very  head  of  his 
Gospel.  That  it  was  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  an  ex- 
press opinion,  as  to  the  personal  character  of  him  whom 
it  is  used  to  designate,  is  made  more  than  probable 
from  the  predominant  character  of  the  whole  Gospel, 
which  is  more  copiously  doctrinal,  and  contains  a  re- 
cord more  full  of  what  Jesus  "  said,"  as  well  as  "  did," 
than  the  others. 

As  to  the  source  from  which  the  term  "Lnons"  was 
drawn  by  the  apostles,  some  have  held  it  to  be  taken 
from  the  Jewish  Scriptures ;  others,  from  the  Chaldee 
paraphrases ;  others,  from  Phiio  and  the  Helleni/.ing 
Jews.  The  most  natural  conclusion  certainly  appears 
to  be,  that,  as  St..Iohu  was  a  plain,  "  unlearned''  man, 
chiefly  conversant  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  he  derived 
this  term  from  the  sacred  books  of  his  own  nation,  in 
which  the  Hebrew  jjhrase  Dabar  Jehovah,  the  Word  of 
Jehovah,  frequently  occurs  in  passages  which  must  be 
understood  to  speak  of  a  personal  Word,  and  which 
phrase  is  rendered  Xoyog  Kvpwv  by  the  Septuagint  in- 
terpreters. Certainly,  there  is  not  the  least  evidence 
in  his  writings,  or  in  his  traditional  histor)',  that  he 
ever  acquainted  himself  with  Philoor  with  Plato;  and 
none,  therefore,  that  he  borrowed  the  term  from  them, 
or  used  it  in  any  sense  approaching  to  or  suggested  by 
these  refinements :— in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul  there 
are  allusions  to  poets  and  philosophers ;  in  those  of  St. 
John  none.  We  have  already  seen,  that  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  contain  frequent  intimations  of  a  distinction 


(8)  Fbancb'3  Three  Discourses  on  the  Person  of 
Christ. 


(9)  "  Per  Toi/  Xoyov  intelligi  Christum,  caret  dubio. 
Nam  v.  6,  7,  Scriptor  dicit,  Joannem  Baptistam  de  hoc 
Aoyo)  testimonium  dixisse ;  constat  auteni  cum  de 
ChrLsto  dixisse  testimonium;  etv.  14,  scquitur,  noyav 
hominem  esse  factum,  et  Apostoios  hujus  Xoyov,  ha- 
minis  facti,  vidisso  dignitatem :  atqui  Christi  majesta* 
tern  quotidie  oculis  videbant."— Roses.'41'llbr. 


'200 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  U. 


of  Persons  In  the  Oodlicail ;  that  one  of  these  Divine 
Persons  is  called  Jkuovaii  ;  and,  though  manifestly  re- 
preseatcil  as  existing  distinct  from  ttie  Father,  is  yet 
arrayed  with  atlrihutes  of  Divinity,  and  was  acknow- 
ledged by  the  ancient  Jews  to  be,  in  the  highest  sense, 
"  t/icir  dml,"  the  God  with  whom,  throuf;li  ;ill  lliuir  his- 
tory, they  t:\ni:tly  "  liwl  In  du."  This  Divine  Person 
■we  have  already  proved  to  have  been  si)oken  of  by  the 
proplurts  as  the  luturc  Christ ;  we  have  shown,  too,  that 
the  evangelists  and  apostles  represent  Jesus  as  that 
Divine  Person  of  the  prophets ;  and  if  in  the  writings 
of  the  Old  Testament  he  is  also  culled  "  the  Word," 
the  application  of  this  term  to  our  Lord  is  naturally 
accounted  for.  It  will  then  ajipearto  be  a  theological, 
not  a  pAj/06o;;Ajc  appellation,  and  one  which,  previously 
even  to  the  time  of  the  apostle,  had  been  siainped  Willi 
the  authority  of  inspiration.  It  is  not,  indeed,  fre- 
quently used  in  the  Old  Testament,  which  may  ac- 
count (or  its  not  heins  adopted  as  a  prominent  title  of 
Christ  by  the  other  evanfjelists  and  apostles;  but  that, 
notwithstanding  this  infrequency,  it  is  thus  used  by 
St.  John  has  a  sufficient  reason,  which  shall  be  pre- 
sently adduced. 

In  Genesis  xv.  1,  we  are  told,  that  "the  Word  of  the 
Lord  came  unto  Abram  in  a  vision,  saying.  Fear  not, 
Abram:  Iain  thy  shield  and  thy  exceeding  great  re- 
ward." Here  the  Word  of  the  Lord  is  the  speaker — 
"  the  Word  came — saying :"  a  mere,  word  may  be 
spoken  or  said ;  but  a  personal  Word  oiily  can  say,  "  / 
am  thy  shield."  The  pronoun  /  refers  to  the  whole 
phrase  "  the  Word  of  Jehovah ;"  and,  if  a  personal 
Word  be  not  understood,  no  person  at  all  is  mentioned 
by  whom  this  message  is  conveyed,  and  whom  Abram 
in  reply,  invokes  as  "  Lord  God."  The  same  con- 
struction is  seen  in  Psalm  xviii.  30,  "  The  Word  of  the 
Lord  is  tried;  lie  is  a  buckler  to  all  that  trust  in  him." 
Here  the  pronouns  refer  to  "  tub  Woun  of  the  Lord," 
in  the  first  clause ;  nor  is  there  any  thing  in  the  con- 
te.vt  to  lead  us  to  consider  the  Word  mentioned  to  be 
a  iprammatical  word,  a  verbal  communication  of  the 
will  of  anot  iier,  in  ojiposition  to  a  personal  Word.  This 
passage  is,  indeed,  less  capable  of.being  explained,  on 
the  supposition  of  an  ellipsis,  than  that  in  Genesis. 
In  this  personal  sense,  also,  1  Sam.  iii.  21,  can  only  be 
naturally  interpreted.  "And  the  Lord  appeared  again 
in  8hiloh  ;  for  the  Lord  revealed  (showed)  himself  to 
Samuel  in  Shiluh,  by  the  Wokd  ok  tiik  Lord."  Here 
it  is  first  dechwid,  that  the  Lord  apjieared ;  then  fol- 
lows tl»e  manner  of  his  apiK;arance,  or  manifestation, 
"  by  the  Word  of  the  Lord."  In  what  manner  could 
ho  appear,  except  by  his  personal  Word  in  vision? 
Again,  a  comi)arison  of  two  passages  will  make  it  pro- 
bable, that  the  personal  Word  is  intended  in  some 
passages,  and  was  so  understood  by  the  ancient  Jews, 
where  there  are  no  marked  circumstances  of  construc- 
tion to  call  our  attention  to  it.  In  2  Sam.  vii.  21,  we 
find,  "  For  thy  W(jkd's  sake,  and  according  to  thine 
own  heart,  ha.st  thou  done  all  these  things."  But  in 
the  jiarallel  passage  in  1  Chron.  xvil  19,  it  is  read,  "  () 
Lord,  for  thy  skrvant's  sake,  and  according  to  thine 
own  heart,  hast  thou  done  all  tnis  greatness."  ,Servunl. 
is,  unijuestionably,  an  Old  Testament  ajipellation  of 
Messiah;  and  not  a  few  pa.s.sages  miglil  be  adduced, 
where  the  jihrases  "  (or  thy  servant's  sake,"  "  (or  thy 
name's  sake,"  indicate  a  mediatorial  character  vested 
in  some  e,\a!ted  and  Divine  Personage.  The  compa- 
rison of  these  two  passages,  however,  is  sufficient  to 
show,  that  a  personal  character  is  given  to  the  Word 
niintioned  in  the  former. 

All  that  has  been  said  by  np|H)sing  criticism,  upon 
these  and  a  few  other  p.-i-ssagcs  in  which  the  phra.se 
occurs,  amounts  to  no  more  than  I  hat  iliey  mail  be 
otherwise  interpreted,  by  considerhig  them  as  ellip- 
tical expressions.  The  sense  above  given  is,  however, 
the  natural  and  obvious  one;  and,  ii'  it  also  accounts 
better  lor  the  frequent  use  of  the  terms  "  Word," 
"Word  of  the  Lord,"  among  ihe  aiicleni  .lewish  wri- 
ters, this  is  an  additional  re;ison  why  it  should  be  pre- 
ferred. The  TargnmiNis  use  it  with  great  frequency  ; 
and,  should  we  even  BUppo.se  Philoandilu-  Ilelleiiistic 
Jews  to  have  adopted  the  term  Losos  fioin  Plato  and 
the  Greeks,  yet  the  favouritism  of  that  term,  so  to 
speak,  and  the  higher  attributes  of  glory  and  Divinity 
With  which  they  invest  their  Logos,  is  best  accininled 
for  by  the  correspondence  of  this  term  with  one  which 
they  had  found  before,  not  only  among  their  own  inter- 
preters, but  in  the  sacrod  wriliJigs  themsolvos. 


Reference  has  been  made  to  the  Tarsrums,  and  they 
are  in  farther  evidence  of  the  theological  origin  of  this 
appellation.  The  Targurns,  or  Chaldee  paraphrases 
of  the  Old  Testament,  were  composed  for  the  use  of 
the  common  people  among  the  Jews,  who,  alter  their 
return  from  captivity,  did  not  understand  the  original 
Hebrew.  They  were  read  in  the  synagogues  every 
.Sabbath-day,  and  with  the  i)lirases  they  contain  all 
Jews  would,  of  course,  be  familiar.  Now,  in  such  of 
these  parajihrases  as  are  extant,  so  frequently  does  the 
phr.ase  "  the  Word  of  Jehovah'"  oc-cur,  that  in  almost 
every  place  where  Jehovah  is  mentioned  in  the  Old 
Test;iment,  as  holding  any  intercourse  with  men,  this 
circumlocution  is  used.  "The  Lord  created  man  in 
his  own  image,"  is,  in  the  Jerusalem  Targum,  "  The 
Word  of  .lehovah  created  man."  "Adam  and  Eve 
hcanl  the  voice  of  the  Lord  God,"  is  paraphrased, 
"they  heard  the  voice  of  the  Word  of  the  Lord  God." 
"  The  Lord  thy  God,  he  it  is  that  goeth  before  thee,"  is, 
in  the  Targum,  "Jehovah  thy  God,  his  Word  goeth  be- 
fore thee."  The  Targumisis  read,  liir  "  I  am  thy 
shield,"  Gen.  xv.  1,  "My  Word  is  thy  shield;"  for 
"  Israel  shall  he  saved  in  the  Lord,"  Isa".  xlv.  17,  "  by 
the  Word  of  the  Lord ;"  for  "  1  am  with  thee,"  .ler.  i.  8, 
"  My  Word  is  with  thee;"  and  in  Psalm  ex.  1,  instead 
of  "the  Lord  said  unto  my  Lord,"  they  read,  "the 
Lord  said  unto  his  Word;''  and  so  in  a  great  number 
of  places. 

The  Socinian  answer  is,  that  this  is  an  idiom  of  the 
Chaldee  language,  and  that  "  the  word  of  a  person  is 
merely  synonymous  to  himself."  It  must  certainly  be 
allowed,  that  the  Memra  oi' \he  Chaldee  paraphrasis 
has  not  in  every  case  a  personal  sense,  nor,  indeed,  has 
Logos,  or  Word,  by  which  it  may  be  translated;  but, 
as  the  latter  is  capable  of  beiHg  used  in  a  personal 
sense,  so  is  the  former;  and,  if  passages  can  be  found 
in  the  Targurns  where  it  is  evident  that  it  is  used  per- 
sonally and  as  distinct  from  God  the  Father,  and  can- 
not, without  absurdity,  be  supposed  to  b»used  olhcr- 
wise,  the  objection  is  fully  iiivalnlated  This  has,  I 
think,  been  very  satisfactorily  proved.  So  m  one  of 
the  above  in.stances,  "  They  heard  the  voice  of  the 
Word  of  the  Lord  God  walking  in  the  garden."  Here 
walking  is,  undoubtedly,  Ihe  aiinhute  of  a  person,  and 
not  of  a  mere  voice;  aiui  that  llie  person  referred  to  Is 
not  the  Father,  appears  from  the  author,  Tznor  Ham- 
mor,  who  makes  this  observation  on  the  pt'co,  "  He- 
lore  they  sinned  they  saw  the  glory  of  the  blessed  tJod 
speaking  with  him,  that  is.  with  (Jod  ;  but  alter  their 
sin  they  only  heard  the  voice  walking."  A  trilling  re- 
mark; but  sufficient  to  show  that  the  Jewish  exposi- 
tors considered  the  voice  as  a  distinct  person  from  God. 
The  words  of  Elijah,  1  Kings  xvin.  24,  "  /  irill  cull 
on  llie  name  of  the  Lord,"  A^c.  are  thus  paraphnisetl 
by  Jonathan  :  "I  will  jiray  in  the  Name  of  the  Lord, 
and  he  shall  send  his  Word."  The  paraphrast  could 
not  rcter  to  any  message  from  God  :  (or  it  was  nut  an 
answer  by  word,  but  by  fire,  that  Elijah  expected.  It 
has  never  been  pretended,  either  by  t^ociiiians,  or  by 
the  orthodox,  that  God  the  Father  is  said  to  be  .sent. 
If  there  be  but  one  Divine  Person,  by  whom  is  he 
sent  ? 

We  learn  from  Gen.  xvi.  7,  &c.that  ^^  the  Angel  of  the 
Lord  fmi ml  Hagar  hy  a  fmintaiu  o/' xeatcr ;"  lliat  he 
said,  "/  ii'ill  multijilij  thy  seed  exceedingly,"  and  that 
"  she  called  the  name  of  Jehovah,  that  spake  to  her. 
Thou  God  scest  me."  "it  is  evident  that  Hagar  con- 
sidered the  [icrson  whoaddres.scdheras  Divine.  Philo 
asserts  that  it  was  the  Word  who  appeared  to  her. 
Jonathan  gives  the  same  view.  "She  ronfcssed  be- 
fore Ihe  Lord  Jehovah,  whose  Word  h.ad  spoken  to 
her."  With  this  the  Jerusalem  Targum  agrees:  "She 
confessed  and  prayed  to  the  Word  of  the  Lord  who 
had  appeared  to  her."  It  is  in  vain  to  say,  in  the  So- 
chiian  sense,  that  God  himself  is  here  meant.  For  tho 
par'ohrasts  must  have  known,  from  the  text,  that  tho 
person  spoken  of  is  called  an  angel.  If  the  Father  bo 
meant,  how  is  be  calle<l  an  angel ' 

"  They  describe  the  V\'ord  as  a  Mi  diator.  It  is  said, 
Deut.  iv.  7,  '  Fur  tvluU  tiation  is  Ihne  so  great,  who 
hath  God  so  nigh  unto  tkem  as  the  Lord  our  God  is  in 
all  things  that  we  call  upon  him  fori'  Jonathan 
gives  the  following  paraphrase  of  the  passage  ;  'God  is 
near  in  the  name  of  the  Word  of  the  Lord.'  Again, 
we  And  this  paraphrase  on  Hos.  iv.  <),  'God  will  re- 
ceive the  prayer  of  Israel  hy  his  Word,  and  have 
mercy  upon  them,  and  will  make  them  by  his  Word 


Chap.  XII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


201 


like  a  bcauiiftil  tig-troc.'  And  on  Jer.  xxix.  14,  'I  will 
bo  soiiijlit  by  you  in  my  Word,  and  I  will  be  inquired 
of  tliroii£;li  you  by  my  Wonl.'  According  to  llie  Jeru- 
salem Targurn  on  Gen.  xxi.  :i3,  Abraham  at  Ueersheha 
'  prayed  in  the  name  of  tile  Word  of  tlic  Lord,  tlic  God 
of  tlie  world.'  Uut  it  is  inconceivable,  that  tlie  para- 
phra.sts  did  not  here  mean  to  describe  the  Word  as  a 
mediator ;  especially  as  we  know  that  the  ancient 
Jews,  when  supplicating  God,  entreated  that  he  woiUd 
'  look  on  the  face  of  his  anointed.' 
'  "  Tliey  speak  of  atonement  a.s  made  by  this  Memra. 
On  Deut.  .\xxii.  43,  Jonathan  observes, '  God  will  atone 
by  Ills  Word  for  his  land,  and  for  his  people,  even  a 
people  saved  by  the  Word  of  the  Lord.' 

"  They  describe  the  Memra  as  a  Redeemer,  and 
sometimes  as  the  Messiali.  These  words.  Gen.  xlix. 
18,  '/  have  vaited  for  thy  salvation.,^  axe  limn  para- 
phrased in  the  Jerusalem  Targum :  '  Our  father  Jacob 
said  thus,  My  t-oul  expects  not  tlie  redemption  of 
Gideon  the  son  of  Joasli,  wluch  is  a  temporary  salva- 
tion ;  nor  the  redemption  of  Samson,  which  is  a  tran- 
sitory salvation  ;  but  the  redemption  which  thou  didst 
promise  should  come  through  thy  Memra  to  thy  people. 
This  salvation  my  soul  waits  for.'  In  the  blessing  of 
Judah  (ver.  10—12)  particular  mention  is  made  of  the 
King  Messiah.  It  is  a  striking  proof  that  by  the 
Memra  they  meant  him  who  was  to  appear  as  the  Mes- 
siah, that  in  the  Targum  of  .Tonathau,  verse  18,  is  thus 
rendered :  '  Our  father  Jacob  said,  I  do  not  expect  the 
deliverance  of  Gideon  the  son  of  Joash,  which  is  a 
temporal  salvation  ;  nor  that  of  Samson  the  son  of 
Manoah,  which  is  a  transient  salvation.  But  I  expect 
the  redemi)tion  of  the  Messiah  the  son  of  David,  who 
shall  come  to  gather  to  himself  the  children  of  Israel.' 
It  is  evident  that  the  one  paraphrast  has  copied  from  the 
other :  and  as  the  one  puts  Messiah  for  Mejiira,  it  can- 
r.ot  well  be  denied  that  they  had  considered  both  terms 
as  denoting  the  same  jierson. 

"They  describe  this  Memra  as  oidy-begottm,  and, 
in  this  character,  as  the  Creator.  That  remarkable 
verse.  Gen.  iii.  22,  '  The  Lord  God  said,  Behold,  the 
■mail  is  become  as  one  of  ?ts,'  is  paraphrased  in  a  very 
singular  manner :  '  The  Word  of  the  Lord  said.  Be- 
hold, Adam,  whom  /  have  created,  is  the  only-begotten 
in  the  world,  as  I  am  the  only-begotten  in  the  highest 
heavens.'  The  language  here  ascribed  to  the  Memra, 
with  wha'  Reference  to  the  text  avails  not  in  the  pre- 
sent inqiiir}',  is  applicable  to  a  person  only  ;  and  it  will 
not  be  pretended  by  our  opponents,  that  it  can  apply  to 
the  Fatlur.  The  person  uitended  was  believed  to  be 
'  the  only-begotten  Word.'  How  nearly  does  this  lan- 
gtiage  approach  to  that  of  Inspiration  I  '  In  the  begin- 
ning was  the  Word.  All  things  were  made  by  him. 
We  beheld  his  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only-begotten 
of  the  Father,'  John  i.  1.  3. 

"  If,  therefore,  the  jiaraphrasts  describe  the  Memra 
as  one  sent,  as  a  Mediator,  as  one  by  whom  atonement 
is  made,  as  a  Redeemer,  and  the  Messiah,  and  as  only- 
begotten  ;  it  is  undeniable  that  they  do  not  mean  God 
the  Father.  If,  notwithstanding,  they  ascribe  personal 
and  Divine  characters  to  the  Word,  they  must  mean  a 
distinct  person  in  the  Divine  essence."(I) 

The  same  personality  and  the  same  distinction  we 
find  in  the  passage,  "God  came  to  Abimelech  ;''  in  the 
Targum,  "his  Word  came  from  the  face  of  God  to  Abi- 
melech." Equally  express  is  the  personal  distinction 
in  Psalm  ex.  1,  "  Jehovah  said  unto  his  Word,  Sit  thou 
at  my  right  hand."  Here  the  Word  cannot  be  the  Je- 
hovah that  speaks,  and  a  person  only  could  sit  at  his 
right  hand.  This  passage,  too,  proves  that  the  ancient 
Jews  applied  the  term  Word  to  the  Messiah  ;  lor,  as 
we  mify  leani  from  our  Lord's  conversation  with  the 
Pharisees,  it  was  a  received  opinion  that  this  passage 
was  spoken  of  the  Messiah. 

Now,  as  some  of  the  Targnins  still  extant  are  older 
than  the  Christian  era,  and  contain  the  interpretations 
of  preceding  paraphrases  now  lost ;  and  as  there  is  so 
constant  an  agreement  among  thein  in  the  use  of  this 
phrase,  we  can  be  at  no  loss  to  discover  the  source 
whence  St.  John  derived  the  appellative  Logos.  lie 
had  found  it  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  and  he  had 
heard  it  in  the  Chaldee  paraphrases,  read  in  the  syna- 
gogues, by  wiiich  it  was  made  familiar  to  every  Jew. 
Dr.  I*.  Smith,  in  his  Scripture  Testimony,  hesitates  as 
to  the  personal  sense  of  the  Memra  of  the  Chaldean 


(1)  J^ZiiiEsoii's  Vindication. 


paraphrastH,  ami  inclines  to  consider  It  as  used  in  the 
.sense  of  a  reciprocal  pronoun,  denoting,  in  its  usuai 
application  to  the  Divine  Being,  God  his  very  self.  On 
this  supposition  it  is,  however,  iiiipossiblo  to  iiiteriiret 
some  of  the  pa.ssages  above  given.  Its  primary  im- 
port, he  says,  "  is  that,  whatever  it  may  be,  which  is 
the  MKinuM  of  communicating  the  mind  and  intentions 
of  one  person  to  another."  The  Jews  of  the  same  age 
or  a  little  after,  and  I'hilo,  he  admits,  useil  the  term 
Word  with  a  personal  reference,  for  such  "  an  exten- 
sion and  reference  of  the  term  would  flow  from  the 
primary  signification,  a  medium  of  rational  communi- 
cation;'' but  if  Philo  and  tho.se  Jews  thus  e.vteaded 
the  primary  meaning  of  this  word,  why  might  not  the 
Chaldee  paraphrasts  extend  it  before  them  !  They  did 
not  invent  the  term,  and  affix  to  it  its  primary  mean- 
ing. They  found  it  in  the  Chaldee  tongue,  as  we  find 
Word  in  English  ;  and  that  they  sometimes  use  it  in 
its  primary  sense  is  no  proof  at  all  that  they  did  not 
use  it  also  in  a  personal  or  extended  one.  That  a  se- 
cond Jehovah  is  mentioned  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures, 
as  theinedium  oX communication  with  men,  cannot  be 
denied,  and  Memra  would  therefore  be,  according  to 
this  explanation  of  its  primary  meaning,  a  most  fit 
term  to  express  his  person  and  oliice.  It  is  also  a 
strong  evidence  in  favour  of  the  personal  sense  of  this 
term,  that "  Alaimonides  himself,  anxious  as  he  was  to 
obscure  all  those  passages  of  Scripture  tliat  imply  a 
Divine  plurality,  and  to  conceal  every  evidence  of  the 
Jews  having  ever  held  this  doctrine,  had  not  boldness 
enough  to  assert,  that  with  the  Chaldee  interpreters, 
the  Word  of  God  was  merely  '  synonymous  to  God' 
himself.  He  knew  that  the  Targums  aflbrdcd  such 
un(iuestionablc  evidence  of  the  introduction  of  a  dis- 
tinct person  under  this  designation,  that  every  one  of 
his  countrymen  who  was  in  the  least  acquainted  with 
them  would  give  Mm  the  lie.  Therefore  he  finds  him- 
self reduced  to  the  miserable  shill  of  pretending  that, 
when  the  paraphrasts  speak  of  the  Word  of  the  Lord, 
and  use  this  expression  where  the  name  of  God  oc- 
curs in  the  original,  they  mean  to  describe  a  created 
angel. '"(2) 

"  Upon  the  whole,  then,"  says  Dr.  Laurence,  "  how 
are  we  to  determine  the  sense  of  this  singular  phrase  ? 
Although  we  consider  it  neither  as  a  reciprocal  nor  as 
intended  to  designate  the  second  person  in  the  Trinity, 
who,  becoming  incarnate,  lived  and  died  for  us  (of 
which,  perhaps,  the  Targiunists  themselves  might  have 
had,  at  best,  but  indistinct  or  even  incorrect  ideas),  yet 
may  we,  most  probably,  regard  it,  in  its  general  use, 
as  indicative  of  a  Divine  Person.  That  it  properly 
means  the  Word  of  the  Lord,  or  his  will  declared  by  a 
verbal  communication,  and  that  it  is  sometimes  lite- 
rally so  taken,  cannot  be  denied.  But  it  seems  impos- 
sible to  consult  the  numerous  passages,  where  per- 
sonal characteristics  are  attributed  to  it,  and  to  con- 
ceive that  it  does  not  usually  point  out  a  real  person. 
Whether  theTargumist  contemplated  this  hypostatical 
word  as  a  true  subsistence  in  the  Divine  nature,  or  as 
a  distinct  emanation  of  Deity,  it  may  be  useless  to  in- 
quire, because  we  are  deficient  in  data  adequate  to  a  . 
complete  decision  of  the  question."(3) 

Philo  and  the  philosophic  Jews  may,  therefore,  be 
well  spared  in  the  inquiry  as  to  the  source  from  whence 
St.  John  derives  the  appellative  Logos.  Whether  the 
Logos  of  Philo  be  a  personified  attribute  or  a  person, 
has  been  much  disputed,  but  is  of  little  consequence 
on  this  point.  It  may,  however,  be  observed,  that,  as 
the  evidence  predominates  in  favour  of  the  personality 
of  the  Logos  of  Philo,  in  numerous  passages  of  his 
writings,  this  will  also  show,  that  not  only  the  Jewsh 
writers,  who  composed  the  paraphrases,  and  the  com- 
mon people  among  the  Jews,  in  consequence  of  the 
Targums  being  read  in  the  synagogues,  but  also  those 
learneil  men  who  addicted  themselves  to  the  study  of 
the  Greek  philosophy,  were  familiar  with  the  idea  of 
a  Logos  as  a  person  distinct  from  God,  yet  invested 
with  Divine  attributes  and  pertbrming  Divine  works. 
The  question  as  to  PhUo  is  not  whether  he  sometimes 
speaks  of  a  personified^  Logos,  that  is,  of  an  attribute 
or  conception  of  God,  arrayed  in  poetic  personal  pro- 


(2)  Et  fuit  Verbvm  Domini  ad  me,  &c.  Fieri  quo- 
que  potest  meo  judicio  ut  Otdtelos  per  vocem  Eln- 
him,  Angelum  intellexcrit,  &c.— More  N'cvochim,  par- 
i.  c.  27,  p.  33. 

(3)  Diswjftation. 


202 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


(Fart  II. 


pcrlles :  thla  Is  granted ;  but  whether  ho  also  speaks 
of  a  Loi;os,  who  is  a  real  and  a  IJiviiie  person.  Now, 
when  hi;  calls  this  Logos  Cod,  a  seeond  God,  the  Son 
of  God,  the  First-begotten,  the  beloved  Son ;  speaks 
of  him  as  superior  to  angels,  as  the  Creator  of  the 
world,  as  seeing  all  things,  as  the  Governor  and  Sns- 
tainer,  as  a  Messenger,  as  tlio  Shepherd  of  the  Hock ; 
of  men  being  freer!  irom  their  sins  by  him,  as  the  true 
tligh  Priest,  as  a  Mediator, and  in  other  similar  and 
personal  terms,  which  may  all  be  verified  by  consult- 
ing his  writings,  or  the  selections  given  in  Kidd's  Ue- 
iiionslration,  Allix's  Judgment,  Kryani's  I'hilo,  Lau- 
rence's Dissertation,  and  other  works;  he  cannot,  by 
any  possibility  ol'construetion,  be  supposed  to  personify 
the  mere  attribute  of  the  Keasou  or  Wisdom  of  God, 
or  any  conception  and  operation  of  the  Divine  Intel- 
lect. This  may  be  the  only  Logos  of  Plato ;  for, 
though  the  Christianized  I'latonists,  of  a  lower  period, 
u.sed  this  term  in  a  personal  sense,  there  is  but  slender 
evidence  to  conclude  that  Plato  used  it  as  the  name  of 
a  i)erson  ilistin.ct  from  God.  Certain  it  is,  that  the 
Logosof  Philois  arrayed  in  personal  characters  which 
are  not  found  in  the  writings  of  Piato  ;  a  tact  which 
will  with  great  dithculty  be  accounted  (or,  upon  the 
supposition  that  the  Jewish  philosopher  borrowed  his 
notions  Irom  the  Greek.  Philo  says,  that  "  the  Father 
lias  bestowed  upon  this  Prince  of  angels  his  most  an- 
cient Logos,  that  he  should  stand  as  a  Mediator,  to 
judge  between  the  creature  and  the  Creator.  He 
therefore  intercedes  with  him  who  is  immortal,  in  be- 
half of  mortals;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  he  acts  the 
jiart  of  an  ambassador,  being  sent  from  the  supreme 
King  to  his  subjects.  And  this  gift  he  so  willingly  ac- 
cepts as  to  glory  in  it,  saying,  I  have  stood  between 
God  and  you,  being  neither  i(7ibegott.en  as  God.  nor  be- 
gotten, like  mortals,  but  one  in  the  middle,  between 
two  extremes,  acting  the  part  of  a  hostage  with  both; 
with  the  Creator,  as  a  pledge  that  he  will  never  be  pro- 
voked to  destroy  or  desert  the  world,  so  as  to  suflTer  it 
to  run  into  confusion ;  and,  with  creatures,  to  give 
them  this  certain  hojie,  that  God,  being  reconciled,  will 
never  cease  to  take  tare  of  his  own  workmanship. 
For  I  proclaim  ])eare  to  the  creation  from  that  God 
who  removes  war  and  introduces  and  preserves  peace 
for  ever."  Now,  when  he  expresses  himself  in  this 
manner,  who  can  reconcile  this  to  a  mere  personifica- 
tion from  the  Greek  philosophy?  or  suppose  that  Ptiilo 
obtained  from  that  ideas  so  evangelical,  that,  were 
there  not  good  evidence  that  he  was  not  acquainted 
with  Christianity,  we  should  rather  conceive  of  him  as 
of  "a  scribe,"  so  far  as  this  passage  goes,  "well  in- 
structed" in  the  kingdom  of  heaven !  Even  Dr. 
I'riestleyacknowledges  that  Philo  "  made  a  much  more 
xnhslan/iid  personification  of  the  Logos  than  any  of 
the  proi)er  PJatonists  had  done.'X4)  Substantial,  in- 
deed, it  is ;  for  although,  in  some  passages,  in  the 
vigour  of  his  discursive  and  allegorizing  genius,  "he 
enshrines  his  Logos  behind  such  a  veil  of  fancy,  that 
we  can  scarcely  discern  his  person  in  the  sanctuary," 
yet  in  the  above,  and  many  other  passages,  "  he  draws 
aside  the  veil  and  shows  him  to  us  in  his  full  propor- 
tions."(5)  For  what  conceivable  attribute  of  Deity,  or 
ideal  thing  whatever,  could  any  writer,  allegorist  as  he 
might  hi:,  not  insanely  raving,  call  "Prince  of  angels," 
"Mediator,"  "Intercessor,"  "neither  unbegotten  as 
God,  nor  begolten  like  mortals,"  "an  Ainbassaclor" 
sent  from  (Jod  to  men,  interposing  between  an  offended 
God  to  restrain  his  anger  and  to  give  "peace"  to  (he 
world  ?  Who  could  speak  of  these  attributes  or  ideali- 
ties ill  language  anticipatory  of  an  incarnation,  as  "a 
man  of  (;od,  immorlal  and  iiicorru[iIiblc,"as  "  the  man 
alter  the  image  of  (Joil,"  or  ascribe  to  him  a  namo  "  un- 
speakable and  incomprehensible,"  and  aflirm  that  he  is 
a  "fabricator,"  or  Creator,  and"  Divine,  who  will  lie  up 
close  to  the  Father,"  exactly  where  St.  John  places 
him,  "  in  the  very  bosom  of  the  Father."  For,  how- 
ever mysteriously  Philo  speaks  in  other  passages,  he 
says  nothing  to  contradict  these,  and  they  must  be 
taken  as  they  are.  They  express  a  real  personality, 
and  they  show,  at  the  same  time,  that  they  could  not 
tie  borrowed  from  Plato.  It  is  not  necessary  to  enter 
into  the  question,  whether  that  philosopher  ascribed  a 
ri^al  personality  to  his  Logos  or  not.  If  he  gives  him  a 
real  and  Divine  personality,  then  the  inference  will  be, 

(1)  Early  Opinions. 

(5)  WiiiTAKER's  Origin  of  Arianlsm. 


that  he  drrived  his  notion  fhim  the  Jews,  or  from  an- 
cient patriarchal  tradition;  ami  it  would  be  most 
natural  lor  Philo,  finding  a  personal  and  Divine  Logos 
in  Plato,  to  enlarge  the  scanty  conceptions  of  the  phi- 
losopher from  the  theology  of  his  own  countn,-.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  we  suppose  the  Logos  of  Plato  to  bo 
a  mere  personification,  either  Philo  must  have  im- 
proved h  into  a  real  person,  consistent  with  his  own 
religion ;  or,  sometimes  philosophizing  on  a  mere  per- 
sonified Logos,  and  sometunes  iiilroducingthe  personal 
Logos  of  his  own  nation  and  native  schools,  we  have 
the  key  to  all  those  passages  wliich  would  appear  in- 
consistent with  each  other,  if  interpreted  only  of  one 
and  the  same  subject,  and  if  he  were  regarded  as 
speaking  exclusively  either  of  a  personified  or  a  real 
Logos.  "  From  all  the  circumstances  it  seems  to  be 
the  most  reasonable  conclusion,  that  the  leading  ac- 
ce])tation  of  the  Memra  or  Logos  among  the  Jews  of 
this  middle  age  was  to  designate  an  intermediate 
agent;  that,  in  the  sense  of  a  Mediator  between  God 
and  man,  it  became  a  recognised  appellation  of  the 
Messiah;  that  the ;;tT.sf)«rt/ doctrine  of  the  Word  was 
the  one  generally  received,  and  that  the  conceptual  no- 
tion which  Philo  interweaves  with  the  other  was 
purely  his  own  invention,  the  result  of  his  theological 
plulosophy."(()) 

As  the  doctrine  of  a  personal  Logos  was  not  derived 
by  Philo  from  Platonism,  so  his  own  writings,  as  de- 
cidedly as  the  reason  of  the  case  itself,  wUl  show,  that 
the  source  from  which  he  did  derive  it  was  the  Scrip- 
tures and  the  Chaldee  jiaraphrases,  or,  in  other  words, 
the  established  theology  of  his  nation.  Philo  had  not 
suflered  the  doi-.trine  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  of  a 
Jehovah  acting  in  the  name  and  under  the  commission 
of  another  Jehovah  as  well  as  his  own,  to  go  unnoticed. 
The  passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  wtiich  a  per- 
sonal Word,  the  Dabar  Jehoi'ah  occurs,  had  not  been 
overlooked,  nor  the  more  frciiucnt  use  of  an  equivalent 
phrase  in  the  Memra  of  the  parajihrasts.  "  There  is  a 
time,"  he  observes,  "  when  he  (the  holy  Logos)  inquires 
of  some,  as  of  Adam,  where  art  thou?"  exactly  cor- 
responding with  the  oldest  Targumists,  "  Tiik  Word 
of  the  Lord  called  to  Adam."  Again,  with  reference  to 
Abraham  and  Lot, — "  of  whom  (the  Logos)  it  is  said 
the  sun  came  out  ujion  the  earth,  and  Lot  entered  into 
Sijor,  and  the  Lord  rained  brimstone  and  fire  upon  So- 
dom and  (iomorrah.  For  the  Logos  of  God,  when  he 
comes  out  to  our  earthly  system,  assists  and  helps  those 
who  are  related  to  virtue,"  i!cc.  So  by  Onkelos  and 
Jonathan,  the  appearances  of  God  to  Abram  are  said  to 
be  ajipearances  of  the  Word,  and  twice  in  the  15th  chap- 
ter of  Genesis  "  the  Word  of  the  Lord"  is  said  lo  come 
to  Abraham.  The  Being  who  ajipeared  to  Hagar,  of 
whom  she  said,  "  Thou  God  seest  me,"  Plido  also  calls 
the  Logos.  The  Jehovah,  who  stood  above  the  ladder 
of  Jacob  and  said,  "  I  am  the  Lord  God  of  Abraham 
thy  fiither,"  has  the  same  appellation,  and  he  who 
spake  to  Mo.ses  from  the  bush.  It  is  thus  that  Plulo  ac- 
cords with  the  most  ancient  of  the  interpreters  of  his 
nation  in  giving  the  title  Memra,  Logos,  or  Word,  to 
the  ostensible  Deity  of  the  Jewish  Dispensation,  in 
which,  too,  they  were  authorized  by  the  use  of  the  same 
term,  in  the  same  aj)i)lication,  by  the  sacred  writers 
themselves.  Why,  then,  resort  to  Plato,  when  the 
source  of_ the  Logos  of  Philo  is  so  plainly  indicated? 
and  why  suppose  St.  John  to  have  borrowed  from  Philo 
when  the  Logos  was  an  established  form  of  theologi- 
cal speech,  and  when  the  sources  from  which  Philo  de- 
rived it,  the  Scriptures  and  tin-  paraphrases,  were  as  ac- 
cessible to  the  a])ostle  as  to  the  jiliUosophical  Jew  of 
Alexandria? 

As  Philo  mingled  Platonic  speculations  with  his  dis- 
courses on  the  real  Logos  of  his  national  faith,  without, 
however,  giving  uji  pcr.sonaUty  and  Divinity,  so  tho 
Jews  of  his  own  age  mingled  various  crude  and  darken- 
ing comments  with  the  same  ancient  faith  drawn  (Vom 
the  Scrijiluri's,  and  transmitled  wilh  the  purer  parts  of 
their  iradilion.  The  paraphrases  and  writings  of  Philo 
remain,  however,  a  striking  moiiuiiR'iit  of  the  existence 
of  opinions  as  to  a  distinction  of  jicr.sons  in  the  God- 
head, and  the  Divine  characlerof  a  Mediator  and  inter- 
posing agent  between  tJod  and  man,  as  indicated  in 
their  Scriptures,  and  preserved  by  iheir  theologians. 

<  Celebrated  as  this  title  of  the  Logos  was  in  the  Jew- 
ish theology,  it  is  not,  however,  the  appellation  by 


(fi)  Dr.  Smith's  Person  of  Christ. 


Chap,  XII.j 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


203 


which  ihc  Si)lrit  of  Inspiration  has  chosen  tliat  our 
Saviour  stiould  be  priiiripally  designated.  It  occurs  but 
a  very  few  times,  and  jiriiuipally  and  emphatically  in 
the  introduction  to  !St.  John's  Gospel.  A  cogent  reason 
can  be  given  why  this  apostle  adopts  it,  and  we  are 
not  without  a  probalilc  reason  why,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  title  Son  of  God  should  have  been  pre- 
ferred, which  is,  likewise,  a  frecjuent  title  of  the  Logos 
in  tlie  writings  also  of  I'lulo. 

"Originating  from  the  .s/iiW^Ka/ principle  of  connex- 
ion, between  the  lirst  and  the  second  Being  in  the  God- 
head ;  marking  this,  by  a  spiritual  idea  of  connexion  ; 
and  considering  it  to  be  as  close  and  as  necessary  as 
the  Word  is  to  tlie  energetic  mind  of  God,  which  can- 
not bury  its  intellectual  energies  in  silence,  but  must 
imt  them  forth  in  speech;  it  is  too  spiritual  in  itself,  to 
be  addressed  to  the  faith  of  the  multitude.  If  with  so 
full  a  relerenr6  to  our  bodily  ideas,  and  so  positive 
ajiliation  of  the  Second  Being  to  the  First,  we  have 
seen  the  grossness  of  Arian  criticism,  endeavouring 
to  resolve  the  doctrine  into  the  mere  dust  of  a  figure ; 
how  much  more  ready  would  it  have  been  to  do  so, 
if  we  had  only  such  a  spiritual  denomination  as 
this,  lor  the  second  >  This  would  certainly  have  been 
considered  by  it,  as  too  unsubstantial  for  distinct  per- 
sonality, and  therefore  too  evanescent  for  etjual  Divi- 
nity."(7) 

Of  the  reason  of  its  occasional  use  by  St.  .Tohn,  a  sa- 
tisfactory account  may  also  be  given.  The  following  is 
a  clear  abridgment  of  the  ampler  discussions  on  this 
subject  which  have  employed  many  learned  writers. 

"  JNot  long  after  the  writings  of  Philo  were  published 
there  arose  the  Gnostics,  a  sect,  or  rather  a  multitude 
of  sects,  who  having  learned  in  the  same  Alexandrian 
school  to  blend  the  principles  of  Oriental  philosophy 
with  the  doctrine  of  Plato,  Ibrmed  a  system  most  re- 
pugnant to  the  simplicity  of  Christian  faith.  It  is  this 
system  which  Paul  so  often  attacks  under  the  name  of 
'  false  philosophy,  strife  of  Words,  endless  genealogies, 
science  falsely  so  called.'  The  foundation  of  the  Gnos- 
tic system  was  the  intrinsic  and  incorrigible  depravity 
of  matter.  Upon  this  principle  they  made  a  total  sepa- 
ration between  the  spiritual  and  the  material  world.— 
Accountnig  it  impossible  to  educe  out  of  matter  any 
thing  which  was  good,  they  held  that  the  Supreme  Be- 
ing, who  presided  over  the  innumerable  spirits  that 
were  emanations  from  himself,  did  not  make  this  earth, 
but  that  a  s|)irit  of  an  inferior  nature,  very  far  removed 
in  character  as  well  as  in  rank  from  the  Supreme  Be- 
ing, formed  matter  into  that  order  wliich  constituteSthe 
world,  and  gave  life  to  the  dilferent  creatures  that  inha- 
bit the  earth.  They  held  that  this  inferior  spirit  was 
the  ruler  of  the  creatures  whom  he  had  made,  and  they 
considered  men,  whose  souls  he  imjirisoned  in  earthly 
tabernacles,  as  experiencing  under  his  dominion  the  mi- 
sery which  necessarily  arose  from  their  connexion  with 
matter,  and  as  estranged  from  the  knowledge  of  the 
true  God.  Most  of  the  later  sects  of  the  Gnostics  re- 
jected every  part  of  the  Jewish  law,  because  the  books 
of  Moses  gave  a  view  of  the  creation  inconsistent  with 
their  system.  But  some  of  the  earlier  sects,  consisting 
of  Alexandrian  Jews,  incorporated  a  respect  for  the  law 
with  the  principles  of  their  system.  They  considered 
the  Old  Testament  Dispensation  as  granted  by  the  De- 
miurgns,  the  maker  and  ruler  of  the  world,  who  was 
incapable,  from  his  want  of  power,  of  delivering  those 
who  received  it  from  the  thralilom  of  matter :  And  they 
looked  for  a  more  glorious  messenger,  whom  the  com- 
passion of  the  Supreme  Being  was  to  send  for  the  pur- 
pose of  emancipating  the  human  race.  Those  Gnostics 
who  embraced  Christianity  regarded  the  Christ  as  this 
Messenger,  and  exalted  j^Eon,  who,  bemg  in  some  man- 
ner united  to  the  man  Jesus,  put  an  end  to  the  domi- 
nion of  the  Uemiurgus  and  restored  the  souls  of  men 
to  communion  with  God.  It  was  natural  for  the  Chris- 
tian Gnostics  who  had  received  a  .lewish  education  to 
Ibllow  the  steps  of  Philo,  and  the  general  sense  of  their 
countrymen,  in  giving  the  name  Logos  to  the  Demiur- 
gus.  And  as  Christns  was  understood  from  the  begin- 
ning of  our  Lord's  ministry  to  be  the  Greek  word  equi- 
valent to  the  Jewish  name  Messiah,  there  came  to  be, 
in  theirsystem,  a  direct  opposition  between  Chrisiosand 
Logos.  The  Logos  was  the  maker  of  the  world  ;  Chris- 
tos  was  the  .a!;on  sent  to  destroy  the  tyranny  of  the 
I^ogos.  ^ 


(")  Whitakbr's  Origin  of  Arianism. 


"One  of  the  first  teachers  of  this  Rystem  was  Cerin- 
thus.  We  have  not  any  particular  .tccnunt  of  al)  the 
branches  of  his  system;  and  it  isiiossiblethatwe  may 
ascribe  to  him  some  of  those  tenets  by  which  later  sects 
of  Gnostics  were  discriminated.  Hut  we  have  autho- 
rity for  saying,  that  the  general  principle  of  the  Gnos- 
tic scheme  was  ojienly  taught  by  Cerinthus  before  the 
jiublication  of  the  (iospel  of  John.  The  authority  is 
that  of  Iren^us,  a  Ijishop  who  lived  in  the  second  cen- 
tury, who  in  his  youth  had  heard  Polycarp,  the  disciple 
of  the  apostle  John,  and  who  retained  the  discourses 
of  Polycarp  in  his  memory  till  his  death.  There  arc 
yet  extant  of  the  works  of  Irenteus,  five  hooks  which 
he  wrote  against  heresies,  one  of  the  most  authentic 
and  valuable  monuments  of  theological  eruiUtion.  In 
one  place  of  that  work  he  says,  that  Cerinthus  taught 
in  Asia  that  the  world  was  not  made  by  the  Sujireme 
God,  but  by  a  certain  power  very  separate  and  far  re- 
moved from  the  Sovereign  of  the  Universe,  and  igno- 
rant of  his  nature.(8)  In  another  ])lace,  he  says,  that 
John  the  apostle  wished,  by  his  Gospel,  to  extirpate  the 
error  which  had  been  spread  among  men  by  Cerin- 
thus ;(9)  and  Jerome,  who  lived  in  the  fourth  century, 
says  that  John  wrote  his  Gospel,  at  the  desire  of  the 
bisliojjs  of  Asia,  against  Cerinthus  and  other  heretics, 
and  chiefly  against  the  doctrines  of  the  Ebionites,  then 
springing  up,  who  said,  that  Christ  did  not  e,\ist  before 
he  was  born  of  Mary.(l) 

"  From  the  laying  these  accounts  together,  it  appears 
to  have  been  the  tradition  of  the  Christian  church,  that 
John,  who  lived  to  a  great  age,  and  who  resided  at 
Ephesus,  in  proconsular  Asia,  was  moved  by  the 
growth  of  the  Gnostic  heresies,  and  by  the  solicitations 
of  the  Christian  teachers,  to  bear  his  testimony  to  the 
truth  in  writing,  and  particularly  to  recollect  those  dis- 
courses and  actions  of  our  Lord,  which  might  furnish 
the  clearest  refutation  of  the  persons  who  denied  his 
pre-existence.  This  tradition  is  a  key  to  a  great  part 
of  his  Gospel.  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  had  given  a 
detail  of  those  actions  of  .Jesus  which  are  the  evidences 
of  hisdivme  mission:  of  those  events  in  his  life  upon 
earth  which  are  most  interesting  to  the  human  race ; 
and  of  those  moral  discourses  in  which  the  wisdom,  the 
grace,  and  the  sanctity  of  the  teacher  shine  with  united 
lustre.  Their  v^hole  narration  implies  that  Jesus  was 
more  than  man.  But  as  it  is  distinguished  by  a  beau- 
tiful simplicity,  which  adds  very  much  to  their  credit 
as  historians,  "they  have  not,  with  the  exception  of  a 
few  incidental  expressions,  Ibrmally  stated  the  conclu- 
sion that  Jesus  was  more  than  man.  but  have  left  the 
(Christian  world  to  draw  it  for  themselves  from  the  facts 
naiTated,  or  to  receive  it  by  the  teaching  and  the  writings 
of  the  apostles.  John,  who  was  preserved  by  God  to 
see  this  conclusion,  which  had  been  drawn  by  the  groat 
body  of  Christians,  and  had  been  established  in  the 
Epistles,  denied  by  difTerent  heretics,  brings  forward, 
in  the  form  of  a  history  of  .Testis,  a  view  of  his  exalted 
character,  and  draws  our  attention  partictilarly  to  the 
truth  of  that  which  haid  been  denied.  When  you  come 
to  analyze  the  Gospelof  John,  you  will  find  that  the  first 
eighteen  verses  contain  the  positions  laid  down  by  the 
apostle,  in  order  to  meet  the  errors  of  Cerinthus  ;  that 
these  positions,  which  are  merely  affirmed  in  the  intro- 
duction, are  proved  in  the  progress  of  the  Gospel,  by 
the  testimony  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  by  the  words 
and  the  actions  of  our  Lord  ;  and  that  after  the  proof  is 
concluded  by  the  declaration  of  Thomas,  who,  upon 
being  convinced  that  Jesus  had  risen,  said  to  him,  'My 
Lord,  and  my  God,'  John  sums  up  the  amount  of  his 
Gospel  in  these  few  words :  '  These  are  vvritten  that 
ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God,'  i.  e.  that  Jesus  and  the  Christ  are  not  distinct  per- 
sons, and  that  .lesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God.  The  apos- 
tle does  not  condescend  to  mention  the  name  of  Cerin- 
thus, because  that  would  have  preserved,  as  long  as  the 
world  lasts,  the  memory  of  a  name  which  might  other- 
wise be  forgotten.  But  althotigh  there  is  dignity  and 
propriety  in  omitting  the  mention  of  his  name,  it  was 
necessary,  in  laying  down  the  positions  that  were  to 
meet  his  errors,  to  adopt  some  of  his  words,  because 
the  Christians  of  those  days  would  not  so  readily  have 
applied  the  doctrine  of  the  apostle  to  the  refutation  of 
those  heresies  which  Cerinthus  was  spreading  among,. 


(8)  Iren.  contra  IIa;r.  lib.  iii.  cap.  xi.  \. 

(9)  Ibid.  lib.  i.  xxvi.  1. 

(l)  Jerom.  De  Vit.  must.  cap.  ix. 


204 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Pabt  n. 


them,  if  they  had  not  found  In  the  exposition  of  that 
rloctrine  some  of  tlic  teriris  in  which  llie  heresy  was 
dcliveroil :  and  as  the  cliicf  of  ihi-sc  terms,  I.o^'os,  wliirU 
('erinthu.9  aj)[)liod  to  an  inferior  spirit,  was  oijuivalent 
to  a  plirase  in  cominoa  use  among  the  Jews, '  the  word 
of  Jetiovah,'  and  was  probably  borrowed  from  thence, 
.lohn  by  liis  use  of  Logos  rescues  it  from  the  degraded 
use  of  Cerinthus,  and  restores  it  to  a  sense  eorrespond- 
ini;  to  the  dignity  of  a  Jewish  phrase."(2) 

The  Lofios  was  no  fanciful  term,  merely  invented  by 
,St.  John,  pro  >c  nixtu.  or  evea  siiij^'osted  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  as  a  suitable  title  for  a  prophet,  by  whom  God 
chose  to  reveal  himself  or  his  Word.  It  was  a  term 
diversely  understood  in  the  world  heforo  St.  John  bei;an 
his  (Jospel.  Is  it  pyssiblo,  therefore,  that  lie  should 
have  used  the  term  without  some  e.x))ress  allusi(m  to 
these  prevaihng  o|)iiiions  ?  Had  he  eontradictcd  them 
all,  it  would,  of  course,  have  been  a  plain  proof,  that 
they  were  all  equally  fabulous  and  fanciful ;  but  by 
adojitiii^  the  term,  he  certainly  meant  to  show,  that  the 
error  did  not  consist  in  believing  that  there  was  a  Loijos, 
or  Word  of  (Jod,  but  in  lliinkins  amiss  of  it.  We 
misht,  indeed,  have  wondered  nmch  ha<l  he  decidedly 
.idoptcd  the  Platonic  or  (laostic  notions,  in  preference 
to  till!  Jewish ;  but  that  he  should  harmonize  with  the 
latter  is  by  no  means  surjirising  ;  first,  because  he  was 
a  Jew  himself;  and,  secondly,  because  Christianity  was 
plainly  to  be  shown  to  be  connected  with,  and,  as  it 
were,  rei,'ularly  to  have  sprung  out  of  Judaism.  It  is 
certainly,  then,  in  the  highest  degree  consistent  with  all 
we  could  reasonably  c.vpeet,  to  finil  St.  John  and  others 
of  the  sacred  writers  expressing  themselves  in  terms 
not  only  familiar  to  the  Jews  under  the  old  covenant, 
but  which  might  tend,  by  a  perfect  revelation  of  the 
truth,  to  give  instruction  to  all  parties;  correcting  the 
errors  of  the  Platniilr,  and  Oriental  systems,  and  con- 
firming, in  the  c!ear(!st  manner,  the  hopes  and  expecta- 
tions of  the  Jews.(3) 

While  the  reasons  for  the  use  of  this  term  by  St. 
John  are  obvious,  the  argument  from  it  is  irresistible; 
for,  first,  the  Logos  of  the  evangelist  is  a  pkrson,  not 
an  attribute,  as  many  Socinians  have  said,  who  have 
therefore,  sometimes  chosen  to  render  it  "  wisdom." 
For  if  an  attribute,  it  were  a  mere  truism  to  say  that  it 
was  in  the  beginning  with  God,  for  (iod  could  never  be 
without  his  attributes.  The  ajiostle  also  declares,  that 
the  Logos  was  the  Lisht ;  but  that  John  Baiitist  was 
not  the  Light.  Here  is  a  kind  of  parallel  supposed, 
and  it  presumes,  also,  that  it  was  possible  that  the  same 
character  might  be  erroneously  ascribed  to  both. 

"  Metween  person  and  person  this  may,  undoubtedly, 
be  the  case;  but  what  species  of  parallel  can  exist  be- 
tween man  and  an  attribute?  Nor  will  the  dilliculty 
be  obviated  by  suggesting,  that  \visdom  here  means  not 
the  attribute  itself,  hut  him  whom  that  attribute  in- 
spired, the  man  Jesus  Christ,  because  the  name  of  our 
Saviour  has  not  yet  been  mentioned  ;  because  that  rule 
of  interpretation  must  be  inadmissible,  which  at  one 
time  would  explain  the  term  Logos  by  an  attribute,  at 
another  by  a  man,  as  best  suits  the  convenience  of  hy- 
pothesis ;  and  because,  if  it  be,  in  this  instance,  con- 
ceived to  indicate  our  Saviour,  it  must  follow,  that  our 
Saviour  created  thi;  world  (which  the  Unitarians  will 
by  no  means  admit),  for  the  Logos,  who  was  that  which 
John  the  Baptist  was  not,  the  true  Light,  is  expressly 
declared  to  have  made  the  world. "(4) 

Again:  the  Logos  was  made  tlesh,  that  is,  hc.came 
man;  but  in  what  possible  sense  could  an  attribute 
become  man  7  The  Logos  ia  "  the  only-begotten  of  the 
Father;  but  it  would  be  uncouth  to  say  of  any  attri- 
bute that  it  is  begotten ;  and  if  that  were  passed  over 
it  woidd  follow,  from  this  notion,  either  that  God  has 
only  one  attribute,  or  that  wisdom  is  not  his  only  begot- 
ten attribute.  Farther,  St.  John  uses  terms  ilc'cisively 
personal,  as  that  he  is  God,  not  Divine  as  an  attribute, 
but  God  personnllij  \  not  that  he  was  in  God,  which 
would  iiroperly  have  been  said  of  an  attribute,  but  with 
God,  w'lch  he  could  only  say  of  a  inrsnii:  that  "all 
thingf  were  made,  by  him ;"  that  he  was  "  in  the 
world  •, '  that  "  he  came  to  his  own  ;"  that  he  was  "  in 
the  bosom  of  the  Father;"  and  that  '•/«-  hath  declared 
the  Father."  The  absurdity  of  representing  the  Logos 
of  St.  John  as  an  attributive  seems,  at  length,  lo  have 

(2)  Hill's  Lectures. 

(3)  Sec  Nares'  Remarks  on  the  Socinian  Vcieion. 
k    ,^v  Lavrlnck's  Dissertation  on  the  Logos. 


been  perceived  by  the  Socinians  themselves,  and  their 
New  Version  accordingly  regards  it  as  a  personal  term. 
If  the  Logos  is  a  person,  then  is  he  Uivine;  for,  first, 
eternity  is  ascribed  to  him,  "  in  the  bigmnmg  was  ilu: 
Word."  The  Ifuitarian  comment  is,  "  from  the  begin- 
ning of  his  ministry,  or  the  commencement  of  the  Gos- 
pel dispensation  ;"  which  makes  St.  John  use  another 
trilling  truism,  and  solemnly  tell  his  readers,  that  our 
Saviour,  when  he  began  his  ministry,  was  in  existence  I 
— "  in  the  beginning  of  his  ministry  the  Word  was !'' 
It  is  true  that  upxv>  ll'"  beginning,  is  used  for  the  be- 
ginning of  Christ's  ministry,  when  he  says  that  the 
apostles  had  been  "  with  him  from  the  beginning ;" 
and  it  may  be  used  for  the  beginning  of  any  thing  what- 
ever. It  is  a  term  which  must  be  determined  in  its 
meaning  by  the  context  ;(5)  and  the  ipiostion,  therefore, 
is,  how  the  connexion  here  determines  it.  Almo.st  im- 
mediately it  is  added,  "  all  tilings  Were  made  by  him  ;" 
which  in  a  iireccding  chapter  has  been  proved  to  mean 
the  creation  of  universal  nature.  He,  then,  who  made 
all  things  was  prior  to  all  created  things ;  he  was 
when  they  began  to  be,  and  before  they  bi.'gan  to  be ; 
and,  if  he  existed  before  all  created  things,  he  was  not 
himself  created,  and  was  therefore  eternal. ^C)  Se- 
condly, he  is  expressly  called  God,  in  the  same  sense 
as  the  Father ;  and  thirdly,  he  is  as  explicitly  said  to  be 
the  Creator  of  all  things.  The  last  two  particulars 
have  already  been  largely  established,  and  nothing  need 
be  added,  exceiit,  as  another  proof  that  the  Scriptures 
can  only  bo  fairly  explaineil  by  the  doctrine  of  a  dis- 
tinction of  Divine  Persons  in  the  Godhead,  the  decla- 
ration of  St.  John  may  be  adduced,  that  "  the  Word 
was  ivith  God,  and  the  Word  was  G'orf."  What  hypo- 
thesis but  this  goes  a  shigle  step  to  explain  this  wonder- 
fiU  language  ?  Arianism,  wliich  allows  the  pre-exist- 
ence  of  Christ  with  God,  accords  with  the  first  clause, 
but  contradicts  the  second.  Sabellianism,  which  re- 
duces the  personal  to  an  official,  and  therelbre  a  tempo- 
ral, distinction,  accords  with  the  second  clause,  but 
contradicts  the  first ;  for  Christ  acconUng  to  this  theory, 
was  not  with  God  in  the  beginning,  that  is,  in  eternity. 
Socinianisin  contradicts  both  clauses ;  for  on  that 
scheme  Christ  was  neither  with  God  "  in  the  begin-  . 
ning,"  nor  was  he  God.  "The  faith  of  God's  elect" 
agrees  with  both  clauses,  and  by  both  it  is  established. 
"  The  Word  was  with  God  and  the  Word  was  God." 


CHAPTER  XUI. 

Christ  possessed  of  Divine  Attributes. 
Having  considered  the  import  of  some  of  the  titles 
applied  to  our  Lord  in  the  Scriptures,  and  proved  that 
they  imply  Divinity,  we  may  next  consider  tlie  attri- 
butes which  are  ascribed  to  him  in  the  New  Testament. 
If  to  names  and  lofty  titles  which  imply  Divinity  we 
find  added  attributes  never  given  to  creatures,  and  from 
which  all  creatures  are  excluded,  the  Deity  of  Christ  is 
established  beyond  reasonable  controversy.  No  argu- 
ment can  be  more  conclusive  than  this.  Of  the  essence 
of  Deity  we  know  nothing,  but  that  he  is  a  Spirit.  He 
is  made  known  by  his  attributes;  and  it  is  from  them 
that  we- learn,  that  there  is  an  essential  distinction  be- 
tween him  and  his  creatures,  because  he  has  attributes 
which  they  have  not,  and  those  which  they  have  in 
common  with  iiim,  ho  possesses  in  a  degree  absolutely 
perfect.  From  this  it  follows,  that  his  is  a  peculiar 
nature,  a  nature  sui  generis,  to  which  no  creature  does 
or  can  possibly  approximate.  Should,  then,  these  same 
attributes  be  found  ascribed  to  Christ,  as  explicitly  and 
literally  as  to  the  Father,  it  follows  of  necessity,  that, 
the  attributes  being  the  same,  the  essence  is  the  same, 
and  that  essence  the  exclusive  nature  of  the  Ocorrjg,  or 
"  Godhead."  It  would,  indeed,  follow,  that  if  but  one 
of  the  peculiar  attributes  of  Deity  were  ascribed  to 

(5)  Quotiescuiique  fit  principii  mcntio,  sigiiiilra- 
lionem  illius  ad  id  de  quo  accommodare  neccsse  est."— 

ItB/.A. 

(0)  "  Valde  errant,  qui  iv  apxn  intcrprct.antur  de  initio 
Rvangelio;  huic  enini  sententix'  consilium  Joannis,  et 
se(|uens  oratio  aperle  rcpugiiat.  Si  vero  o  Aoyaf  Aiit 
jam  turn,  quum  niunduscsse  la^pit,  sequitureum  fuissc 
ante  mundinn  conditum;  scquiiur  etiam  cum  non  es.se 
unom  ex  cajteris  crcatis  rebus,  (luti;  cum  mundo  e8.su 
ca^peruni,  scd  alia  nutura  tonditioiie,"— Bosksmi'llik. 


Chap.  XIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


205 


Christ,  he  must  jMissess  tho  whole,  since  they  cannot 
exist  separately ;  and  wliocver  is  jmsscssed  of  one  must 
be  conolurteil  to  be  in  iiossession  of  all.(7)  But  it  is  not 
oue  attribute  only,  but  all  the  attributes  of  Deity  which 
are  ascribed  to  him ;  and  not  only  those  which  arc 
moral,  and  which  are,  therefore,  capable  of  beinij  com- 
numicated  (though  those,  as  they  are  attributed  to 
*,  Christ  m  infinite  decree  and  in  absolute  jicrfeclion, 
would  be  sulhcient  (or  the  argument),  but  those  which 
are,  on  all  sides,  allowed  to  be  iiico?nmurucable,  and 
peculiar  to  the  Godhead. 

Eternity  is  ascribed  to  him.  "  Unto  us  a  child  is 
born,  unto  us  a  son  is  given:  and  the  government  shall 
be  ujion  his  shoulder:  and  his  name  shall  be  called 
Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the  mighty  God,  the  everlastinf; 
Fatlirr,  the  Prince  of  Peace."  "  Everlasting  Father" 
is  variously  rendered  by  the  principal  orthodo.x  critics  ; 
but  every  rendering  is  in  consistency  with  the  ap|)lica- 
tion  of  a  positive  eternity  to  the  Messiah,  of  which  this 
is  allowed  to  be  a  prediction.  Bishop  Lowth  says, 
"  the  Father  of  the  everlasting  age."  Bishop  .Stock, 
"  the  Father  of  Eternity ;"  i.  e.  the  owner  of  it.  Uathe 
and  RosenmuUer,  "  JKtenuts."  The  former  considers 
it  an  Oriental  idiom,  by  which  names  of  affinity,  as 
father,  mother,  <fcc.,  are  used  to  denote  the  author  or 
eminent  possessor  of  a  quality  or  object.  Rev.  i.  17, 
18,  "I  am  THE  First  and  the  Last,  I  am  he  that 
liveth  and  was  dead;"  so  also  ch.  ii.  8;  and  in  both 
passages  the  context  shows,  indisputably,  that  it  is  our 
Lord  liimself  who  speaks,  and  applies  these  titles  to 
liimself.  In  ch.  x.\ii.  13,  also,  Christ  is  the  speaker,  and 
declares  himself  to  be  "Alpha  and  O.mkga,  the  Be- 
Gi.NNiNG  and  the  End,  the  First  and  the  Last."  Now, 
by  these  very  titles  is  the  eternity  of  God  declared, 
I.saiah  xlv.  6,  and  xliii.  10,  "I  am  the  first,  and  I  am  tiie 
last:  and  be.side  methere  isnoGod."  "Before  me  was 
there  no  God  formed,  neither  shall  there  be  after  me." 
But  they  are,  in  the  book  of  Revelations,  assumed  by 
Christ  as  explicitly  and  absolutely ;  and  they  clearly 
affirm,  that  the  Being  to  whom  they  are  applied  had  no 
beginning,  and  will  have  no  end.  In  Rev.  i.  8,  after 
the  declaration,  "  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  ben^in- 
ning  and  the  enchng,  saith  the  Lord,"  it  is  added, 
"  which  is,  and  which  was,  and  which  is  to  come,  the 
Almighty."  Some  have  referred  these  words  to  the 
Father ;  but  certainly  without  reason,  as  the  very  scope 
of  the  passage  shows.  It  is  Christ  who  speaks  in  the 
first  person,  throughout  the  chapter,  when  the  sublime 
titles  of  the  former  part  of  the  verse  are  used,  and  in- 
deed, throughout  the  book ;  and  to  interpret  this  parti- 
cular clause  of  the  Father  would  introduce  a  most 
abrupt  change  of  persons,  which,  but  for  a  false  theory, 
would  never  have  been  imagined.  The  -words,  indeed, 
do  but  express  the  import  of'  the  name  .Tehovah,  so  often 
given  to  Christ ;  and  as,  when  the  Father  is  spoken  of 
in  verse  4,  the  same  declaration  is  made  concerning 
him  which,  in  verse  8,  our  Lord  makes  of  liimself,  it 
follows,  that  if  the  terms  "  which  was,  and  is,  and  is 
to  come"  are  descriptive  of  the  eternity  of  the  Father, 
they  are  also  descriptive  of  eternity  as  an  attribute  also 
of  the  Son.  We  have  a  similar  declaration  in  Heb. 
xiii.  8,  "  Jesus  Christ,  the  same  yesterday,  to-d.ay, 
and  FOR  EVER,"  where  eternity,  and  its  necessary  con- 
comitant, immutability,  are  both  ascribed  to  him.  That 
the  phrase,  "  yesterday,  to-day,  and  for  ever"  is  equiva- 
lent to  eternity  needs  no  proof:  and  that  the  words  are 
not  spoken  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  as  the  Socinians 
contend,  appears  from  the  context,  wliich  scarcely 
makes  any  sense  upon  tliis  h>-pothesis,(8)  since  a  doc- 
trine once  delivered  must  remain  what  it  was  at  first. 
This  interpretation,  also,  gives  a  figurative  sense  to 
words  which  have  all  the  character  of  a  strictly  literal 
declaration ;  and  it  is  a  farther  confirmation  of  the  lite- 
ral sense,  and  that  Christ  is  spoken  of  personally,  that 
h^avTog  is  the  phrase  by  which  the  immutability  of  the 
Son  is  expressed  in  chapter  i.  verse  12 :  "  But  thou  art 
0  (itirof,  the  same."  Pierce,  in  his  Paraphrase,  has  well 
expressed  the  connexion :  "  Considering  the  conclusion 
of  their  life  and  behaviour,  imitate  their  faith ;  for  the 
object  of  their  faith,  .lesus  Christ,  is  the  same  now  as 
he  was  then,  and  wdl  be  the  same  for  ever."  A  Being 
essentially  unchangeable,  and  tlierefore  eternal,  is  the 


(/)  'Attributa  Diviua  arctissimo  copulori  vinculo, 
sic,  ut  nullum  sepcratim  ooncipi  qiwat,  adeooue  qui  uno 
pellet,  omnibus  ornetur."— DoiiDBRLElx. 

C)  Sec  Macknioht. 


only  proper  object  of  an  absolute  "faith:'  A  similar 
and  most  soleinu  ascrijition  of  eternity  and  hnniutabi- 
lity  occurs  Hub.  i.  1U--12,  "Thou,  Lord  in  the  begin- 
ning hast  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth:  and  tho 
heavens  are  the  works  of  thine  hcmds.  They  shall 
perish;  but  thou  remainest:  and  they  all  shall  wax 
old  as  doth  a  garment ;  and  as  a  vesture  shall  thou  fold 
them  uj),  and  they  shall  be  changed ;  but  thou  art  'ikk 

SAME,  AND  THY  YEARS  SHAM.  NOT  KAIL."   Thesf 

words  are  quoted  from  Psalm  cii.,  which  all  acknow- 
ledge to  be  a  lofly  description  of  tho  eternity  of  God. 
They  are  here  apjilied  to  Christ,  and  of  hivi  they 
allirm,  that  he  was  before  the  material  universe— that 
it  was  created  by  him — that  he  has  ab.solute  power 
over  it — that  he  shall  destroy  it — that  he  shall  do  lhi.s 
with  infinite  ease,  as  one  who  folds  up  a  vesture ;  and 
that,  amid  the  decays  and  changes  of  material  things, 
he  remains  the  same.  The  immutability  here  ascribed 
to  Christ  is  not,  however,  that  of  a  created  spirit,  which 
will  remain  when  the  material  universe  is  destroyed  ; 
for  then  there  would  be  nothing  proper  to  (  hnst  in  the 
text,  nothing  but  in  which  angels  and  men  participate 
with  him,  and  the  words  would  be  deprived  of  all  mean- 
ing. Ills  immutability  and  duration  are  pecidiar,  and  a 
contrast  is  implied  between  his  existence  and  that  of 
all  created  things.  They  are  depemdent,  he  is  inde- 
pendent; and  his  necessary,  and  therefore  eternal,  ex- 
istence must  follow.  The  phrase  "  eternal  life," 
when  used,  as  it  is  frequently,  in  St.  John's  Epistles,  is 
also  a  clear  designation  of  the  eternity  of  our  Saviour. 
"  For  the  life  was  manifested,  and  we  have  seen  it, 
and  bear  witness,  and  show  unto  you  that  eternal 
life,  which  was  with  the  Fatlier,  and  was  manifested 
unto  us."  In  the  first  clause,  Christ  is  called  the  Life  ; 
he  is  then  said  to  be  "  eternal ,"  and,  that  no  mistake 
should  arise,  as  though  the  apostle  merely  meant  to  de- 
clare that  he  would  continue  for  ever,  he  shows,  that  he 
ascribes  eternity  to  him  in  his  pre-existent  state, — "  that 
eternal  life"  which  was  with  the  Father  ;  and  with 
him  before  he  was  "  manifested  to  men."  And  eternal 
pre-existence  could  not  be  more  unequivocally  marked. 
To  these  essential  attributes  of  Deity,  to  be  without 
beginning  and  without  change,  is  added  that  of 
being  extended  through  all  space. — He  is  not  only 
eternal,  but  omnipresent.  Thus  he  declares  himself 
to  be  at  the  same  time  in  heaven  and  upon  earth,  which 
is  assuredly  a  property  of  Deity  alone.  "  No  man  hath 
ascended  up  to  heaven,  but  he  that  came  down  from 
heaven,  even  the  Son  of  Man  which  is  in  heaven." 
The  genuineness  of  the  last  clause  has  been  attacked 
by  a  few  critics  :  but  has  been  fully  established  by  Dr. 
Magee.(9)  This  passage  has  been  defended  from  tho 
Socinian  interpretation  already,  and  contains  an  une- 
quivocal declaration  of  ubiquity. 

For  "  where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in 
my  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them."  How 
futile  is  the  Socinian  comment  in  the  New  Version  ! 
This  promise  is  to  be  "limited  to  the  apostolic  age."  But 
were  that  granted,  what  would  the  concession  avail  ?  In 
the  apostolic  age,  the  disciples  met  in  the  name  of 
their  Lord  many  times  in  the  week,  and  in  innumera- 
ble parts  of  the  world  at  the  same  time,  in  Judea,  Asia 
Minor,  Europe,  &c.  He,  therefore,  who  could  be  "  in 
the  midst  of  them,"  whenever  and  wherever  they 
assembled,  must  be  omnipresent.  But  they  add,  "  by 
a  spiritual  presence,  a  faculty  of  knowing  things  in 
places  where  he  was  not  present ;"  "  a  gill,"  they  say, 
"  given  to  the  apostles  occasionally,"  and  refer  to  1 
Cor.  v.  3.  No  such  gill  is,  however,  claimed  by  the 
apostle  in  that  passage,  who  knew  the  affair  in  the 
church  of  Corinth,  not  by  any  such  faculty  or  revela- 
tion, but  by  "  report"  (ver.  1).  Nor  does  he  say,  that 
he  was  present  with  them,  but  judged  "  as  though  he 
were  present."  If,  indeed,  any  such  gift  were  occa- 
sionally given  to  the  apostles,  it  would  be,  not  a 
"  spiritual  presence,"  as  the  New  Version  has  it ;  but 
afgtirative  presence.  No  such  figurative  meaning  is, 
however,  hinted  at  in  the  text  bef()re  us,  which  is  as 
literal  a  declaration  of  Christ's  presence  every  where 
with  his  worshippers  as  that  similar  promise  made  by 
.Ichovah  to  the  Israehtes:  "In  all  places  where  I 
record  my  name  I  will  come  to  ihee,  and  I  will  bless 
thee."  At  the  very  moment,  too,  ol  his  ascension,  that 
is,  just  when,  as  to  his  bodily  presence,  he  was  leaving 
his  disciples,  he  promises  still  to  be  with  them,  and 

(9)  Maoej;  on  the  Atonement. 


206 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


calls  their  attention  to  this  promise  by  an  emphatic 
partii-lo,  "  And  1,0, 1  am  with  vou  always,  even  unto 
the  end  of  tlie  world."  Mutt,  xxviii.  20.  The  Sociniiin.s 
render  "  to  the  end  of  the  age,"  that  is,  "the  Jewish 
dispen.sation,  till  the  dc^struclion  of  Jerusalem."  All 
that  can  be  said  in  favour  of  this  is,  that  the  words 
may  be  so  translated,  if  no  regard  is  paid  to  their  im- 
port. But  it  is  certain,  that,  ui  several  passages,  "  the 
end  of  the  world,"  >;  avvrtKua  rnu  niwi'o;,  must  be 
undirstood  in  its  popular  scn.se.  That  this  is  its  sense 
here,  appears,  lirst,  from  the  clause  "  Lo  I  am  with  you 
ALWAV.-i,"  TTuaaS  Tui  iTftqMg,  "(if  all  ti/nes ;"  secondly, 
because  spiritual  presence  stands,  by  an  evidently 
implied  antithesis,  oppo.sed  to  bodily  absence  ;  thirdly, 
because  that  presence  of  (Jhrist  was  as  necessary  to 
his  disciples  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  as  till 
that  period.  Hut  even  were  the  promise  to  be  so 
restricted,  it  would  still  be  in  proof  of  the  omnipre- 
sence of  our  Lord,  for,  if  he  were  present  with  all  his 
disciples  in  all  i)la<-es,  "  always,"  to  llie  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  it  cinild  ojily  be  by  virtue  of  a  property 
which  would  render  him  present  to  his  disciples  in  all 
ages.  The  Sociuian  Version  intimates,  that  the  pre- 
sence meant  is  the  gift  of  miraculous  powers.  Let 
even  that  be  allowed,  though  it  is  a  very  partial  view 
of  the  promise  ;  tiieii,  if  till  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem the  apostles  were  "  always,"  "  at  all  times,"  able 
to  work  miracles,  the  power  to  enable  them  to  effect 
these  wonders  must  "  always,"  and  in  all  places,  have 
been  present  with  them  ;  and  if  that  were  not  a  human 
endowment,  if  a  power  superior  to  that  of  man  were 
reqmsite  for  the  performance  of  the  miracles,  and  that 
power  was  the  power  of  Christ,  then  he  was  really, 
though  spiritually,  present  with  them,  unless  the  attri- 
bute of  power  can  be  separated  from  its  subject,  and 
the  power  of  Christ  be  where  he  himself  is  not.  This, 
however,  is  a  low  view  of  the  import  of  the  promise, 
"  Lo,  I  am  with  you,"  which,  both  in  the  Old  and  New 
Testament,  signifies  to  be  present  with  any  one,  to 
help,  comfort,  and  succour  him.  "Eivui  inira  tiios, 
alicui  adcsse,  juvare  aliijuem,  curare  res  aUcujus."(l) 

It  is  not  necessary  to  adduce  more  than  another  pas- 
sage in  proof  of  a  point  so  fully  determined  already  by 
the  authority  of  Scripture.  After  the  apostle,  m  Colos- 
sians  i.  16,  17,  has  ascribed  the  creation  of  all  things  in 
heaven  and  earth,  "  visible  and  invisible,"  to  Christ,  lie 
adds,  "  and  by  him  all  things  cunsist."  On  this  pas- 
sage, Raphelius  cites  a  striking  passage  from  Aristotle, 
l)e  Mundo,  where  the  same  verb,  rendered  "  conxist," 
by  our  translators,  is  used  in  a  like  sense  to  express  the 
constant  depenilence  of  all  things  upon  their  Creator  for 
continued  sulisistence  and  preservation.  "  There  is  a 
certain  aaciiMit  tradition  common  to  all  mankind,  that 
all  things  siihy/st  from  and  by  God,  and  that  no  kind  of  I 
being  is  self-sullicient,  when  alone,  and  destitute  of 
his  preserving  aid."(2)  The  apostle  then,  here,  not 
only  attributes  the  creation,  but  the  conservation  of  all 
things  to  Christ ;  but  to  preserve  thom  his  presence 
must  be  coextensive  with  them,  and  thus  the  universe 
of  matter  and  created  spirits,  heaven  and  earth,  must 
be  tilled  with  his  power  and  presence.  "  This  short 
sentence  im|ilies  that  our  Lord's  presence  extends  to 
every  part  of  the  creation  ;  to  every  being  and  sjslem 
in  the  universe ;  a  most  striking  and  emphatical  de- 
scrii)tion  of  the  omnijircsence  of  fJod  the  Son."(.'?) 

To  these  attributes  of  essential  Divinity  is  added,  a 
PERFKCT  KNOwi.KDiiK  of  all  things.  Thls  cannot  be 
the  attribute  of  a  creature  ;  for,  though  it  may  be  dillicult 
to  say  how  far  the  knowledge  of  the  highest  order  of 
intelligent  creatures  may  be  extended,  yet  is  there  two 
kinds  of  knowledge  which  (!od  has  made  peculiar  to 
hhnsclf  by  solemn  and  e.\clusive  claim.  Tlie  lirst  is, 
the  perfect  know  ledge  of  the  thoughts  and  intents  of 
the  hi'art.  "  I  the  Lord  search  the  heart,  I  try  the 
reins,"  .lercmiah  xvii.  10.  "Tiiou,  even  thou  only," 
says  Solomon,  "  knowest  the  hearts  of  all  the  children 
of  men,"  1  Kings  viii.  3'J.  This  knowledge  is  attributed 
to  and  was  claimed  by  our  Lord,  and  that  without  any 
intimation  that  it  was  in  conseiiuenceol'a  sjiecial  reve- 
lation, or  siipiraiiliiral  gill,  as  in  a  lc:w  insumces  we 
see  in  the  apostles  ami  propliets,  bestowed  lo  answer  a 
particular  ami  temjicirary  purjiose.  In  such  instancca 
also,  It  is  to  be  observed,  the  knowledge  of  the  spirits 


(1)  UOSENMUI.I.KR. 

(2)  llAfiiiii.ii'H  in  loc.    Sec  also  I'AUKUiiKa'r'B  Lu.\. 
'3)  IIolukn's  (ioripturc  Testinionica. 


and  thoughts  of  men  was  obtained  in  consequence  of  a 
revilatioii  made  to  them  by  Him  whose  prerogative  it 
is  to  search  the  heart.  In  the  case  of  our  Lord,  it  is, 
however,  not  merely  said,  "And  Jesus  ktiew  their 
tlii/iights,"  that  he  perceived  in  his  xpirit,  that  they  so 
reasoned  among  themselves  ;  but  it  is  referred  to  as  an 
attriliute  or  unginal faculty,  and  it  is,  therefore,  made 
use  of  by  St.  John,  on  one  occasion,  to  explain  his  con- 
duct with  reference  to  certain  of  his  enemies  : — "  Hut 
Jesus  (hd  not  commit  himself  unto  them,  becau.se  he 
KNKW  AM,  MEN,  and  needed  not  that  any  should  testify 
of  man,  for  he  knew  what  was  in  .man."  After  his 
e.xallalion,  also,  he  claims  the  prerogative  in  the  full 
style  and  majesty  of  the  Jehovah  of  the  ( )ld  Testament : 
"  And  all  the  churches  shall  know  that  /  am  he  which 

SEARCIIKTH  THE  REINS    ANO  THE  HEART." 

A  Striking  description  of  the  oinniscience  of  Christ  is 
also  found  in  lleb.  iv.  12,  la,  if  we  understand  it.  with 
most  of  the  ancients,  of  the  hypostatic  Word  ;  to  which 
sense  I  think  the  scope  of  the  passaw  and  context 
clearly  determines  it.  "For  the  Word  op  (Jou  is 
quick  (living)  and  powerful,  and  shariii  r  than  any  two 
edged  sword,  piercing  even  to  the  dividing  asunder  of 
soul  and  spirit,  and  of  the  joints  and  iiuutow,  and  is  a 

mSCEKNER    OF  THE   THOUOHTS    AND  INTENTS  OF  THE 

HEART ;  neither  is  there  any  creature  that  is  not  mani- 
fest in  Ids  sight ;  for  all  things  are  naked  and  open 
to  the  eyes  of  him  with  whom  we  have  to  do."  The 
reasons  lor  referring  this  passage  rather  to  (.,'lirist,  the 
author  of  the  Gospel,  than  to  the  Gospel  itself,  are,  first, 
that  it  agrees  better  with  the  apostle's  argument.  He 
is  warning  Christians  against  the  example  of  ancient 
Jewisli  unbeliel',  and  enforces  his  warning  by  remind- 
ing them,  that  the  Word  of  God  discerns  the  thoughts 
and  intents  of  the  heart.  The  argiunent  is  obvious,  if 
the  personal  Word  is  meant;  not  at  all  so,  if  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Gospel  be  supposed.  Secondly,  the  clau.scs, 
"neither  is  there  any  creature  that  is  not  manifest 
in  HIS  sight,"  and,  all  "  things  are  naked  and  ojien  to 
the  eyes  of  him,  wUh  whom  we  have  to  do,"  or  "  to 
whom  we  must  give  an  acco-unt,^'  are  undoubtedly 
spoken  of  a  person,  and  that  per.son  our  witness  and 
judge.  Those,  therefore,  who  think  that  the  Gospel  is 
spoken  of  in  verse  12,  represent  the  ajiostle  as  making 
a  transition  from  the  Gosjiel  to  God  himself  in  what 
follows.  This,  however,  produces  a  violent  break  in 
the  argument,  for  which  no  grammatical  nor  ron- 
tixtual  reason  whatever  can  be  given  ;  and  it  is  evi- 
dent that  the  same  metaphor  extends  through  both 
verses.  This  is  taken  from  the  jiraelice  of  dividing  and 
cutting  asunder  the  bodies  of  beasts  slain  for  sacrifice, 
and  laying  tlieni  open  for  inspection,  lest  any  blemish 
or  unsoundness  should  lurk  within,  and  reiuliT  them 
unfit  for  the  service  of  (!od.  The  divnling  asunder  of 
"  the  joints  and  marrow''  in  the  r2th  vi.  rsc,  and  the  be- 
ing made  "naked  and  open  to  the  eyes,"  in  the  13th, 
are  all  parts  of  the  same  sacrificial  and  judicial  action, 
to  which,  therefore,  we  can  justly  assign  but  tmcnuent. 
The  only  rcsison  given  for  the  other  interpretation  is, 
that  the  term  Locos  is  nowhere  else  used  by  St.  Paul. 
This  can  weigh  but  little  against  the  obvious  sense  of 
the  passage.  St.  Luke,  i.  2,  appears  to  use  the  term 
Logos  in  a  jiersonal  sense,  and  he  uses  it  but  once  ;  and 
if  St.  Paul  uses  it  here,  and  not  in  his  other  epistles,  this 
reason  may  be  given,  that  in  other  epistles  he  writes 
to  Jews  and  Gentiles  united  in  the  same  churches  ; 
here,  to  Jews  alone,  among  whom  we  have  seen  that 
the   Logos  was  a  well-known   theological  term.(4) 

The  Socinians  urge  against  this  ascription  of  infinite 
knowledge  to  our  Lord.  Mark  xiii.  .12,—"  But  of  that 
day  and  that  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  the  angels 
which  are  in  heaven,  neither  the  ^'o»,  but  the  Father 
only."  The  genuineness  of  the  clause  "  neither  the 
Son"  has  been  disputed,  and  is  not  inserted  by  Gries- 
bach  in  his  text ;  there  is  not,  however,  sulKcient  rea- 
son for  its  rejection,  though  certainly  in  the  parallel 
passage.  Matt.  xxiv.  .10, "  neither  the  Son"  is  not  found. 
"  But  Of  that  day  and  hour  knoweih  no  man,  no,  not 
the  angels  of  heaven;  but  my  I'ather  only."'  We  are 
then  reduced  to  tliis— a  number  of  passages  explicitly 
declare    that  Christ  knows  all  things:   there  is  one 

(4)  "Non  dccrat  peculiaris  ratio,  cur  Filium  Uei  sic 
vocaret,  cum  ad  Ilebraieos  scriberet,  (pii  eum  illo  no- 
mine indigitare.solebant:  ut  constat  exTargum,  cnjus 
pars  hue  tempore  facta  est,  el  e.\  I'lulunc  tUliique  Iltl- 
loiuslis."— I'ou  yyiiop. 


Chap.  XIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


207 


which  Jeclares  that  the  Sou  diil  not  know  "  the  day  and 
the  hour"  of  judgiiKnit ;  again,  there  is  a  passage 
wliioh  certainly  implies  tliat  even  this  period  was 
known  to  Clirist ;  for  St.  Paul,  1  Tim.  vi.  14,  speaking 
of  the  "  appearing  of  our  Lord  .Jesus  Clirist"  as  the  uni- 
versal judge,  ininiediately  adds,  "  which  in  liis  mm 
times,  xaipoig  irhon,  shall  show  who  is  the  blessed  and 
only  potentate,"  iVc.  The  day  of  judgment  is  here 
called  "  /lis  own  times,''  or  "  Ai*-  own  seaami,"  which, 
in  its  obvious  sense,  means  the  season  he  has 
hhiiself  li.ved,  since  a  certain  manifestation  of  himself  Is 
in  its  fulness  reserved  by  him  to  that  period.  As  "  the 
times  and  the  seasons,"  also,  are  said,  in  another  place, 
to  be  in  the  Father's  "  own  power;"  so,  by  an  equiva- 
lent jdirase,  they  are  here  said  to  be  in  the  power  of  the 
Son,  because  they  are  "  hi.'i  own  times.'''  Doubtless, 
then,  he  knew  "  the  day  and  the  hour  of  judj;ment."(5) 
Now,  certainly,  no  such  glaring  and  direct  comradH-tiou 
can  e.xist  in  the  word  of  truth,  as  that  our  Lord  should 
know  the  day  of  judgment,  and  at  the  same  time,  and 
in  the  same  sense,  not  know  it.  Either,  therefore,  the 
j)assage  in  Mark  must  admit  of  an  interpretation  which 
■will  make  it  consistent  with  other  passages  which 
clearly  affirm  our  Lord's  knowledge  of  all  things,  and 
consequently  of  this  great  day,  or  these  passages  must 
submit  to  such  an  interpretation  as  will  bring  them 
into  accordance  with  that  in  Mark.  It  cannot,  however, 
he  in  the  nature  of  things  that  texts,  which  clearly  pre- 
dicate an  infinite  knowledge,  should  be  interpreted  to 
mean  a  finite  and  partial  knowledge,  and  this  attempt 
would  only  establish  a  contradiction  between  the  text 
and  the  comment.  Their  interpretation  is  imperative 
upon  us ;  but  the  text  in  Mark  is  capable  of  an  inter- 
pretation which  involves  no  contradiction  or  absurdity 
whatever,  and  which  makes  it  accord  with  the  rest  of 
the  Scripture  testimony  on  this  subject.  This  may 
he  done  two  ways.  The  first  is  adopted  by  Mac- 
knight. 

"  The  word  oiScv  here  seems  to  have  the  force  of  the 
Hebrew  conjunction  hiphil,  which, in  verbs  denoting 
action,  makes  that  action,  whatever  it  is,  pass  to  an- 
other. Wherefore  eiHioi,  which  properly  signifies  / 
know,  used  in  the  sense  of  the  conjunction  hiphil,  sig- 
nifies, I  make  another  to  know,  I  declare.  The  word 
has  this  meaning,  without  dispute,  1  Cor.  ii.  2.  '  I  de- 
termined, ciScvai,  to  know  nothing  among  you,  but 
Jesus  Christ  and  him  crucified ;  i.  e.  I  determined  to 
make  known,  to  preach  nothing  but  Jesus  Christ.  So, 
likewise,  in  the  text,  'But  of  that  day  and  that  hour, 
none  raaketh  you  to  know,'  none  hath  power  to  make 
you  know  it ;  just  as  the  phrase.  Matt.  xx.  23,  '  is  not 
nune  to  give,'  signifies,  'is  not  in  my  power  to  give:' — 
'  no,  not  the  angels,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father.' 
Neither  man  nor  angel,  nor  even  the  Son  himself,  can 
reveal  the  day  and  hour  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
to  you :  because  the  Father  hath  determmed  that  it 
should  not  be  reveal ed."(ri) 

The  second  is  the  usual  manner  of  meeting  the' diffi- 
culty, and  refers  the  words  "neither  the  Son"  exclu- 
sively to  the  human  nature  of  our  Lord,  which  we 
know,  as  to  the  body,  "  grew  in  stature,"  and,  as  to  the 
mind,  in  "  wisdom.''  Bishop  Kidder,  in  answering  the 
Socinian  objection  from  the  lips  of  a  Jew,  observes, 

"L  That  we  Christians  do  believe,  not  only  that 
Christ  was  God  ;  but  also  that  he  was  perfect  man, 
of  a  reasonable  soul,  and  human  flesh  subsisting. 

"  We  do  believe,  that  his  body  was  like  one  of  ours: 
A  real,  not  a  fantastic  and  imaginary  one. 

"  We  do  also  believe,  that  he  had  a  human  soul,  of 
the  same  nature  and  kind  with  one  of  ours ;  though  it 
was  free  from  sin,  and  all  original  stain  and  corruption. 
And  no  wonder  then,  that  we  read  of  him,  that  he  in- 
creased, not  only  in  stature,  and  in  favour  with  God  and 
man,  but  in  wisdom  also.  Luke  ii.  52.  Now  teisdom 
is  a  spiritual  endowment,  and  belongs  to  the  mind  or 
soul.  He  could  not  be  said  to  increase  in  wisdom  as  he 
was  God  ;  nor  could  this  be  said  of  him  with  respect  to 
his  body,  for  that  is  not  the  subject  of  wisdom ;  but  with 
regard  to  the  human  soul  of  Christ  the  other  part  of 
our  human  nature. 

"  2.  It  must  be  granted,  that  as  man  he  did  not  know 
beyond   the  capacities  of  human  and  finite    under- 

(5)  "Knipoii  litoig  tempore,  quod  ipse  novit.  Erat 
itaquc  teinpus  advuiitus  Cliristi  iaiotuin  Apostolis."— 

EoSENMULLER.     " 

(0)  Harmony. 


Standing  ;  and  not  what  he  knew  as  God  :  lie  could  not 
be  supposed  to  know  in  this  respect  things  not  knovvabjy 
by  vian,  any  otherwise  than  as  the  Divine  nature  and 
wisdom  thought  fit  to  c6n|4nunicate  and  impart  such 
knowledge  to  him. 

"  3.  That  therefore  Christ  may  be  said,  wifh  respect 
to  his  human  nature  and  fiinle  understanding,  not  to 
know  the  precise  time,  the  day  and  hour,  of  some  future 
events. 

"  4.  'Tis  farther  to  be  considered  how  the  evangelists 
report  this  matter;  they  do  it  in  such  terms  as  are  very 
observable.  Of  that  day  and  hour  knoieeth  no  man: 
it  follows,  neither  the  Son.  He  doth  not  say  the  Son  yf 
God,  nor  the  \oyoi,  or  Word,  but  the  Son  only. 

"  I  do  not  know  all  this  while,  where  there  is  any 
inco;isistency  in  the  faith  of  Christians  [arising  from 
this  view];  when  we  believe,  that  Jksus  was  in  all 
things  made  like  unto  us,  and  in  some  respect  a  little, 
lower  than  the  angels,  Heb.  ii.  7,  17.  I  sec  no  force  in 
the  above-named  objection."(7) 

The  "  Son  of  Man,"  it  is  true,  is  here  placed  above  the 
angels ;  but,  as  Waterland  observes,  "  the  particular 
concern  the  Son  of  Man  has  in  the  last  judgment  is  suf- 
ficient to  account  for  the  supposed  climax  or  gradation. 

"  It  is,  indeed,  objected  by  Socinians,  that  these  inter- 
pretations of  Mark  xiii.  32,  charge  our  Saviour,  if  not  with 
direct  falsehood,  at  least  with  criminal  evasion;  since  ho 
could  not  say  with  truth  and  sincerity,  that  he  was  igno- 
rant of  the  day,  if  he  knew-  it  in  any  capacity ;  as  it  cannot 
be  denied  that  man  is  immortal,  so  long  as  he  is,  in  any 
respect,  immortal.  The  answer  to  tliis  is,  that  as  it  may 
truly  be  said  of  the  body  of  man  that  it  is  not  immortal, 
though  the  soul  is ;  so  it  may,  with  equal  truth,  be  said, 
that  the  Son  of  Man  was  ignorant  of  some  things, 
though  the  Son  of  God  knew  every  thing.  It  is  not, 
then,  inconsistent' with  truth  and  sincerity  for  our  Lord 
to  deny  that  he  knew  what  he  really  did  know  in  one  ca- 
pacity, while  he  was  ignorant  of  it  in  another.  Thus, 
in  one  place  he  says,  '  JVow  I  am  no  more  in  the  world' 
(John  xvii.  11);  and  in  another,  'Ye  have  the  poor 
always  with  j'ou,  but  me  ye  have  not  always'  (Matt, 
xxvl.  11) ;  yet  on  another  occasion,  he  says,  '  Lo,  I  am 
with  you  always' (Matt,  xxviii.  20);  and  again, 'If  any 
man  love  me — my  Father  will  love  liim,  and  we  will 
come  unto  him  and  make  our  abode  with  him'  (John 
xiv.  23).  From  hence  we  see  that  our  Lord  might, 
without  any  breach  of  sincerity,  deny  that  of  himself 
considered  in  one  capacity,  which  he  could  not  have  de- 
nied in  another.  There  was  no  equivocation  in  his 
denying  the  knowledge  of  '  that  day  and  that  hour,' 
since  with  respect  to  his  human  nature,  it  was  most 
true ;  and  that  he  designed  it  to  refer  alone  to  his  human 
nature,  is  probable,  because  he  does  not  say  theSon.  of 
God  was  ignorant  of  that  day,  but  the  Son,  meaning  the 
Son  of  man,  as  appears  from  the  context  (Matthew 
xxiv.37,  39;  Mark  xiii.  26,  34).  Thus  Mark  xiu.  32, 
which,  at  first  sight,  may  seem  to  favour  the  Unitarian 
hypothesis,  is  capable  of  a  rational  and  unforced  inter- 
pretation, consistently  with  the  orthodox  faith."(8) 

As  the  knowledge  of  the  heart  is  attributed  to  Christ, 
so  also  is  the  knowledge  ot futurity,  which  is  another 
quality  so  peculiar  to  Deity,  that  we  find  the  true  God 
distinguishing  himself  from  all  the  false  divinities  of  the 
heathen  by  this  circumstance  alone.  "  To  whom  will 
ye  liken  me,  and  make  me  equal,  and  compare  me,  that 
we  may  be  like  V  "  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  like 
me.  Declaring  the  end  from  the  beginning,  and  from 
ancient  times  the  things  that  arc  not  yet  hone,  saying, 
My  counsel  shall  stand,  and  I  will  do  all  my  pleasure." 
Isaiah  xlvi.  5, 9,  10.  All  the  predictions  uttered  by  our 
Saviour,  and  which  are  nowhere  referred  by  him  lo 
inspiration,  the  source  to  which  all  the  prophets  and 
apostles  refer  their  prophetic  gifts,  but  were  sjioken  as 
from  his  own  prescience,  are  in  proof  of  his  possessing 
this  attribute.  It  is  also  aflirmed,  John  vi.  64,  that 
"  Jesus  knew  from  the  beginning  who  they  were  that 
believed  not,  and  who  should  betray  liim ;"  and  again, 
John  xiii.  11,  "For  Jesus  knew  who  should  betray 
him." 

Thus  we  find  the  Scriptures  ascribing  to  Jesus  an 
existence  without  beginning,  without  change,  without 
limitation,  and  connected,  in  the  whole  extent  of  space 
which  it  fills,  with  the  exercise  of  the  most  perfect 
intelligence.    These  are  essential  attributes  of  Deity. 


(7)  Demonstration  of  Mcssiali. 

(8)  Holden's  Tcstiiijouies. 


200 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Paiit  U. 


"Measures  of  power  maybe  cummuniciitcil ;  degrees 
of  wisdom  and  goodness  may  be  imiiorteil  to  created 
Hjiirits ;  Imt  our  conceptions  of  Cod  are  confounded, 
and  we  lose  sight  of  every  circumstance  by  which  he  is 
rli:iracten/.ed,  if  such  a  mannerof  existence  as  we  have 
now  described  he  common  to  him  and  any  creature."'(y) 

To  these  attributes  may  also  be  added  Omnipotence, 
whicli  is  also  peculiar  to  the  Godhead;  for,  though 
power  may  be  coinnimiicated  to  a  creature,  yet  a  Unite 
capacity  must  limit  the  comnjunication,  nor  can  it  exist 
inlinitely,  any  more  than  wisdom,  except  in  an  infinite 
nature.  Christ  is,  however,  styled,  Ilev.  i.  8,  "The 
A.l.Mi(!iiTy."  To  the  Jews  ho  said,  ♦'  What  thinf,'s 
Koever  he  [the  Father]  doeth,  tiiksk  also  poeth  the 
Son  likewise."  Kartlier,  he  declares  that  "as  llic 
Faih' r  haih  like  in  himseli',  so  hatli  he  given  to  the 
Son  u>  liavc  i.ri.-E  in  iiiMSEtr,"  wliich  is  a  most  strongly 
marked  ilisiiiiciion  betwe<-n  himself  and  all  creatures 
whalevcr.  He  has  "  life  in  himself,"  and  he  has  it  "  as 
the  Father"  has  it,  that  is  jierfeclly  and  infinitely,  which 
Kutticiently  demonstrates  that  he  is  of  the  same  essence, 
or  he  ciinid  not  have  this  cdnnrninion  of  properties  with 
the  Fatlier.  'I'h<-  \i\r  is,  imlecd,  said  to  be  "-givfm,"  but 
this  commniiiealiim  fnim  the  Father  makes  no  difference 
in  the  arcmneiit.  Wliether  the  "life"  mean  the  same 
original  and  independent  life,  which  at  once  entitles  the 
Deity  to  the  appeUaiions  "The  living Gok"  and  "The 
Father  ok  Spirits,"  or  the  bestowing  of  eternal  life 
'ipon  all  believers,  it  amounts  to  the  same  thing.  Tlie 
"  lite  which  is  thus  bestowed  upon  believers,  the  con- 
tinuance and  perfect  blessedness  of  existence,  is  from 
Christ  as  its  fountain,  and  he  has  it  as  the  Father  him- 
self hath  it.  Hy  his  eternal  generation  it  was  derived 
from  the  Father  to  him,  and  he  possesses  it  equally  with 
the  Father ;  by  the  appointment  of  his  Father,  he  is 
made  the  source  of  eternal  life  to  believers,  as  having 
that  LIKE  IN  HIMSELF  to  bestow,  and  to  supply  for  ever. 

We  may  sum  up  the  whole  scriptural argumeiil,  from 
Divine  attributes  being  ascribed  by  the  disciples  to  our 
Saviour,  and  claimed  by  himself,  with  his  own  remark- 
able declaration,  "All  thinos  which  the  Father  hath 
are  MINE  "  John  xvi.  15.  "  Here  he  challenges  to  him- 
self thi!  incommunit:able  attributes,  and,  consequently, 
that  essence  which  is  inseparable  from  tliem."(l)  "  If 
(Jod  the  Son  hath  all  things  that  the  Father  hath,  then 
hath  he  all  the  attributes  and  perfections  belonging  to 
the  Father,  the  same  power,  rights,  and  privileges,  the 
same  honour  and  glory  ;  and,  in  a  word,  the  same  na- 
ture, substance,  and  Godhead. "(2) 


.  CHAPTER  XIV. 

The  Acts  ascribed  to  (,'hrist  troofs  of  his 

Divinity. 

This  argument  is  in  confirmation  of  the  foregoing; 
for,  if  no!  only  the  proper  names  of  fiod,  his  nj.ijestic 
and  peculiar  titles,  and  his  attributes  are  attrilmied  to 
our  Lord  ;  but  if  also  acts  liave  been  done  by  him  which, 
in  the  nature  of  things,  cannot  be  iicrformcd  by  any 
creature,  liowt'ver  exalted,  then  He  by  whom  they 
were  done  must  be  truly  God. 

The  first  act  of  this  kind  is  creation — the  creation  of 
all  things.  It  is  not  here  necessary  to  enter  into  any 
argument  to  prove  that  creation,  in  its  proper  sense, 
that  is,  tlie  jirodiiction  of  tilings  outof  nothing,  isjiossi- 
ble  only  to  l^nnu  power.  The  .Socinians  themselves 
acknowledge  this  ;  and,  therefore,  emjiloy  their  [lervert- 
ing,  but  fei-ble  criticisms  in  a  vain  attempt  to  prove 
that  the  creation,  of  which  Christ  in  the  New  Testa- 
inciit  is  said  to  be  the  author,  is  to  be  understood  of  a 
ninral  creation,  or  of  the  riunliition  ot  all  ihings  in  the 
evangelic  disiiensation.  1  shall  not  aildnce  many  ])as- 
sages  to  prove  that  a  propi^r  creation  is  ascribed  to  our 
Lord;  lor  they  are  sulliciently  in  the  rer-olleilion  of 
the  reader.  It  is  enough  that  two  or  three  of  them 
only  be  exhibited,  which  cannot  be  taken,  without 
manifest  absurdity,  in  any  other  sense  but  as  attributing 
the  whole  physical  creation  to  him. 

The  ascription  of  the  creation  of  "  all  things,"  in  the 
physical  sensf',  to  the  Divine  Word,  in  the  introduction 
to  St.  John's  (Jospel.has  been  viinhcateil  against  the 
Hocinian  interpretation  in  a  preceding  page.  I  shall 
only  farther  remark  upon  it,  first,  that  if  .St.  ,lohn  had 


(U)  Hill's  Lectures. 
(2)  WATli;Ut,ANC. 


(1)  WuiTliV 


intended  a  moral,  anil  not  n  physical  creation,  he  could 
not  have  exjiressed  himself  as  he  does  without  intend- 
ing to  mislead  ;  a  supposition  equally  contrary  to  his 
inspiration  and  to  bis  piety.  He  ailirins  that  "ail 
tilings,"  and  that  without  limitation  or  restriction, 
"  were  made  by  him ;"  that  "  without  him  was  not  any 
tiling  made  that  was  made;"  which  clearly  means, 
that  there  is  no  created  object  wliich  had  not  Clirisl  for 
its  Creator ;  an  assertion  wliich  contains  a  revelation 
of  a  most  unporlant  and  fundamental  doctrine.  If,  how- 
ever, it  be  taken  in  the  Socinian  sense,  it  is  a  pitiful 
truism,  asserting  that  Christ  did  noUiing  in  establish- 
ing his  religion  which  he  did  not  do:  lor  to  tliis  ell'ect 
their  Version  itself  expresses  it, — "  all  things  were  ilonc 
by  him,  and  wiitioutTiim  was  not  any  thing  done  that 
hath  been  done ;"  or,  as  they  might  have  rendered  it,  to 
make  the  (oily  still  more  manilest,  "  without  him  was 
not  any  thing  done  that  was  done  by  liim,  or  which  he 
himself  did."  Liiloriunately,  however,  for  the  notion 
of  arranging  or  regulating  the  new  disjiensation,  the 
apostle  adds  a  full  confirmation  of  his  former  doctrine, 
that  the  physical  creation  was  the  result  ol  the  power 
of  the  Divine  Word,  by  asserting  that  "the  would 
was  iMAUE  by  Inm  ;"(:i)  that  world  into  which  he  came 
as"</ie  /(g^/i/,"  that  world  /«  which  he  was  when  he 
was  made  fiesh,  that  world  which  "knew  him  not." 
It  matters  nothing  to  the  argument,  whether  "the 
world"  be  understood  ol  inen  or  of  the  material  world ; 
on  either  suiqiosition  i!  w.is  made  by  hini,  and  the  crea- 
tion was,  therefore,  physical.  In  neiti'jr  case  coulU 
the  creation  be  a  ■mural  one,  for  the  material  world  is 
incaiiable  of  a  moral  renewal ;  and  the  world  wliich 
"  knew  not"  (Jhrist,  if  understood  of  men  w;i.s  not  re- 
newed, but  unregenerated ;  or  he  would  have  been 
"  known,"  that  is,  acknowledged  by  them. 

Another  passage,  equally  incapable  of  being  referred 
to  any  but  a  physical  creation,  is  found  in  Heb.  i.  2, 
"Ilywliom  also  he  .made  the  worlos."  "God," 
.says  the  apostle,  "  hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  unto 
us  by  liis  Son,  whom  he  hath  appointed  heir  of  all 
things;"  and  then  he  proceeds  to  p\ejuitlier  informa- 
tion of  the  nature  and  dignity  of  thel'ersonage  tlius 
denominated  "  Son"  and  •'  heir  ;"  and  his  very  first  dc- 
clai-ation  concerning  him,  in  this  exposition  of  his  cha- 
racter, in  order  to  prove  him  greater  than  angels,  who 
are  the  greatest  of  all  created  beings,  is  thai  "  by  hiiu 
also  God  made  the  worlds."  Two  methods  have  been 
resorted  to,  in  order  to  ward  olf  the  font:  of  this  deci- 
sive testimony  as  to  the  Deity  of  Chri.st,  grounded  ui)on 
his  creative  acts.  The  first  is,  to  render  the  words, 
"  FOK  whom  he  made  the  worlds  ;"  thus  referring  crea- 
tion inimediaiely  to  the  Father,  and  making  the  i)re|)o- 
sitionc^ia,  with  a  genitive  case,  signify  theyi/(H/(-fij/,vf. 
the  reason  or  end  lor  which  "  tlie  worlds"  were  created. 
Were  this  even  allowed,  it  would  be  a  strange  doctrine 
to  assert  that  for  a  mere  man,  for  the  exercise  of  the 
ininisti)  of  a  mere  man,  a.s  Chri.st  is  taken  to  be  upon 
the  Socinian  hypothesis,  "  the  worlds,"  the  whole  visi- 
ble creation,  with  its  various  orders  of  intellectual 
beings,  were  created.  This  is  a  position  almost  tis 
much  opi>osed  to  that  corrujit  hyjiothcsis  as  is  the  urtbo- 
<lox  doeinne  itself,  and  is  another  instance  in  proof 
that  dilhcuUies  are  inultiphcd,  rather  than  lessened  by 
dep;irting  Ironi  the  obvious  sense  of  Scripture  liul  no 
e.vample  is  found,  in  the  whole  J\ew  Ti'sttmient,  of  the 
ii.S(^  ol  6ia  with  a  genitive  to  express  thvJintU  cause; 
and,  in  the  very  next  verse,  St  I'uul  uses  the  same  con- 
struction to  express  the  efficient  cause, — "  when  he  had 
by  himxelf  ,\)\xiged  our  sins."  "This  interpretation," 
says  Whitby,  justly,  "  is  contrary  to  the  rule  of  all 
grammarians;  contrary  to  the  exposition  of  all  the 
Greek  fathers,  and  also  without  examjilc  in  the  New 
Testament." 

The  second  resource,  therclbrc,  is  to  understand  "  the 
worlds,"  Tovi  aiuivas,  in  the  literal  imi)ort  ol  the  phrase, 
for  "  the  ages,"  or  the  (.'ospel  dispensation.  Hut  "In 
(iioJi'Ef,  absolutely  put,  doth  never  siL-nify  the  church  or 
evangelical  state;  nor  doth  the  Scripture  ever  speak  of 
the  tmrld  to  ctmie  in  the  plural,  but  in  the  singular 
number  only. "(J)  The  phra.se  In  nnovti  was  adopted 
either  as  eiiiiivalent  to  the  Jewish  division  ol  the  wliolc 
i-reation  into  three  parts,  tliis  lower  world,  tho  region 


(3)  "The  world  was  cnliglitemd  by  him,"  says  the 
Now  Version ;  which  perfectly  gratuitous  reudoriDg 
has  been  belore  adverted  to. 

(1)  WniTiiv. 


CHAr.  XI V.J 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


209 


of  the  stars,  and  the  third  heaven,  the  residence  of  God 
and  his  aiigeis  ;  or  as  expressive  of  the  duration  of  the 
world,  exIiMiding  tlirouiih  ati  irulelinite  nuiiilierof  uges, 
and  staiidin;,'0|)posed  to  tlie  short  lile  of  its  iiilialjilaiits. 
Akoi',  iiriiiio  /(iii.mmi  teiniius,  postca  ifirtiitati  in,  apud 
ISiTiptores  N.  T.  vero  kuc^iov,  miiii'luiit  .si;;iuli(at,  ex 
Ilebraisino,  uhi  07l^»  ct  □''o'?^'  '^'^  mundo  acci- 
pit«r,  quia  rnuiidus  jxist  tot  geiieralioiies  liomiiiuni  per- 
petuo  durat.(,'))  Tlu;  a|]ostle,  in  wriling  to  the  Hebrews, 
used,  therelbre,  a  mode  of  expression  whieh  was  not 
only  familiar  to  them ;  but  which  they  could  not  but 
understand  of  the  natural  creation.  This,  however,  is 
put  out  of  all  doubt  by  the  use  of  the  same  phrase  in 
the  Uth  chapter— '•  through  faitli^e  understand  that 
the  WORLDS  were  framed  by  the  word  of  God,  so  that 
things  wiiich  are  seen  were  not  made  of  thin^^s  that  do 
appear ;"  words  which  can  only  be  understood  of  the 
phj'sical  creation.  Another  consideration  whiih  takes 
the  declaration,  "by  whom  also  he  made  the  worlds," 
out  of  the  reach  of  all  the  captious  and  puerile  criticism 
on  whieh  we  have  remarked  is,  that  in  the  close  of  the 
chapter,  the  apostle  reiterates  the  doctrine  of  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world  by  ,Te.sus  Christ :  "  But  unto  the  Son 
he  saith,"  not  only  "  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever 
and  ever,"  but  "  Thou,  I,ord  (Jehm)ah),  in  the  begin- 
ning hast  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth,  and  the  hea- 
vens arc  the  works  of  thine  hands  :"  words  to  wliich 
the  perverted  adroitness  of  heretics  has  been  able  to 
alHx  no  meaning,  when  taken  in  any  other  sen.se  than 
as  addressed  to  Christ ;  and  which  will  for  ever  attach 
to  him  on  the  authority  of  inspiration,  the  title  of  "  Je- 
hovah," and  array  him  in  all  the  majesty  of  creative 
power  and  glory.  It  is,  indeed,  a  very  conclusive  ar- 
gument in  favour  of  the  three  great  points  of  Christian 
doctrine,  as  comprehended  in  the  orthodox  faith,  that  it 
is  impossible  to  interpret  this  celebrated  chapter,  ac- 
cording to  any  fair  rule  of  natural  and  customary  inter- 
pretation, without  admitting  that  Chri.st  is  Gon,  the 
DiviNK  Son  of  Gon,  and  tlie  Mkdiatok.  The  last  is 
indicated  by  his  being  the  medium  through  whom,  in 
these  last  days,  the  will  of  God  is  cominunicaled  to 
mankind.  "  God  hath  spoken"  by  him ;  and  by  his 
being  "  anoinled"  priest  and  king  "  above  his  fellows.^' 
The  second  is  expressed  both  by  his  title  "  the  Son," 
and  by  the  superiority  which,  in  virtue  of  that  7ia7iie, 
he  ha.s  above  angels,  and  the  worship  which,  as  the 
Son,  they  are  enjoined  to  jiray  to  him.  He  is  also 
called  God,  and  this  term  is  fixed  in  its  highest  import, 
by  his  being  declared  "the  brightness  of  the  Father's 
glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  person,"  and  by  the 
creative  acts  which  are  ascribed  to  him ;  while  his  cha- 
racter of  Son,  as  being  of  the  Father,  is  still  preserved 
by  the  two  metaphors  of  " brightness"  and  "  iyaage" 
and  by  the  expression,  "  God,  even  thy  God.'''  On  these 
principles  only  is  the  apostle  intelligible  ;  on  any  other, 
the  whole  chapter  is  incapable  of  consistent  exposition. 

The  only  additional  passage  which  it  is  necessary  to 
produce,  in  order  to  show  that  Christ  is  the  creator  of 
all  things,  and  that  the  creation  of  which  he  is  the 
author,  is  not  a  moral  but  a  physical  creation ;  not  the 
framing  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  but  the  fomriing 
of  the  whole  universe  of  creatures  out  of  nothing,  is 
Coloss.  i.  15 — 17:  "Who  is  the  imaoe  of  the  invisible 
Gon,  the  first-born  of  every  creature:  for  by  him 
were  all  things  (  re.\tkd,  that  are  in  heaven,  and  that 
are  in  earth,  visible  and  invisible,  whether  they  be 
thrones,  or  dominions,  or  principalities,  or  powers ;  all 
things  were  created  by  him,  and  F<jRhim;  and  he  is 
BEFORE  all  things,  and  by  him  all  things  covsist." 
The  Socinians  interpret  this  of  "  that  great  change 
which  was  introduced  into  the  moral  world,  and  par- 
ticularly into  the  relative  silnation  of  .lews  and  Gen- 
tiles, by  the  dispensation  of  the  (;ospcl."(6)    But, 

1.  Tlie  apostle  introduces  this  passage  as  a  reason 
why  we  have  "  redemi>tion  through  his  blood"  (ver. 
14) ;  why,  in  other  words,  the  death  of  Chri.st  was  effi- 
cacious, and  obviously  attributes  this  efficacy  to  the 
dignity  of  his  nature.  This  is  the  scope  of  his  argu- 
ment. 2.  He  therefore  affirms  him  to  be  "^Aewinlr''" 
{tiKmy),  the  exact  representation  or  resemblance  of  the 
invi.sible  God ;  which,  when  compared  .with  Heb.  i.  2, 
"who  being  the  brightness  of  his  glory,  and  the  ex- 
press image  of  his  person,"  shows  that  the  ajiostle 
uses  the  word  in  a  sense  in  which  it  is  not  applicable 
to  any  human  or  angelic  being,—"  the  Jirst-bom  of 


(5)    Rost.NMUt,I,KR. 


(b;  I.npioved  Versioi;. 


every  creature ;"  or,  more  lilrrally,  "  the  JirH-born  of 
the  whole  creation."  The  Arians  liave  taken  this  in 
the  sense  oi  the.  first-made  creature;  but  this  is  re- 
futed by  tlie  term  itself,  which  is  not  "first  made,"  but 
"  first  born ,"  and  by  the  following  verse,  which  proves 
him  to  be  first-born,  for,  or  hkcausk  (6n)  "  by  him 
were  all  things  created."  As  to  the  dale  of  his  being, 
he  was  before  all  created  things,  for  they  were  created 
by  him :  as  to  the  inaanir  of  his  being,  he  was  by  ge- 
neration not  creation.  The  aposlle  does  not  say,  that 
he  was  created  the  first  of  all  creatures;  hut  that  ho 
was  born  before  them  :(7) — a  plain  allusion  to  the  ge- 
neration of  tlie  Son  before  tiirie  began,  and  before  crea- 
tures existed.  Wolf  has  also  shown,  that  among  the 
Jews  Jehovah  is  sometimes  called  the  ■primogenit.vm 
mundi,  "the  first-born  of  the  world,"  because  they 
attributed  the  creation  of  the  world  to  the  Logos,  the 
Word  of  the  Lord,  the  ostensible  Jehovah  of  the  Old 
Testament,  whom  certainly  they  never  meant  to  in- 
clude among  the  creatures ;  and  that  they  called  him 
al.so  the  Son  of  God.  It  WEus,  then,  in  perfect  accord- 
ance with  the  theological  language  of  the  Jews  them- 
selves, that  the  apostle  calls  oiu:  Lord  "  the  first-born 
of  the  whole  creation." 

The  Arian  interpretation,  which  makes  the  first  made 
creature  the  Creator  of  the  rest,  is  thus  destroyed.  The 
Socinian  notion  is  as  manifestly  absurd.  If  the  crea- 
tion here  be  the  new  dispensation,  the  Christian  church, 
then  to  call  Christ  the  first-born  of  this  creation  is  to 
make  the  apostle  say  that  Christ  was  the  first-made 
member  of  the  Chnstian  church;  and  the  reason  given 
for  this  is,  that  he  made  or  constituted  the  church '  If 
by  this  they  mean  simply  that  he  was  the  author  of 
Christianity,  we  have  again  a  puerile  truism  j)Ut  into 
the  lips  of  the  apostle.  If  they  mean  that  the  apostle 
declares  that  Christ  was  the  first  Christian,  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  conceive  how  this  can  be  gravely  alTirmed  as  a 
comment  on  the  words  ;  if  any  thing  else,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  discover  any  connexion  in  the  argument,  that 
is,  between  the  proposition  that  Christ  is  the  first-bom 
of  the  whole  creation,  and  the  proof  of  it  which  is  ad- 
duced, that  by  him  were  all  things  created.  The  anno- 
tators  on  the  New  Version  say,  "  It  is  plain  from  com- 
paring this  passage  with  verse  18  (where  Christ  i.s 
called  the  first-born  from  the  dead),  that  Christ  is  called 
the  first-born  of  the  whole  creation,  because  he  is  the 
first  who  was  raised  from  the  dead  to  an  immortal  life." 
This  is  far  from  being  "  plain  ;"  but  it  is  plain,  that  in 
these  two  verses,  the  apostle  speaks  of  Christ  in  two 
different  states;  first,  in  his  state  "before  all  things," 
and  as  the  sustainer  of  all  things ;  and  then,  in  his 
state  ill  "  the  church"  (verse  18),  in  which  is  added  to 
the  former  particulars  respecting  hiin,  that  "  he  is  the 
head  of  the  body,  the  church,  who  is  the  beginning, 
the  first-bom  from  the  dead."  Again,  if  in  verses  15, 
16,  17,  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  what  Christ  is  in  and 
to  the  church,  under  the  figure  of  a  creation  of  all 
things  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  when  he  drops  the 
figure,  and  teaches  us  that  Christ  is  the  head  of  the 
church,  the  first-bom  from  the  dead,  he  uses  a  mere 
taiitology ;  nor  is  there  any  apparent  reason  w  hy  he 
should  not,  in  the  same  plain  terms,  have  stated  his 
proposition  at  once,  without  resorting  to  expressions, 
which,  in  this  view,  would  be  far-fetched  and  delusive. 
In  "the  church"  he  was  "head,"  and  "the  first-bom 
from  the  dead,"  the  only  one  who  ever  rose  to  die  no 
more,  and  who  gives  an  immortal  life  to  those  he 
quickens ;  but  before  the  church  existed  or  he  him- 
self became  incarnate,  "before  all  things,"  says  the 
apostle,  he  was  the  "  first-born  of  the  whole  creation," 
that  is,  as  the  fathers  understood  it,  he  was  born  or  be- 
gotten before  every  creature.  But  the  very  terms  of 
the  text  are  an  abundant  refutation  of  the  notion,  "  that 
the  creation  here  mentioned  is  not  the  creation  of  natu- 
ral substances."  The  things  created  are  said  to  be 
"  all  things  in  heaven  and  upon  the  earth ;"  and  lest 
the  invisible  spirits  in  the  heaven  .should  be  thought  to 
be  excluded,  the  apostle  add.s,  "  things  visible  and 
things  invisible;"  and  lest  the  invisible  things  should 
be  understood  o(  inferior  angels  or  spiritual  beings,  and 
the  high  and  glorious  beings,  who  "excel  in  strength," 
and  are  in  Scripture  invested  with  other  elevated  pro- 
perties, should  be  suspected  to  be  exceptions,  the  apos- 
tle becomes  still  more  particular,  and  adds,  whether 
"  thrones,  or  dominions,  or  princijialities,  or  powers," 


(7)  Vide  Wolf  in  loc. 


^10 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  IL 


terms  by  which  the  Jews  expressed  the  liilTcrent  orders 
of  angels,  and  which  are  used  in  that  sense  by  this 
apostle,  Ephesians  i.  21.  It  is  a  shameless  criticism 
01'  the  authors  of  the  New  Version,  and  shows  how 
liardly  they  were  pushed  by  this  decisive  passage,  that 
"  the  apostle  does  not  here  specify  Z/((?j^'*-  themselves, 
namely,  celestial  and  terrestrial  substances,  but  merely 
states  of  things,  namely,  thrones,  dominions,  &c., 
which  are  only  ranks  and  orders  of  beings  in  the  ra- 
tional and  moral  world."  Was  it  then  Ibrgotten,  that 
bifore  ^l.  Paul  speaks  of  things  in  rank  and  order,  he 
speaks  of  all  things  collectircly  which  are  in  heaven 
and  in  earth,  visible  and  invisible?  If  so,  he  tlien  un- 
questionably speaks  of  "  things  themselves,"  or  he 
speaks  of  nothing.  Nor  is  it  true,  that  in  the  enumera- 
tion of  thrones,  dominions,  &.C.,  he  speaks  of  the  crea- 
tion of  ranks  and  orders.  He  does  not  speak  "merely 
of  sfa<ex  of  things,  but  of  things  in  states;  he  does 
not  say  that  Ctirist  created  thrones,  and  dominions, 
and  princijialttics,  and  }ioii-trs,  which  would  have  been 
more  to  their  purpose,  but  that  he  created  all  things, 
'whether'  tirt,  '  they  be  thrones,'  &;c."  The  apostle 
adds,  that  all  things  were  created  by  him,  and  fok  him, 
as  the  end ;  which  could  not  be  said  of  Christ,  even  if 
a  moral  creation  were  intended;  since  on  the  Socinian 
hypothesis  that  he  is  a  mere  man,  a  prophet  of  God, 
he  IS  hut  the  instrument  of  restoring  man  to  obedience 
and  sulijection,  lor  the  glory  and  in  accomplishment  of 
the  purposes  of  God.  Hut  how  is  the  whole  of  this 
description  to  be  made  applicable  to  a  figurative  crea- 
tion, to  the  moral  restoration  of  lapsed  beings  ?  It  is 
as  plainly  historical  as  the  words  of  Moses,  "In  the 
beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth." 
"  Things  visible"  and  "  things  on  earth"  compri.se  of 
course  all  those  objects,  which,  being  neither  sen.sible 
nor  rational,  are  incapable  of  moral  regeneration; 
while  "  thnigs  in  heaven"  and  "things  invisible"  com- 
prise the  angels  which  never  sinned,  and  who  need  no 
repentance  and  no  renewal.  Such  are  those  gross  per- 
versions of  the  Word  of  God  which  this  lieresy  induces, 
ami  with  such  indelible  evidence  is  the  Divinity  of  our 
Lord  declared  by  his  acts  of  power  and  glory,  as  the 
IInivkusal  Crkatok.  The  admirable  observations  of 
Bishop  Pearson  may  properly  conclude  what  has  been 
said  on  this  imiiortant  passage  of  inspired  writ. 

"  In  these  words  our  Saviour  is  expressly  styled  the 
'  first-born  of  every  creature,'  that  is,  begotten  by  God, 
as  '  the  Son  of  his  love,'  antecedently  to  all  other  ema- 
nations, before  any  thing  i)rooeoded  from  Him,  or  was 
framed  and  created  by  Him.  And  that  precedency  is 
presently  proved  by  this  undeniable  argument,  that  all 
other  emanations  or  productions  come  from  Him,  and 
whatsoever  received  its  being  by  creation  was  by  Him 
created,  which  assertion  is  delivered  in  the  most  pro- 
per, full,  and  frequent  e.xpressions  imaginable.  First, 
in  the  plain  language  of  Moses,  as  most  consonant  to 
his  descriiilion  ;  'for  by  Him  were  all  things  created 
that  are  m  heaven  and  that  are  in  earth ;'  signifying 
thereby  that  he  siieaketh  of  the  same  creation.  Se- 
condly, bv  a  division  which  Moses  never  used,  as  de- 
scribing the  proiluction  only  of  corporeal  substances: 
lest,  theretbre,  those  immaterial  beings  might  seem 
exempted  from  the  Son's  creation,  because  omitted  in 
Moses's  dcscriiition,  he  addeth  '  visible  and  invisible  ;' 
and  lest  in  that  invisible  world,  among  the  many  de- 
grees of  celestial  hierarchy,  any  order  might  -seem  ex- 
empted from  an  essential  dependence  on  Him,  he 
nanicth  those  which  are  of  greatest  eminence,  '  whe- 
ther they  be  thrones,  or  dominions,  or  principalities,  or 
powers,'  and  under  them  comprehendeth  all  the  rest. 
Nor  doth  it  yet  sulli(-e  thus  to  e.xtcnd  the  object  of  His 
power,  by  asserting  all  things  to  be  made  by  Him,  ex- 
cept it  he  so  understood  as  to  acknowledge  the  sove- 
reignty of  His  jjersou  and  the  authority  of  His  action. 
For  lest  we  should  conceive  the  Son  of  God  framing 
the  world  as  a  mere  instrumental  cause  which  work- 
eth  by  and  for  another,  he  showelh  him  as  well  the 
final  as  the  elhcient  cause  ;  for  '  all  things  were  created 
by  Ilim  and  for  Him.'  Lastly,  whereas  all  things  first 
receive  their  being  by  creation,  and  when  they  have  re- 
ceived it,  continue  in  the  same  by  virtue  of  God's  conser- 
vation, '  in  whom  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our 
being  ;'  lest  in  any  thing  we  should  not  depend  imme- 
diately upon  the  Son  of  God,  He  is  described  as  the 
Conscrver  as  well  as  the  Oeator,  for  '  He  is  betbre  all 
things,  and  by  Him  all  things  consist.'  If,  then,  we 
consider  these  two  latter  verses  by  themselves,  we 


cannot  deny  but  they  arc  a  most  complete  descrij)iioii 
of  the  Creator  of  the  world  ;  and  if  they  were  spoken 
of  God  the  Father,  could  be  no  way  injurious  to  Hi.-j 
Majesty,  who  is  nowhere  more  plainly  or  fully  set  (brth 
unto  us  as  the  Maker  of  the  world." 

Hut  our  Lord  himself  professes  to  do  other  acts  be- 
sides the  great  act  of  creating,  which  are  peculiar  to 
God;  and  such  acts  are  also  attributed  to  him  by  his 
insjiired  apostles.  His  preserving  of  all  things  iiia<le 
by  him  has  already  been  mentioned,  and  which  implies 
not  only  a  Divine  7(outT,  but  also  ubiqiiity ;  since  he 
must  be  present  to  all  things,  in  order  to  their  constant 
conservation.  The  final  destruction  of  the  whole  frame 
of  material  nature  ^also  as  e.\pres,sly  attributed  to  Inm 
as  its  creation,  ""lou,  Lord,  in  the  beginning  hast 
laid  the  Ibundalion  of  the  earth,  and  the  heavens  are 
the  works  of  thine  bands;  these  shall  jierish,  but  thou 
remainest,  and  as  a  vesture  shalt  thoi:  fold  them 
iii>,  and  they  shall  be  changed."  Here  omnipotent 
power  is  seen  "changing"  and  removing,  and  taking 
away  the  vast  universe  of  material  things  with  the 
«ame  ease  as  it  was  spoken  into  being  and  at  first  dis- 
posed into  order.  Generally,  too,  our  Lord  claims  to 
perform  the  works  of  his  Father.  "If  I  do  not  the 
WORKS  of  my  Father,  believe  me  not ;  but  it  I  do, 
though  ye  believe  not  me,  believe  the  works."  Should 
this  even  be  restrained  to  the  working  of  miracles,  the 
argument  remains  the  same.  No  prophet,  no  apostle, 
ever  u.se<l  such  language  in  speaking  of  his  miraculou.s 
gift.s.  Here  Christ  declares  that  he  performs  the  worka 
of  his  Father;  not  merely  that  the  Father  worked  by 
him,  but  that  he  himself  did  the  works  of  God  ;  which 
can  only  mean  works  proper  or  peculiar  to  God,  and 
wliich  a  Divine  power  only  could  etrect.(S)  bo  the 
Jews  understood  him,  lor,  upon  this  declaration,  "  ihev 
sought  again  to  take  him."  That  this  (jower  of  w  ork- 
ing  miracles  was  in  him  an  original  power,  appears 
also  from  his  bestowing  that  jiower  upon  his  disciples. 
"  Heboid  I  (;ivK  unto  you  power  to  tread  on  serpents, 
and  scorpions,  and  over  all  the  power  of  the  enemy, 
and  nothing  shall  by  any  means  hurt  you."  Luke  x.  10, 
"And  UK  GAVE  them  power  and  authority  over  all  de- 
vil.s,  and  to  cure  diseases."  Luke  i.x.  1.  Their  miracles 
were,  therefore,  to  be  performed  in  his  na.me,  by  which 
the  power  of  effecting  them  was  expressly  reserved  to 
him.  "In  my  name  shall  they  cast  out  devils;"  and 
"  HIS  NAME,  through  faith  in  iiis  na.me,  hath  made  this 
man  strong." 

The  manner  in  which  our  Lord  promises  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  farther  in  proof  that  he  perlbrms  acts  peculiar 
to  the  Godhead.  He  speaks  of  "  sending  the  Sjiirit"  in 
the  language  of  one  who  had  an  original  right  and  an 
inherent  power  to  bestow  that  wondrous  giU,  which 
was  to  imp-.irt  miraculous  energies  and  heavenly  wis- 
dom, comfort,  and  purity  to  human  minds.  Does  the 
Father  send  the  Spirit  ■  he  claims  the  same  power, — 
"  the  Comforter  whom  I  iiill  send  unto  you."  The 
Spirit  is  on  this  account  called  "  the  Spirit  of  Christ" 
and  "  the  S])iritof  flod."  Thus  the  giving  of  the  Spirit 
is  indifii'erenlly  ascribed  to  the  Son  and  to  the  Father; 
but  when  that  gill  is  mediately  bestowed  by  the  apos- 
tles, no  such  language  is  assumed  by  them  :  they  pray 
to  Christ,  and  to  the  Father  in  his  name,  and  he,  their 
exalted  nuLster,  sheds  forth  the  blessing — "therefore, 
being  by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted,  and  having  re- 
ceived of  the  Father  the  jiromise  of  the  Holy  Ghosi, 
HE  hath  shed  forth  this,  which  ye  now  .see  and  hear." 

Another  of  the  unquestionably  peculiar  acts  of  God 
is  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  In  the  manifest  reason  of 
the  thing,  no  one  can  forgive  but  the  parly  ofiended; 
and  as  sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law  of  God,  he 
alone  is  the  offended  party,  and  he  only,  Iherelbre,  can 
forgive.  Mediately,  others  may  declare  his  pardoning 
acts,  or  the  conditions  on  which  he  determines  to  for- 
give; but  authoritatively,  there  can  be  no  actual  Ibr- 
giveness  of  sins  against  God  but  by  (iod  liimself.  Hut 
Christ  forgives  sin  authoritatively,  and  he  is,  therefore, 
God.  One  passage  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  |irove 
this.  "  He  said  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy,  .Son,  be  of  good 
cheer,  thy  sins  be  forgiicn  thee."  The  scribes  who 
were  present  understood  that  he  did  this  aiithorila- 

(8)  "  Si  non  facio  ea  ipsa  divlna  opera,  quae  Paler 
meus  facit;  si  que  facio,  non  lunbent  divin.-e  virtulis 
specimen." — Rosenmvllek.  "  Opera  Patris  met,  i.  e. 
qua-  Patri,  sive  Deo,  sunt  propria  :  qua-  a  ncmiiie  alio 
lieri  qucuiil."— PoLi  SyiU'ii. 


CiiAP.  XV.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


2tl 


tivelv,  and  assumed  in  this  ravo  llio  rishts  of  Divinity. 
They  therefore  said  aiming'  ihciMsclvcs,  "  Tliis  man 
blasphemcth."  What  then  is  the  coiidui-t  of  our  Lord  '. 
Does  he  admit  that  he  only  ministerially  dedarai,  in 
consequence  of  sornc  revelation,  that  God  had  forgiven 
the  sins  of  the  paralytic  ?  f)n  the  contrary,  he  works 
a  miracle  to  prove  to  them  that  the  very  right  which 
thcv  disjiuted  was  vested  in  him;  that  he  had  this  au- 
thority—" but  that  ye  may  know  that  the  Son  of  man 
hath  powKR  on  earth  to  forgive  sins,  thc»  saith  he  to 
the  sick  of  the  palsy.  Arise,  take  up  thy  bed,  and  go 
into  thine  own  house." 

8uch  were  the  acts  performed  by  our  Saviour  in  the 
days  of  his  sojourn  on  earth,  and  which  lie  is  repre- 
sented by  his  inspired  ajiostles  to  be  still  constantly 
perlbrming,  or  as  having  the  power  to  perform.  If  any 
creature  is  capable  of  doing  the  same  mighty  works, 
then  is  all  distinction  between  created  finite  natures 
and  the  uncreated  Infinite  destroyed.  If  such  a  distinc- 
tion, in  fact,  exists ;  if  neither  creation,  preservation, 
nor  salvation  be  possible  to  a  mere  creature,  we  have 
seen  that  they  are  possible  to  Christ,  because  he  actu- 
ally creates,  preserves,  and  saves ;  and  the  inevitable 
conclusion  is,;rHAT  he  is  verv  God. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

DxviNK  Worship  p.iiD  to  Christ. 

From  Christ's  o^vn  acts  we  may  pass  to  those  of  his 
disciples,  and  particularly  to  one  which  unequivocally 
marks  their  opinion  respecting  his  Divinity  :  they  vvor- 
siiip  him  as  a  Divine  Person,  and  they  enjoin  this  also 
upon  Christians  to  the  end  of  time.  If  Christ,  there- 
fore, IS  not  God,  ihe  apostles  were  idolaters,  and  Chris- 
tianity is  a  system  of  impiety.  This  is  a  point  so  im- 
portant as  to  demand  a  close  investigation. 

The  fact  that  Divine  worship  was  paid  to  Christ  by 
his  disciples  must  be  first  established.  Instances  of 
falling  down  at  the  feet  of  Jesus  and  worshipping  him 
are  so  frequent  in  the  Gospel,  that  it  is  not  necessary 
to  select  the  instances  which  are  so  familiar;  and, 
though  we  allow  that  the  word  zpoaKvvavis  sometimes 
used  to  express  that  lowly  reverence  with  which,  in  the 
East,  it  has  been  always  customary  to  salute  persons 
considered  as  greatly  superior,  and  especially  rulers 
and  sovereigns,  it  is  yet  the  same  word  which,  in  a 
great  number  of  instances,  is  used  to  express  the  wor- 
ship of  the  Supreme  Goo.  We  are,  then,  to  collect  the 
intention  of  the  act  of  worship,  whether  designed  as  a 
token  of  profound  civil  respect,  or  of  real  and  Divine 
adoration,  from  the  circumstances  of  the  instances  on 
record.  When  a  leper  comes  and  "  worships"  Christ, 
professing  to  believe  that  he  had  the  power  of  healing 
diseases,  and  that  in  himself,  which  power  he  could 
exercise  at  his  will,  all  which  he  expresses  by  saying, 
"  Lord,  if  thou  wilt,  thou  canst  make  me  clean,"  we 
see  a  Jew  retaining  that  faith  of  the  Jewish  church  in 
its  purity  which  had  been  corrupted  among  so  many  of 
his  nation,  that  the  Messiah  was  to  be  a  Divine  Person  ; 
and,  viewing  our  Lord  under  that  character,  he  regarded 
his  miraculous  powers  as  original  and  personal,  and  so 
hesitated  not  to  worship  him.  Here,  then,  is  a  case  in 
which  the  circumstances  clearly  show  that  the  worship 
was  religious  and  supreme.  When  the  man  who  had 
been  cured  of  blindness  by  Jesus,  and  who  had  de- 
fended his  ;)/-o;)ftf«(c  character  before  the  council,  before 
he  knew  that  he  had  a  higher  character  than  that  of  a 
prophet,  was  met  in  private  by  Jesus,  and  instructed  in 
the  additional  fact,  that  he  was  "  the  Son  of  God,"  he 
worshipped  him.  "Jesus  heard,  that  they  had  cast 
him  out,  and  when  he  had  found  him,  he  said  unto  him, 
Dost  thou  believe  on  the  Son  of  (iod  ?  He  answered 
and  said,  Who  is  he.  Lord,  that  I  might  believe  on  him  ? 
And  Je-sus  said  unto  him,  Thou  hast  both  seen  him,  and 
it  is  he  that  talketh  with  thee.  And  he  said.  Lord,  I 
believe  ;  and  he  worshipped  him  ■.■' — worshipped  him, 
be  It  observed,  under  his  character  "  Son  of  God," 
a  title  which,  we  have  alrcniiy  seen,  was  regarded  by 
the  Jews  as  implying  actual  Divinity,  and  which  the 
man  understood  to  raise  Jesus  far  above  the  rank  of  a 
rilere  prophet.  The  worship  paid  by  this  man  must, 
therefore,  in  its  intention,  have  been  supreme,  lor  it 
was  offered  to  an  acknowledged  Divine  Person,  the 
Son  of  God.  When  the  disciples,  fully  yielding  to  the 
demonstration  of  our  Lord's  Messiahship,  urisuig  out 
02 


of  a  series  of  splendid  miracles,  recognised  him  also 
under  his  personal  charactcT,  "  they  came  and  wor- 
shipped him  saying.  Of  a  truth  thou  art  the  Son  of 
God !"  Matt  xiv.  33.  When  Peter,  upon  the  miracu- 
lous draught  of  fishes,  "tell  at  his  feet,"  and  said, 
"  Depart  from  ine,  lor  1  am  a  sinful  man,  O  Lord," 
these  e?;pressions  themselves  mark  as  strongly  the  awe 
and  apprehension  which  is  produced  in  the  breast  of  a 
sinful  man,  when  he  leels  himself  in  the  presence  of 
Divinity  itself,  as  when  Isaiah  c.\claims,  in  his  vision 
of  the  Divine  glory,  "  Wo  is  me,  lor  I  am  undone,  for 
I  am  a  man  of  unclean  lips,  and  dwell  among  a  ])eople 
of  unclean  lips,  for  mine  eyes  have  seen  the  King,  tlie 
Lord  of  Hosts." 

The  circumstances,  then,  which  accompany  these  in- 
stances, make  it  evident,  that  the  worship  here  paid  to 
our  Lord  was  of  the  highest  order  ;  and  they  will  serve 
to  explain  several  other  cases  in  the  Gospels,  similar  in 
the  act,  though  not  accompanied  with  illustrative  cir- 
cumstances so  explicit.  But  there  is  one  general  con- 
sideration of  importance  which  applies  to  them  all. 
Such  acts  of  lowly  prostration  as  are  called  worship 
were  chiefly  paid  to  civil  governors.  Now,  our  Lord 
cautiously  avoided  giving  the  least  sanction  to  the 
notion  that  he  had  any  civil  pretensions,  and  that  his 
object  was  to  make  himself  king.  It  would,  therefore, 
have  been  a  marked  inconsistency  to  suffer  himself  to 
be  saluted  with  the  homage  of  prostration  proper  to 
civil  governors,  and  which,  indeed,  was  not  alway.s,  in 
Judea,  rendered  to  them.  He  did  not  receive  this  ho- 
mage, then,  Mnder  the  character  of  a  civil  ruler  or  so- 
vereign ;  and  under  what  character  i^ould  he  receive  it  ? 
Not  in  compliance  with  the  haughty  custom  of  the 
Jewish  Rabbis,  who  exacted  great  external  reverence 
from  their  disciples,  lor  he  sharply  reproved  their 
haughtiness  and  love  of  adulation  and  honour:  not  aa 
a  simple  teacher  of  religion,  for  histjiostles  might  then 
have  imitated  his  example,  since,  upon  the  Socinian 
hy))othesis  of  his  mere  manhood,  they,  when  they  had 
collected  disciples  and  founded  churches,  had  as  clear  a 
right  to  this  distinction  as  he  himself,  had  it  only  been 
one  of  appropriate  and  common  courtesy  sanctioned  hy 
their  master.  But  when  do  we  read  of  their  receiving 
worship,  without  spurning  it  on  the  very  ground  that 
"  they  were  men  of  like  passions"  with  others  !  How, 
then,  is  it  to  be  accounted  for,  that  our  Lord  never  for- 
bade or  discouraged  this  practice  as  to  himself,  or  even 
shunned  it  ?  In  no  other  way,  than  that  he  was  con- 
scious of  his  natural  right  to  the  homage  thus  paid  ; 
and  that  he  accepted  it  as  the  expression  of  a  /ait/i 
which,  though  sometimes  wavering,  because  of  the 
obscurity  which  darkened  the  minds  of  his  (bllowers, 
and  which  even  liis  own  conduct,  mysterious  as  it  ne- 
cessarily was,  till  "he  openly  showed  himself"  afler 
his  passion,  tended  to  produce,  yet  sometimes  pierced 
through  the  cloud,  and  saw  and  acknowledged,  in  the 
Word  made  flesh,  "  the  glory  as  of  the  only-begoltcn  of 
the  Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth." 

But  to  proceed  with  in.stancesof  worship  subsequent 
to  our  Lord's  resurrection  and  ascension :  "  He  was 
parted  from  them,  and  carried  up  into  heaven,  and  they 
woRPiiippEu  him,  and  returned  to  Jerusalem  with  great 
joy,"  Luke  xxiv.  51,  52.  Here  the  act  must  necessa- 
rily have  been  one  of  Divine  adoration,  since  it  was 
performed  after  "  he  was  parted  from  them,"  and  can- 
not be  resolved  into  the  customary  token  of  personal 
respect  paid  to  superiors.  This  was  always  done  in 
the  presence  of  the  superior  ;  never  by  the  Jews  in  his 
absence. 

When  the  apo.stles  were  assembled  to  fill  up  Ihe  place 
of  Judas,  the  lots  being  prepared,  they  pray,  "  'J'hou, 
Lord,  whoknowestthe  hearts  of  all  men,  show  whether 
of  these  men  thou  hast  chosen."  That  this  prayer  is 
addressed  to  Christ  is  clear,  from  its  being  his  special 
prerogative  to  choose  his  own  discijiles,  who,  ihere- 
Ibre,  styled  themselves  "apostles,"  not  of  the  Father, 
but  "  of  Jesus  Christ."  Here,  then,  is  a  direct  act  of 
worship,  because  an  act  of  prayer;  and  our  Lord  is 
addressed  as  he  who  "  knows  the  hearts  of  all  men." 
Nor  is  this  more  than  he  himself  claiins  in  the  Revela- 
tions, "  And  all  the  churches  shall  know  that  I  am  he 
that  searcheth  the  reins  and  the  heart." 

When  Stephen,  the  protomartyr,  was  stoned,  the 
writer  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  records  two  instances 
of  prayer  offered  to  our  Lord  by  this  man  "full  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  and  therefore,  according  to  this  declara- 
tion, under  plenary  inspiration.    "LouoJitsis!  re- 


212 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


CEIVE    MY    spirit!"       "  LoRD,    LAY    NOT   THIS    SIN   TO 

THEiii  CHAROK  !"  In  Ihe  former,  he  acknowledges 
Christ  to  be  the  disiKJser  of  the  eternal  states  of  men  : 
in  the  latter,  he  acknowledges  liim  to  be  the  governor 
and  judge  ol'  men,  having  power  to  remit,  pass  by,  or 
visit  their  sins.  All  these  are  manifestly  Divine  acts, 
which  sufficiently  show,  that  .St.  .•^ttiilicn  addressed  hi.s 
prayers  to  Christ  as  God.  'I'lieiiole  Irom  Lindsay,  in- 
serted in  the  Socinian  version,  shows  the  manner  in 
which  the  Socinians  attempt  to  evade  this  instance  of 
direct  prayer  being  offered,  by  the  apostles  to  Christ. 
"This  address  of  t5tej)lien  to  Jesus,  when  he  actually 
saw  him,  does  not  authorize  us  to  offer  iirayers  to  him 
now  he  is  invisible."  And  this  is  seriously  alleged ! 
llow/loes  the  circumstance  of  an  object  of  prayer  and 
religious  worsliip  being  seen  or  unseen  alter  the  case  .' 
May  a  man,  when  seen,  be  an  object  of  prayer,  to  whom, 
unseen,  it  would  be  unlawful  to  pray  ?  The  Papists,  if 
this  were  true,  would  find  a  new  refutation  of  tlieir 
practice  of  invocatiiig  dead  saints  furnislied  by  the 
Socinians.  Were  they  alive  and  seen,  i)rayer  to  them 
would  be  lawful ;  but  now  they  are  invisible,  it  is  idola- 
try !  Even  image  worship  would  derive,  from  this 
casuistry,  a  sort  of  apology,  as  the  seen  image  is,  at 
least,  ttie  visible  representation  of  the  invisible  saint 
or  angel.  Hut  let  the  case  be  pul  fairly :  suppose  a 
dying  person  to  pray  to  a  vma,  visible  and  near  his 
bed,  "  Lord,  receive  my  spirit :  Lord,  lay  not  sin  to  the 
charge  of  my  enemies,"  who  sees  not  that  Ihis  would 
be  gross  idolatry  ?  And  yet  if  .li-sus  be  a  mere  man, 
the  idolatry  is  tliesame,  though  that  man  be  in  heaven. 
It  will  not  alter  the  case  for  the  Socinian  to  say,  that 
the  man  Jesus  is  exalted  to  great  dignity  and  rule  in 
the  invisible  world ;  for  he  is,  alter  all,  on  their  show- 
ing, but  a  servant ;  not  a  dispenser  of  the  eternal  states 
of  men,  not  an  avenger  or  a  passer-by  of  sin,  in  his 
own  right,  that  lic«liould  lay  sin  to  the  charge  of  any 
one,  or  not  lay  it.  as  he  might  be  desired  to  do  by  a  dis- 
ciple :  and  if  .St.  StcjilKm  had  these  views  of  him,  he 
would  not,  surely,  have  asked  of  a  servant,  what  a 
Kcrvant  had  no  power  to  grant.  Indeed,  the  Socinians 
Iheniselvi's  give  up  the  point,  by  denying  that  Christ  is 
lawfully  the  object  of  prayer.  There,  however,  he  is 
jirayed  to,  beyond  all  controversy,  and  his  right  and 
power  to  dispose  of  the  disembodied  spirits  of  men  is 
as  much  recognised  in  the  invocation  of  the  dying  Ste- 
phen, as  the  same  right  and  power  in  the  Father,  in  Ihe 
last  prayer  of  our  Lord  himself:  "  Father,  into  thy 
hands  I  commend  my  spirit." 

To  Dr.  Priestley's  objection,  that  this  is  an  incon- 
siderable instance,  and  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  mere  eja- 
culation. Bishop  Ilorsley  forcibly  reiilies:  "St.  Ste- 
phen's short  ejaculatory  address  you  had  not  forgotten  ; 
but  you  say  it  is  very  inconsiderable.  Hut,  sir,  why 
is  it  inconsiderable  1  Is  it  because  it  was  only  an  (jacu- 
lalion  ?  Ejaculations  are  often  prayers  of  the  most 
fervid  kind  ;  the  most  expressive  of  self-abasement  and 
adoration.  Is  it  for  its  brevity  that  it  is  inconsiderable  .' 
What  then,  is  the  precise  length  of  words  which  isje- 
quisite  to  make  a  prayer  an  act  of  worship  ?  Was  this 
petition  preferred  on  an  occasion  of  distress,  on  wliich 
a  Divinity  might  be  naturally  invoked  ?  Was  it  a  jieti- 
tion  for  a  succour  which  none  but  a  Divinity  could 
grant?  If  this  was  the  case,  it  was  surely  an  act  of 
worship.  Is  the  situation  of  the  worshipper  the  cir- 
cumstance which,  in  your  judgment,  sir,  lessens  the 
authority  of  his  example  7  Von  suppose,  perhaps,  some 
ronslernatioii  of  his  faculties,  arising  from  distress  and 
fear.  The  history  juslilics  no  such  supposition.  It  de- 
scribes the  utliraiiccol  the  final  jirayer.  as  a  deliberate 
act  of  one  who  knew  his  sinialioii  and  jiossesscd  his 
understanding.  Alter  praying  for  hiinsdf,  he  kneels 
down  to  pray  for  his  persecutors :  and  such  was  the 
composure  with  which  lieiliccl.  althoiitili  the  manner  of 
his  death  wa.s  the  most  tunnilluons  ami  lerrilying,  that, 
as  if  he  had  expired  (luictly  ujion  his  bed,  llic  sacred  his- 
torian says,  that  'he  fell  aslce|i.'  If,  therefore,  you 
would  insinuate,  that  St.  Stephen  was  not  himself, 
^N\\vn  he  sent  forth  this  'short  ^aculatory  address  to 
<;hrist,'the  history  refutes  you.  If  he  was  himself, 
you  cannot  justify  his  prayer  to  Christ,  while  you  deny 
that  Christ  is  f;od,  upon  any  iirinciple  that  might  not 
equally  juslily  you  or  me,  in  praying  to  the  bicssid  Ste- 
phen. If  St.  Stephen,  in  the  full  iiossession  of  his 
faculties,  prayed  to  him  who  is  no  (Jod,  why  do  we 
reproach  tlieUomaiiist,  when  he  chants  Ihe  lilany  of 
his  Minis !" 


St.  Paul,  also,  in  that  affliction  which  he  metaphor- 
ically describes  by  "  a  thorn  in  th('  llesli,''  "  sought  the 
Lord  thrice"  that  it  might  uejiart  from  him ;  and  the 
answer  shows  that  "the  Lord,"  to  whom  he  addressed 
his  prayer,  was  Christ;  for  he  adds,  "and  he  said 
unto  me.  My  grace  is  sufficient  for  thee,  for  my  strengtb 
is  made  perlect  in  weakness:  most  gladly,  therefore, 
will  I  glory  m  my  inliniiities,  that  the  powkr  of 
Christ  may  rest  upon  me;"  clearly  signifjing  the 
power  of  liim  who  had  said,  in  answer  to  his  prayer, 
"  My  strength,  ivvami,  power,  is  made  perfect  in  weak- 
ness." 

St.  Paul  also  prays  to  Christ,  conjointly  with  the 
Father,  in  behalf  of  the  Thessalonians.  "  Now  our 
Lord  Jests  (jurist  himselk,  and  God,  even  our  Fa- 
ther, which  hath  loved  us,  and  hath  given  us  everlast- 
ing consolation,  and  good  liojie  through  grace,  comjort 
ymir  hearts,  ami  sLulilish  you  in  every  ^ood  work,"  2 
Tliess.  ii.  I(i,  17.  In  like  manner  he  invokes  our  Lord 
to  grant  his  spiritual  presence  to  Timothy  :  "  The  Lord 
Jesus  be  with  iliy  spirit,"  2  Tim.  iv.  22.  The  invoking 
of  Christ  is,  indeed,  adduced  by  St.  Paul  as  a  distinctive 
characteristic  of  Christians,  so  Ihat  among  ail  the  pri- 
mitive churches  this  practice  must  have  been  universal. 
'•  Unto  the  church  of  Cod  which  is  at  Corinth,  to  them 
that  are  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  called  to  be  saints, 
with  all  that  in  ivkrv  I'l.ii  k  call  ipun  the  namk  ok 
Jksiis  Christ  our  Lord,  both  theirs  and  ours,"  1  Cor. 
i.  2.  "  It  appears,  from  the  expression  here  and  else- 
where used,  that  to  iavocate  tlie  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  was  a  practice  characterizing  and  distinguish- 
ing Christians  from  infidels."(y)  Thus  St.  Paul  is  said, 
before  his  conversion,  to  have  had  "authority  from 
the  chief  priests  to  bind  all  that  cail  iron  thy 
NA.Mic."  The  Socinian  criticism  is,  that  the  phrase 
c-iKa\ciaS-ai  to  ovufia  may  be  translated  either  "  to  call 
on  the  name,"  or  be  called  by  the  name ;  and  they, 
therefore,  render  1  Cor.  i.  2,  "all  that  are  called  hy  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ."  If,  however,  all  that  can  be 
said  in  favour  of  this  rendering  is,  that  the  verb  ma;/ be 
rendered  passively,  how  is  it  that  they  choose  to  render 
it  actively  in  all  places,  except  where  their  system  is  to 
be  served  ?  This  it.self  is  suspicious.  But  it  is  not  ne- 
cessary to  produce  the  refutations  of  this  criticism 
given  by  several  of  their  learned  opponents,  who  have 
shown  that  the  verb,  followed  by  an  accusative  case, 
usually,  if  not  constantly,  is  used,  in  its  active  signi- 
fication, to  call  upon,  to  invoke.  One  passage  is  suffi- 
cient to  prove  both  the  active  signification  of  the  jihrase, 
when  thus  apjilied,  and  also  that  to  call  upon  the  name 
of  Christ  is  an  act  of  the  highest  worship.  "  For 
whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall 
be  saved,"  Rom.  x.  13.  This  is  quoted  from  the  pro- 
phet Joel.  St.  Peter,  in  his  sermon  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost, makes  use  of  it  as  a  prophecy  of  Christ,  and  the 
argument  of  St.  Paul  imperatively  nijuires  us  al.so  to 
understand  it  of  him.  Now,  this  prophecy  proves  that 
Ihe  phrase  in  question  is  used  for  invocation,  since  it 
is  not  true  that  whosoever  sliall  be  colli il  by  the  name 
of  the  Lord  will  be  saved,  but  those  only  w  ho  rightly 
rail  vjjon  it;  it  proves  also,  that  the  calling  upon  Iho 
name  of  the  Lord,  here  mentioned,  is  ii  religious  act, 
lor  it  is  calling  u|.on  the  name  of  Jkiiova}),  the  word 
'used  by  the  proiilut  Joel,  the  consequence  of  which  act 
of  faith  and  worshiii  is  salvation.  "This  text,  indeed, 
jiresents  us  with  a  double  argument  in  favour  of  our 
Lord's  Divinity.  First,  it  aiiplies  to  him  what,  by  the 
prophet  Joel,  is  spoken  of  Jehovah;  secondly,  it  atlirms 
hini  to  be  the  object  of  religious  adoration.  F.ilher  of 
these  particulars  docs,  indeed,  imply  the  oilier  ;  for  if 
he  be  Jehovah,  he  must  be  the  object  of  religious  ado- 
' ration;  and  if  he  be  the  object  of  religious  adoration, 
he  must  be  Jehovah.  "(1) 

In  Ihe  Uevelations,  too,  we  find  St.  John  worshipping 
Christ,  "  falling  at  his  feet  as  one  de^id."'  St.  Paul  also 
declares,  "  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  i  vkuy  knki;  shall 
bow,"  which,  in  Scripture  language,  signifies  an  acl  of 
religious  worship.  "  For  Ihis  cause  I  bow  my  kiues  to 
the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

But  this  homage  and  adoration  of  Christ  is  not  con- 
fined to  men  ;  it  is  practised  among  heavenly  beings. 
"  And  again,  when  he  bringelh  in  the  firsl-begolten  into 
the  world,  hesailh.  And  lkt  am.  tiik  AMiKi,.s  or  CioD 
woRSHii-  HIM."  For  Ihe  purpose  of  evading  the  force 
of  these  words,  the  Socinians,  in  their  version,  Iiavi; 


(9)  Dr.  Bekson. 


(I)   Uithop   IloK.VK. 


Chap.  XV.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


213 


chosen  the  absurdity  of  rendering  ayyc^iot  throu^Iioul 
this  chapter  by  "  yni-.'iseiwirs,^^  bilt  in  the  next  chapter, 
as  though  tlie  sul>jei-i  would,  by  that  time,  be  out  of  llie 
reader's  mind,  they  return  to  the  common  version. 
"  angels."  Thus  they  make  the  "  spirits  and  Ilanios  of 
fire,"  or,  as  they  render  it,  "  winds  and  flames  of  lij/lit- 
ning,"  to  be  the  ancient  prophets  or  messensers,  not 
angels  ;  and  of  these  same  prophets  and  messenii:ers, 
who  lived  several  thousand  years  ago,  their  translation 
affirms  that  they  "  are  sent  forth  to  minister  for  them 
who  shall  lie  {infuture .')  heirs  of  salvation."  The  ab- 
surdity is  so  apparent,  that  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to 
add,  that,  in  the  New  Testament,  though  "  angel"  is 
sometimes  applied  to  men,  yet  "angels  of  God"  is  a 
phrase  never  used  but  to  e.\press  an  order  of  heavenly 
intelligences. 

If,  however,  either  prophets  or  ariirrh  were  com- 
manded to  worsliip  Christ,  his  Divinity  would  be 
equally  proved,  and,  therefore,  tlie  note  on  tliis  text  in 
the  New  Version  teaches,  that  to  •'  worship  Christ"  here 
means  to  acknowledge  him  as  their  superior;  and  urges 
that  the  text  is  cited  from  the  LXX.,  Ueut.  xxxii.  43, 
"  where  it  is  spoken  of  the  Hebrew  nation,  and,  there- 
fore, cannot  be  understood  of  religious  worship."  Hut 
whoever  will  turn  to  the  LXX.,  vn\l  see  that  it  is  not 
the  Hebrew  nation,  but  .Jehovah,  who  i.s  exhibited  in 
that  passage  as  the  object  of  worship;  and  if,  there- 
fore, the  text  were  cited  from  the  book  of  Deutero- 
nomy, and  the  genuineness  of  the  passage  in  the  LXX. 
Were  allowed,  (or  it  is  not  in  the  present  Hebrew  text, 
it  would  only  afford  another  proof,  that,  in  the  mind  of 
the  apostles,  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the 
Christ  of  the  New  are  the  same  being,  and  that  equal 
worship  is  due  to  both.  We  have,  however,  an  un- 
questioned text  in  the  Old  Testament,  Psalm  xcvii.  7, 
from  which  the  quotation  is  obviously  made  ;  where, 
in  the  Hebrew,  it  is  '■  worship  hiin  all  ye  gods,"  a  pro- 
bable ellipsis  for  "the  angels  of  the  Aleim  ;"  (or  the 
LXX.  uses  the  word  "  angels."  This  psaim  the  apostle, 
therefore,  understood  of  Christ,  and  in  this  the  old  .lew- 
ish  interpreters  agree  with  him  ;(2)  and  though  he  is 
not  mentioned  in  it  by  any  of  his  usual  Old  Testament 
titles,  except  that  of  Jehovah,  it  clearly  predicts  the 
overthrow  of  idolatry  by  the  introduction  of  the  king- 
dom of  this  .lehovah.  It  Ibllows,  then,  that  as  idolatry 
was  not  overthrown  by  Judaism,  but  by  the  kingdom 
of  Christ,  it  is  Christ,  as  the  head  and  author  of  this 
kingdom,  of  whom  the  Psalmist  speaks,  and  whom  he 
sees  receiving  the  worship  of  the  angels  of  God  upon 
its  introduction  and  estahiishmeiit.  This,  al.so,  agrees 
with  the  words  by  wtiich  the  apostle  introduces  tiie 
quotation.  "  And  again,  when  he  bringeth  in  the  first 
begotten  into  the  icorW,"  the  habitable  world;  which 
intimate  that  it  was  u))on  some  solemn  occasion,  when 
engaged  in  some  solemn  act,  that  the  angels  were  com- 
manded to  worship  hiin,  and  this  act  is  represented  in 
the  9Tth  Psalm  as  the  establishment  of  his  kingdom. 
Bishop  Horsley's  remarks  on  this  psalm  are  equally 
just  and  beautiful. 

"That  Jehovah's  kingdom  in  some  sense  or  other  is 
the  subject  of  this  Divine  song,  cannot  be  made  a  ques- 
tion, for  thus  it  opens — '  Jehovah  reigneth.'  The  psalm 
therefore  must  be  understood  either  of  God's  natural 
kingdom  over  his  whole  creation ;  of  his  particular 
kingdom  over  the  .lews  his  chosen  people  ;  or  of  that 
kingdom  which  is  called  in  the  New  Testament  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  the  kingdom  of  God,  or  the  king- 
dom of  Christ.  For  of  any  other  kingdom  besides  the.se 
three,  man  never  heard  or  read.  God's  peculiar  king- 
dom over  the  .lews  cannot  be  the  subject  of  this  psalm, 
because  all  nations  of  the  earth  are  called  ujion  to  re- 
joice in  the  acknowledgment  of  this  great  trufh,  '  Je- 
hovah reigneth,  let  tlie  earth  rejoice  ;  let  the  many  isles 
be  glad  thereof.'  The  many  isles  are  the  various  re- 
gions of  the  habitable  world. 

"  The  same  consideration,  that  .Jehovah's  kingdom  is 
mentioned  as  a  subject  of  general  thanksgiving,  proves 
that  God's  universal  dominion  over  his  whole  creation 
cannot  be  the  kingdom  in  the  prophet's  mind.  For  in 
this  kingdom  a  great  majority  of  the  ancient  world,  the 
idolaters,  were  considered,  not  as  subjects  who  might 
rejoice  in  the  glory  of  their  monarch ;  but  as  rebels 
who  had  every  thing  to  fear  from  his  just  resentmeiot. 


(2)  "  Psalmos  omnes,  a  xciii.  ad  ci.,  in  se  continere 
mysterium  Messie,  di\it  David  Kimslii."— Rosenmul- 


"  It  remains,  therefore,  that  Christ's  kingdom  is  that 
kingdom  of  Jehovah  which  the  inspired  poet  celebrates 
as  the  occasion  of  universal  joy.    And  this  will  farlher 
appear  by  the  s(!quel  o(  the  song.    Alter  (bur  verses, 
in  which  tlie  transcendent  glory,  the  irresistible  power, 
and  inscrutable  iierieciiun  of  the  Lord,  who,  to  the  Joy 
of  all  nations,  reigneth,  are  painted  in  poetical  images, 
taken  partly  from  the  aw1ul  scene  on  Sinai  which  ac- 
companied the  delivery  of  the  law,  partly  from  other 
manifestations  of  God's  presence  with  the  Israelites  in 
(heir  journey  through  the  wilderness,  he  proceeds,  in 
the  sixth  verse, '  The  heavens  deilari:  his  righteous- 
ness, and  all  the  people  see  his  glory.'     We  read  ia 
the  lytli  Psalm,  that 'the  heavens  declare  the  glory  of 
God.'    And  the  glory  of  God,  the  power  and  the  intel- 
ligence of  the  Creator,  is  indeed  visibly  declared  in  the 
fabric  of  the  material  world.    But  I  cannot  see  how 
the  structure  of  the  heavens  can  demonstrate  ihi;  right- 
eousness of  God.     Wisdom  and  power  may  he  dis- 
played in  the  contrivance  of  an  inanimate  machine  ; 
but  righteousness  cannot  appear  in  the  arrangement  of 
the  parts,  or  the  direction  of  the  motions  of  lifeless 
matter.    The    heavens,  therefore,    in   their   external 
structure,  cannot  declare  their  maker's  rigliteousness. 
But  the  heavens,  in  another  sense,  attested  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ  when  the  voice  from  heaven  de- 
clared him  the  beloved  Son  of  God,  in  whom  the  Fa- 
ther was  well  pleased ;  and  when  the  preternatural 
darkness  of  the  sun  at  the  crucifixion,  and  other  ago- 
nies of  nature,  drew  that  confession  from  the  heathen 
centurion  who  attended  the  execution,  that  the  suiier- 
ing  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God ;  '  And  all  the  people 
sec  his  glory.'    The  word  people,  in  the  singailar,  lor 
the  most  part  denotes  God's  chosen  peojile,  the  Jewish 
nation,  unless  any  other  particular  people  h.a])pen  to  he 
the  subject  of  discourse.     But  peoples,  in  the  plural,  is 
put  lor  all  the  other  races  of  mankind,  as  distinct  from 
the  chosen  people.    The  word  here  is  in  the  plural 
Ibrm,  '  And  all  the  peoples  see  his  glory.'    But  when, 
or  in  what  did  any  of  the  peoples,  the  idolatrous  na- 
tions, see  the  glory  of  God  ?    Literally  they  never  saw 
his  glory.    The  effulgence  of  the  Shechinah  never  wa.s 
displayed  to  them,  except  when  it  blazed  Ibrtli  uiion  the 
Egyptians  to  strike  them  with  a  panic;  or  when  the 
towering  pillar  of  flame,  which  marshalled  the  Israel- 
ites in  the  wilderness,  was  seen  by  the  inhabitants  of 
I'alestine  and  Arabia  as  a  threatening  meteor  in  their 
.sky.     Intellectually,  no  idolaters  ever  saw  the  glory  of 
God,  for  they  never  acknowledged  his  jiower  and  God- 
head :  had  they  thus  seen  his  glory,  they  had  ceased  to 
he  idolaters.    But  all  the  peoples,  by  the  preaching  of 
the  Gospel,  saw  the  glory  of  Christ.     They  saw  it  lite- 
rally in  the  miracles  performed  by  his  apostles ;  they 
saw  it  spiritually  when  they  perceived  the  purity  of  his 
precepts,  when  they  ac'Kn'owledged  the  truth  of  his 
doctrine,  when  they  embraced  the  profession  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  owned  Christ  for  their  Saviour  and  their 
God.    The  Psalmist  goes  on,  '  Confounded  be  all  they 
that  serve  graven  images,  that  boast  themselves  of 
idols.    Worship  him,  all  ye  gods.'    In  the  original  this 
verse  has  not  at  all  the  form  of  a  malediction,  which  it 
has  acquired  in  our  tran.slation  from  the  use  of  the 
strong  word  confounded.    '  Let  them  be  ashamed.'    'V\\\n 
is  the  utmost  tliat  the  Psalmist  says.     The  prayer  that 
they  may  be  ashamed  of  their  folly  and  repent  of  it,  is 
very  different  from  an  imprecation  of  confusion.     But 
in  truth  the  Psalmist  rather  seems  to  speak  prophet- 
ically, without  any  thing  either  of  prayer  or  impreca- 
tion— 'they  shall  be  a.shamed.'    Having  seen  the  glory 
of  Christ",  they  shall  be  ashamed  of  the  idols,  which 
in  the  times  of  igirorance  they  worshipped.    In  the 
Sth   and  tlth  verses,  looking    forward   to    the  times 
when  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  shall  be  come  in,  and 
the  remnant  of  Israel  shall  turn  to  the  Lord,  he  de- 
scribes tlie  daughter  of  Judah  as  rejoicing  at  the  news 
of  the  mercy  extended  to  the  Gentile  world,  and  exult- 
ing in  the  universal  extent  of  Jehovah's  kingdom,  and 
thegeneral  acknowledgment  of  his  Godhead. "(."{) 

The  argument  of  the  apostle  is  thus  made  clear;  he 
proves  Christ  superior  to  angels,  and  therefore  Divine, 
because  angels  themselves  are  commanded  "  to  wor- 
ship liim."(4)    Nor  is  this  the  only  prophetic  psalm  ia 


(31  Nine  Sermons. 

(4)  "  Ceterum  recte  argumentatur  apostolus :  si  an- 
geli  Regem  ilium  maximum  adoraredebent ;  ergo  sunt 
illo  inferiores."— BosEN.MULLER  inloc. 


214 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  II 


which  the  religious  worsliip  of  Mewsiali  is  predicted. 
The 72d  Psalm  aldiie  is  full  of  this  doutrine.  "They 
shall  FEAR  thet,"  as  long  tis  the  sun  and  moon  endure." 
•'All  kings  shall  worship  (or  F.\t,i,  down)  before  hnn; 
all  nations  shall  SERVE  him."  "  I'rayer  shall  be  made 
ever  for  (or  to)  him,  and  daily  shall  he  be  praimkd." 

Finally,  as  to  the  direct  %vor.sliii)  ol'  Christ,  the  book 
of  Revelations,  in  its  scenie  ri')irisL'iilatioiis,  e.xhihits 
him  as,  equally  with  the  I'athi^r,  lliu  object  of  the  wor- 
ship of  angels  and  of  glorified  saints ;  and,  in  chapter 
8th,  places  every  creature  in  the  univi^rse,  the  inhabit- 
ants of  hell  only  excepted,  in  prostrate  adoration  at  his 
Ibotstool.  "And  every  creature  which  is  in  heaven 
and  on  the  earth,  and  under  the  earth,  and  such  as  are 
in  the  sea,  and  all  that  are  in  theni,  heard  1  sayin;;, 
Ulessing,  and  honour,  and  glory,  and  power,  be  unio 
hnn  that  sitteth  upon  the  throne,  and  unto  the  Lamb 
for  ever  and  ever." 

To  these  instances  are  to  be  added  all  the  doxolo- 
GiEs  to  Christ,  in  common  with  the  Father  and  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  all  the  bknei'u  tkins  made  in  his 
name  in  common  with  theirs  ;  for  all  the.se  are  forms 
of  worship.  The  lirst  consist  of  ascriptions  of  equal 
and  Divine  honours,  with  grateful  recognitions  of  the 
Uemg  addressed,  as  the  author  of  benefits  received ;  the 
second  are  a  solemn  blessing  of  others  in  the  name  ol' 
Cod,  and  were  derived  from  the  jiractice  of  the  Jewish 
priests  and  tlie  still  older  patriarchs,  who  blessed 
others  in  the  name  of  Jehovah,  as  his  representa- 
tives. 

Of  the  first,  the  following  may  be  given,  as  a  few  out 
of  many  instances.  ''  The  Lord  shall  deliver  me  from 
every  evil  work,  and  will  preserve  me  to  his  heavenly 
kingdom:  to  whom  be  cjlory  for  ever  and  ever," 
2  Tim.  iv.  18.  '•  Hut  grow  in  grace,  and  in  the  know- 
ledge of  our  Lord  and  .Saviour  Jesus  Christ :  to  him  be 
oi.oRY  both  now  and  for  ever.  Amen."  2  Peter  iii.  18. 
"  Unto  him  that  loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins 
in  his  own  blood,  and  hath  made  us  kings  and  priests 
unto  God  and  his  Father:  to  him  be  gi.oky  and  do- 
minion forever  and  ever.  Amen."  Uev.  i.  5,  (!.  When 
we  consider  the  great  difTerence  between  these  doxolo- 
gies  and  the  commendations  but  sjjaringly  given  in  the 
Scriptures  to  mere  men ;  the  serious  and  reverential 
manner  in  which  they  are  introduced  ;  and  the  super- 
lative praise  they  convey,  so  far  surpassing  what  hu- 
manity can  deserve,  we  cannot  but  suppose,  that  the 
being  to  whom  they  referis  really  Divine.  Thea-scrij)- 
tion  of  eternal  glory  and  everlasting  dominion,  if  ad- 
dressed to  any  creature,  however  exalted,  would  be  idol- 
atrous and  profane."(5)  Of  benedictions  the  com- 
mencement and  conclusion  of  several  of  the  ejiistles 
furnish  instances,  so  regular  in  their  liarm,  as  to  make 
it  clearly  appear,  that  the  apostles  and  the  pricsis  of  the 
New  Testament  constantly  blessed  the  people  ministe- 
rially in  the  name  of  Christ,  as  one  of  the  blessed  Tri- 
nity. This  consideration  alone  shows  that  the  bene- 
dictions are  not,  as  the  Socinians  would  take  them,  to 
be  considered  as  cursory  expressions  of  good-will. — 
"  Grace  to  you,  and  peace  from  God  our  Father  and  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ."  This,  with  little  variation,  is  the 
common  (orm  of  salutation ;  and  the  usual  parting  be- 
nediction is,  "The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  be 
with  you  all;"  or,  more  fully,  "The  grace  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  the  love  of  tloil,  and  the  communion  of 
the  Holy  (;iiost  be  with  you  all."  In  answer  to  the 
Sociniaii  pen  ersioii,  that  these  are  mere  "  wishes,"  it  has 
been  well  and  wisely  observed,  that  "this  objection 
overlooks,  or  notices  very  slightly,  the  point  on  whic'h 
the  whole  question  turns,  the  /n/wre  of  the  blessings 
sought,  ami  the  r/ualitus  which  they  imply  in  the  Per- 
son as  whose  donation  they  are  deliberately  desired. 
These  blessings  an;  not  of  that  kind  which  one  creature 
is  competent  to  bestow  upon  another.  They  refer  to 
the  judicial  state  of  an  accountable  being  before  God, 
to  the  remission  of  moral  oirunces,  to  the  production 
and  pres('rvation  of  certain  mental  qualities  which 
none  cm  illiraciously  and  immediately  give  but  he  who 
holds  till'  diiiiiujion  of  human  minds  and  feelings,  anrl 
lothei'iijuyiiiintsof  su|)reiiieand  endless  felicity.  They 
are gritce,  nurcii,  and  pence.,  llrace,  the  free  favour  of 
the  Eternal  Majesty  to  those  who  have  forfeited  every 
claim  to  it,  such  favour  as  in  its  own  nature  and  in  the 
contemplation  of  the  supplicant,  is  the  sole  and  eflec- 
live  cause  of  deliverance  from  the  greatest  evils,  and 


(5)  IIolden's  Tesliiiioinc 


acquisition  of  the  greatest  good.  Mercy,  the  compas- 
sion of  infinite  goodness,  conferring  its  richest  liestow- 
ments  of  holiness  and  happiness  on  the  ruined,  mise- 
rable, and  heljiless.  Peace,  the  tranquil  and  delightful 
feeling  which  results  from  the  rational  hope  of  pos- 
sessing these  enjoyments.  The.se  are  the  highest  bless- 
ings that  (Jmni|iotent  Uenevolence  can  give,  or  a  de- 
pendent nature  receive.  To  desire  such  blessings, 
either  in  the;  mode  of  direct  address  or  in  that  of  pre- 
catory wish,  from  any  being  who  is  not  possessed  of  oni- 
nipot(Mil  goodness,  would  be,  not  '  innocent  and  proper,' 
but  sinful  and  absurd  in  the  highest  degree.  When, 
therelbre,  we  find  every  apostle  whose  epistles  are  ex- 
tant, )iiniring  out  his  'expressions  of  dcsin,'  with  the 
utmost  simplicity  and  energy,  lor  tlnsi  Mf  smii::s,  as 
pioceeding  from  '  our  I^ird  Jesus  Christ.'  equall>  with 
'(;od  our  Father,'  we  cannot  but  regard  it  as  the  just 
and  necessary  conclusion  that  Christ  and  the  Father 
are  one  in  the  perfection  which  originates  the  highest 
blessings,  and  in  the  honour  due  for  the  gilt  of  those 
blessings. "((')) 

So  clearly  does  the  New  Testament  show  that  su- 
preme worship  was  paid  to  Christ,  as  will  as  to  the 
i<"ather  ;  and  the  jiraclice  obtained  as  a  iiiatlerof  course, 
as  a  matter  quite  undisputed  in  the  primitive  church, 
and  has  so  continued,  in  all  orthodox  churches,  to  this 
day.  Thus  heathen  writers  represented  the  first 
Christians  as  worshippers  of  Christ;  and,  as  for  the 
practice  of  the  primitive  church,  it  is  not  necessary  to 
quote  passages  from  the  fathers,  which  are  so  well 
known,  or  so  easily  Ibund  in  all  hooks  which  treat  on 
this  subject.  It  is  sulhcient  evidence  of  the  practice, 
that  when,  in  the  Iburtli  century,  the  Arians  taught  that 
our  Lord  was  a  superaiigelie  creature  only,  they  de- 
parted not,  in  the  instance  of  worship,  from  the  homage 
paid  to  him  in  the  universal  church;  but  loiitmued  to 
adore  Christ.  On  this  ground  ihe  oriliodux  justly 
branded  them  with  idolatry  ;  and,  in  order  to  avoid  the 
tbrce  of  the  charge,  they  invented  those  sii|iliistical  dis- 
tinctions as  to  sujierior  and  inferior  worship  which  the 
papists,  in  later  times,  introduced,  in  order  to  excuse 
the  worship  of  saints  and  angels.  Even  the  old  Soci- 
nians allowed  ( 'hrist  to  be  the  object  of  religious  ado- 
ration ;  so  impossible  was  it  even  for  them,  to  ojipose 
themselves  all  at  once  to  the  reproving  and  condemn- 
ing universal  example  of  the  church  of  Christ  in 
all  ages. 

Having,  then,  established  the  fact  of  the  worship  of 
Christ  by  his  immediate  Ibllowers,  whose  precepts  and 
example  have,  in  this  matter,  been  followed  by  all  the 
faithful ;  let  us  consider  the  religious  princijiles  which 
the  first  disciples  held,  in  order  to  determine  whether 
they  could  have  so  worshipped  Christ,  unless  his  true 
Divinity  had  been,  with  them,  a  fundamental  and  uni- 
versally received  doctrine.  They  were  Jews ;  and 
Jews  of  an  age  in  which  their  nation  had  long  shaken  off 
its  idolatrous  propensities,  and  which  was  distinguished 
by  its  zeal  against  all  worship,  or  expressions  of  reli- 
gious trust  and  hope,  being  directed,  not  only  to  false 
gods  (to  idols),  but  to  creatures.  'I'he  great  principle 
of  the  law  was,  "  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before 
(or  besides)  me."  It  was,  therefore,  commanded  by 
Moses,  "  Thou  shalt  fear  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him 
shalt  thou  serve ;"  which  words  are  quoted  by  our 
Lord  in  his  temptation,  when  solicited  to  worship  Sa- 
tan, so  as  to  prove  that  to  fear  (iod  and  to  .lerve  him 
are  expressions  which  signify  wurslni),  and  that  all 
other  beings  but  (;od  are  excluded  from  it.  "  Thou 
shalt  woRsiiie  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only  shalt 
thou  serve."  The  argument,  too,  in  the  quotation,  is 
not  that  Satan  had  no  right  to  receive  worship  because 
he  was  an  evil  spirit ;  but  that,  whatever  he  might  be, 
or  whoever  .should  make  that  claim,  (Jod  only  is  to  he 
worshipped.  Jly  this  also  we  see  that  Christianity 
made  no  alteration  in  Judaism,  as  to  the  article  of  doc- 
trine, lor  our  Lord  himself  here  adopts  it  as  his  own 
principle;  he  (juotes  it  from  the  writings  of  Mo.scs,  and 
so  traiisinilted  it,  on  Ins  own  authority,  to  his  followers. 
Accordingly,  we  find  the  apostles  teaching  and  prac- 
ti-sing  tins  as  a  fust  prnniple  of  their  religion.  St. 
Paul'  (Rom.  i.  21  25)  charges  the  heathen  with  not 
glwifyiiia  (;od  wlien  they  knnv  him,  and  worshipping 
and  serving  •'  the  creature  more  than  (or  besides)  the 
("reator,  who  is  tile.ssed  for  ever."  "  Wherein  the  apos- 
tle," says   Waterlaud,    "  plainly   intimates,  that  (he 

(0)  Smith's  Person  of  Chri.st. 


Chap.  XV.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


215 


Creator  only  is  to  be  served,  and  that  the  idolatry  of  tlie 
heathens  lay  in  their  worshipi>ing  of  the  creature.  lie 
does  not  blame  lliyiii  fcir  paving  sovereign,  or  absolute 
worsliip  to  creatures,  they  rciuiil  scarcely  be  so  .silly  as 
to  imagine  there  could  be  more  lliari  one  supreme  (iod  ; 
but  for  siving  any  worsbii)  to  lliciii  at  all,  sovereign  or 
inferior."!.")  Again :  when  he  menlions  it  as  one  of 
the  crimes  of  tlie  Galatiaiis,  previous  to  their  conver- 
sion to  Christianity,  that  they  "  did  servick  unto  them 
which  by  nature  were  no  gods,"  he  plainly  intimates, 
that  no  one  has  a  title  to  religious  service  but  he  who 
is  bv  nature  God;  and,  if  so,  he  himself  could  not 
•worship  or  do  service  to  Clirist,  unless  he  believed  liiin 
to  posses^s  a  natural  and  essential  Divinity. 

The  practice  of  the  apostles,  too,  was  in  strict  ac- 
corilance  with  this  principle.  Thus,  when  worship 
was  offered  to  St.  Peter,  by  Cornelius,  who  certainly 
did  not  take  him  to  be  God,  he  forbade  it :  so  also  Paul 
and  Barnabas  forbade  it  at  I.ystra,  with  expressions  of 
horror,  when  offered  to  them.  An  eminent  instance  is 
recorded,  also,  of  the  exclusion  of  all  creatures,  how- 
ever exalted,  from  this  honour,  in  Rev.  xix.  10,  where 
the  angel  refuses  to  receive  .so  much  as  the  outward 
act  of  adoration,  giving  this  rule  and  maxim  upon  it, 
"  Worskip  Goo ;"  intimating  thereby,  tiiat  God  only  is 
to  be  worshipped;  that  all  acts  of  religious  worship  are 
appropriated  to  God  alone.  lie  does  not  say,  "  Wor- 
ship God,  and  whom  God  shall  appoint  to  be  worshi])- 
ped,"  as  if  he  liad  appointed  any  besides  (iod;  nor 
"  Worship  God  with  sovereign  worshi)),"  as  if  any  in- 
ferior sort  of  worship  was  permitted  to  be  paid  to  crea- 
tures ;  but  simply,  plainly,  and  briefly,  "  Worship 
God." 

From  the  known  and  avowed  religious  sentiments, 
then,  of  the  apostles,  both  as  .Jews  and  as  Christians, 
as  well  as  from  their  practice,  it  follows,  that  they 
could  not  pay  religious  worsliip  to  Christ,  a  fact  wliich 
has  already  been  established,  except  they  had  consi- 
dered him  as  a  Divine  I'erson,  and  themselves  as 
bound,  on  that  account,  according  to  his  own  words,  to 
honour  tlie  Son,  even  as  they  lionoared  the  Father. 

The  Arians,  it  is  true,  as  hinted  above,  devised  the 
doctrine  of  supreme  and  inferior  worship,  and  a  similar 
distinction  was  maintained  by  Dr  Samuel  Clarke,  to 
reconcile  the  worship  of  Christ  with  his  semi-Arian- 
ism.  The  same  sophi.stical  distinctions  are  resorted 
to  by  Roman  Catholics  to  vindicate  the  worship  of  an- 
gels, the  Virgin  Mary  and  departed  saints.  This  dis- 
tinction they  express  by  'Sarntia  and  ^ouXtia.  St. 
Paul,  however,  and  other  sacred  writers,  and  the  early 
fathers,  certainly  use  these  terms  promiscuously  and 
indifferently,  so  that  the  argument  which  is  founded 
upon  them,  in  defence  of  this  inferior  and  subordinate 
worship,  falls  to  the  ground ;  and,  as  to  all  these  dis- 
tinctions of  worship  into  ultimate  or  supreme,  mediate 
or  inferior.  Dr.  Waterland  has  most  forcibly  ob.served, 

1.  "  1  can  meet  with  nothing  in  Scripture  to  counte- 
nance those  fine-spun  notions.  Prayer  we  often  read 
of;  but  there  is  not  a  syllable  about  absolute  and  re- 
lative, supreme  and  inferior  prayer.  We  are  com- 
manded to  pray  fervently  and  incessantly ;  but  never 
sovereignly  or  absolutely  that  I  know  of.  We  have  no 
rules  led  us  about  raising  or  lowering  our  intentions, 
in  proportion  tothe  dignity  of  the  objects.  Someinptruc- 
tions  to  this  purpose  might  have  been  highly  useful ;  and 
it  is  very  strange,  that,  in  a  matter  of  so  great  import- 
ance, no  directions  should  be  given,  either  in  Scripture, 
or,  at  least,  in  antiquity,  how  to  regulate  our  intentions 
and  meanings,  with  metaphysical  exactness ;  so  as  to 
make  our  wor.ship  either  high,  higher,  or  highest  of  all, 
as  occasion  should  rei|uire. 

2.  "  But  a  greater  objection  against  this  doctrine  is, 
that  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture  runs  counter  to  it. 
This  may  be  understood,  in  part,  from  what  I  have  ob- 
served above.  To  make  it  yet  plainer,  I  shall  take  into 
consideration  such  acts  and  instances  of  worship,  as  I 
find  laid  down  in  Scripture  ;  whether  under  the  old  or 
new  dispensation. 

■'  Sacrifice  was  one  instance  of  worship  required 
under  the  law ;  and  it  is  said, '  lie  that  sacrificeth  unto 
any  god,  save  unto  the  Lord  only,  he  shall  be  utterly 
destroyed,'  Exod.  xxii.  20.  Now  suppose  any  person, 
considcrhig  with  himself  that  only  absolute  and  sove- 
vereign  sacrifice  was  appropriated  to  (iod.  bj'  this  law, 
should  have  gone  and  sacrificed  to  other  gods,  and  have 

(7)  Defence  of  Queries. 


been  convicted  of  it  before  the  judges  :  The  apology 
he  must  have  made  for  it,  I  supjiose,  must  have  run 
thus,  '  Getitlemen,  though  I  have  sacrificed  to  other 
gods,  yet,  I  hope,  you'll  observe,  that  I  did  it  not  abso- 
lutely:  I  meant  not  any  absolute  or  supreme  sacrifice 
(which  is  all  that  the  law  forl)ids),  but  relative  and  in- 
terior only.  I  regulated  my  intentions  with  all  imagi- 
nable care,  and  my  esteem  with  the  most  critical  ex- 
actness :  I  considered  the  other  gods,  whom  I  sacrificed 
to,  as  inferior  only,  and  infinitely  so;  reserving  all  so- 
vereign sacrifice  to  the  supreme  God  of  Israel.'  This, 
or  the  like  apology,  must,  I  presume,  have  brought  off 
the  criminal,  with  some  applause  for  his  acuteness,  if 
your  principles  be  true.  Either  you  must  allow  this  ; 
or  you  must  be  content  to  say,  that  not  only  absolute 
supreme  sacrifice  (if  there  be  any  sense  in  that  phrase), 
but  all  sacrifice,  was  by  the  law,  ajipropriated  to  God 
only. 

''  Another  instance  of  worship  is,  making  of  vows, 
religious  vows.  We  find  as  little  appearance  of  your 
famed  distinction  here,  as  in  the  Ibrmer  case.  We 
read  nothing  of  sovereign  and  inferior,  absolute  and 
relative  vows:  that  we  should  imagine  supreme  vows 
to  be  appropriate  to  God,  inferior  permitted  to  angels 
or  idols,  or  to  any  creature. 

"  Swearing  is  another  instance  much  of  the  same 
kind  with  the  foregoing.  Swearing  by  God's  name  is 
a  plain  thing  and  well  understood;  but  if  you  tell  us 
of  sovereign  and  inferior  swearing,  acconhng  to  the 
inward  respect  or  intention  you  have,  in  proportion  to 
the  dignity  of  the  person  by  whose  name  you  swear,  it 
must  sound  perfectly  new  to  us.  All  swearing  whi^-li 
comes  short  in  its  respects,  or  falls  below  sovereign, 
will,  I  am  afraid,  be  little  better  than  profaneness. 

"  Such  being  the  case  in  respect  of  the  acts  of  reli- 
gious worship  already  mentioned,  I  am  now  to  ask  you, 
what  is  there  so  peculiar  in  the  case  of  invocation  and 
adoration,  that  they  should  not  be  thought  of  the  same 
kind  with  the  other?  Why  should  not  absolute  and 
relative  prayer  and  prostration  appear  as  absurd  as  ab- 
solute and  relative  sacrifice,  vows,  oaths,  or  the  like  \ 
They  are  acts  and  instances  of  religious  worship,  like 
tlie  other ;  appropriated  to  God  in  the  same  manner, 
and  by  the  same  laws,  and'  upon  the  same  grounds 
and  reasons.  Well  then,  will  you  please  to  consider 
whether  you  have  not  begun  at  the  wrong  end,  and 
committed  an  vortpov  irpoTcpov  in  your  way  of  think- 
ing. You  imagine  that  acts  of  religious  worship  are 
to  derive  their  signification  and  quality  from  the  inten- 
tion and  meaning  of  the  worshippers ;  whereas  the 
very  reverse  of  it  is  the  truth.  Their  meaning  and  sig- 
nification is  fixed  and  determined  by  God  himself;  and 
therefore  we  are  never  to  use  them  with  any  other 
meaning,  under  peril  of  profaneness  or  idolatry.  God 
has  not  left  us  at  liberty  to  fix  what  sense  we  please 
ujion  religious  worship,  to  render  it  high  or  low,  abso- 
lute or  relative,  at  discretion,  supreme  when  offered  to 
God,  and  if  to  others  inferior:  as  when  to  angels,  or 
saints,  or  images,  in  suitable  proportion.  No  :  religion 
was  not  made  for  iTietaphysical  heads  only  ;  such  as 
might  nicely  distinguish  the  several  degrees  and  ele- 
vations of  respect  and  honour  among  many  objects. 
The  short  and  plain  way,  which  (in  pity  to  human 
infirmity  and  to  prevent  confusion)  it  has  pleased  God 
to  take  with  us,  is  to  make  all  religious  worship  his 
own  ;  and  so  it  is  sovereign  of  course.  This  I  take  to 
be  the  true  scriptural,  as  well  as  only  rea.sonable  ac- 
count of  the  object  of  worship.  We  need  not  concern 
ourselves,  (it  is  but  vain  to  pretend  to  it)  about  deter- 
mining the  sense  and  meaning  of  religious  worship. 
God  himselfhas  taken  care  of  it ;  and  it  is  already  fixed 
and  determined  to  our  hands.  It  means,  whether  we 
will  or  no,  it  means,  by  Divine  institution  and  appoint- 
ment, the  divinity,  the  supremacy,  the  sovereignty  of 
its  object.  To  misapply  those  marks  of  dignity,  these 
appropriate  ensigns  of  Divine  majesty ;  to  compliment 
any  creature  with  them  and  thereby  to  make  common 
what  (iod  has  made  proper,  is  to  deify  the  works  of 
(Sod's  hands,  and  to  serve  the  creature  instead  of  the 
Creator,  God  blessed  for  ever.  We  have  no  occasion 
to  talk  of  sovereign,  absolute  [irayers,  and  such  other 
odd  fancies :  prayer  is  an  address  to  God  and  does  not 
admit  of  tho.se  novel  dislhictions.  In  short,  then,  here 
is  no  room  left  for  your  distinguishing  between  sove- 
reign and  inferior  adoration.    You  must   first   prove, 

(8)  Defence  of  Queries. 


216 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II 


what  you  have  hitherto  presumed  only  and  taken  for 
graiiti'd,  ih:it  you  are  at  liberty  to  fix  what  meaning  and 
signitiiMtion  you  please  to  the  arts  of  religious  wor- 
ship;  to  make  them  high  or  low  at  discretion.  This 
you  will  find  a  very  dillicult  undertaking.  Scripture  is 
belbrehand  with  you  ;  and  to  fi.v  it  more,  the  con- 
curring judgment  of  the  earliest  and  bes>t  Christian 
writers.  All  religious  worshij)  is  herel)y  determined 
to  be  what  you  call  absolute  and  sovereign.  Inferior 
or  relative  worship  ajipears  now  to  be  conlradiction  in 
sense,  as  it  is  novel  in  sound  ;  like  an  inlerior  or  rela- 
tive god."(H) 

These  absurdities  have,  at  length,  been  discovered  by 
Socinians  themselve.^,  who,  noivviihstaMiliiig  the  au- 
thority of  Socinus,  have,  at  length,  biu'oiiie,  in  this 
respect,  consistent ;  and,  as  they  deny  the  Divinity  of 
our  Lord,  so  they  refuse  hini  worship,  and  do  not 
"  honour  the  8011  as  they  honour  the  Father."  Their 
refusal  to  do  so  must  be  left  to  him  who  hath  said, 
"  Kiss  the  Son  lest  he  he  angry,  and  ye  perish  from  tlie 
way ;"  but,  though  they  have  not  shunned  error,  they 
have,  at  least,  by  refusing  all  worship  to  Christ,  escaped 
from  hyjiocriay. 

Numerous  other  passages  in  the  New  Testament,  in 
addition  to  those  on  which  some  remarks  have  been 
offered,  might  be  adduced,  in  which  the  Divinity  of  our 
Lord  is  expressly  taught,  and  which  might  be  easily 
rescued  from  that  discreditable  and  unscholarly  criti- 
cism, by  which  Socinian  writers  have  attempted  to 
darken  their  evidence.  It  has,  however,  been  my  object 
rather  to  adduce  passages  which  diriM-tly  support  the 
arguments  in  the  order  in  which  they  have  been  adduced, 
than  to  collect  those  which  are  more  insulated.  All  of 
them  ought,  however,  to  be  consulted  by  the  careful 
student ;  and,  inileed,  from  many  te.Ms  of  this  descrip- 
tion, which  appear  lobe  but  incidentally  introduced,  the 
evidence  that  the  doctrine  of  the  (Jodhead  of  Christ  was 
taught  by  the  apostles  is  presented  to  us  with  tliis  im- 
pressive circumstance,  that  the  inspired  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  all  along  assume  it  as  a  point  which 
was  never,  in  that  age,  questioned  by  true  Christians. 
It  inllueiiced,  therelbre,  the  turn  of  their  language,  and 
established  a  thcoloi^irti/  style  among  them  when 
speaking  of  Clirist,  which  cannot  possibly  be  reconciled 
to  any  hypothesis  which  excludes  his  essential  Deity  ; 
and  which  no  honest,  or  even  rational  men  could  have 
fallen  into,  unless  they  had  acknowledged  and  wor- 
shipped their  Master  as  Con. 

Out  of  this  numerous  class  of  passages  one  will 
suffice  for  illustration. 

"  Let  this  mind  be  in  you,  which  was  also  in  Christ 
Josus,  who,  being  in  the  Ibnn  of  God,  thought  it  not  rob- 
bery to  be  eijual  with  (Jon,  but  made  himself  of  no 
reputation,"  &c.  Philip,  ii.  5 — 7.  Here  the  apostle  is 
reconimendiiig  an  humbleand  benevolent  disposition  to 
the  I'liilippiaiis  ;  and  he  enforces  it,  not  certainly  by  con- 
siderations which  themselves  needed  to  be  established 
by  proof,  or  in  which  the  I'hilippians  had  not  been  pre- 
viously iiistruct(!d,  but  in  the  most  natural  manner,  and 
that  only  which  a  «ood  writer  could  adopt,  by  what  was 
already  established,  and  received  as  true  among  them. 
It  was  already  admitted  by  the  Philipi)ians  as  an  un- 
doubted verity  of  the  Christian  religion,  that  belbre 
Christ  appeared  in  "  the  form  of  a  servant,"  he  existed 
"  in  the  form  of  Hod,"  and  before  he  was  "found  in 
fashion  as  a  man,"  he  was  such  a  being  as  could  not 
think  it  "robbery  to  be  eiiual  with  (;od."  On  these  very 
grounds  the  example  of  Christ  is  proposed  to  his  fol- 
lowers, and  its  imitation  enforced  upon  them.  This 
incidental  and  familiar  manner  of  introducing  so  groat 
a  subject,  clearly  shows  that  the  Divinity  of  Christ  was 
a  received  doctrine  ;  but,  though  introduced  incidentally, 
the  terms  employed  by  th<'  apostle  are  as  strong  and 
uncipiivocal  as  if  he  had  undertaken  Ibrmally  to  propose 
it.  It  is  not  necessary  to  show  this  by  going  through 
that  formidable  mass  of  verbal  criticism  which  com- 
mentators, scholiasts,  and  oiher  critics  have  accumu- 
lated around  this  pas.sage.  Happily  as  to  this,  as  well 
as  many  other  imi>ortaiil  texts  which  Ibrm  the  bases  of 
the  great  doninata  of  Christianity,  much  less  is  left  to 
verbal  criticism  than  many  have  supposed  ;  the  various 
clauses,  together  with  the  connexion,  so  dlustrate  and 
guard  the  meaning  as  to  fix  their  sense  and  make  it 
obvious  to  the  gmeral  reader.  "  Who  being"  or  "  sub- 
iixtnig  in  the  form  of  <iod."    This  is  the  first  character 


(8)  Defence  of  Queries. 


of  Christ's  exalted  pre-existent  state,  and  it  is  adduce<J 
asthe|£rr'ra«(/of  aclaim  which,  forasea.son,  he  divested 
himself  of,  and  became,  therefore,  an  illustrious  example 
of  humility  and  charity.  The  greatness  of  Christ  is 
first  laid  down,  then  what  he  renounced  of  that  which 
was  due  to  his  greatness,  and  finally  the  condition  is 
introduced  to  which  he  stooped  or  "humbled  himself. 
"  He  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  eqiai,  with  God,  but 
made  himself  of  no  KKi'iiTArioN,  and  took  upon  him 
the  form  of  a  seiivant."  These  are,  obviously,  the 
three  great  iioints  in  this  celebrated  text,  to  the  consi- 
deration of  which  we  are  strictly  bound  by  the  apostle's 
argument.  Let  each  be  briefly  considered,  and  it  will  be 
seen  how  impossible  it  is  to  e.xjilain  this  passage  in  any 
way  which  does  not  imply  our  Lord's  essential  Divinity. 
To  be  or  to  subsist  in  "  the  Ibrm  of  (Jod"  is  to  be  truly 
and  essentially  God.  This  may,  indeed,  be  argued  from 
the  word  iion<l>rj,  though  some  have  confined  its  meaning 
to  external  form  or  appearance.  The  Socinian  expo- 
sition, that  "the  form  of  God"  signifies  his  power  of 
working  miracles,  needs  no  other  refutation  than  that 
the  apostle  here  sjieaks  of  what  our  Lord  was  before  he 
took  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  was  made  in 
the  likeness  of  men.  The  notion,  too,  of  Whitby  and 
others,  who  refer  it  to  the  visible  glory  of  God,  in  which 
he  ap))eared  10  the  patriarchs,  is  also  disproved  by  this 
manilest  consideration,  that  the  phrase  "subsisting 
(en-npxu)!')  in  the  form  of  God,"  describes  the  pennanent 
pre-existent  state  of  Christ.  He  subsisted  in  the  form 
of  God,  therefore,  from  eternity,  and  consequently 
before  he  made  any  visibly  glorious  manifestations  of 
himself  to  the  juUriarchs;  nor,  as  God  is  invisible  and 
immaterial,  and  consequently  has  no  likeness  of  Jig  tire, 
could  our  Lord,  in  their  sense,  ^^  subsixV  in  the  form  or 
appearance  of  God  II',  indeed,  "form"  means  likeness, 
it  must  be  intellectual  likeness,  and,  therefore,  to  subsist 
in  the  form  of  God  is  to  be  God,  fbr  he  could  not  be  the 
likeness  of  God,  or,  as  the  apostle  has  it  in  the  Hebrews, 
the  "  express  linage"  or  character  of  his  person,  without 
being  God ;  for  how  could  he  be  expressly  like,  or  ex- 
pressly resemble,  or  have  the  appearance  of  Omnipo- 
tence, if  he  were  not  himself  Almighty ;  or  of  Omni- 
science, if  not  himself  All-knowing?  Let  us,  then, 
allow  that/(op0/7  in  its  leading  .sense  has  the  signification 
of  Ibrm,  shape,  image,  and  similitude,('J)  yet  this  can 
only  be  applied  to  the  Divine  Ueing  figuratively.  He 
has  no  sensible  form,  no  appearance,  and  nothing  can 
be  in  this  form  or  image,  therefore,  but  what  has  the 
same  essential  properties  and  perfections.  "  Sed  age," 
says  Eisner,  "  largiamur  Socinianis  fi(tp(jii)v  Ses  speru-m 
el  imaginem  Dei  esse,  taiiien  valido  inde  arguinento 
docebimus  ;  Demn  esse  natiira,  ijui  in  for  in  a  el  imagine 
Deiexisteret ;  nisi  Deum  per.sonatum,  el  connnentitium, 
qui  speciemquidemet  (Aai  r(;(7/(a  haberet  veritatccarens, 
credere  ct  adorare  Tnalint."(l)  But  it  is  not  true,  as 
some  have  hastily  staled,  that  iionipri  sigiiiliis  only  the 
imtii'ard  form  of  any  thing  ;  it  is  u.sed  in  (Jrcck  authors 
for  the  essential  f I  inn,  or  nature  itself  ol  a  thing,  of 
which  examples  iriay  be  seen  in  Wetslein,  Klsncr.  Ko- 
scnmuUer,  Schleusner,  and  others  ;  and  accordingly 
Schleusner  explains  it  "  per  metonymiani ;  ipsa  natura 
et  essentia  alimiiiisrei,"  and  adds,  "sic  legiturin  N.  T., 
Philip,  ii.  (5,  ubi  Christus  dicitur  cv  nopil>n  Ors  umpxwv 
ad  designandam  sublimiorem  ipsius  naturain."  The 
Greek  fiithers  also  understood  ^lopipi/  in  the  souse  of 
ovatn,  and  to  use  the  phra.-ie  "being  in  the  form  of  God," 
to  signify  the  "  being  really  and  truly  Goi'." 

Thus  the  term  itself  is  sullicicntly  explicit  of  the 
doctrine  ;  but  the  context  would  decide  the  matter,  wcro 
the  verbal  criticism  loss  decidedly  in  favour  of  tins  inier- 
l)retation.  "The  form  of  God"  stands  ojiposed  to  "the 
form  of  a  servant."  This,  say  those  critics  who  would 
make  the  form  of  God  an  external  appearance  only, 
means  "  the  ajipearance  and  behaviour  of  a  bondsman 
or  slave,  and  not  the  es-vc/icpof  such  a  iierson."  Hut 
fox'\oi,a  slaee,  is  not  in  the  New  Testainent  taken  in 
the  same  opprobrious  sense  as  among  us.  si,  Paul 
calls  himself  "  the  slave  of  .lesus  Christ,"  and  our  trans- 
lators have,  therefore,  properly  rendered  the  word  by 
sentant,  as  more  exactly  conveying  the  meaning  in- 
tended. Now  it  is  certain,  that  Christ  was  the  siTvanl 
or  minister  both  of  the  Father  and  of  his  creatures. 
He  himself  declares,  that  he  came  not  "  to  be  iiiinislered 


(9)  "  1.    Forma,  exlerniis,  luabitus,  onine  ijuod  in  ocu- 
los  occurrit,  imago,  similitudo.''— ScHt.i£i  s.mh. 
(1)  Observatioiies  Sacra- in  loc, 


Chap.  XV.1 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


217 


unto  but  to  minister  ;''  and  as  to  be  in  the  form,  of  a 
stTvant  is  not,  therefore,  to  have  the  appearance  of  a 
servant,  but  to  be  really  a  servant,  so  to  be  in  the  form 
of  God  is  to  be  really  fioi).  This  is  rendered  still 
stronger  by  the  Ibllowiiig  clause,  which  is  exei^etic  of 
the  preceding,  as  will  apjiear  from  the  literal  riiidcrinir, 
the  force  of  which  is  obscured  by  the  copulative  intro- 
duced uito  Ihi-  conunoii  version.  It  is  not,  "and  took 
upon  hiiii  tlie  Ibrin  of  a  servant,  and  was  made  in  the 
likeness  ol' men,"  bnt  ^^  being  7riadt  in  the  likeness  of 
men,"  which  clearly  denotes  that  he  took  the  form  of  a 
servant  by  "  being  made  in  the  likeness  of  men,"  so 
that,  as  Bishop  Pearson  irresistibly  argues, 

''The  phrase  'in  the  form  of  Ciod,'  not  elsewhere 
mentioned,  is  used  by  the  apostle  with  respect  unto 
that  other,  of  '  the  form  of  a  servant,'  exegetically  con- 
tinued 'in  the  likeness  of  men;'  and  the  respect  of  one 
unto  the  other  is  so  necessary,  that  if  the  form  of  God 
be  not  real  and  essential  as  the  form  of  a  servant,  or 
tlie  likeness  of  man,  tliere  is  no  force  in  the  apostle's 
words,  nor  will  his  argument  be  tit  to  work  any  great 
degree  of  humiliation  upon  the  consideration  of  Christ's 
exinanition.  But  by  the  form  is  certainly  understood 
the  true  condition  of  a  servant,  and  by  the  likeness  is 
infallibly  meant  the  real  nature  of  man  :  nor  doth  the 
fashion,  in  which  he  was  found,  destroy,  but  rather 
assert,  the  truth  of  his  humanity.  And  therefore,  as 
sure  as  Christ  was  really  and  essentially  man,  of  the 
same  nature  with  us,  in  whose  similitude  he  was 
made  :  so  certainly  was  he  also  really  and  essentially 
God,  of  the  same  nature  and  being  with  him,  in  whose 
form  he  did  subsist. "(2) 

The  greatness  of  him  who  "humbled  himself  being 
thus  laid  down  by  the  apostle,  he  proceeds  to  stale 
what,  in  the  process  of  his  humiliation,  he  waived  of 
that  which  was  due  to  his  greatness.  He  "thought  it 
not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God  ;  but  made  himself 
of  no  reputation  ;"  or,  as  many  choose  to  render  it, 
"  he  emptied  himself."  Whether  the  clause, "  thought 
it  not  robbery,"  be  translated  "  esteemed  it  not  an  ob- 
ject to  be  r.au^lu  at,  or  eagerlj'  desired,  to  be  as  God," 
or  did  not  think  it  a  "  usurpation ;"  or,  as  our  trans- 
lators have  it,  a  "  robbery"  to  be  equal  with  God,  sig- 
nifies little;  for,  after  all  the  criticism  expended  on  this 
unusual  jilirase,  that  Christ  had  a  right  to  that  which 
he  might  have  retained,  but  chose  to  waive  when  he 
humbled  himself,  is  sufficiently  established  bolliby  the 
meaning  of  the  word  and  by  the  coimexion  itself 
Some  Socinians  allow  the  connnon  translation,  and 
their  own  version  is  to  the  same  effect, — he  "  did  not 
esteem  it  a  prey,'"  which  can  only  mean,  though  they 
attempt  to  cloud  the  matter  in  their  note,  that  he  did 
not  esteem  that  as  his  own  property  to  which  he  had 
no  right.(3)  That,  then,  which  he  did  not  account  a 
"  prey,"  a  seizure  of  another's  right  or  property,  was 
"  to  be  equal  with  God."  Whether,  in  the  phrase 
TO  iva  tan  Otoj,  to  be  equal  with  God,  laa  is  to  be  taken 
adverbially,  and  translated  as,  like  as,  God;  or,  by 
enallage,  for  the  singular  adjective  masculine,  and  to 
be  rendered  equal  to  God,  has  been  matter  of  dispute. 
Tlie  grammatical  authority  appears  to  predominate  in 
favour  of  the  latter,(4)  and  it  is  supported  by  several 
of  the  fathers  and  the  ancient  versions ;  but  here, 
again,  we  are  not  left  to  the  niceties  of  verbal  criti- 
cism. If  taken  in  either  way,  the  sense  is  much  the 
same;  he  thought  it  not  a  robbery  or  usurpation  to  be 
equal  with  God,  or  as  God,  which,  as  the  sense  deter- 
mines, was  an  equality  of  honour  and  dignity ;  but 
made  himself  of  no  reputation.  For  as  the  phrase, 
the  form  of  God,,  signifies  his  essential  Divinity,  so 
that  of  which  he  "  emjitied"  or  divested  himself  for  the 
time  was  something  to  which  he  had  a  right  consecjuent 
upon  his  Divinity  ;  and  if  to  be  equal  with  God,  or  to 
be  as  God,  was  his  right  as  a  Divine  Person,  it  was 
not  any  thing  which  he  was  essentially  of  which  he 
divested  himself,  for  that  were  impossible;  but  some- 
thing which,  if  he  had  not  been  God,  it  would  have 
been  a  robbery  and  usurpation  either  to  claim  or  retain. 
This,  then,  can  be  nothing  else  than  the  assumption 


(2)  Discourses  on  the  Creed. 

(3)  "  Non  rapinam,  aut  spolium  alicui,  detractum, 
duxit." — RosKNMijLLER.  So  the  ancient  versions. 
"  Non  rapinam  arbitratus  est." — Vulgate.  "  Non  rapi- 
nam hoc  existimavit." — Syriac. 

(4)  See  Pkarson  on  the  Creed,  Art.  2,  note ; 
^IcHLKisNEB,  ERASMUS,  and  Schmidt. 


of  a  Divine  majesty  and  glory ;  the  proclamation  of 
his  own  rights,  and  the  demand  of  his  creatures'  praise 
and  homage,  the  laying  aside  of  which,  indeed,  is  ad- 
nnrably  expressed  in  our  translation,  "  but  rtiade  him- 
self <f  no  reputation !"  This  is  also  established  by  the 
antithesis  in  the  text.  "  The  form  of  a  servant"  stands 
oppo.sed  to  "the  Ibrm  of  God," — a  real  servant  to  real 
Divinity  ;  and  to  be  "equal"  with  God,  or  fl.s-  God,  in 
glory,  honour,  and  homage,  is  contrasted  with  the  hu- 
miliations of  a  human  state.  "  In  that  state  he  was 
made  liesh,"  sent  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  subject 
to  the  infirmities  and  miseries  of  this  life ;  in  that  slate 
he  was  "made  of  a  woman,  made  under  the  law,"  and 
so  obliged  to  fulfil  the  same;  in  that  state  he  was 
born,  and  lived  to  manhood  in  a  mean  condition  ;  was 
"  despised  and  rejected  of  men,  a  man  of  sorrows,  and 
acquainted  with  grief;"  in  that  state,  being  thus  made 
rnan,  he  look  upon  him  "the  form  of  a  servant."  If 
any  man  doubt  how  Christ  emptied  himself,  the  text 
will  satisfy  him, — "  by  taking  the  form  of  a  servant:" 
if  any  still  question  how  he  took  the  form  of  a  servant, 
he  hath  the  apostle's  solution, — "by  being  made  in  the 
likeness  of  men."  And  being  found  in  fashion  as  a 
man;  being  already  by  his  exinanition,  in  the  form  of 
a  servant,  he  humbled  himself,  becoming  "  obedient 
unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross."(5)  The  first 
stage  of  his  humiliation  was  his  assuming  "  the  form 
of  a  servant ;"  the  completion  of  it,  his  "  obedience 
unto  death."  But  what  say  the  Socinians?  As  with 
them  to  be  in  the  form  of  God  means  to  be  invested 
with  miraculous  powers,  so  to  empty  or  divest  him- 
self, was  his  not  exerting  those  powers  in  order  to  pre- 
vent his  crucifixion.  The  truth,  however,  is,  that  he 
"  emptied"  himself,  not  at  his  crucifixion,  but  when  he 
took  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  was  made 
in  the  likeness  of  men  ;  so  that,  if  to  divest  or  empty 
himself  be  explained  of  laying  down  his  miraculous 
gifts,  he  laid  them  down  before  he  became  man,  that 
is,  according  to  them,  before  he  had  any  existence. 
There  is  no  alternative,  in  this  and  many  similar  pas- 
sages, between  orthodoxy  and  the  most  glaring  critical 
absurdity. 


CHAPTER  XM. 

Humanity  of  Christ — Hypostatic  Union — Errors 
jis  TO  THE  Person  of  Christ. 

In  the  present  day,  the  controversy  as  to  the  person 
of  Christ  is  almost  w  holly  confined  to  the  question  of 
his  Divinity  ;  but,  in  the  early  ages  of  the  church,  it 
was  necessary  to  establish  his  proper  humanity.  The 
denial  of  this  appears  to  have  existed  as  early  as  the 
time  of  St.  ,Iohn,  who,  in  his  epistles,  excludes  from 
the  pale  of  the  church  all  who  denied  that  Christ  was 
come  in  thp;  fi.esh.  As  his  Gospel,  therefore,  pro- 
claims the  Godhead,  so  his  epistles  defend  also  the 
doctrine  of  his  humanity. 

The  source  of  this  ancient  error  appears  to  have 
been  a  philosophical  one.  Both  in  the  Oriental  and 
Greek  schools  it  was  a  favourite  notion,  that  whatever 
was  joined  to  matter  was  necessarily  contaminated  by 
it,  and  that  the  highest  perfection  of  this  life  was  ab- 
straction from  material  tilings,  and,  in  another,  a  total 
and  final  separation  from  the  body.  This  opinion  was 
also  the  probable  cause  of  leading  some  persons,  in 
St.  Paul's  time,  to  deny  tlie  reality  of  a  resuirection, 
and  to  explain  it  figuratively.  But,  however  that  may 
he,  it  was  one  of  the  chief  grounds  of  the  rejection  of 
the  proper  humanity  of  Christ  among  the  different 
branches  of  the  (Jnostics,  who,  indeed,  erred  as  to  both 
natures.  The  things  which  the  Scriptures  attribute  to 
the  human  nature  of  our  Lord  they  did  not  deny  ;  but 
affirmed  that  they  took  place  in  ajipearance  only,  and 
they  were,  therefore,  called  Docetee  and  Phantasiastee. 
At  a  later  period,  Eutyches  fell  into  a  similar  error,  by 
teaching  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ  was  absorbed 
into  the  Divine,  and  that  his  body  had  no  real  existence. 
These  errors  have  passed  away,  and  danger  now  lies 
only  on  one  side  ;  not,  indeed,  because  men  are  become 
less  liable  or  less  di.sposcd  to  err,  but  because  philo- 
sophy,—from  vain  pretences  to  which,  or  a  proud  re- 
liance upon  it,  almost  all  great  religious  errors  Spring, 
has,  in  later  ages,  taken  a  (hlTerenC  character. 


(5)  Bishop  Pearson. 


218 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


While  these  errors  denied  tlic  real  existence  of  the 
body  of  Christ,  tlie  ApoUonarian  licrcsy  reji'ttcd  the 
e.visteuL-e  of  a  liurnan  soul  in  our  Lord,  and  taught  that 
tlie  Godhead  sui)iilied  its  place.  Thus  both  these 
views  denied  to  Clirist  a  proper  humanity,  and  both 
were,  accordingly,  condennied  hy  the  general  church. 

Among  tho.se  who  held  the  union  of  two  natures  in 
Christ,  the  Divine  and  human,  which,  in  thcolofrical 
language,  is  called  the  hypostatical  or  personal  union, 
several  distinctions  were  also  made  which  led  to  a  di- 
versity of  opinion.  The  Neslorians  acknowledged 
two  persons  in  our  Lord,  inyslically  and  more  closely 
united  than  any  human  analogy  can  explain.  The 
Monoph)sites  contended  lor  one  person  and  one  na- 
ture, the  two  being  supposed  lo  be,  in  some  mysterious 
niaiiner,  conlbuiided.  'I'he  Moiiolhclites  acknowledged 
two  natures  and  one  will.  Various  other  refinements 
were,  at  different  times,  propagated ;  but  the  true 
sense  of  Scripture  appears  to  have  been  very  accu- 
rately expressed  by  tlie  I'ouncil  of  Chalcedon,  in  the 
fifth  century, — that  in  Christ  there  is  one  person;  in 
the  unity  of  person,  two  natures,  the  Divine  and  the 
human ;  and  tliat  there  is  no  change,  or  mixture,  or 
confusion  of  these  two  natures,  but  that  each  retains 
its  own  distinguishing  properties.  With  this  agrees 
the  Athanasiaii  Creed,  whatever  belts  date. — "Perfect 
God  and  jierfect  man,  of  a  reasonable  soul,  and  hu- 
man flesh  subsisting — Who  although  he  be  God  and 
man,  yet  he  is  not  two;  but  one  Christ:  One,  not  by 
conversion  of  the  Godhead  into  flesh  ;  but  by  taking 
Jhe  manhood  into  God ;  one  altogether,  not  by  con- 
fusion of  substance,  but  by  unity  of  person  ;  for  as 
the  reasonable  soul  and  flesh  is  one  man,  so  God  and 
man  is  one  Christ."  The  church  of  England,  by 
adopting  tliis  creed,  has  adopted  its  doctrine  on  the  hy- 
postatical union,  and  has  farther  i)rofessed  it  in  her 
second  article.  "  The  Son,  which  is  the  Word  of  the 
Father,  begotten  from  everlasting  of  the  Father,  the 
very  and  eternal  God,  of  one  substance  with  the  Fa- 
ther, took  man's  nature  in  the  womb  of  the  blessed 
Virgin  of  her  substance ;  so  that  the  two  whole  and 
perfect  natures,  that  is  to  say,  the  Godhead  and  man- 
hood, were  joined  togetlier  in  one  person,  never  lo  be 
divided,  whereof  is  one  Christ,  very  God  and  very  man." 
Whatever  objections  may  be  raised  against  these 
views  by  the  mere  reason  of  man,  unable  to  compre- 
hend mysteries  so  high,  but  oflen  bold  enough  to  im- 
pugn them,  they  certainly  exhibit  the  doctrine  of  the 
New  Testament  on  these  important  subjects,  though 
expressed  in  different  terms.  Nor  are  these  tbrmula- 
ries  to  be  charged  with  originating  such  distinctions, 
and  adding  tliein  to  the  simplicity  of  Scripture,  as  they 
often  unjustly  are  by  those  who.  either  from  lurking 
errors  in  their  own  minds,  or  from  a  vain  affectation 
of  being  independent  of  human  authority,  are  most 
prone  to  question  them.  Such  expositions  of  faith 
were  rendered  necessary  by  the  dangerous  specula- 
tions and  human  refinements  lo  which  we  have  above 
adverted  ;  and  were  intended  to  be  (what  they  may  be 
easily  proved  from  Scripture  to  be  in  reality)  summa- 
ries of  insjiired  doctrines ;  not  new  distinctions,  but 
ileclarations  of  wliat  had  been  before  taught  by  the 
Holy  SjHrit  on  the  subject  of  the  hypostatical  union  of 
natures  in  Christ ;  and  the  accordance  of  these  admi- 
rable summaries  with  the  Scriptures  themselves  will 
be  very  obvious  to  all  who  yield  to  llieir  plain  and  un- 
perverled  testimony.  That  Christ  is  very  Goo,  has 
been  already  proved  from  the  Scrii)iures,  at  (-oiisider- 
able  length  ;  that  he  was  truly  a  man,  no  one  will  be 
found  to  doubt;  that  he  is  hut  one  person,  is  sufficiently 
clear  from  this,  that  no  disiinciion  into  two  was  ever 
made  by  himself,  or  by  his  apostles,  and  from  actions 
peculiar  to  Godhead  being  someliines  ascribed  to  him 
under  his  human  ajipellations  ;  and  actions  and  suflcr- 
ings  peculiar  lo  humanity  being  alsopredicaledof  him 
under  Divine  titles.  'I'liat  in  him  there  is  no  confusion 
of  the  two  natures,  is  evident  from  the  absolute  man- 
ner in  which  both  his  nalnresare  conslantly  spoken  of 
in  the  Scriptures.  Hib  (iodhead  was  not  deteriorated 
by  uniting  itself  with  a  human  body,  for  "  he  is  the 
true  God;"  his  humanity  was  not,  while  on  earth,  ex- 
alted into  projierlies  which  made  it  different  in  kind  to 
the  humanity  of  his  creatures ;  for,  "as  the  children 
were  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he  also  took  part  of 
the  s*MK."  If  the  Divine  nature  in  him  had  been  im- 
perfect, it  would  have  lost  its  essential  character,  for  it 
is  essential  to  Deity  to  be  perfect  and  complete ;  if  any 


of  the  essential  properties  of  human  nature  had  been 
wanting,  he  would  not  have  been  man  ;  if,  as  some  of 
the  preceding  notions  implied.  Divine  and  human  had 
been  mi.xed  and  confounded  in  him,  he  would  have 
been  a  compounded  being,  neither  (/oil  nor  man.  No- 
thing was  deficient  in  his  buiiianily,  nothing  in  his 
Divinity,  and  yet  he  is  one  Christ.  This  is  clearly  the 
doctrine  of  the  Scripture,  and  it  is  admirably  expressed 
in  the  creeds  above  ([uoted  ;  and,  on  that  account,  they 
are  entitled  to  great  respect.  They  imbody  the  senti- 
ments of  some  of  the  greatest  men  that  ever  lived  in 
the  church,  in  language  weighed  with  the  utmost  care 
and  accuracy ;  and  they  are  venerable  records  of  the 
faith  of  distant  ages. 

These  two  circumstances,  the  completmcss  of  each 
natitre,  and  the  union  of  both  in  one  person,  is  the 
only  key  to  the  language  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
so  entirely  ex]ilains  and  hannonizes  the  whole  as  to 
afford  the  strongest  proof,  next  to  its  explicit  verbal 
statements,  of  the  doctrine  that  our  Lord  is  at  once 
truly  God  and  truly  man.  On  the  other  hand,  the  im- 
practicability of  giving  a  consistent  explanation  of  the 
testimony  of  (iod  "  concerning  his  Son  Jesus  Christ" 
on  all  other  hypotheses,  entirely  confutes  them.  In 
one  of  two  ways  only  will  it  be  found,  by  every  one 
who  makes  the  trial  honestly,  that  all  the  passages  of 
holy  writ  respecting  the  Person  of  Christ  can  be  ex 
plained ;  either  by  referring  them,  according  to  the  rule 
of  the  ancient  fathers,  to  the  OtoXoyia,  by  which  they 
meant  every  thing  that  related  to  the  Divinity  of  our 
Saviour;  or  to  the  OiKovonia.'by  which  they  meant 
his  incarnation,  and  every  thing  that  he  did  in  the  flesh 
10  procure  the  salvation  of  mankind.  This  distinction 
is  expressed  in  modern  theological  language,  by  con- 
sidering some  things  which  are  spoken  of  Christ,  as 
said  of  his  Divine,  others  of  his  human  nature;  and 
he  who  takes  this  principle  of  interpretation  along 
with  him  will  seldom  find  any  difficulty  in  apjirehend- 
ing  the  sense  of  the  sacred  writers,  though  lljc  surijects 
themselves  be  often,  to  human  minds,  inscrutable. 

Docs  any  one  ask,  for  instance,  if  Jesus  Christ  was 
truly  God,  how  he  could  be  born  and  die?  how  he 
could  grow  in  wisdom  and  stature?  how  he  could  be 
subject  to  law  ?  be  tempted  ?  stand  in  need  of  prayer? 
how  his  soul  could  be  "  exceeding  sorrowful,  even  unto 
death  1"  be  "  forsaken  of  his  Father  ?"  purchase  the 
church  with  "  his  own  blood  V  have  "  a  joy  set  before 
him  ?"  be  exalted  1  have  "  all  power  in  heaven  and 
earth"  given  to  liim  ?  &c.  The  answer  is,  that  he  was 

also  M  A  N. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  be  a  matter  of  surprise,  that 
a  VISIBLE  MAN  should  heal  diseases  ai  his  will,  and 
without  referring  lo  any  higher  authority,  as  he  often 
did  ;  still  the  winds  and  the  waves  ;  know  the  thoughts 
of  men's  hearts ;  foresee  his  own  passion  in  all  its  cir- 
cumstances ;  authoritatively  forgive  sins ;  be  exalted 
to  ab.solutt^  dominion  over  every  creature  in  heaven  and 
earth  ;  be  present  wherever  two  or  three  are  gathered 
in  his  name ;  be  with  his  disciples  to  the  end  of  the 
world ;  claim  universal  homage,  and  the  bowing  of  the 
knee  of  all  creatures  to  his  nairie;  be  associated  wilh 
the  Father  in  solemn  ascriptions  of  glory  and  thanks- 
giving, and  bear  even  the  awful  names  of  God,  names 
of  description  and  revelation,  names  which  express  Di- 
vine attributes  : — w  hat  is  the  answer  ?  Can  the  Soci- 
nian  scheme,  which  allows  him  lo  be  a  man  o/j/y,  pro- 
duce a  rei)ly  ?  (^an  it  furnish  a  rea.sonable  interpreta- 
tion of  texts  of  Sacred  Writ,  which  affirm  all  these 
things  1.  Can  it  suggest  any  solution  which  does  not 
imply  that  the  sacred  iienmcn  were  nol  onl\'  careless 
writers,  but  writers  who,  if  they  had  studied  to  be  mis- 
understood, could  not  more  delusively  have  expressed 
themselves?  'I'he  only  hypothesis  explanatory  of  all 
these  stalemi'iits  is,  that  Christ  is  Goi>  as  well  as  man, 
and  by  this  the  coiisislcncy  of  the  sacred  writers  is 
brought  out,  and  a  luirmoni/.ing  train  of.^ieiitiment  is  -seen 
I  compacting  the  t<criptures  into  one  agreeing  and  mutu- 
ally adjusted  revelation. 

But  the  union  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ  in  one 
hypostasis,  or  iier.son,  is  equally  essential  to  the  full 
exjiosilion  of  the  Scrijitures,  as  the  existence  of  two 
distinctively,  the  Divine  and  the  human;  and  without 
it  many  passages  lose  all  force,  because  they  lose  all 
meaning.  In  what  possible  sense  could  it  be  said  of 
THE  WoKi),  that  "he  was  made  (or  became)  Ki.Ksn," 
if  no  such  personal  unity  existed  1  The  Socinians 
thcinsulves  seem  to  acknowledge  tlic  force  of  lliis,  and 


Chap.  XVI.], 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


219 


tliercrore  translate  "  and  the  Word  was  flesh,"  atHrm- 
iiii;  tUlscly,  as  various  critics  have  abundantly  showm, 
that  ilif  most  usual  meaning  of  ytvoiiat  is  to  be.  With- 
out the  hypostatical  union,  how  could  the  argument  of 
our  Lord  be  supportcil,  that  the  Messiah  is  both  David's 
Si>N  and  David's  Ldkh?  If  this  is  asserted  of  two 
persons,  then  the  ar^Jtuiiient  is  fjone ;  if  of  one,  then 
two  natures,  one  which  had  authority  as  Lord,  and  the 
other  capable  of  natural  descent,  were  united  in  one 
person.  Allowing  that  we  have  established  it,  that  the 
appellative  "  Son  of  God"  is  the  designation  of  a  Divine 
relation,  but  for  this  persona!  union  the  visible  Christ 
could  not  be,  according  to  St.  Peter's  confession,  "  the 
Son  of  the  living  (Jod."  By  tills  doctrine  we  also  leant 
how  it  was  that  "the  church  of  (Jo  o"  was  ''purchased 
by  his  OWN  blood."  Even  if  we  concede  the  ginuine 
reading  to  be  "the  Lord,''  this  concession  yields  no- 
thing to  the  Sot^inians,  unless  the  term  Lord  were  a 
human  title,  which  has  been  already  disproved,  and 
unless  a  mere  tn/iii  could  be  "  Lord  both  of  the  dead 
and  the  living,"  could  wield  universal  sovereignly,  and 
be  entitled  to  universal  homage.  If,  then,  the  title 
'•THt  Loud''  be  an  appellation  of  Christ's  superior  na- 
ture, in  no  other  sense  could  it  be  said  that  the  church 
was  purchased  by  his  own  blood,  than  by  supposing 
the  existence  of  that  union  which  we  call  personal ;  a 
union  which  alone  distinguishes  the  siifTerings  of  Christ 
from  that  of  his  martyred  followers,  gave  to  them  a 
■mfrit  which  theirs  had  not,  and  made  "  his  blood''  ca- 
pable of  IM'RCHAMNG  tile  salvatlon  of  the  "church." 
For,  disallow  that  union,  and  we  can  see  no  possible 
meaning  in  calling  the  blood  of  Christ  "  the  blood  of 
fJod,"  or,  if  it  please  better,  "  of  the  Lord ;"  or  in  what 
that  great  peculiarity  consisted,  which  made  it  capable 
of  jiiirc/utsnm'  or  redeeming. 

Dr.  rye  Smith,  in  his  very  able  work  on  the  Person 
of  Christ,  has  rather  inconsiderately  blamed  the  ortho- 
dox, for  "  the  very  serious  offence  of  sometimes  using 
language  which  applies  to  the  Divine  nature  the  cir- 
cumstances and  properties  which  could  only  attach  to 
his  humanity,"  as  giving  unhappy  occasion  to  the  ob- 
jections and  derisions  of  their  opponents.  As  he  gives 
no  instances,  he  had  his  eye  probably  upon  some  ex- 
treme cases;  but  if  he  meant  it  as  a  remark  of  general 
application,  it  seems  to  have  arisen  from  a  very  mis- 
taken view,  and  assumes  that  the  objections  of  oppo- 
nents lie  rather  against  terms  than  against  the  doctrine 
of  Christ's  Divinity  itself. 

I'hrs  is  so  far  from  being  the  case,  that  if  the  ortho- 
dox were  to  attend  to  the  caution  given  by  this  writer 
on  this  subject,  they  would  not  approach  one  step 
nearer  to  the  conversion  of  those  who  are  in  this  fun- 
damental error,  supporting  it,  as  they  do,  by  perver- 
sions so  manifest  and  by  criticisms  so  shameless.  I  am 
no  apologist,  however,  of  real  "  errors  and  faults"  in 
theological  language ;  but  the  practice  referred  to,  so 
far  from  being  "  a  serious  offence,"  has  the  authority 
of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament.  Argumenta- 
tively,  the  distinction  between  the  Divine  and  human 
natures,  according  to  the  rule  before  given,  must  be 
maintained;  but  when  speaking  cursorily,  and  on  the 
assumption  of  the  unquestionable  truth  of  the  hypo- 
static union  of  the  Divine  and  human  natures, — a.maniicr 
of  speaking,  which,  it  is  hoped,  all  true  Chri-stians  adopt, 
as  arising  from  their  settled  convictions  on  this  point, — 
those  very  terms,  so  common  among  the  orthodox,  and 
so  objectionable  to  those  who  "  deny  the  Lord  that 
bought  them,"  must  be  maintained  in  spite  of  "  deri- 
sion," or  the  language  of  the  New  Testament  must  be 
dropped,  or  at  least  be  made  very  select,  if  this  dan- 
gerous and,  in  the  result,  this  betraying  courtesy  be 
adojited.  For  what  does  Dr.  P.  Smith  gain,  when  cau- 
tioning the  believer  against  the  use  of  the  phrase  "  the 
lilood  of  God,"  by  reminding  him  that  there  is  reason 
to  prefer  the  reading  "  the  church  of  tke  Lord,  which 
he  hath  purchased  by  his  oivn  blood  >"  The  orthodox 
contend,  that  the  appellation  "  tiik  Lord,"  when  applied 
to  our  Saviour,  is  his  title  as  Gon,  and  the  heterodox 
know,  also,  that  the  "  blood  of  the  Lord"  is  a  phrase 
with  us  entirely  equivalent  to  "the  Wood  of  G.in." 
They  know,  too,  that  we  neither  believe  that  "Gon" 
nor  "  THE  Lord"  could  die;  but  in  using  the  esta- 
blished phrase,  the  all-important  doctrine  of  the  exist- 
ence of  such  a  union  between  the  two  natures  of  our 
Lord  as  to  make  the  blood  which  he  shed  more,  than 
the  blooil  of  a  mere  man,  more  than  the  blood  of  his 
mere  humanity  itself,  is  maintained  and  exhibited ; 


and  while  we  allow  that  God  could  not  die,  yet  that 
there  is  a  most  imi)ortant  sense  in  which  the  blood  of 
Christ  WHS  "  the  blood  of  God." 

We  do  not  altenipt  to  explain  this  mystery,  but  we 
find  it  on  record  ;  and,  in  point  of  fact,  that  carefUl  ap- 
propriation of  the  properties  of  the  two  natures  to  each 
resjieclively,  which  Dr.  Pye  Smith  recommends,  is  not 
very  frequent  in  the  New  Testament,  and  lor  this  obvi- 
ous reason,  that  the  question  of  our  Lord's  Divinity  is 
more  generally  introduced  as  an  undisputed  principle, 
than  argued  upon.  It  is  true,  that  the  apostle  Paul  lays 
it  down,  that  our  Lord  was  of  the  seed  of  David,  "  ac- 
cordinii  to  the  flesh,"  and  "  the  Son  of  God  according 
to  the  Spirit  ok  Holiness."  Here  is  an  instance  of 
the  distinction;  but  generally  this  is  not  observed  by 
the  apostles,  because  the  equally  fundamental  doctrine 
was  always  present  to  them,  that  the  same  Person 
who  was  FLESH  was  also  truly  Goo.  Hence  they  scru- 
ple not  to  say,  that  "  the  Lord  of  Glory  was  crucified," 
that  "  the  Prince  of  Life  was  killed,"  and  that  he  who 
was  "in  the  form  of  God,"  became  "obedient  unto 
death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross." 

We  return  from  this  digression,  to  notice  a  few  other 
passages,  the  meaning  of  which  can  only  be  opened  by  the 
doctrine  of  the  personal  union  of  the  Divine  and  human 
natures  in  Christ.  "  For  in  him  dwelleth  all  the  ful- 
ness of  the  Godhead  bodily"  (Col.  h.  9) ;  not  by  a  type 
and  figure,  but,  as  the  word  crw^nrifcwj  signifies,  really 
and  svbstantially,  and,  for  the  full  exposition,  we 
must  add,  by  personal  union ;  for  we  have  no  other 
idea  by  which  to  explain  an  expression  never  used  to 
signify  the  inhabitation  of  good  men  by  God,  and  which 
is  licre  applied  to  Christ  in  a  way  of  eminence  and  pe- 
culiarity."(6) 

"  Who,  being  the  brightness  of  his  glory,  and  the  ex- 
press image  of  his  person,  and  ujiholding  all  things  by 
the  word  of  his  power,  when  he  had  bv  himself 
purged  our  sins,  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Ma- 
jesty on  high,"  Heb.  i.  3.  To  this  passage,  also,  the 
hyspostatical  union  is  the  only  key.  Of  whom  does  the 
apostle  speak,  when  he  says,  "when  he  had  by  himself 
purged  our  sins  ;"  but  of  Him  who  is  "  the  brightness  of 
his  glory,  and  the  exjiress  image  of  his  person  ?'  He,  by 
HIMSELF,  "purged  our  sins;"  yet  this  was  done  by  the 
shedding  of  his  blood.  In  that  higher  nature,  however, 
he  could  not  sufltr  death;  and  nothing  could  make  the 
sufferings  of  his  humanity  a  purification  of  sins  by  him- 
self but  .such  a  union  as  should  constitute  one  person : 
— for,  unless  this  be  allowed,  either  the  characters  of 
Divinity  in  the  preceding  verses  are  characters  of  a 
merely  human  being ;  or  else  that  higher  nature  was 
capable  of  suffering  death ;  or  if  not,  the  purification 
was  not  made  by  himself,  which  yet  the  text  affirms. 

In  fine,  all  passages  which  (not  to  mention  many 
others)  come  under  the  following  classes  have  their  true 
interpretation  thus  laid  open,  and  are  generally  utterly 
unmeaning  on  any  other  hypothesis. 

1.  Those  which,  like  some  of  the  foregoing,  speak  of 
the  ejjicacy  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins.  In  this  class  the  two  following  may  be 
given  as  examples.  Heb.  ii.  14,  "  Forasmuch,  then, 
as  the  children  are  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he 
also  himself  likewise  took  part  of  the  same;  that 
through  death  he  might  destroy  him  that  had  the  power 
of  death,"  &c.  Here  the  elTicacy  of  the  death  of  Christ 
is  explicitly  stated  ;  but  as  explicitly  is  it  said  to  be  the 
death  of  one  who  partook  of  flesh  and  blood,  or  who 
assumed  human  nature.  The  power  of  deliverance  is 
ascribed  to  him  who  thus  invested  himself  with  a  na- 
ture below  that  of  his  own  original  nature ;  but  in  that 
lower  nature  he  dies,  and  by  that  death  he  delivers 
those  who  had  been  all  their  lifetime  subject  to  bondage. 
The  second  is  Colossians  i.  14.  &c.  "In  whom  we  have 
redenqition  through  his  blood,  even  the  forgiveness  of 
sins,  WHO  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,"  «kc.  In 
this  passage,  the  lofty  description  which  is  given  of  the 
Person  of  Christ  stands  in  immediate  connexion  with 
the  mention  of  the  efficacy  of  "  his  blood,"  and  is  to  be 
considered  as  the  reason  vi'hy,  through  that  blood,  re- 
demption and  remission  of  sins  became  attainable. 
Thus  "  without  shedding  of  blood  there  could  be  no  re. 
mission  ;"  but  the  blood  of  Jesus  only  is  thus  etfica. 


(6)  "  I'wf/aTuuf,  i.  e.  vere,  perfectissime,  non  typice, 
et  uinbraliter.  sicut  in  N.  T.  Deus  se  manifestavit.  Est 
autem  inhabitatio  ill.i  ct  uiiio  personalis,  et  singularia- 
sima." — Glvs  ire. 


220 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


cious,  who  is  "  the  image  of  llin  invisible  f.Vid,"'  the 
"  Creator"  of  all  things.  His  blood  it  could  not  be  bm 
for  the  liypostaticiil  union  ;  and  it  is  eijiially  true,  that 
but  for  that  he  could  have  had  no  blood  to  shed:  lie- 
cause,  as  "  the  iinaire  of  the  invisible  (;od,"  ihat  is,  d'od's 
equal,  or  Ood  himself,  his  nature  was  iiica|)al)le  of  (k';iih. 
2.  In  the  second  class  are  all  Ihos('  passafjes  which  ar- 
gue from  the  compassion  which  our  Lord  manifested  in 
his  humiliation,  and  his  own  experience  of  suffer- 
ings, to  the  exercise  of  confidence  in  him  by  his  people 
in  dangers  and  afflictive  circumstances.  Of  these 
the  following  may  be  given  for  the  sake  of  illustra- 
tion. Heb.  iv.  15,  1(),  "For  we  have  not  a  high  priest 
which  cannot  be  touched  with  the  feeling  of  our  infir- 
mities; but  was  in  all  points  templed  like  as  we  are, 
yet  without  sin.  Let  us,  therelbrc,  come  boldly  unto 
the  throTK!  of  grace,  that  we  may  obtain  mercy,  and 
find  grai-e  to  help  in  time  of  need."  Several  similar 
passages  occur  in  the  early  part  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews, and  the  argumentof  iheiii  all  is  precisely  the 
same.  The  humiliation  of  our  Lord  and  his  ac(iualiit- 
ance  with  human  \voes  may  assure  us  of  his  sympa- 
thy ;  but  sympathy  is  not  help ;  he  is  represonleil, 
therefore,  as  the  source  of  "succour,"  as  the  "  Author 
of  Salvaliiiit,"  "  the  Captain  nf  our  Salvation,"  in 
consequence  of  the  sufferings  he  endured;  and  to  him 
all  his  people  are  directed  to  lly  for  aid  in  prayer,  and, 
by  entire  trust  in  his  power,  grace,  and  jiresence,  to 
assure  themselves  that  timely  succour  and  final  salva- 
tion shall  be  bestowed  upon  them  by  him.  Now  here, 
also,  it  is  clear,  that  the  .vfj/Tinr  and  the  Saviour  aru 
the  same  person.  The  man  jnight  siij/lr ;  but  sufferings 
could  not  enable  the  man  to  save ;  tlu^y  could  give  no 
new  qualification  to  human  nature,  nor  bestow  upon 
that  nature  any  new  right.  But,  besides  the  natnn^ 
which  suffered,  and  learned  the  bitterness  of  human 
■woes  by  experience,  there  is  a  nature  which  can  know 
the  sufferings  of  all  others,  in  all  places,  at  all  times; 
■which  can  also  ascertain  the  "time  of  need"  with 
exactness,  and  the  "  grace"  suitable  to  it ;  which  can 
effectually  "  help"  and  sustain  the  sorrows  of  the  very 
heart,  a  power  peculiar  to  Divinity,  and,  finally,  bestow 
"eternal  salvation."  This  must  be  Divine;  but  it  is 
one  in  personal  union  with  that  which  suffered  and 
was  taught  sympathy,  and  it  is  this  union  consti- 
tutes that  "  fiRKAT  IIii:n  Prikst"  of  our  profession, 
that  "  merciful  and  faithful  High  Priest,"  who  is  able 
"  to  succour  us  when  we  are  tempted."  Thus,  as  it 
has  been  well  observed  on  this  sunject,  "  It  is  by  the 
union  of  two  natures  in  one  person  that  Christ  is  quali- 
fied to  be  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  He  became  man, 
that,  with  the  greatest  possible  advantage  to  those 
whom  he  vvas  sent  to  instruct,  he  iiil<;lil  leacli  them  the 
nature  and  the  will  of  (Jod;  that  Ills  life  might  hi!  (heir 
examjile  ;  that  by  being  onceconiinisseil  with  the  inlirin- 
itiesof  linman  nature,  he  might  give  them  assurance  of 
his  fellow-feeling;  Ihat  by  suffering  on  the  cross  he  might 
maki;  atoiieineiit  tiir  their  sins;  and  that  in  his  rew^ard 
they  niitfhl  behold  the  earnest  and  the  pattern  of  theirs. 
"  l!ut  had  .lesus  been  only  man,  or  had  he  been  one 
of  the  spirits  that  surround  the  throne  of  God,  he  could 
not  have  accomplislicd  the  work  which  he  undertook  : 
for  the  whole  obedience  of  every  creature  being  due  to 
the  Creator,  no  part  of  that  obediencte  can  be  placed  to 
theacconiii  cif  other  creatures,  so  as  to  supply  the  de- 
fects ol'  their  service,  or  to  rescue  them  from  the  jm- 
nishmeiit  which  they  deserve.  The  Scriptures,  there- 
fore, reveal,  that  he  who  apiieared  upon  earth  as  man, 
isalso(;od,  and  as  (!od,  was  mighty  to  save;  and  by 
this  revelation  they  teach'  us,  that  the  merit  of  our 
Lord's  obediriue,  iiiid  the  efficacy  of  his  interposition, 
ili;pend  upon  the  li\|iosl;ilic;il  union. 

"  All  modern  seels  cil  Christians  agree  in  admitting 
that  tlie  greatest  beiiefils  arise  to  us  from  the  Saviour 
of  the  world  lieing  man  ;  but  the  Ariaiis  and  Soeiiiians 
coMleiid  earnestly,  that  his  suffering's  do  not  derive  any 
value  Irom  his  being  UoA  ;  and  tlieir  reasoning  is  spe- 
cious. Vou  say,  they  argue,  that  .h'sus  (  hrist,  who 
suffered  for  the  sins  of  men,  is  bolli  (iod  and  man. 
Vou  must  either  say  that  Cod  siilfered,  or  that  he  did 
not  suffer:  if  you  say  that  (;od  suffred,  you  do  in- 
deed allix  an  inlinite "value  to  the  siid'erings,  but  you 
allirm  Ihat  the  (lodhead  is  capable  of  sulfermj;.  which 
is  both  imjiious  and  absurd:  if  you  say  that  Cod  did 
not  suffer,  then,  although  the  person  that  suffered  had 
liolh  a  Divine  and  a  human  nature,  the  sufferings  were 
merely  those  of  a  man,  for,  arcordiDg  to  your  own 


system,  the  two  natures  are  distinct,  and  the  Divine  is 
impassable. 

"  In  answer  to  this  method  of  arguing,  we  may  ad- 
mit that  the  Godhead  cannot  suffer,  and  we  do  not  pre- 
tend to  explain  the  kind  of  support  -svhich  the  human 
nature  deriv('il,  under  its  sullijrings,  from  the  Divine, 
or  the  maiiiieriii  whichthe  two  were  united.  But  Irom 
the  uniliirm  langiia:;eof  Scripture,  which  magnifies  the 
love  of  God  ill  gi\ing  his  only-begotten  Son,  ■which 
speaks  in  the  highest  terms  of  the  preciousness  of  (he 
blood  of  Christ,  which  represents  him  as  coming,  in 
the  hotly  that  was  iirepared  for  him,  to  do  that  which 
sacrilice  and  burnt-olleriiig  could  not  do :  from  all  this 
■we  infer,  that  there  was  a  value,  a  merit,  in  the  sul- 
ferings  of  this  Person,  superior  to  that  which  belonged 
to  the  sufliTiiigs  of  any  oilier:  and  as  the  .same  Scrip- 
tures intimate,  in  nmiiherless  places,  the  strictest  union 
between  the  Divine  and  human  nature  of  Christ,  by 
applying  to  iiiin  promiscuously  the  actions  which  be- 
long to  each  nature,  we  hold  that  it  is  impossible  for  us 
to  separate,  m  our  imagination,  this  peculiar  value 
which  they  alhx  to  his  sufferings,  Irom  the  peculiar 
dignity  of  iiis  jierson. 

"The  hypostatical  union,  then,  is  the  corner-stone  of 
our  religion.  We  are  too  much  accustomed,  in  all  our 
researches,  to  perceive  ihat  things  are  united,  without 
our  being  able  to  investigate  the  bond  which  unites 
th(mi,  to  feel  any  degree  ol' surprise  Ihat  we  cannot  an- 
swer all  llie  (imsiioiis  which  ingenious  men  have  pro- 
posed ujion  this  siilijecl ;  but  we  can  clearly  discern,  in 
those  purjioses  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God 
which  the  Scrijitures  declare,  the  reason  why  they  have 
dwelt  so  largely  upon  his  Divinity  ;  and  if  we  are  care- 
ful to  take  into  our  view  the  wiiole  of  that  description 
which  they  give  of  the  Person  by  whom  the  remedy  in 
the  (Josjiel  was  brought ;  if,  in  our  speculations  con- 
cerning him,  wc  neither  lose  sight  of  the  two  jiarts 
which  are  clearly  revealed,  nor  forget,  what  we  can- 
not comprehend,  that  union  between  the  two  parts 
which  is  necessarily  implied  in  the  revelation  of  them, 
we  shall  perceive,  in  the  character  of  the  Messiah,  ii 
completeness  and  a  suitableness  to  the  design  of  his 
coming,  which  of  themselves  ireate  a  strong  presump- 
tion that  we  have  rightly  interpreted  the  Scripiures."(7) 

On  this  evidenie  from  the  Holy  Serijitures  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Divinity  of  our  blessed  Saviour  rests.  Into 
the  argument  from  antiquity  my  limits  will, not  allow 
me  to  enter.  If  the  great  "  liilling  away,"  predicted  by 
St.  Paul, had  involved,  generally,  this  high  doctrine;  if 
both  the  Latin  and  (ircek  churches  had  wholly  de- 
parted from  the  faith,  in.stead  of  having  united,  with- 
out intermission,  to  say  "Th(m  art  the  King  of  (Jlory, 
O  Christ,"  "  Thou  art  the  everlasting  Son  of  the  Fa- 
ther," the  truth  of  (iod  would  not  have  been  made  of 
"  none  effect."  God  would  still  have  been  true,  though 
every  man,  from  Ihi'  age  of  inspiralion,  had  become  "a 
liar."  The  Soeiiiians  have,  of  late  years,  shown  great 
anxiety  to  obtain  some  suffrages  Irom  aniiquily  in  their 
favour,  and  have  collected  every  instance  possitile  of 
early  departure  from  the  faith.  Tluy  might,  indeed, 
have  found  heretical  (iravily  and  its  adherenis,  with- 
out travelling  out  of  the  iS'ew  Testament ;  men,  not 
only  tirar  the  apostolic  age,  but  in  the  very  days  of  the 
apostles,  who  rejected  the  resurrection,  who  consenleii 
not  "to  wholesome  doctrine,"  who  made  shipwreck  of 
faith,"  as  well  as  of  a  good  conscience,  who  denied  "  the 
only  Lord  God,  and  our  Lord  .h  sns  Clirisi,  '•  ilie  Lord 
that  bought  them."  This  kind  ol  antiquity  is,  in  trutli, 
in  their  favour:  and,  as  human  nature  is  suhslanlially 
the  same  in  all  ages,  there  is  as  much  reason  to  exjwct 
errors  in  one  age  as  another ;  but,  that  any  body  of 
Christians,  in  any  sense  entitled  to  be  consi<lered  as  an 
acknowledged  branch  of  the  church  of  Christ,  can  be 
found,  ill  primitive  limes,  to  give  any  sanction  to  llieir 
opinions  and  interpretations  of  Scripture,  they  have 
failed  10  establish.  For  full  informalioii  on  the  subject 
of  the  opinions  of  Ihciirimilive  churches,  and  a  full  re- 
futation of  all  the  pretences  which  Arians  and  Soci- 
iiian.s.  in  these  later  times,  have  made  to  be,  in  part, 
supported  by  primitive  authority,  the  works  of  liishop 
Hull,  Dr.  W'aterland,  and  liishop  llorsley(8)  must  be 


(7)  Dr.  IIiLt.. 

(8)  See  also  Wilson's  Tllust  rat  ion  of  the  Method  of 
ex|)laining  the  NewTeslament  by  the  early  Opinions  of 
•lews  and  Christians  concerning  Christ;  and  Dr.  Jamie- 
son's  Vindication,  &c. 


Chap.  XVIl.J 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


221 


consulted ;  and  the  result  will  show,  that,  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  Scriptures  given  above,  we  are  sup- 
ported by  the  successive  and  according  testimonies  of 
all  that  is  truly  authoritative  in  those  illustrious  ages 
which  furnished  so  many  imperishable  writings  fbrllie 
edification  of  the  ruiiirecliurch,  and  so  many  martyrs 
and  confessors  of  "  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus." 

Among  the  numerous  errors,  with  respect  to  the 
Person  of  our  Lord,  wliich  formerly  sprung  up  in  the 
Church,  and  were  opposed,  with  an  ever  watchful  zeal, 
by  its  authorities,  three  only  can  be  said  to  have  much 
influence  in  the  present  day,  Arianism,  Sabellianism, 
and  Socinianism.  In  our  own  country,  the  two  former 
are  almost  entirely  merged  in  the  last,  whose  cliaracter- 
istic  is  the  tenet  of  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ. 
Amis,  wlio  gave  hi.s  name  to  the  first,  seems  to  have 
wrought  some  of  the  floating  errors  of  previous  times  into 
a  kind  of  system,  wiiich,  however,  underwent  various 
modifications  among  his  Ibllovi'ers.  The  distinguish- 
ing tenet  of  this  system  was,  that  Christ  was  the  first 
and  most  exalted  of  creatures ;  that  he  was  produced 
in  a  peculiar  manner,  and  endowed  with  great  perfec- 
tions ;  that  by  him  God  made  the  world ;  that  he  alone 
proceeded  immediately  from  God,  while  other  things 
were  produced  mediately  by  him,  and  that  all  things 
were  put  under  his  administration.  The  semi-Arians 
divided  from  the  Arians,  but  still  differed  from  the  or- 
thodox, in  refusing  to  admit  that  the  Son  was  homooii- 
siox,  or  of  the  same  substance  with  the  Father  ;  but 
acknowledged  him  to  be  hwnoioiisios,  of  a  like  sub- 
stance svith  the  Father.  It  was  only,  however,  in  ap- 
pearance that  they  came  nearer  to  the  truth  than  the 
Arians  themselves,  for  they  contended  that  this  likeness 
to  the  Father  in  essence  was  not  by  nature,  but  by  pe- 
culiar privilege.  In  their  system  Christ,  therefore,  was 
but  a  creature.  A  still  farther  refinement  on  this  doc- 
trine was,  in  this  country,  advocated  by  Dr.  Samuel 
Clarke,  which  Dr.  Waterland,  his  great  and  illustrious 
opponent,  showed,  notwithstanding  the  orthodox  terms 
employed,  still  implied  that  Christ  was  a  created  being 
unless  an  evident  absurdity  were  admitted.(9) 

The  .Sabellian  doctrine  stands  equally  opposed  to 
Trinitarianism  and  to  the  Arian  system.  It  asserts  the 
Divinity  of  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  against  the  latter,  and 
denies  the  personality  of  both,  in  opposition  to  the  for- 
mer. Sabellius  taught  that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost  are  only  denominations  of  one  hypostasis ;  in 
other  words,  that  there  is  but  one  person  in  the  God- 
head, and  that  the  Son  or  Word  are  virtues,  emana- 
tions, or  functions  only :  that,  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, God  delivered  the  law  as  Father ;  under  the  New, 
dwelt  among  men,  or  was  incarnate,  as  the  Son ;  and 
descended  on  the  apostles  as  the  Spirit.  Because  their 
scheme,  by  denying  a  real  Sonship,  obliged  them  to 
acknowledge  that  it  was  the  Father  wlio  suffered  lor 
the  sins  of  men,  the  Sabellians  were  oflen,  in  the  early 
ages,  called  Patripassians. 

On  the  refutation  of  these  errors  it  is  not  necessary 
to  dwell,  both  because  they  have  now  little  influence, 
and  chiefly  because  both  are  involved  in  the  Soeinian 
(luestion,  and  are  decided  by  the  establishment  of  the 
Scriptural  doctrine  of  a  Trinity  of  Divine  Persons  in 
the  unity  of  the  Godhead.  If  Jesus  Christ  be  the  Di- 
vine Son  of  God  ;  if  he  were  "  sent"  from  God  and  "  re- 
turned'' to  God ;  if  he  distinguished  liimself  from  the 
Father  both  in  his  Divine  and  human  nature,  saying, 
as  to  the  former,  "  1  and  my  Father  are  onk,"  and  as  to 
the  latter,  "  My  Father  is  greatkr  than  I ;"  if  there  be 
any  meaning  at  all  in  his  declaration,  "  that  no  man 
knowcth  the  Son  but  the  Father,  and  no  man  knoweth 
the  Father  but  the  Son,"  words  which  cannot,  by  any 
possibility,  be  spoken  of  an  official  distinction,  or  of  an 
e?nanation  or  uperution ,  then  all  these  passages  prove 
a  real  personality,  and  are  incapable  of  being  explained 
tjy  a  modal  one.    This  is  the  answer  to  the  Sabellian 

(9)  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke's  hypothesis  was,  that  there 
is  one  Supreme  Being,  who  is  the  Father,  and  two  sub- 
ordinate, derived,  and  dependent  beings.  But  he  ob- 
jected to  call  Christ  a  creature,  thinking  him  something 
between  a  created  and  a  self-exislent  nature.  Dr.  (;. 
appealed  to  the  fathers  ;  and  IVlavius,  a  learned  Jesuit, 
in  his  Dogmata  Theologir.a,  had  previously  endeavoured 
to  prove  that  the  ante-Nicene  fathers  leaned  to  Arlau- 
ism.  Bishop  Bull,  in  his  great  work  on  this  subject, 
and  Dr.  Waterland,  may  be  considered  as  having  fullv 
put  that  question  to  rest  in  opposition  to  both.  ' 


opinion ;  and  as  to  the  Arian  hypothesis,  it  falls,  with  Soci- 
nianism, before  that  series  of  proofs  which  has  already 
been  adduced  from  holy  writ,  toestablisli  the  eternity, 
consubstantiality,  coofiuality,  and,  consc()uently,  the 
proper  Divinity  of  our  Redeemer;  and,  perhaps,  the  true 
reason  why  not  even  the  senii-Arianisni,  argued  with 
so  much  subtlety  by  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke,  has  been  able 
to  retain  luy  influence  ainongus,  is  less  to  be  attributed 
to  the  able  and  learned  writings  of  Dr.  Waterland  and 
others,  who  chased  the  error  through  all  its  changeful 
transfonnations,  than  to  the  manifest  impossiliility  of 
conceiving  of  a  being  which  is  neither  truly  t;od  nor  a 
creature  ;  and  the  total  absence  of  all  countenance  in 
the  Scriptures,  however  tortured,  in  favour  of  this  opi- 
nion. Socinianism  assumes  a  plausibility  in  some  of 
its  aspects,  because  Christ  was  really  a  man  ;  but  semi- 
Ariaiiisin  is  a  mere  hypothesis,  wlucli  can  scarcely  find 
a  text  of  Scripture  to  pervert. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

The  Personality  and  Deity  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  discussion  of  this  great  point  of  Christian  doc- 
trine may  be  included  in  much  narrower  limits  than 
those  I  have  assigned  to  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  so  many 
of  the  principles  on  which  it  rests  having  been  closely 
considered,  and  because  the  Deity  of  the  Spirit,  in  seve- 
ral instances,  inevitably  follows  from  that  of  the  Son. 
As  the  object  nf  this  work  is  to  educe  the  doctrine  of 
the  sacred  Scriptures  on  all  the  leading  articles  of  fiiith, 
it  will,  however,  be  necessary  to  show  the  evidence 
which  is  there  given  to  the  two  propositions  in  the  title 
of  the  chapter  :— that  the  Holy  Ghost  (from  the  Saxon 
word  Gast,  a  Spirit)  is  a  Person  ;  and  that  he  is  God. 

As  to  the  manner  of  his  being,  the  orthodox  doctrine 
is,  that  as  Christ  is  God,  by  an  eternal  filiation,  so 
the  Spirit  is  God  by  procession  from  the  Father  and  the 
Son.  "  And  I  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Lord  and 
giver  of  life,  who  proceedeth  from  the  Father  and  the 
Son,  who,  with  the  Father  and  Son  together,  is  wor- 
shipped and  glorified. "(1)  "The  Holy  Ghost  is  of  the 
Father  and  of  the  Son,  neither  made,  nor  created,  nor 
begotten,  but  proceeding .''{"i)  "  The  Holy  Ghost,  pro- 
ceeding from  the  Father  and  the  .Son,  is  of  one  sub- 
stance, majesty,  and  glory  with  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
very  and  eternal  God."(3)  The  Latin  church  intro- 
duced the  term  spiration,  from  spiro,  to  breathe,  to  de- 
note the  manner  of  this  procession;  on  which  Dr. 
Owen  remarks,  "as  the  vital  breath  of  a  man  has  a 
continual  emanation  from  him,  and  yet  is  never  .sejia- 
rated  utterly  from  his  person  or  forsaketh  him,  so  doth 
the  Spirit  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  proi-eed  from  them 
by  a  continual  Divine  emanation,  still  abiding  one  with 
them."  On  this  refined  view  little  can  be  said  which 
has  obvious  Scriptural  authority ;  and  yet  the  very  term 
by  which  Jhe  third  Person  in  the  Trinity  is  designated 
WIND  or  BKEATii  may,  as  to  the  third  Person,  be  de- 
signed, like  the  term  Son  applied  to. the  second,  to  con- 
vey, though  imperfectly,  some  inlimationofthat  man- 
ner of  being  by  irkiclt  both  are  distinguished  from  each 
other,  and  from  the  Father;  and  it  was  a  remarkable 
action  of  our  Lord,  and  one  certainly  which  does  not 
discountenance  this  idea,  that  when  he  imparted  the 
Holy  Gho.st  to  his  disciples,  "he  breathed  on  tliem, 
and  saith  unto  them,  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost,"  John 
.XX.  22.(4) 

But  whatever  we  may  think  as  to  the  doctrine  of 
"  spiration,"  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost  rests 
on  direct  Scriptural  authority,  and  is  thus  stated  by 
Bishop  Pearson : 

"Kowthis  procession  of  the  Spirit,  in  reference  to 
the  Father,  is  delivered  expressly,  in  relation  to  the  Son, 
and  is  contained  virtually  in  the  Scriptures.  First,  it  is 
expressly  said,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  proceedeth  from 


(1)  Nicene  Creed.  (2)  Athanasian  Creed. 

(3)  Articles  of  the  English  Church. 

(4)  "  The  Father  hath  relation  to  the  Son,  as  the  Fa- 
ther of  the  Son  ;  the  Son  to  the  Father,  as  the  Son  of 
the  Father;  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  being  the  spirit  or 
breath  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  tohotli."— Lawson's 
Theo.  Pol.  But  though  breath  or  wind  is  the  radical 
signification  of  nvcvua,  as  also  of  spiritus,  yet,  proba- 
bly from  its  sacredness,  it  is  but  rarely  used  m  that 
sense  in  theNewTestumcnt. 


222 


THEOLOGICAL  LXSTITUTES. 


[Part  11. 


the  Father,  as  our  Saviour  testiiielh,  '  When  tlic  Com- 
forter is  c'orrie,  whom  1  will  sfiul  qnio  you  from  the 
Father,  oven  the  Spirit  of  truth,  wliiih  proceedeth  from 
the  Father,  he  shall  testily  of  me,'  John  xv.  20.  And 
this  is  also  evident  troiri  what  hath  been  already  as- 
serted :  for  being  the  Father  and  the  Spirit  are  tlie  same 
God,  and  being  so  the  s;»me  hi  the  unity  of  the  nature  of 
God,  are  yet  distinct  in  the  personality,  one  of  them 
must  have  the  same  nature  fronj  the  otlier ;  and  be- 
cause the  Fattier  hath  been  already  shown  to  have  it 
from  none,  it  fiillowcth  that  the  Spirit  hath  it  from  him. 

"Secondly,  tliou;rh  it  be  not  e.\pressly  sjiokeii  in  tlie 
Scripture,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  proceedetli  from  the  Fa- 
ther and  Son,  yet  the  substance  of  the  same  truth  is 
virtually  contained  there;  because  those  very  ex |ires- 
sions  which  are  spoken  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  relation 
to  the  Father,  for  that  reason  because  lie  proceedeth  froiTi 
the  Father,  are  al.so  spoken  of  the  same  Spirit  in  re- 
lation to  the  Son  ;  and  tlierelbre  there  must  tie  the  same 
reason  presupposed  in  reference  to  the  Son,  which  is 
expressed  in  reference  to  the  Father.  I5ecause  the 
Spirit  proceedetli  from  the  Fatlier,  therefore  it  is  called 
the  Spirit  of  (Sod  and  tlie  Spirit  of  tlie  Father.  '  It  is 
not  ye  that  speak,  but  the  Spirit  of  your  F'ather  vvliich 
speaketh  in  you,'  Malt.  x.  20.  For  by  the  language  of 
the  apostle,  the  Spirit  of  God  is  the  Spirit  which  is  of 
God,  saying,  'The  things  of  God  knowelh  no  man  but 
the  Spirit  of  God.  And  we  have  received  not  the 
spirit  of  the  world,  but  the  Spirit  which  is  of  (;od,'  I 
Cor.  ii.  11,  12.  Now  the  same  Spirit  is  also  called  the 
Spirit  of  tlie  Son  ;  for  '  because  we  are  sons,  God  hath 
sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  our  hearts,'  Gal. 
iv.  6  :  the  Spirit  of  Christ ;  '  Now  if  any  man  have  not 
the  Spirit  of  (Jhnst,  he  is  none  of  his,'  Rom.  viii.  1) ; 
'  even  the  Spirit  of  Christ  which  was  in  the  prophets,' 
1  Peter  i.  1 1  ;  the  Spirit  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  apostle 
speaks, '  I  know  that  this  shall  turn  to  my  salvation 
through  your  prayer,  and  the  supply  of  the  Sjiirit  of 
Je.sus  Christ,'  Phil.  i.  19.  Tf  then  the  Holy  Ghost  be 
called  the  Spirit  of  the  Father,  because  he  proceedeth 
from  the  Father,  it  followetli  iliat,  being  called  also  the 
Spirit  of  the  Son,  he  proceedeth  also  from  the  Son. 

•'  Again :  because  the  Holy  (Jhost  proceedeth  from 
the  Father,  he  is  therefore  sent  by  the  Father,  as  from 
him  who  hath,  by  the  original  communication,  a  riglit 
of  mission  ;as  '  tiie  Comforter,  which  is  the  Holy  Ghost, 
whom  the  Father  will  send,'  .lolin  xiv.  26.  Itut  the 
same  Spirit  which  is  sent  by  the  Father,  is  also  sent 
by  the  Son,  as  he  saith,  '  When  the  Comforter  is  come, 
whom  I  will  send  unto  you.'  Tlierelbre  the  Son  hath 
the  sanre  right  of  mission  with  the  Father,  and  conse- 
quently must'Deacknowled^ied  to  h;iye  communicated 
the  same  essence.^  'llie  I'allii'r  is  never  sent  by  the 
Son,  because  he  receuell'^tot  the  Godhead  from  him  ; 
but  the  Father  seiuhmi  the  Son,  because  he  comnnini- 
cated  the  Godhead  to  him :  in  the  same  manner,  nei- 
ther the  Father  nor  the  Son  is  ever  sent  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  ;  because  neither  of  them  received  the  J)ivinc  na- 
ture from  the  SpiriV:  but  botli  the  Father  and  the  Son 
sendeth  the  Uolvyoiost,  because  the  Divine  nature, 
common  to  both  the  Father  and  the  Son,  was  commu- 
liioaled  by  them  both  to  the  Holy  Ghost.  As  therefore 
the  Scriptures  dcclari!  expressly,  that  the  Spirit  [iro- 
ceedeth  from  the  Father ;  so  do  they  also  virtually  teach, 
that  he  iiroceedelh  from  the  Son."(5) 

in  opposnioM  to  the  Doctrine  of  the  Personality  and 
Deity  of  the  Sinril,  stands  the  Socinian  hypothesis, 
which  I  slate  before  the  evidence  from  Scrijilure  is 
adduced,  that  it  may  be  seen,  upon  examination  of 
inspired  testimony,  how  far  it  is  supported  by  that  au- 
thority. Ariis  regarded  the  Sjiirit  not  only  as  a  crea- 
ture, but  as  created  by  Christ,  ktiohh  KTiaiiaroi,  the 
creature  of  a  creature.  Some  lime  afterward,  his  Per- 
sonality was  wholly  denied  by  the  Arians.  and  he  was 
consiilered  as  the  i-.rirlid  energy  of  f;od.  This  appears 
to  hav(^  been  the  notion  of  Socinus,  and  with  occasional 
niodiliialions,  has  been  adojiled  by  his  Ibllowers.  They 
soiiieliiiies  regard  him  as  an  .-iltriliule,  and  at  others 
resolve  the  passages  in  which  he  is  spoken  of  into  a 
lierijihrasis,  or  circumlocution  f()r  (;od  himself;  or,  to 
express  bolli  in  one,  into  a  figure  of  sjicech. 

In  establishing  the  proper  Personality  and  Deily  of 
the  Holy  (;host,  the  first  argument  is  drawn  from  the 
frequent  association,  in  Scripture;,  of  a  Person,  under 
that  appellation,  whh  two  other  Persons,  ono  of  whom. 


(5)  Discourses  on  the  Creed. 


"  the  Father,"  is  by  all  acknowledged  to  be  Divine  ; 
and  the  ascription  to  each  of  them,  or  to  the  three  in 
union,  of  the  same  acts,  titles,  and  authority,  with  wor- 
sliip  of  the  same  kind,  and,  for  any  distinction  that  is 
made,  in  an  equal  degree.  Tliis  argument  has  already 
been  applied  to  establish  the  Divinity  of  the  Son,  whose 
Personality  is  not  questioned  ;  and  the  terms  of  the 
proposition  may  be  as  satisfactorily  established  as  to 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  will  prove  at  the  same  time  both 
his  Personality  and  his  Divinity. 

With  respect  to  the  Son,  we  have  seen  that,  as  so 
great  and  fundamental  a  doctrine  as  liis  Deity  might 
naturally  be  ex])ected  to  be  announced  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament revelation,  though  its  full  manifestation  should 
be  reserved  to  the  New  ;  so  it  was,  in  fact,  not  faintly 
shadowed  forth,  but  disjilayed  with  so  much  clearness 
as  to  become  an  article  of  faith  in  the  Jewish  Church. 
The  manifestation  of  the  existence  and  Divinity  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  may  also  be  expected  in  the  law  and  the 
prophets,  and  is,  in  fact,  to  be  traced  there  with  ecjual 
certainty.  The  Si-irit  is  represented  as  an  agent  in 
creation,  "  moving  upon  the  face  of  the  waters;"  and 
it  forms  no  objection  to  the  argument,  that  creation  is 
ascribed  to  the  Father,  and  also  to  the  Son,  but  a  great 
confirmation  of  it.  That  creation  should  be  efl'ecled  by 
all  the  three  Persons  of  the  Godhead,  though  acting  in 
different  respects,  yet  so  that  each  should  be  a  Creutnr, 
and,  therefore,  both  a  Person,  and  a  Divine  Person,  can 
be  explained  only  by  their  unity  in  one  essence.  On 
every  other  hy])otliesis  this  Scriptural  fact  is  disal- 
lowed, and  therefore  no  other  hypothesis  can  be  true. 
If  the  Spirit  of  God  be  a  mere  influence,  then  he  is  not 
a  Creator,  distinct  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  be- 
cause he  is  not  a  Person  ;  but  this  is  refuted,  both  by 
the  passage  just  quoted  and  by  Psalm  x.xxhi.  6,  "  By 
the  WiiRD  OF  TiiK  Lord  were  the  heavens  made  ;  and 
all  the  ho.st  of  them  by  the  breath  (Heb.  Spirit^  of  his 
mouth."  This  is  farther  confirmed  by  Job  xxxiii.  4,  the 
"Spirit  of  God  hath  made  me,  and  the  breath  of  the 
Abmslity  hath  given  me  life ;"  where  the  second  clause 
is  obviously  exegetic  of  the  former,  and  the  whole  text 
proves  that,  in  the  jiatriarchal  age,  the  fiiUowers  of  the 
true  religion  ascribed  creation  to  tne  Spirit,  as  well  as 
to  the  Father ;  and  that  one  of  his  api)ellat!ons  was 
"the  Brk.vtii  of  the  Almighty."  Did  such  pa.ssages 
stand  alone,  there  might,  indeed,  be  some  plausibility 
in  tlie  criticism  which  .solves  them  by  a  per.somlication  ; 
but,  connected  as  they  arc  with  that  whole  body  of 
evidence,  which  has  been  and  shall  be  adduced,  as  to 
the  concurring  doctrine  of  both  Testaments,  they  are 
inexpugnable.  Again :  if  the  Personality  of  the  Son 
and  the  Spirit  be  allowed,  and  yet  it  is  contended  that 
they  were  but  inxtrvments  in  creation,  through  whom 
the  creative  power  of  another  operated,  but  which  crea- 
tive power  was  not  possessed  by  them :  on  this  )iy[(0- 
tliesis,  too,  neither  the  Spirit  nor  the  Son  can  be  said 
to  create,  any  more  than  Moses  created  the  serpent  into 
which  his  rod  was  turned,  and  the  Scriptures  arc 
again  contradicted.  To  this  association  of  the  three 
I'ersons  in  creative  acts  may  be  added  a  like  associa- 
tion in  acts  of  imieskrvation,  which  has  been  well 
(ailed  a  continued  creation,  and  by  that  term  is  ex- 
prf.'ssed  in  the  following  passage :  Psalm  civ.  27 — 30, 
"  These  wait  all  njion  thee,  that  thou  mayest  give  them 
their  meal  in  due  season.  Thou  hidest  thy  face,  they 
tre  troubled ;  thou  lakest  away  their  breath,  they  die, 
and  return  to  dust ;  tliou  sknuicst  forth  thv  Spirit, 
tliey  are  created,  and  thou  renewest  the  lace  of  the 
earth."  It  is  not  surely  here  meant  that  the  Sjiirit,  by 
which  the  generations  of  animals  are  perpetuated,  i.s 
irind ;  and  "if  he  be  called  an  attribute,  wisdom,  jxiwer, 
or  both  united,  where  do  we  read  of  such  attributes, 
being  "  sent,"  "  sent  forth  from  Goil  ?"  The  Person- 
ality of  the  Spirit  is  here  as  clearly  marked  as  when 
St.  Paul  speaks  of  God  "  sending  forth  the  Spirit  of  his 
Son,"  and  whfjii  our  Lord  pronases  to  '•  fiend"  the 
Comforter  ;  and  as  the  upholding  and  jirc serving  of 
created  things  is  ascribed  to  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
so  here  they  are  ascribed  also  to  the  Spirit,  "seiil  forth 
from"  God  to  "  create  and  renew  the  face  of  the  earth."  • 

The  next  association  of  the  three  Persons  we  find  in 
the  insjiirntion  of  the  jirophets.  "  Gon  sjiake  unto  our 
fathers  bv  the  prophets."  says  St.  Paul,  Heb.  i.  I.  St. 
Peter  (U'clarcs,  that  these  "  hoh  men  of  God  spake  as 
tlw'y  were  moved  by  the  Hoi.v  (iiiosT,"  2  Pel.  i.  21  ; 
and  also  that  if  was  "  the  Spirit  of  Christ  which  was 
in  them,"  1  Pet.  i.  11.    Wc  may  defy  any  Sociniun  to 


Chap.  XVII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


223 


interpret  these  three  passages  hy  making  the  Spirit  an 
influence  or  attribute,  and  tliorcby  reducing  tlie  term 
Holy  Ghost  into  a  figuTc  o("  speech.  "  God,"  in  the 
first  passage,  is,  nn(iucslionably,  God  the  Father,  and 
the  "  holy  men  of  (iod,"  the  prophets,  would  then,  ac- 
cording to  this  view,  be  moved  by  the  i-iijiiu-ncc  ol  the 
Father;  but  the  influence,  according  to 'the  third  pas- 
sage, which  was  the  source  of  their  inspiration,  was 
the  Spirit,  or  the  influence  of"  Christ."  Thus  the  pas- 
sages contradict  each  other.  Allow  the  Trinity  in 
unity,  .and  you  have  no  ditficulty  in  calling  the  Spirit, 
the  Sjiirit  of  the  l''ather,  and  the  S])irit  of  the  Son,  or 
the  Spirit  of  either;  but  if  the  Spirit  be  an  influence, 
that  influeiKe  cannot  be  the  influence  of  two  persons, 
one  God  and  the  other  a  creature.  Even  if  they  allowed 
the  pre-e.\istence  of  Christ,  with  Arians,  the  passages 
are  inexplicable  by  Socinians ;  but,  denying  his  pre- 
cxistence,  they  have  no  subterfUge  but  to  interpret  "  the 
Spirit  of  Christ,"  the  spirit  which  prophesied  of  Christ, (6) 
which  is  a  purely  gratuitous  paraphrase  ;  or  "  the 
spirit  of  an  anointed  one,  or  prophet;'"  that  is,  the 
prophet's  own  spirit,  which  is  just  as  gratuitous,  and 
as  unsupported  by  any  parallel,  as  the  former.  If, 
however,  the  Holy  Spirit  be  the  Spirit  of  the  Father  and 
of  the  Son,  iniited  in  one  essence,  the  passages  are 
easily  harmonized.  In  conjunction  with  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  he  is  the  source  of  that  prophetic  inspira- 
tion under  which  the  proi)hets  spoke  and  acted.  So  the 
same  SriRir  which  raised  Christ  from  the  dead  is  said 
by  St.  Peter  to  have  preached  by  Noah,  while  the  ark 
was  preparing,  an  allusion  to  the  passage,  "  My  Spirit 
shall  not  always  strwe  {contend,  debate)  with  man." 
This,  we  may  observe,  aflbrds  an  eminent  proof,  that 
the  writers  of  tlie  New  Testament  understood  the 
phrase  "  the  Spirit  of  God,"  as  it  occurs  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, personally.  For,  whatever  may  be  the  full 
meaning  of  that  difficult  passage  in  St.  Peter,  Christ  is 
clearly  declared  to  have  preached  by  the  Spirit  in  the 
days  of  Noah ;  that  is,  he,  by  the  Spirit,  inspired  Noah 
to  preach.  If,  then,  the  apostles  understood  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  was  a  Person,  a  point  which  will  presently 
be  established,  we  have,  in  the  text  just  quoted  from 
the  book  of  Genesis,  a  key  to  the  meatiing  of  those  texts 
in  the  Old  Testament,  wliere  the  phrases  "  My  Spirit,' 
"  the  Spirit  of  God,"  and  "  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord," 
occur ;  and  inspired  authority  is  thus  afforded  us  to 
interpret  them  as  of  a  Person;  and  if  of  a  Person,  the 
very  effort  made  by  Socinians  to  deny  his  Personality, 
itself  indicates  that  that  Person  must,  from  the  lofty 
titles  and  works  ascribed  to  him,  be  inevitably  Divine. 
Such  phrases  occur  in  many  passages  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures ;  but  in  the  following  the  Spirit  is  also  emi- 
nently distinguished  from  two  other  Persons.  "  And 
now  the  Lord  God  and  his  Spirit  hath  sent  me," 
Isaiah  xlviii.  16  ;  or,  rendered  better,  "  hath  sentMK  and 
his  Spirit,"  both  terms  being  in  the  accusative  case. 
"  Seek  ye  out  of  the  book  of  the  Lord,  and  read  :— for  my 
mouth  it  hath  commanded,  and  iiis  Spirit  it  hath 
gathered  them,"  Isaiah  xxxiv.  16.  "  I  am  with  you, 
said  the  Lord  of  Hosts  :  according  to  the  word  that 
I  covenanted  with  yon  when  ye  came  out  of  Egypt, 
so  Mv  Spirit  remaineth  among  you ;  fear  ye  not.  For 
thus  sailh  the  LdRii  of  Hosts, — I  will  shake  all  na- 
tions, and  the  Dk?ire  of  all  N.4.tions  shall  come," 
Haggai  ii.  4 — 7.  Here,  also,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is 
seen  collocated  with  the  Lord  of  Hosts  and  the  De- 
sire OF  .\i.i.  Nations,  who  is  the  Messiah.  For  other 
instances  of  the  indication  ofa  trinity  of  Divine  Persons 
in  the  C)ld  Testament,  see  chap.  9. 

Three  Persons,  and  three  only,  are  associated  also, 
both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  as  objects  of 
supreme  worship ;  as  the  one  name  in  which  the  reli- 
gious act  of  solemn  benediction  is  performed,  and  to 
which  men  are  bound  by  solemn  religious  covenant. 

In  the  plural  (brin  of  the  name  of  God,  which  has 
already  been  considered,(7)  each  received  equal  adora- 
tion. That  threefold  Personality  seems  to  have  given 
rise  to  the  standingformof  triple  benediction  used  by  the 
Jewish  high  priest,  also  before  mentioned.(8)  The  very 
important  fact,  that,  in  the  vision  of  Isaiah,  chapter  vi. 
the  Lord  of  Hosts,  who  spake  unto  the  prophet,  is,  in 
Acts  xxviii.  25,  said  to  be  the  Hoi.\  Ghost  who  spake 
to  the  prophet,  while  St.  .Ichn  declares  that  the  glory 
which  laaiah  saw  was  the  g^tory  o/ Christ,  proves, 

(6)  New  Version  in  loc. 

(7)  Chap.  9.  (8)  Ibid. 


indisputably,(',))  that  each  of  the  three  Persons  bears 
this  august  ajiiiclhition  ;  it  gives  also  the  reason  for  the 
threefold  rejietition  "  Hoi.v,  Itoi.v,  IIolv,"  and  it  e.v- 
hibits  the  prophet  and  the  very  seraphs  in  deep  and 
awlul  adoration  before  the  Triune  Lord  of  Ilo.sts.  Both 
the  prophet  and  the  seraphim  were,  therelore,  worship- 
pers of'the  Holy  Ghost  and  of  the  Son,  at  the  very  lime 
and  by  the  very  acts  in  which  they  worshipped  the  P'a- 
ther,  which  proves  that,  as  the  three  Persons  received 
ecjual  homage  in  a  case  whicli  does  not  admit  of  the  eva- 
sion of  pretended  superior  and  interior  worship,  they 
are  equal  in  majesty,  glory,  and  essence. 

As  in  the  tabernacle  form  of  benediclion,  the  Triune 
Jehovah  is  recognised  as  the  source  of  all  grace  and 
peace  to  his  creatures ;  so  in  apostolic  formula  of  bless- 
ing, "The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  love 
of  God,  and  the  t  cmminion  of  the  Holy  Spirit  be 
with  you  all.  Amen."  Here  the  personality  of  the  three 
is  kept  distinct,  and  the  prayer  to  the  three  is,  that 
Christians  may  have  a  common  participation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  that  is,  doubtless,  as  he  was  promised  by 
our  Lord  to  his  disciples,  as  a  comforter,  as  the  source 
of  light  and  .spiritual  life,  as  the  author  of  regeneration. 
Thus  the  Spirit  is  acknowledged,  equally  with  the  Fa- 
ther and  the  Son,  to  be  the  source  and  the  giver  of  the 
highest  spiritual  blessings,  while  this  solemn  minis- 
terial benediction  is,  from  its  specific  character,  to  be 
regarded  as  an  act  of  prayer  to  each  of  the  three  per- 
sons, and  therefore  is,  at  once,  an  acknowledgment  of 
the  Divinity  and  personality  of  each.  The  same  remark 
applies  to  Rev.  i.  4,  5,  "  Grace  be  unto  you  and  peace 
from  Him  which  was,  and  which  is,  and  which  is  to 
come  ;  and  from  the  seven  spirits  which  are  before  his 
throne"  (an  emblematical  representation,  in  reference, 
probably  to  the  golden  branch  with  its  seven  lamps). 
"  and  from  Jesus  Christ."  The  st>  le  of  the  book  suffi- 
ciently accounts  for  the  Holy  Spirit  being  called  "  the 
seven  Spirits ;"  but  no  created  spirit  or  company  of 
created  spirits  are  ever  spoken  of  under  that  appella- 
tion ;  and  the  place  assigned  to  the  seven  spirits  be- 
tween the  mention  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  indicates, 
with  certainty,  that  one  of  the  sacred  Three,  so  emi- 
nent, and  so  exclusively  eminent  in  both  dispensations, 
is  intended 

The  form  of  baptism  next  presents  itself  with  de- 
monstrative evidence  on  the  two  points  before  us.  the 
Personality  and  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  the 
form  of  (OVEN  ANT  by  which  the  sacred  Three  become 
our  ONE  or  only  God,  and  we  become  his  people.  "  Go 
ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in 
THE  NAME  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Hni,v  Ghost."  In  what  manner  is  this  text  to  be  dis- 
posed of,  if  the  Personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  denied  .' 
Is  the  form  of  baptism  to  be  so  understood  as  to  imply 
that  it  is  baptism  in  the  name  of  one  Gud,  one  creature 
and  one  attribute  ?  The  grossness  of  this  absurdity 
refutes  it,  and  proves  that  here,  at  least,  there  can  be 
no  personification.  If  all  the  three,  therefore,  are  per- 
sons, are  we  to  make  Cllristian  Baptism  a  baptism  in 
the  name  of  one  God  and  two  creatures  ?— This  would 
be  too  near  an  approach  to  idolatry,  or  rather,  it  would 
be  idolatry  itself ;  for,  considering  baptism  as  an  act 
of  dedication  to  God,  the  acceptance  of  God  as  our  God, 
on  our  part,  and  the  renun  iation  of  all  other  deities 
and  all  other  religions,  what  could  a  heathen  convert 
conceive  of  the  two  creatures  so  di.stinguished  from  all 
other  creatures  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  and  so  asso- 
ciated with  God  himself  as  to  form  together  the  ane  name, 
to  which,  by  that  act,  he  was  devoted,  and  which  he 
was  henceforward  to  profess  and  honour,  but  that  they 
were  equally  Divine,  unless  special  care  were  taken  to 
instruct  liim  that  but  one  of  the  three  was  God,  and  the 
two  others  but  creatures  ?  But  of  this  care,  of  this  cau- 
tionary instruction,  though  so  obviously  necessary  upon 
this  theory,  no  single  instance  can  be  given  in  all  the 
writings  of  the  apostles. 

Baptism  was  not  a  new  rite.  It  was  used  as  a  reli- 
gious act  among  heathens,  and  especially  before  initia- 
tion into  their  mysteries.  Pro.selytes  to  the  law  of 
Moses  were,  probably,  received  by  baptism ;  whether 
in,  or  into,  the  name  of  the  God  of  Israel  does  not  ap- 
pear;(l)  but  necessarily  on  professing  their  faith  in  him 

(9)  Chap.  9. 

(1)  The  baptism  of  Jewish  pro.selytes  is  a  disputed 
point.  It  wns  sticnuoiisly  maiiilaincd  by  Dr.  Lioht- 
roor,  and  opposed  by  Dr.  Bicnsun.    Wall  has.  how- 


224 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


as  the  true  and  only  Ood.  John,  the  forerunner  of  our 
Lord,  hapti/.cd,  but  it  does  not  appear  tliat  ho  bajilized 
in.  the  name  or  into  the  name  of  aiiy  one.  Tltis  bajitisni 
was  to  all  but  our  Lord,  who  needed  it  not,  a  baiilisni 
unto  repentance,"  that  is,  on  prolcssion  of  repenlance, 
to  be  followed  by  ''  fruits  meet  lor  r<  pcntance,"  and 
into  the  expectation  of  tlie  siieedyapiiroiuli  of  Messiah. 
But  Christian  baptism  was  directed  to  be  in  the  na.mk 
of  three  Persons,  which  peculiarity  implies,  first,  the 
form  of  words  to  be  used  by  the  adnmiistralion  ;  second, 
tlie  authority  conveyed  to  receive  such  persons  as  had 
been  made  disciples  into  the  church,  and,  consequently, 
into  covenant  with  God ;  third,  the  failk  required  of 
the  person  baptized,  faith  in  the  existence  of  Kather, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  and  in  their  character  according 
totlie  revelation  madeofeach,  first, by  inspired  teachers, 
and  in  alter-tiines  by  their  writings;  and,  fourth,  co/tw- 
cration  to  the  service  of  the  three  |icr.soiis,  liavin;;  one 
name,  which  could  be  no  dtlier  than  that  of  tlie  one 
God.  What  stronger  proof  of  the  Divinity  of  each  can 
be  given  than  in  this  single  passage.  The/orm  exhi- 
bits three  Persons,  without  any  note  of  superiority  or 
inferiority,  except  that  of  the  mere  order  in  which  they 
are  i)laced.  It  conveys  authority  in  the  united  name, 
and  the  authority  is,  therefore,  equal.  It  supposes /oiVA, 
that  is,  not  merely  belief,  but,  as  the  object  of  religious 
profession  and  adherence,  trust  in  each,  or  collectively 
in  the  one  name  which  iniites  the  three  in  one ;  yet 
that  which  is  Divine  only  can  be  properly  the  object  of 
religious  truth.  It  implies  devotion  to  the  service  of 
each,  the  yielding  of  obedience,  the  consecration  of 
every  power  of  mind  and  body  to  each,  and  therefore 
each  must  have  an  equal  right  to  this  surrender  and  to 
the  authority  winch  it  implies. 

It  has  been  objected,  that  hajilism  is,  in  the  book  of 
Acts,  frequently  mentioned  as  biiplisni  "in  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus"  sinijily,  and  from  hence  the  Sociiiians 
would  infer  that  the  formula  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  Mat- 
thew was  not  in  use.  If  this  were  so,  it  would  only 
conclude  against  the  use  of  the  words  of  our  Lord  as 
the  standing  form  of  baptism,  but  would  prove  nothing 
against  the  s«g^>i//!cn/tci/ of  baptism  in  whatever  Ibrm  it 
might  be  administered.  For  as  this  passage  in  St. 
Matthew  was  the  oria:inal  commission  under  w-liich, 
alone,  the  apostles  had  authority  to  baptize  at  all,  the 
import  of  the  rite  is  marked  out  in  it,  and  whatever 
words  they  tiscd  in  baptism,  they  were  found  to  ex- 
plain the  import  of  the  rite,  as  laid  down  by  their  mas- 
ter, to  all  disciiiles  so  received.  But,  from  the  passages 
adduced  from  the  Acts,  the  inference  that  the  Ibrm  of 
baptism  given  in  Matthew  was  not  rigorously  followed 
by  the  apostles  does  not  follow,  "  because  the  earliest 
Christian  writers  inform  us,  that  this  solemn  form  of 
expression  was  uniformly  employed  from  the  beginning 
of  the  Christian  church.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the 
apostle  Peter  said  to  those  who  were  converted  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  Acts  ii.  38,'  IJepcut,  and  be  bajitized 
every  one  of  you  in  thenamcof.lesus  t'linst ;'  audthat, 
in  dilicr.nt  places  of  the  book  of  Acts,  it  is  said  that 
persons  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus; 
but  there  is  internal  evidence  from  the  New  Testament 
itself,  that  when  the  hi.storian  says,  that  persons  were 
baptised  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  he  means  they 
were  baptized  according  to  tli(^  Ibrm  iirtscnlied  by  Je- 
sus. Thus,  the  (jueslion  put.  Acts  xix.  3, '  Unto  what 
then  were  ye  baptized  V  shows  that  he  did  not  suppose 
it  possible  lor  any  person  who  administered  Cliristian 
baptism  to  omil  the  mention  of  '  the  Holy  Ghost ;'  and 
even  afler  the  ijuestion,  the  historian,  when  he  informs 
us  that  the  disciples  were  baptized,  is  not  solicitous  to 
rejMjat  the  whole  Ibrm,  but  says,  in  his  usual  manner. 
Acts  xix.  5, '  when  they  heard  this,  they  were  baptized, 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.'  There  is  another  iiues- 
tion  put  by  the  apostle  Paul,  which  shows  us  in  what 
light  he  viewed  the  form  of  baptism:  1  Cor.  i.  13, 
'Were  ye  baptized  in  the  name  of  Paul?'  Here  the 
question  implies  that  he  consiilercd  the  form  of  baii- 
tism  as  so  sacred  that  the  introducing  the  name  of  a 
teacher  into  it  was  the  same  thing  as  introducing  a 
new  master  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ." 

Ecclesiastical  antiquity  comes  in,  also,  to  establish 
the  exact  use  of  this  Ibrm  in  baptism,  as  the  practice 

ever,  made  the  practice  highly  probabl<\  and  it  is  spoken 
of  in  the  Gospels  as  a  rite  with  which  the  Jew's  were 
familiar.  (lertainly  it  was  a  practice  among  the  Jews 
near  the  Cliristian  era. 


fVom  the  days  of  the  apostles.  The  most  ancient  me- 
thod was  for  I  lie  persons  to  be  ba|)tized  to  say,  "  I  l)e- 
lieve  in  (Jod  the  lather,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost." 
This  was  his  profession  of  faith,  and  watli  respect  to 
the  administration,  Justin  Martyr,  who  was  born  soon 
alter  the  death  of  the  apostle  John,  says,  in  his  first 
A]iology,  "  Whosoever  can  be  persvaded  and  believe 
that  those  things  which  are  taught  and  asserted  by  us 
are  true — are  brought  by  us  to  a  plaice  where  there  is 
water,  and  regenerated  according  to  the  right  of  rege- 
neration, by  which  we  ourselves  have  been  born  agiun. 
I'or  then  they  are  washed  in  the  water,  in  the  name  of 
God  the  Father  and  Lord  of  all,  and  of  our  Saviour  Je- 
sus Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  This  passage,  I 
may  observe  by  the  way,  shows  that,  in  the  primitive 
rliurcli,  men  were  not  bajitized  in  order  to  their  being 
tauglit,  bui  luu;:lit  in  order  to  their  being  bajitized,  and 
that,  coij.sequeiuiy,  bniiiism  was  not  a  mere  expression 
of  willingness  to  be  instructed,  but  a  profession  of  laith, 
and  a  coiistcration  to  the  Trinity  after  the  course  of  in- 
struction was  completed.  Terlulhmi  also  says,  "  the 
law  of  baptism  is  enjoined  and  the  form  prescribed.  Go 
teach  the  nations,  Lujitizing  them  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  the  Son,  and  tlie  Holy  Spirit."^2) 

The  testimonies  to  this  elfect  are  abundant, (3)  and, 
together  with  the  form  given  by  our  Lord,  they  prove 
that  every  Christian  in  the  first  ages  did,  upon  his  very 
entrance  into  the  church  of  Christ,  profess  his  faith  in 
theDiviiiit)  and  Personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  well 
as  of  the  Father  and  the  Son. 

Bui  other  arguments  are  not  wanting  to  prove  both 
the  Personality  and  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
With  resjiect  to  the  liirnier, 

1.  The  mode  of  his  subsistence  in  the  sacred  Trinity 
proves  his  Personality.  He  proceeds  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  and  cannot,  therefore,  be  either.  To  say 
that  an  attribute  proceeds  and  comes  forth  would  be  a 
gross  absurdity. 

2.  From  so  many  Scriptures  being  wholly  unintelli- 
gible, and  even  absurd,  unless  the  Holy  Ghost  is  allowcrf 
10  be  a  jierson.  For  as  those  who  take  the  phrase  as 
ascribing  no  more  than  a  figurative  Personality  to  an 
attribute,  make  that  attribute  to  be  the  energy  or  power 
of  God,  lliey  reduce  such  passages  as  the  IbilowiMg  to 
utter  unnieaningness:  "God  anointed  Jesus  with  the 
Holy  (iliost  and  with  poivef  that  is,  with  the  ]i(i\\ir  of 
(.'od  and  with  power.  "  That  ye  may  abound  in  hope 
through  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  that  is,  through 
the  power  of  power.  "  In  demonstration  of  the  Spirit 
and  of  power,"  that  is,  in  demonstration  ot  power  and 
of  power.  And  if  it  should  be  pleaded  that  the  last 
passagi^  is  a  Hebraism  lor  "  powerful  demonstration  of 
the  Sinril,"  it  makes  the  interpretation  still  more  ob- 
viously absurd,  lor  it  would  then  be  "  the  jiowerfnl  de- 
monstration of  power."  "  It  seemed  good  to  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  to  the  power  of  God,  "  and  to  us.''  "  The  Spi- 
rit and  the  bride  say,  Come," — the  jiower  of  God  and 
the  bride  say.  Come.  Modern  Unitarians,  from  Dr. 
Priestley  to  Mr.  lielsham,  venture  to  find  fault  with  the 
style  of  the  apostles  in  some  instances;  and  those  jteii- 
nien  of  the  Holy  Spirit  have,  indeed,  a  very  unfortu- 
nate method  of  exjin^ssing  themselves  for  those  who 
would  make  them  the  jiatrons  of  Socinianism;  but 
they  would  more  justly  deserve  the  censures  of  these 
judges  of  the  "  words  which  the  Holy  Ghost"  taught, 
bad  they  been  really  such  writers  as  the  Socinian 
scheme  would  make  them,  and  of  which  the  above  are 
instances. 

3.  Personification  of  any  kind  is,  in  some  passages 
in  which  the  Holy  (;host  is  spoken  of,  impo.ssible.  The 
reality  which  this  figure  of  speech  is  said  to  present  to 
us,  is  either  of  some  of  the  attributes  of  God,  or  else 
the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel.  Let  this  theory,  then,  be 
tried  upon  the  Ibllowing  passages :  '•  He  shall  not  speak 
of  himself,  but  whatsoever  he  shall  hear,  that  shall  he 
speak."  What  attribute  of  God  can  here  be  jiersoni- 
fied  ?  And  if  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  be  arrayed 
with  personal  attributes,  where  is  there  an  instance  of 
so  monstrous  a  prosopopoia  as  this  ]las^ag(■  would 
present  ?— the  doctrine  of  the  (Jospel  not  s|m  uking  "  of 
himself"  but  speaking  "  whatsoever  he  shall  hear  I"— 
"  The  Spirit  maUelh  intercession  lor  us."  What  attri- 
bute is  capable  of  interceding,  or  how  can  the  doctrine 


(2)  De  Baptismo. 

(3)  See  W.vi.i.'s  History  of  Infant  Ba;itisin  and  BiNO- 
ha.m's  Antiquities. 


Chap.  XVII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


22b 


or  the  Gospel  intercede?  Personification  too,  is  tlie 
language  of  poetry,  and  takes  place  naturally  only  in 
excited  and  elevated  discourse;  but  if  the  Holy  Spirit 
be  a  personification,  we  find  it  in  the  ordinary  and 
cool  strain  of  mere  narration  and  argumentative  dis- 
course in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  the  most  inci- 
dental conversations.  "  Have  ye  received  the  Holy 
Ghost  since  ye  believed?  We  have  not  so  much  as 
heard  whether  there  be  any  Holy  Ghost."  How  impos- 
sible is  it  here  to  e.xtort,  by  any  process  whatever,  even 
the  shadow  of  a  personification  of  either  any  attribute  of 
God,  or  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel.  So  again,  "  The 
Spirit  said  unto  Philip,  Go  near,  and  join  thyself  to  this 
chariot."  Could  it  be  any  attribute  of  God  which  said 
this,  or  could  it  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  ? 

It  is  in  vain,  then,  to  speak  of  the  personification  of 
wisdom  in  the  Book  of  Proverbs,  and  of  charity  in  the 
writings  of  St.  Paul ;  and  if  even  instances  of  the  per- 
eonification  of  Divine  attributes  and  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Gospel  could  be  lound  under  this  very  term,  the  Holy 
Spirit,  yet  the  above  texts  and  numerous  other  passages 
being  utterly  incapable  of  being  so  resolved,  would  still 
teach  the  doctrine  of  a  personal  Holy  Ghost.  The  pas- 
sage on  which  such  interpreters  chiefly  rely  a.s  an  in- 
stance of  the  personification  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Gos- 
pel is  2  Cor.  iii.  6,  "  Who  also  hath  made  us  able  minis- 
ters of  the  New  Testament,  not  of  the  letter  but  of  the 
Spirit,  for  the  letter  kiUeth ;  but  the  Spirit  giveth  life." 
To  this  Witsius  well  replies: 

'■  Were  we  to  grant  that  the  Spirit,  by  a  metonymy, 
denotes  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  what  is  improperly 
ascribed  there  to  the  Gospel  as  an  exemplary  cause,  is 
properly  to  be  attributed  to  the  Person  of  the  Holy  Spi- 
rit, as  the  principal  efficient  cause.  Thus,  also,  that 
which  is  elsewhere  ascribed  to  the  letter  of  the  law,  is, 
by  the  same  analogy,  to  bo  attributed  to  the  person  of 
the  lawgiver.  But  it  does  not  seem  necessary  for  us  to 
make  such  a  concession.  The  apostle  docs  not  call  the 
law  '  the  letter ;'  or  the  Gospel '  the  Spirit ;'  but  teaclies 
that  the  letter  is  in  the  law,  and  the  Spirit  in  the  Gos- 
pel, so  that  they  who  minister  to  the  law,  minister  to 
the  letter ;  they  who  minister  to  the  Gospel,  to  the  Spi- 
rit. He  calls  that  the  letter,  which  is  unable  at  first, 
and  by  itself,  to  convert  a  man  ;  or  to  give  a  sinner  the 
hoj)e  of  life,  much  less  to  quicken  him.  By  the  Spirit, 
he  understands  both  the  Person  of  the  Spirit  and  his 
quickening  grace ;  which  is  clearly  disclosed,  and  ren- 
dered efiicacious,  by  means  of  the  Gospel.  In  a  pre- 
ceding verse,  the  apostle  undoubtedly  distinguishes  the 
Spirit  from  the  doctrine,  when  he  calls  the  Corinthians 
'  the  epistle  of  Christ,  written  not  with  ink,  but  with  the 
Spirit  of  the  living  God.'  "(4) 

Finally,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  Person,  and  not  an 
attribute,  is  proved  by  the  use  of  masculine  pronouns 
and  relatives  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  in 
connexion  with  the  neuter  noun  vvivim,  Spirit ;  and  by 
so  many  distinct  personal  acts  being  ascribed  to  him, 
as,  Co  come,  to  go,  to  be  sent,  to  teach,  to  guide,  to  com- 
fort, to  make  intercession,  to  bear  witness,  to  give  gifts, 
"  dividing  them  to  every  man  as  he  will,"  to  be  vexed, 
grieved,  and  quenched.  These  cannot  be  ajiplied  to  the 
lEicre  fiction  of  a  Person,  and  they,  tlieretbre,  establish 
the  Spirit's  true  Personality. 

Some  adihtional  arguments,  to  those  before  given,  to 
establish  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  may  also  be 
adduced. 

The  first  is  taken  from  his  being  the  subject  of  blas- 
phemy—"the  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost  shall 
not  be  forgiven  unto  men,"  Matt.  xii.  31.  This  blasphe- 
my consisted  in  ascribing  his  miraculous  works  to  Sa- 
tan ;  and  that  he  is  capable  of  being  blasphemed  proves 
him  to  be  as  much  a  Person  as  the  Son ;  and  it  i)roves 
him  to  be  Divine,  because  it  shows  that  lie  may  be  sinned 
against,  and  so  sinned  against,  that  the  blasj>liemer 
shall  not  be  forgiven.  A  Person  lie  must  be,  or  he  coulil 
not  be  blasphemed ;  a  Divine  Pertion  he  must  be  to  con- 
stitute tliis  blasphemy  a  sin  against  him  in  the  proper 
sense,  and  of  so  malignant  a  kind  as  to  place  it  beyond 
the  reach  of  mercy. 

He  is  called  Gon.  "Why  hath  Satan  filled  thine 
heart  to  lie  unto  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  Why  hast  thou  con- 
ceived this  in  thine  heart  ?  Thou  hast  not  lied  unto  nien ; 
but  unto  God."  Ananias  is  said  lo  have  bed,  particu- 
larly •'  unto  the  Holy  Ghost,"  because  the  apostles  were 
under  his  special  direction,  in  establishing  the  temporary 


(4)  Exposition  of  Creed. 


I  regulation  an;oiig  Christians,  that  they  should  have  all 
things  in  coiimion  ;  the  detection  of  the  crime  itself  was 
a  demonstrulion  of  the  Divinity  o(  the  Spirit,  because  it 
showed  his  omniscience,  his  knowledge  of  the  most  se- 
cret acts.  In  addition  to  the  proof  of  his  Divinity  thus 
afforded  by  this  history,  he  is  also  called  God,  "  Thou 
hast  not  lied  unto  men ;  but  unto  Gon."  He  is  also 
called  the  Lord,  "  Now  the  Lord  is  that  Sjiiiii,"  2  Cor. 
iii.  17.  lie  is  Eternal,  "the  eternal  Spirit,"  lleb.  ix. 
14.  Omnipulsence  is  ascribed  to  hirn,  "  Vour  body  is 
the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;"  "  As  many  as  are  led  by 
the  Spirit  of  God,  they  are  the  sons  of  God."  Now,  as 
all  true  Christians  are  his  temples,  and  are  led  by  him, 
he  must  be  present  to  them  at  all  times  and  in  all  places. 
He  is  said  to  be  Omniscient,  "  The  Spirit  searcheth  all 
things,  even  the  deep  things  of  God."  Here  the  Spirit 
is  said  to  search  or  know  "all  things"  absolutely;  and 
then,  to  make  this  more  emphatic,  that  he  knows  "the 
deep  things  of  God,"  things  hidden  from  everj'  creature, 
the  depths  of  his  essence,  and  the  secrets  of  his  coun- 
sels ;  for,  that  this  is  intended,  appears  from  the  next 
verse,  where  he  is  said  to  know  "  the  things  of  God,"  as 
the  Spirit  of  a  man  knows  the  things  of  a  man.  Su- 
preme Majesty  is  also  attributed  to  him,  so  that  "  to 
lie  to  him,"  to  "  blaspheme"  liim,  "  to  vex"  him,  to  do 
him  "  despite,"  are  sins,  and  render  the  offender  liable 
to  Divine  punishment. 

He  is  the  source  of  inspiration.  "  Holy  men  of  God 
spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  "He 
shall  lead  you  into  all  truth."  He  is  the  source  and 
fountain  of  life.  "It  is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth." 
"  He  that  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead  shall  quicken 
your  mortal  bodies,  by  his  Spirit  that  dwelleth  in  you." 
As  ^ve  have  seen  him  acting  in  the  material  creation,  so 
he  is  the  author  of  the  new  creation,  which  is  as  evi- 
dently a  work  of  Divine  power  as  the  former :  "  Born 
of  the  Spirit;"  "Therenewmgof  the  Holy  Ghost."  He 
is  the  author  of  religious  Comfort — "  The  Comforter." 
The  moral  attributes  of  God  are  also  given  to  him. 
Holiness,  which  includes  all  in  one :— the  Holy  Ghost 
is  his  eminent  designation.  Goodness  and  Grace  are 
his  attributes.  "Thy  Spirit  is  good."  "The  Spirit 
of  Grace."  Trijtu  also,  for  he  is  "The  Spirit  of 
Truth." 

How  impracticable  it  is  to  interpret  the  phrase, "  The 
Holy  Ghost,"  as  a  periphrasis  for  God  himself,  has  been 
proved  in  considering  some  of  the  above  passages,  and 
will  be  obvious  from  the  slightest  consideration  of  the 
texts.  A  Spirit,  which  is  the  Spirit  of  God;  which  is 
so  often  distinguished  from  the  Father :  wliich  "  sees" 
and'"HEAi<s"  "the  Father;"  which  searches  "the 
deep  tilings"  of  God ;  wliich  is  "  sent"  by  the  Father; 
which  "proceedeth"  from  him  ;  and  who  has  special 
PRAYER  addressed  to  him  at  the  same  time  as  the  Fa- 
ther, cannot,  though  "  one  with  him,"  be  the  Father ; 
and  that  he  is  not  the  Son,  is  acluiowledged  oji  both 
sides. 

As  a  Divine  Person,  our  regards  are,  therefore, 
justly  due  to  him  as  the  object  of  worship  and  trust,  of 
prayer  and  blessing ;  duties  to  which  we  are  specially 
called,  both  by  the  general  consideration  of  his  Divinity, 
and  by  that  afiectmgly  benevolent  and  attractive  cha- 
racter under  which  he  is  presented  to  us  in  the  whole 
Scriptures.  In  creation  we  see  him  moving  upon  the 
face  of  chaos,  and  reducing  it  to  a  beautiful  order;  in 
providence  "  renewing  the  face  of  the  earth,"  "  garnish- 
ing the  heavens,"  and  "  giving  life"  to  man.  In  grace 
we  behold  him  expanding  the  prophetic  scene  to  the 
vision  of  the  seers  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  making 
a  perfect  revelation  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ  to  tlie  apos- 
tles of  the  New.  He  "reproves  the  world  of  sin,"  and 
works  secret  conviction  of  its  evil  and  danger  in  the 
heart.  He  is  "  the  Spirit  of  grace  and  sujiplication ;" 
the  softened  heart,  the  yielding  will,  all  heavenly  desires 
and  tendencies  are  from  him.  He  hastens  to  the 
troubled  spirits  of  jicnitent  men,  who  are  led  by  his  in- 
fluence to  Christ,  and  in  whose  hearts  he  has  wrought 
faith,  with  the  news  of  pardon,  and  "  bears  witness" 
of  their  son.ship  "  with  their  spirit."  He  aids  their  "  in- 
firmities;" makes  "inten^ession  for  them ;"  inspires 
thoughts  of  consolation  and  feelings  of  peace ;  plants 
and  perfects  in  lliem  whatsoever  things  are  pure,  and 
lovely,  and  honest,  and  of  good  report ;  delights  in  his 
own  work  in  the  renewed  heart ;  dwells  in  the  soul  as 
in  a  temple ;  and,  alter  having  rendered  the  spirit  to 
God,  without  spot  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  tiling,  sanc- 
tified and  meet  lor  heaven,  finishes  his  benevolent  and 


226 


THEOLtJGICAL  INSTITUTES, 


[Part  II. 


glorious  work  by  raising  the  bodies  of  saints  in  immor- 
tal lile  at  the  last  day.  So  powerfully  does  ''  the  Spirit 
of  glory  and  of  tjod"  claim  our  love,  our  jiraisc  and  our 
obedience  !  In  the  formsof  the  churclii's  of  (Christ  in  all 
ages,  he  has,  therefore,  been  associated  with  the  Kallier 
and  the  Son,  in  egual  glory  and  blesKiiif; ;  and  where 
such  forms  are  not  in  use,  this  distinct  recognition  of  the 
Spirit,  so  much  in  danger  of  being  neglected,  ought,  by 
ministers,  to  be  most  carefully  and  constantly  made, 
in  every  gratulatory  act  of  devotion,  that  so  eijually  to 
each  I'erson  of  the  Eternal  Trinity  glory  may  be  given 
"  in  the  church  throughout  all  ages.    Amen." 

The  essential  and  fundamental  character  of  the  doc- 
trine of  llie  holy  and  undivided  Trinity  has  been  already 
stated,  and  the  more  fully  the  evidences  of  the  Divinity 
of  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  are  educed  from  the  sacred 
writings,  the  more  deejily  we  shall  be  impressed  with 
this  view,  and  the  more  binding  will  be  our  obligation 
to  "  contend  earnestly  lor"  this  part  of  "  the  faith  which 
was  once  delivered  unto  the  saints."  Nor  tan  the  j)lea 
here  be  ever  soundly  urged,  that  this  is  a  merely  sjiecu- 
lative  doctrine ;  for,  as  it  tias  been  well  observed  by  a 
learned  writer,  '•  The  truth  is,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
is  so  far  from  being  merely  a  matter  of  speculation,  that  it 
is  the  very  essence  of  the  Christian  religion,  the  founda- 
tion of  the  whole  revelation,  and  connected  with  every 
jiart  of  It.  All  that  is  peculiar  in  this  religion  has  rela- 
tion to  the  redemption  of  Christ,  and  the  sanctification 
of  the  Spirit  And  whosoever  is  endeavouring  to  inva- 
lidaii'  these  articles  is  overthrowing  or  undermining  the 
authority  of  this  dispensation,  and  reducing  it  to  a  good 
moral  system  only,  or  treatise  of  ethics. 

"  If  the  Word,  or  Lo!!os,  who  became  incarnate,  was 
a  created  being  only,  then  the  mystery  of  his  incarna- 
tion, so  much  insisted  on  in  Scripture,  and  the  love  e.\- 
l)ressed  to  mankind  thereby,  so  much  magnified,  dwin- 
dle into  an  interested  service ;  and  a  short  life  of  sufTur- 
ings.  concluded,  indeed,  with  a  painful  death,  is  reward- 
ed with  Divine  honours,  and  a  creature  advanced  there- 
by to  the  glory  of  the  Creator ;  for  the  command  is 
plain  and  express,  that  '  all  the  angels  of  God'  should 
'  wor;;!iip  him.'  And  have  not  many  saints  and  mar- 
tyrs undergone  the  same  sufTerings  witliout  the  like 
glorious  recompense?  And  is  not  the  advantage  to 
(Jhrist  himself,  by  his  incarnation  and  passion,  greater 
on  this  supposition,  than  to  men,  for  whose  sake  the  sa- 
cred writers  represent  this  scheme  of  inercy  undertaken ' 

"Again:  If  the  motions  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  so  fre- 
quently spoken  of,  are  only  figurative  expressions,  and 
ilo  not  necessarily  imply  any  real  person  who  is  tlie 
author  of  them,  or  if  this  person  be  only  a  created 
being,  then  wo  are  deprived  of  all  liopes  of  Dwliit  as- 
sistance in  our  spirit  iial  warfare  ;  and  have  nothing  but 
our  own  natural  abilities  wlicrewith  to  contend  against 
the  world,  the  lli-sli,  and  the  Di^vil.  And  is  it  not  amaz- 
ing that  this  article  coifld  ever  be  represented  as  a  mere 
abstracted  speculation,  when  our  deliverance  both  from 
the  ;/e?ta/f  1/ and  power  of  sin  does  so  plainly  depend 
upon  it?  In  the  sacred  writings  a  trvr  faitk  is  made 
as  necessary  as  a  right  practice,  and  this  in  [larticular 
in  orderto  that  end.  For  Arianis?n,  Su'inimn.'Hii,  and 
all  those  several  heresies,  of  what  kind  or  title  soever, 
which  destroy  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  and  Holy  (;host, 
are  indeed  no  otlier  than  dlirerent  schemes  of  infidelity ; 
since  the  authority,  end,  and  inlluciici-  of  the  (Josjiel 
are  as  ell'eclually  made  void  by  disiiwiiing  the  charac- 
ters in  which  our  Redeemer  and  Sanc-tilier  arc  there 
represented,  as  even  by  contesting  the  <:vidcnces  of  its 
Divine  original.  These  notions  iilnmly  n.b  those  two 
Divine  Persons  of  their  oiieratimis  and  attributes,  and 
of  the  honour  due  to  them  ;  lessen  the  mercy  and  mys- 
tery of  the  scheme  of  our  salvation ;  degrade  our  notion 
of  ourselves  and  our  fellow-creatures  ;  alter  the  nature 
of  semral  duties,  and  weaken  those  great  motives  to 
the  observance  of  all  that  true  Christianity  proposes 
to  us."(5) 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 
Fall  ok  Man— Doctrine  of  ()ri(!Inai,  Sin. 
Thk  Scriptural  character  of  Cod  having  been  ad- 
duced from  the  inspired  writings,  we  now  jiroceed,  in 
pursuance  of  our  plan,  to  consider  their  tesliniony  as 
to  Man,  both  in  the  estate  in  which  he  was  first  created, 


and  in  that  Iaii.sed  condition  into  xvhich  the  first  act  of 
disobedience  plunged  the  first  pair  and  their  whoI« 
posterity. 

Uesides  that  natural  government  of  God,  wliicli  is 
exercised  over  material  lliums,  over  mere  aiiiiijals,  and 
over  rational  beings,  considered  merely  as  pans  of  the 
great  visible  creation,  which  must  be  conserved  and 
regulated  so  as  to  preserve  its  order  and  accomplish  its 
natural  purposes;  there  is  evidence  of  the  existence  of 
an  administration  of  another  kind.  Tliis  we  call  ynoro/ 
government,  because  it  has  respect  to  the  actions  of 
rational  creatures,  considered  as  good  and  evil,  which 
(lualities  are  necessarily  determined,  at  least  to  us,  by 
a  law,  and  that  law  the  will  of  (Jon.  Whether  things 
are  good  or  evil  by  a  sort  of  eternal  fitness  or  unfitness 
in  themselves,  and  not  made  so  by  the  will  of  God,  is  a 
(lueslion  wliich  has  been  agitated  from  the  days  of  tluj 
schoolmen.  Like  many  other  shnilar  questions,  how- 
ever, this  is  a  profitless  one ;  for,  as  we  cannot  com- 
jirehend  the  eternal  reason  and  fitness  of  things  on  the 
whole,  we  could  have  no  certain  means  of  detennining 
the  moral  qualities  of  things,  without  a  declaration  of 
the  will  ol  God,  who  alone  knows  them  both  absolutely 
and  relatively,  possibly  i'aiid  really,  to  perfection.  As 
fertile  distinctions  that  some  things  are  good  or  evil 
antecedently  to  the  will  of  God ;  some  consequently 
upon  it,  and  some  both  one  and  the  otlier ;  it  may  be 
observed,  that  if  by  the  will  of  God  we  are  to  under- 
stand one  of  Ills  attributes,  nothing  can  be  antecedent 
to  his  will  ;  and  if  we  understand  it  to  mean  the  de- 
clared will  of  God  in  the  form  of  command  or  law,  then 
nothing  can  be  rewardable  or  punishable  antecedent  to 
the  will  of  God,  which  only  in  that  form  becomes  the 
ride  of  the  conduct  of  his  creatures;  and  is,  in  all  the 
instances  with  which  we  are  acquiiinted,  revealed  un- 
der the  sanction  of  rewards  or  jiunishments. 

"Hut  is  the  will  of  God  the  cause  of  his  law?  Is  his 
will  the  original  of  right  and  wrong?  is  a  thing  there- 
fore right  because  God  wills  it?  or  does  he  will  it  be- 
cause it  is  right  ?  I  fear  this  celebrated  question  is 
more  curious  than  useful ;  and  perhaps,  in  the  manner 
in  which  it  is  usually  treated  of,  it  docs  not  well  con- 
sist with  the  regard  that  is  due  from  a  creature  to  the 
Creator  and  Governor  of  all  things.  Nevertheless, 
with  awe  and  reverence  we  may  sjieak  a  little. 

"  It  seems,  then,  that  the  whole  difficulty  arises  from 
considering  God's  will  as  distinct  from  God.  Other- 
wise it  vanishes  away  :  for  tioiie  can  doubt  but  God  is 
the  cause  of  the  law  of  God.  liul  the  will  of  God  is 
God  liimself.  It  is  God  considered  as  willing  llius 
and  thus ;  consequently,  to  say  that  the  will  of  (;od,  or 
that  (Jod  himself  is  the  cause  of  law,  is  one  and  tlio 
same  thing. 

"  Again  :  if  the  law,  the  immutable  ride  of  right  and 
wrong,  depends  on  the  nature  and  fitness  of  Jhings, 
and  on  their  essential  relations  to  each  other :  I  do  not 
say  their  eternal  relations,  because  the  eternal  rela- 
tions of  things  existing  in  time  is  little  less  than  a  con- 
tradiction ;  if  I  say  this  depends  on  the  nature  and  re- 
lations of  things,  then  it  must  depend  on  (iod,  or  the 
will  of  (iod ;  because  those  things  themselves,  with  all 
their  relations,  are  the  work  of  his  hands.  By  his 
will, /or  /;;.v  pleasure  alone,  they  are  and  were  created. 
And  yet  it  may  be  granted,  which  is  probably  all  that 
a  considerate  person  would  contend  for,  that  in  every 
particular  case  God  wills  thus  or  thus  (suppose  that 
mc^n  should  honour  their  parents),  because  it  is  right, 
agreeable  to  the  fitness  of  things,  to  the  relation  in 
which  they  stand. "(fi) 

All  the  moral  and  accountable  creatures  with  which 
the  Scriptures  make  us  acquainted  are  Anoki.s,  Dk- 
vn,s,andINlKN.  The  first  are  inhabitants  of  heaven, 
and  dwell  In  the  immediate  presence  of  God,  though 
ollen  emiiloyed  on  services  to  the  children  of  men  in 
this  world.  The  second  are  represented  as  being  in 
darkness,  and  iiunishuient  as  their  general  and  collec- 
tive condition,  but  still  having  access  to  this  world  by 
pennissioii  o!  (iod,  for  purposes  of  temjitation  and  mis- 
chief, and  as  v.altiiig  lor  a  liiial  judiimeiit  and  a  heavier 
doom.  Whether  any  other  rational  lieiiigs  <'\i,st,  not 
included  in  any  of  the  above  classes,  dwelling  in  tlic 
planets  and  other  celestial  bodies,  and  regions  of  space, 
visible  or  invisible  to  us,  and  collectively  l()rming  au 
immensely  extended  and  immeasurable  creation,  can- 
not be  certainly  determined ;  and  all  that  can  be  saul 


(5)  DuOWULL. 


((.)  Wesley. 


Chap.  XVIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


227 


is,  that  the  opinion  is  favoured  by  certain  natural  ana- 
logies between  the  planet  we  inhabit  and  other  planet- 
ary bodies,  and  between  our  sun  and  planetary  system 
and  the  fixed  stars,  which  are  deemed  to  be  solar  cen- 
tres of  other  planetary  systems.  But  were  this  esta- 
blished, there  is  nothing  in  the  fact,  as  some  have  suji- 
posed,  to  interfere  with  any  view  which  the  Scriptures 
give  us  of  the  moral  government  of  God  as  to  this 
world.(7)  Were  our  race  alone  in  the  universe,  we 
sliould  not  be  greater  than  we  are :  if,  on  the  contrary, 
we  are  associated  with  countless  myriads  of  fellow- 
rationals  in  different  and  distinct  residences,  we  are 
not  thereby  minified.  If  they  are  imder  moral  govern- 
ment, so  are  we;  if  they  are  not,  which  no  one  can 
prove,  the  evidences  that  we  arc  accountable  creatures 
remain  the  same.  If  they  have  never  fallen,  the  fact 
of  our  redemption  cannot  be  affected  by  that;  and  if 
tliey  need  a  Saviour,  we  may  well  leave  the  method  of 
[iroviding  for  their  case  or  the  reasons  of  their  preteri- 
tion  to  the  wisdom  of  God ;  it  is  a  fact  which  we  have 
not  before  us,  and  on  which  we  cannot  reason.  No 
sinister  use  at  all  can  be  made  of  the  mere  probability 
of  the  plurality  of  rational  worlds,  except  to  persuade 
us  that  we  are  so  little  and  insignificant  as  to  make  it 
a  vain  presumption  to  suppose  that  we  are  the  objects 
of  Divine  love.  But  nothing  can  be  even  more  unphi- 
losophical  than  the  suggestion,  since  it  supposes  that, 
in  proportion  as  the  common  Father  multiplies  liis  off- 
spring, he  must  love  each  individual  less,  or  be  more 
inattentive  to  his  interests;  and  because  it  estimates 
the  ini]iortance  of  man  by  the  existence  of  beings  to 
which  he  has  no  relation,  rather  than  by  his  relation  to 
tiod,  anil  his  own  capacity  of  improvement,  pleasure, 
pain,  and  immortality.  According  to  this  absurd  dream 
of  infidelity,  every  individual  in  the  British  empire 
would  annually  lose  his  weight  and  worth  in  the  sight 
of  hi.";  Maker  as  a  moral  and  intellectual  being,  because 
there  is  a  great  annual  increase  of  its  population. 

The  Law,  under  which  all  moral  agents  are  placed, 
there  is  reason  to  believe,  is  substantially  and  in  its 
great  principles  the  same,  and  is  included  in  this  epi- 
tome :  "Thou  Shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy 
heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  strength, 
and  with  all  thy  mind,  and  thy  neighbour  as  thyself." 
For  though  this  is  spoken  to  men,  yet  as  it  is  founded 
in  both  its  parts  upon  the  natural  relation  of  every  in- 
telligent creature  to  God  and  to  all  other  intelligent 
creatures,  it  may  be  presumed  to  be  uaiversal.  Every 
creature  ovifes  obedience  to  God  its  Maker,  and  a  bene- 
volent Creator  could  only  seek,  in  the  first  instance, 
the  obedience  of  love.  Every  creature  must,  from  a 
revealed  character  of  the  Creator,  be  concluded  to  have 
been  made,  not  only  to  show  forth  his  glory,  but  itself 
to  enjoy  happiness.  Now  the  love  of  God  is  that  affec- 
tion which  unites  a  created  intelligent  nature  to  God, 
the  source  of  true  happiness,  and  prevents,  in  all  cases, 
obedience  from  being  felt  as  a  burden,  or  regarded 
under  the  cold  convictions  of  mere  duty.  If,  therefore, 
a  cheerful  obedience  from  the  creature  be  rctjuired  as 
that  which  would  constantly  promote  by  action  the 
felicity  of  the  agent,  this  law  of  love  is  to  be  considered 
as  the  law  of  all  moral  beings,  whether  of  angels  or 
of  men.  Its  comprehensiveness  is  another  presump- 
tion of  its  universality;  for  unquestionably  it  is  a 
maxim  of  universal  import,  that  "  love  is  the  fulfilling 
of  the  law,"  since  he  who  loves  must  choose  to  be  obe- 
dient to  every  command  issued  by  the  sovereign,  or  the 
Father  beloved ;  and  when  this  love  is  supreme  and 
uniform,  the  obedience  must  be  absolute  and  unceas- 
ing. The  second  command  is  also  "  like  unto  it"  in 
these  respects — it  founds  itself  on  the  natural  relations 
which  exist  among  the  creatures  of  God,  and  it  com- 
prehends every  possible  relative  duty.  All  intelligent 
creatures  were  intended  to  live  in  society.  We  read 
of  no  solitary  rational  being  being  placed  in  any  part 
of  the  creation.  Angels  are  many,  and  from  all  the 
representations  of  Scripture,  may  be  considered  as 
forming  one  or  more  collective  bodies.  When  man 
was  created,  it  was  decided  that  it  was  not  good  for  him 
to  be  alone,  and  when  "  a  help  meet  lor  him"  was  pro- 
vided, they  were  commanded  to  be  fruitful  and  multiply, 
that  the  number  might  be  increased  and  the  earlh  "  re- 
plenished" The  very  i>recepts  whicli  oblige  us  to  love 
one  another  are  presumptive  that  it  was  the  will  of 
God,  not  merely  that  his  rational  creatures  should  live 

(7)  See  p.  80. 


in  society,  and  do  no  injury  to  each  other,  but  that  they 
should  be  "  kindly  affectionate  one  towards  another ;" 
a  principle  from  which  all  acts  of  relative  duty  would 
spontaneously  tlow,  and  which  would  guard  against 
all  hostility,  envy,  and  injury.  Thus,  by  these  two 
great  first  principles  of  the  Divine  law,  the  rational 
creatures  of  God  would  be  united  to  him  as  their  com- 
mon Lord  and  Father,  and  to  each  other  as  fellow- 
subjects  and  brethren.  This  view  is  farther  supported 
by  the  intimations  which  the  Scriptures  afford  us  of  the 
moral  state  of  the  only  other  intelligent  class  of  beings 
besides  man  with  whieh  we  are  acquainted.  Angels 
are  constantly  exhibited  as  loving  God,  jealous  of  his 
glory,  and  cheerfully  active  in  the  execution  of  his 
will ;  as  benevolent  towards  each  other,  and  as  ten- 
derly affected  towards  men.  Devils,  on  the  contrary, 
who  are  ''  the  angels  that  sinned,"  are  represented  as 
filled  with  hatred  and  malice  both  towards  God  and 
every  holy  creature. 

Indeed,  if  rational  beings  are  under  a  law  at  all,  it 
cannot  be  conceived  that  less  than  this  could  be  re- 
quired by  the  good  and  holy  being  their  Creator.  They 
are  bound  to  render  all  love,  honour,  and  obedience  to 
liim  by  a  natural  and  absolute  obligation  ;  and,  as  it  has 
been  demonstrated  in  the  experience  of  man,  any  thing 
less  would  be  not  only  contrary  to  the  Creator's  glory, 
but  fatal  to  the  creature's  happiness. 

From  these  views  it  follows,  that  all  particular  pre- 
cepts, whether  they  relate  to  God  or  to  other  rational 
creatures,  arise  out  of  one  or  other  of  those  two  "  great" 
and  comprehending  "  commandments  ;"  and  that  every 
particular  law  supposes  the  general  one.  For,  as  in 
the  Decalogue  and  in  the  writings  of  the  prophets  are 
many  particular  precepts,  though  in  neither  are  these 
two  great  commandments  expressly  recorded,  and  yet 
our  Saviour  has  told  us  that  "on  these  two  command- 
ments hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets ;"  and  the 
apostle  Paul,  that  the  precepts,  "  thou  shalt  not  com- 
mit adultery,  thou  shalt  not  kill,  thou  shalt  not  steal, 
thou  shall  not  covet,  and  if  there  be  any  other  com- 
mandment, it  is  briefly  comprehended  in  this  saying, 
Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself;"  we  are 
warranted  to  conclude  that  all  moral  particular  precepts 
presuppose  those  two  general  ones,  wherever  they  are 
found,  and  to  whomsoever  they  are  given. 

We  may  apply  this  consideration  to  our  first  parents 
in  their  primitive  state.  When  the  law  of  Moses  was 
given,  engraven  on  tables  of  stone  by  the  finger  of  God, 
LAW  was  not  ,first  introduced  into  the  world.  Men 
were  accounted  righteous  or  wicked  between  the  giving 
of  the  law  and  the  flood,  and  before  the  flood,  and  were 
dealt  with  accordingly.  Noah  was  "  a  righteous  man," 
and  the  "violence  and  wickedness"  of  the  antediluvian 
earth  were  the  causes  of  its  destruction  by  water. 
"Enoch  walked  with  God;"  Abel  was  "righteous," 
and  Cain  "  wicked."  Now,  as  the  moral  quality  of 
actions  is  determined  by  law,  and  the  moral  law  is  a 
revelation  of  the  will  of  God;  and  as  every  punitive 
act  on  his  part,  and  every  bestowment  of  rewards  and 
favours  expressly  on  account  of  righteousness,  suppose 
a  regal  administration  ;  men  were  under  a  law  up  to 
the  time  of  the  fall,  which  law,  in  all  its  particular 
precepts,  did,  according  to  the  reasoning  of  our  Lord 
and  St.  Paul,  given  above,  presuppose  the  two  great 
commandments.  That  our  first  parents  were  under  a 
law,  is  evident  from  the  history  of  the  transactions  in 
the  garden  :  but,  though  but  one  particularcommand, 
in  the  form  of  a  prohibition,  was  given,  we  are  not  to 
conclude  that  this  was  the  compass  of  their  require- 
ments, and  the  sole  measure  of  their  obedience.  It  was 
a  particular  command,  which,  like  those  in  the  Deca- 
logue, and  in  the  wnitings  of  the  prophets,  presupposed 
a  general  law,  of  which  this  was  but  one  nianilesta- 
tion.  Thus  are  we  conducted  to  a  more  ancient  date  of 
the  Divine  law,  than  the  solemnities  of  Sinai,  or  even  the 
creation  of  man,  a  law  coeval  in  its  declaration  with  the 
date  of  rational  created  existence,  and  in  its  principles 
with  God  himself.  "  The  law  of  God,  speaking  of  the 
manner  of  men,  is  a  copy  of  the  eternal  mind,  a  tran- 
script of  the  Divine  nature;  yea,  it  is  the  fairest  off- 
spring of  the  everlasting  Father,  the  brightest  efflux  of 
his  essential  wisdom,  tlie  visible  beauty  of  the  Most 
High;  the  original  idea  of  truth  and  good  wliich  were 
lodged  in  the  uncreated  mind  from  eternity ."(b)  It  is 
''  koly,  jiist,  and  good." 

(8)  Wksley. 


228 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Pakt  IL 


tinder  this  coriuition  of  rational  existence  must  Adam, 
tlierel'orc,  and  every  other  moral  agent,  have  come  into 
being,  a  condition,  of  course,  to  wliich  he  could  not  be 
a  party,  to  wliich  lie  had  no  ri^ht  to  be  a  party,  had  it 
been  possible,  but  whicii  was  laid  u|)on  him;'lie  was 
made  under  law,  as  all  his  descendants  are  born  under 
law.(<J) 

But  that  we  may  more  exactly  understand  man's 
primitive  state,  considered  morally,  and  the  nature,  ex- 
tent, and  consequences  of  his  fall,  it  is  necessary  to 
consider  briefly  the  history  of  his  creation. 

The  manner  in  which  this  is  narrated  indicates  soine- 
thini;  peculiar  and  eminent  in  the  being  to  be  formed. 
In  the  heavenly  bodies  around  the  earth,  and  among  all 
the  various  productions  of  its  surface,  vegetable  and 
animal,  however  perfect  in  their  kinds,  and  complete, 
beautiful,  and  e\celleiit  in  their  respective  natures,  not 
one  being  was  louiid  to  whom  the  rest  could  minister 
instruction,  whom  they  could  call  Ibrth  into  meditation, 
inspire  witli  moral  delight,  or  lead  up  to  the  Creator 
himself  There  was,  properly  speaking,  no  intellectual 
being ;  none  to  whom  thf.  whole,  or  even  any  great  nvun- 
ber  ot'  the  parts  of  the  frame  and  furniture  of  materia!  na- 
ture could  minister  knowledge;  no  one  who  could  employ 
upon  them  the  generalizing  faculty,  and  make  them  the 
basis  of  inductive  knowledge.  If,  then,  it  was  not 
wholly  for  himself  that  tlie  world  was  created  by  God  ; 
and  angels,  if  they,  as  it  is  indicated  in  Scripture,  had 
a  prior  existence,  were  not  so  innnediately  connected 
with  this  system,  that  it  can  be  supposed  to  have  been 
made  immediately  lor  them  ;  a  rational  inhabitant  was 
obviously  still  wanting  to  conipljte  the  work,  and  to 
constitute  a  perfect  whole.  The  formation  of  such  a 
being  was  marked,  therefore,  by  a  manner  of  proceed- 
ing which  serves  to  impress  us  with  a  sense  of  the 
greatness  of  the  work.  Not  that  it  could  be  a  matter 
of  more  difficulty  to  Omnijiotence  to  create  man  than 
any  thing  beside;  but  principally,  it  is  probable,  because 
he  was  to  be  the  Lord  of  the  whole,  and  to  be,  there- 
fore, himself  accountable  to  the  original  proprietor,  and 
to  exhibit  the  existence  of  another  .species  of  govern- 
ment, a  moral  administration  ;  and  to  be  the  only  crea- 
ture constituted  an  image  of  the  intellectual  and  moral 
perfections,  and  of  the  immortality  of  the  common 
JNlaker.  Every  thing,  therefore,  as  to  man's  creation  is 
given  in  a  solemn  and  deliberative  form,  together  with 
an  intimation  of  a  Trinity  of  Persons  in  the  (Jodhead, 
all  Divine,  because  all  equally  possessed  of  creative 
power,  and  to  each  of  whom  man  was  to  stand  in  re- 
lations so  sacred  and  intimate.  "  And  Ood  said,  Let 
us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness ;  and 
let  them  have  dominion,"  &c.  In  what,  then,  (Ud  this 
"  image"  and  "  likeness"  consist  ? 

That  human  nature  has  two  essential  constituent 
parts  is  maniftst  from  the  history  of  Moses  : — the  body, 
Ibrmed  out  of  pre-existent  matter,  the  earth ;  and  a 
i.iviNfi  soul,,  breathed  into  the  body  by  an  inspiration 
(roiri  God.  "  And  the  Lord  (lod  formed  man  out  of  the 
dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  (or 
lace)  the  breath  of  life  (mvks),  and  man  became  a 
living  soul."  Whatever  was  thus  imparled  to  the 
body  of  man,  already  "formed,"  and  perfectly  fa- 
shioned in  all  its  parts,  was  the  otdy  cause  of  life  ;  and 
the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture  shows  that  that  was  the 
rational  spirit  itself,  which,  by  a  law  of  its  Creator, 
was  incapable  of  death,  even  after  the  body  had  fallen 
under  that  ])enally. 

The  "  image"  or  likeness  of  God  in  which  man  was 
made,  has,  by  some,  been  assigned  to  the  body ;  by 
others  to  the  soul ;  others,  again',  have  found  it  in  the 
c.jrcumstance  of  his  having  "  duininion"  over  the  other 
creatures.  As  to  the  body,  it  is  not  necessary  to  take 
up  any  large  space  to  i>rove,  that  in  no  sense  can  that 
bear  the  image  of  God,  that  is,  be  "  lil(e"  God.  De- 
scant ever  so  much  or  ever  so  poetically  upon  man's 

('.!)  The  covenant  of  works,  a  term  much  in  use 
among  divines,  is  one  which  is  not  in  so  much  use  as 
Ibrmerly  ;  but,  rightly  understood,  it  has  a  good  sense. 
The  word  usually  translated  covenant  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, more  projMirly  signifies  a  dispaisation  or  ap- 
piiinlmnU,  which  is,  indeed,  suited  to  the  majesty  of 
law,  and  even  the  authoritative  establishment  of  a  sole 
method  of  pardon.  But  in  both  there  are  parties,  not 
to  their  original  institution,  but  to  their  benelicenl  ac- 
complishment and  in  this  view  each  may  bo  termed  a 
covenant. 


upright  and  noble  form,  an  upright  Ibrm  lias  no  more 
likeness  to  God  than  a  prone  or  reptile  one  ;  God  is  in- 
corporeal, and  has  no  bodily  shape  to  be  the  antitype 
of  any  thing  material. 

This  also  is  fatal  to  the  notion  that  the  image  of  God 
in  man  consisted  in  the  "  dominion"  which  was  granted 
to  him  over  this  lower  world.  Limited  dominion  may, 
it  is  true,  be  an  image  of  large  and  absolute  dominion, 
but  man  is  not  said  to  have  been  made  in  the  image  of 
Gorl's  dominion,  which  is  an  accident  merely,  lor,  be- 
fore any  creatures  existed,  God  himself  could  have  no 
dominion ;  but  in  the  image  and  likeness  of  God  himself, 
— of  something  which  constitutes  his  nature.  Still 
farther,  man,  according  to  the  history,  was  evidently 
made  in  the  image  of  (Jod,  in  order  to  his  having  do- 
minion, as  the  Hebrew  particle  imports.  He  who  was 
to  have  dominion  must,  necessarily,  be  made  before  he 
could  be  invested  with  it,  and,  therefore,  dominion  was 
consequent  to  his  existing  in  the  "image"  and  "like- 
ness" of  God  ;  and  could  not  be  that  image  itself. 

The  attempts  which  have  been  made  to  tix.  upon  some 
ONH  essential  ((ualily  in  which  to  place  that  "  unage" 
of  God  in  whicli  man  was  created,  is  not  only  uncalled 
for  by  any  Scriptural  reason,  but  is  even  contradicted 
by  various  parts  of  Scripture,  from  wliich,  alone,  we 
can  derive  our  information  on  this  subject.  It  is  in  vain 
to  say  that  this  "  image"  must  be  something  essential 
to  human  nature,  something  only  which  cannot  be  lost. 
We  shall,  it  is  true,  lind  that  the  revelation  places  it  in 
what  is  essential  to  human  nature ;  but  that  it  should 
comprehend  nothing  else,  or  one  qu.ilily  only,  has  no 
proof  or  reason ;  and  we  are,  in  fact,  taught  that  it 
comprises  also  what  is  not  essential  to  human  nature, 
and  what  may  be  lost  and  be  regained.  As  to  both,  the 
evidence  of  Scripture  is  exiilicit.  When  God  is  called 
"  the  Father  of  Spirits,"  a  likeness  is  certainly  inti- 
mated between  man  and  God  in  the  spirituality  of  their 
nature.  This  is  also  implied  in  the  striking  argument 
of  St.  Paul  with  the  Athenians.  "  Forasmuch,  then, 
as  we  are  the  offspring  of  God,  we  ought  not  totliink 
that  the  Godhead  is  like  unto  gold,  or  silver,  or  stone, 
graven  by  art,  and  man's  device,"  plainly  referring  to 
the  idolatrous  statues  by  which  God  was  represented 
among  heathens.  If  likeness  to  God  in  man  consisted 
in  bodily  shape,  this  would  not  have  been  an  argument 
against  human  representations  of  the  Deity,  but  it  im- 
liorts,  as  Howe  well  exjiresses  it,  that  "  we  are  to  un- 
derstand that  our  resemblance  to  liiin,  as  we  are  his  olT- 
spring,  lies  in  some  higher,  more  noble,  and  more  ex- 
cellent thing,  of  which  there  can  be  no  figure,  as  who 
can  tell  how  to  give  the  figure  or  image  of  a  thought, 
or  of  the  mind  or  thinking  power."  In  spirituality,  antl 
consequently,  immateriality,  this  image  of  God  in  man, 
then,  111  the  first  existence,  consists.  Nor  is  it  any  valid 
objection  to  say,  that  ''  iinmaieruihiy  is  not  peculiar  to 
the  soul  of  man,  for  we  fyave  reason  to  believe  that  the 
inferior  animals  of  the  earth  are  actuated  by  an  imma- 
terial principl(^"(l)  Tills  is  as  certum  as  analogy  can 
make  it :  but  if  we  allow  a  spiritual  jirinciple  to  ani- 
mals, its  k-ind  is  obviously  inferior ;  tor  the  spirit  which 
is  incajiable  of  continuous  induction  and  moral  know- 
ledge, must  be  of  an  inferior  order  to  the  spirit  whicli 
possesses  these  capabilities;  and  this  is  the  kiiidof  spi- 
rituality which  is  peculiar  to  man. 

The  sentiment  expressed  in  Wisdom  ii.  23,  isevidence 
that,  in  the  opinion  of  the  ancient  Jews,  the  image  of 
God  in  man  comprised  iimnortalily  also.  "  For  (Jod 
created  man  to  b6  iiiimurtul.  and  made  him  to  be  an 
image  of  his  own  eternity ;"  and  iliough  other  creatures, 
and  even  the  body  of  man,  were  made  capable  of  iin- 
mortalily,  and  at  least  the  material  human  frame,  what- 
ever we  inay  think  of  the  case  of  animals,  would  have 
escaped  death,  had  not  sin  entered  the  world,  yet,  With- 
oui  niiiiiiiig  into  the  absurdity  of  the  "natural  immor- 
talit)"  of  the  human  soul,  that  essence  must  have  been 
constiuited  immortal  in  a  high  and  peculiar  sense, 
wliiib  has  ever  retained  its  prerogative  of  eternal  du- 
raliou  amid  the  universal  death,  not  only  of  animals, 
but  of  the  bodies  of  all  human  beings.  To  me  there 
appears  a  manifest  allusion  to  man's  immortality,  as 
being  included  in  the  image  of  God,  in  the  reason  which 
is  given  in  Genesis  for  the  law  which  inflicts  death  on 
murderers.  "Whcso  shcddeth  man's  blood  by  man 
shall  his  blood  be  shed  :  f()r  in  the  image  of  God  made 
he  man."    The  essence  of  the  crime  of  homicide  can- 

(l)GLUiu'i>  Stackliuusc. 


Phap.  XVIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


not  be  in  the  putting  to  death  the  mere  animal  part  of 
man  ;  and  must,  therefore,  lie  in  the  peculiar  value  of 
life  to  an  immortal  being,  accountable  in  another  slate 
for  the  actions  done  in  this,  and  whose  life  ought  to  be 
specially  guarded,  fur  this  very  reason,  that  death  intro- 
duces him  into  changeless  and  eternal  relations,  wiuch 
were  not  to  lie  at  the  sport  or  mercy  of  human  passions. 

To  these  we  are  to  add  the  intellectual  powers,  and 
we  have  what  divines  have  called,  in  perfect  accordance 
with  the  Scriptures,  the  natural  image  of  God  in  his 
creature,  which  is  essential  and  ineffaceable.  He  was 
made  capable  of  knowledge,  and  he  was  endowed  with 
liberty  of  ivM. 

Tliis  natural  image  of  God  in  which  man  was  cre- 
ated, was  the  foundation  of  that  moral  image  by 
which  also  he  was  distinguished.  Unless  he  had  been 
a  spiritual,  knowing,  and  willing  being,  he  would  have 
been  wholly  incapable  of  moral,  qualities.  That  he  had 
such  qualities  eminently,  and  that  in  them  consisted  the 
image  of  God,  as  well  as  in  the  natural  attributes  just 
stated,  we  have  also  the  express  testimony  of  Scripture. 
"  Lo  ihis  only  have  I  found,  that  God  made  man  up- 
right, but  they  have  sought  out  many  inventions." 
The  objections  taken  to  this  proof  are  thus  satisfacto- 
rily answered  by  President  Edwards : 

"  It  is  an  observation  of  no  weight  which  Dr.  Tay- 
lor makes  on  this  text,  that  the  word  man  is  commonly 
used  to  signify  mankind  in  general,  or  mankind  collec- 
tively taken.  It  is  true,  it  often  signifies  the  species  of 
mankind ;  but  then  it  is  used  to  signify  the  species,  with 
regard  to  its  duration  and  s-uccessioti  from  its  IJegin- 
ning,  as  well  as  with  regard  to  its  extent.  The  English 
word  mankind  is  used  to  signify  the  species :  But 
what  then  ?  Would  it  be  an  improper  way  of  speak- 
ing, to  say,  that  when  God  first  made  mankind,  he 
placed  them  in  a  pleasant  paradise  (meaning  m  their 
first  parents),  but  now  they  live  in  the  midst  of  briers 
and  thorns  ?  And  it  is  certain,  that  to  speak  thus  of 
God  making  mankind, — his  giving  the  species  an  exist- 
ence in  their  first  parents,  at  the  creation, — is  agreeable 
to  the  Scripture  use  of  such  an  expression.  As  in  Deut. 
iv.  32,  '  Since  tke  day  that  God  created  man  upon 
the  earth.'  Job  xx.  4,  '  Knowest  thou  not  this  of  old, 
since  iMAN  roas  jilaced  upon  the  earth.'  Isaiah  xlv.  J2, 
'  I  have  made  the  earth,  and  creatkd  man  upon  it:  I, 
even  my  hands,  have  stretched  out  the  heavens.'  Jer. 
xxvii.  5, '  /  have  ivtADE  the  earth,  tke  man  and  the  beast 
that  are  upon  the  gro^ind,  by  my  great  power.'  All 
these  texts  speak  of  God  making  man,  signifying  the 
specjfs  of  mankind ;  and  yet  they  all  plainly  have  re- 
spect to  God  making  man  at  first,  when  he  '  made  the 
earth,'  ' and,  stretched  out  the  heavens'  In  all  these 
places  the  same  word,  Adam,  is  used  as  in  Ecclesias- 
tes  ;  and  in  the  last  of  these,  used  with  (he  emphati- 
cum)  the  emphatic  sign,  as  here  ;  though  Dr.  T.  omits 
it  when  lie  tells  us  he  gives  us  a  catalogue  of  all  the 
places  in  Scripture  where  the  word  is  used.  And  it 
argues  nothing  to  the  Doctor's  purpose,  that  the  pro- 
noun they  is  u.sed, — 'They  have  sought  out  many  i)i.- 
venlions.'  This  is  properly  applied  to  the  species, 
which  (»od  made  at  first  upright ;  the  species  begun 
with  more  than  one,  and  continued  in  a  multitude.  As 
Christ  speaks  of  the  two  sexes,  in  the  relation  of  man 
and  wife,  continued  in  successive  generations.  Matt. 
xix.  4,  '  He  that  made  them  at  the  beginning  made 
them  male  and  female,'  having  reference  to  Adam  and 
Eve. 

"  No  less  impertinent,  and  also  very  unfair,  is  his  criti- 
cism on  the  word  (IIJ^'')  translated  upright.  Because 
the  word  sometimes  signifies  right,  he  would  from 
thence  infer,  that  it  does  not  properly  signify  moral  rec- 
titude, even  when  used  to  express  the  character  of  mo- 
ral agents.  He  might  as  well  insist,  that  the  English 
word  upright,  sometimes,  and  in  its  most  original 
meaning,  signifies  right-up,  or  in  an  erect  posture, 
therefore  it  does  not  properly  signify  any  moral  charac- 
ter, when  applied  to  moral  agents.  And  indeed  less 
unreasonably  ;  for  it  is  known  that  in  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage, in  a  peculiar  manner,  most  words  used  to  sig- 
nify moral  and  spiritual  things,  are  taken  from  external 
and  natural  objects.  The  word  ('IK''')  Jashur  is  used, 
as  applied  to  moral  agents,  or  to  the  words  and  actions 
of  such  (if  I  have  not  mis-reckoned),  about  a  hundred 
and  ten  in  Scripture  ;  and  in  about  a  hundred  of  them, 
without  all  dispute,  to  signify  virtue,  or  moral  rectitude 
(though  Dr.  T.  is  pleased  to  say,  the  word  does  not  ge- 


nerally signify  a  moral  character),  and  for  the  most 
part  it  signifies  true  virtue,  or  virtue  in  such  a  sense 
as  distinguishes  it  from  all  false  appearances  of  virtue, 
or  what  is  only  virtue  in  some  respects,  but  not  truly 
so  in  the  sight  of  God.  It  is  used  at  least  eighty  times 
in  this  sense :  and  scarce  any  word  can  be  (bund  in  the 
Hebrew  language  more  significant  of  this.  It  is  thus 
used  constantly  in  Solomon's  writings  (where  it  is 
often  found),  when  used  to  express  a  character  or  pro- 
perty of  moral  agents.  And  it  is  beyond  all  controver- 
sy, that  he  u.ses  it  in  this  place  (the  viith  of  Eccles.),  to 
signify  moral  rectitude,  or  a  character  of  real  virtue 
and  integrity.  For  the  wise  man  is  speaking  of  jier- 
sons  with  respect  to  their  moral  character,  inquiring 
into  the  corruption  and  depravity  of  mankind  (as  is 
confessed  by  Dr.  T.) ;  and  he  here  declares,  he  had  not 
found  one  .-unoiig  a  thousand  of  the  right  stamp,  truly 
and  thorouglily  virtuous  and  upright :  which  appeared 
a  strange  thing  I  But  in  this  text  he  clears  God,  and 
lays  the  blame  on  man  :  man  was  not  made  thus  at 
first.  He  was  madeof  the  right  stamp,  altogether  good 
in  his  kind  (as  all  other  things  were),  truly  and  tho- 
roughly virtuous,  as  he  ought  to  be ;  '  but  they  have 
sought  out  many  inventions'  Which  last  expression 
signifies  tilings  sinful,  or  morally  evil  (as  is  confessed 
p.  185).  And  this  expression,  used  to  signify  those  mo- 
ral evils  he  found  in  man,  which  he  sets  in  opposition 
to  the  uprightness  man  was  made  in,  shows,  that  by 
uprightness  he  means  the  most  true  and  sincere  good- 
ness. The  word  rendered  inventions,  most  naturally 
and  a|)tly  signifies  the  subtle  devices,  and  crooked  de- 
ceitful ways  of  hypocrites,  wherein  they  are  of  a  cha- 
racter contrary  to  men  of  simplicity  and  godly  sincerity ; 
who,  though  wise  in  that  which  is  good,  are  simple  con- 
cerning evil.  Thus  the  same  wise  man,  in  Prov.  xii.  0, 
sets  a  truly  good  man  in  opposition  to  a  man  of  wicked 
devices,  whom  God  will  condemn.  Solomon  had  occa- 
sion to  observe  many  who  put  on  ad  artful  disguise  and 
fair  show  of  goodness  ;  but  on  searching  thoroughly, 
he  found  very  few  truly  upright.  As  he  says,  Prov.  xx. 
6, '  Most  7nen  will  proclaim  every  one  his  (nun  good- 
ness :  but  a  faithful  man  who  can  find  ?'  so  that  it  is 
exceeding  plain,  that  by  uprightness,  in  this  place 
(Eccles.  vii.),  Solomon  means  true  moral  goodness."(2) 

There  is  also  an  express  allusion  to  the  moral  image 
of  God,  in  which  man  was  at  first  created,  in  Col.  ui. 
10,  "And have  put  on  the  new  man,  which  is  renewed 
in  knowledge,  alter  the  image  of  Him  that  created  him ;" 
and,  in  Eph. iv.  24,  "Put  on  the  new  man,  which  after 
God  is  created  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness."  In 
these  passages  the  apostle  represents  the  change  pro- 
duced in  the  true  Christians  by  the  Gospel,  as  a  "  re- 
newal" of  the  image  of  God  in  man  ;  as  a  new  or  se- 
cond creation  in  that  image ;  and  he  explicitly  declares, 
that  that  image  consists  in  "  knowledge,"  in  "  righteous- 
ness," and  in  "  true  holiness."  The  import  of  these 
terms  shall  be  just  now  considered ;  biit  it  is  here  suf- 
ficient that  they  contain  the  doctrine  of  a  creation  of 
man  in  the  image  of  the  moral  perfections  of  his  Maker. 

This  also  may  be  finally  argued  from  the  satisfaction 
with  which  the  historian  of  the  creation  represents  the 
Creator  as  viewing  the  works  of  liis  hands  as  "very 
good."  This  is  pronounced  with  reference  to  each  in- 
dividually, as  well  as  to  the  whole.  "And  God  saw 
every  thing  that  he  had  made,  and  behold  it  was  very 
good."  But,  as  to  man,  this  goodness  must  necessardy 
imply  moral  as  well  as  physical  quahties.  Without 
them  he  would  have  been  imperfect  as  man;  and  had 
they  existed  in  him,  in  their  first  exercises,  perverted 
and  sinful,  he  must  have  been  an  exception,  and  could 
not  have  been  pronounced  "  very  good."  The  good- 
ness of  man,  as  a  rational  being,  must  lie  in  a  devo- 
tedness  and  consecration  to  God ;  consequently,  man 
was  at  first  devoted  to  God,  otherwise  he  was  not  good. 
A  rational  creature,  as  such,  is  capable  of  knowing, 
loving,  serving,  and  living  in  communion  with  the 
Most  Holy  One.  Adam,  at  first,  did  or  did  not  use 
this  capacity ;  if  he  did  not,  he  was  not  very  good,  nor 
good  at  all. 

As  to  the  degree  of  moral  perfection  in  the  first  man, 
much  .scope  has  been  given,  in  describing  it,  to  a  warm 
imagination,  and  to  mucli  rhetorical  embellishment ; 
and  Adam's  perfection  has  sometimes  been  placed  at 
an  elevation  which  renders  it  e.xceedingly  difficult  to 
conceive  how  he  should  fall  into  sin  at  all ;  and  espe- 


(2)  Original  Sin. 


230 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


cially  liow  he  should  fall  so  soon  as  seerns  to  be  repre- 
sented ill  the  narrative  of  Moses.  On  the  other  hand, 
those  wtio  either  deny  or  hold  very  ,sli<;htly  the  doctrine 
of  our  hereditary  depravity,  delight  to  represent  Adam 
as  little,  if  at  all,  superior  in  tnoral  porleetion  and  ca- 
pability to  his  descendants.  IJut,  if  we  attend  to  the 
passages  of  holy  writ  above  quot(Ml,  we  shall  be  able, 
on  this  subject,  to  ascertain,  if  not  the  exact  degree  of 
his  moral  endowments,  yet  that  there  is  a  certain  stand- 
ard below  which  he  could  nut  be  |)laced,  in  the  perfec- 
tion of  his  moral  endowments.  Generally,  he  waw 
made  in  the  image  of  God,  which,  we  have  already 
proved,  is  to  be  understood  morally  as  well  as  natu- 
rally.  Now,  however  the  image  of  any  thing  may  be 
reduced  in  extent,  it  must  still  be  an  accurate  repre- 
sentation as  far  as  it  goes.  Every  thing  good  in  the 
creation  must  always  be  a  miniature  representation  of 
the  excellence  of  the  Creator ;  but,  in  this  case,  the 
"  goodness,"  that  is,  the  perfection  of  every  creature, 
according  to  the  part  it  was  designed  to  act  in  the  ge- 
neral assemblage  of  beings  collected  into  our  system, 
wholly  forbids  us  to  suppose,  that  the  image  of  God's 
moral  ])erfections  in  rnan  was  a  blurred  and  dim  repre- 
sentation. To  whatever  extent  it  went,  it  necessarily 
excluded  all  that  from  man  which  did  not  resemble 
God ;  it  was  a  likene.ss  to  God  in  "  righteousness  and 
true  holiiuws,"  whatever  the  degree  of  each  might  be, 
which  excluded  all  admixture  of  unrighteousness  and 
unholincss.  The  first  part  of  our  conclusion,  there- 
fore, is,  that  man,  in  his  original  state,  was  sinlesx, 
both  in  act  and  in  principle.  "  (Jod  made  man  up- 
RiGHT."  That  this  signifies  moral  rectitude  has  been 
already  established ;  but  the  import  of  the  word  is 
very  extensive.  It  expresses,  by  an  easy  figure,  the 
exactness  of  truth,  justice,  and  obedience ;  and  it  com- 
prehends the  state  and  habit  both  of  the  heart  and  the 
life.  Such,  then,  was  the  state  of  primitive  man ; 
there  was  no  obliquity  of  his  moral  jirinciples,  his 
mind,  and  aflections ;  none  in  his  conduct.  He  was 
perfectly  sincere  and  exactly  just,  rendering  from  the 
lieart  all  that  was  due  to  God  and  to  the  creature. 
Tried  by  the  exactest  plummet,  he  was  upright ;  by 
the  most  perfect  rule,  he  was  straight. 

The  "  knowledge''''  in  which  the  apostle  Paul,  in  the 
passage  quoted  above  from  Colossians  iii.  10,  places 
"the  image  of  God"  after  which  man  was  created, 
does  not  merely  imi)ly  the  faculty  of  the  understand- 
ing, which  is  a  part  of  the  natiu-al  image  of  God ;  but 
that  which  might  be  lost,  because  it  is  that  in  which 
the  new  man  is  "  renewed.^''  It  is,  therefore,  to  be  un- 
derstood of  the  faculty  of  knowledge  in  the  right  exer- 
cise of  its  original  power ;  and  of  that  willing  recep- 
tion, and  firm  retainmg,  and  hearty  approval  of  reli- 
gious truth,  in  which  knowledge,  when  spoken  of  mo- 
rally, is  always  understood  in  the  Scriptures.  We  may 
not  be  disposed  to  allow,  with  some,  that  he  understood 
the  deep  philosophy  of  nature,  and  coidd  comprehend 
and  explain  the  sublmie  my.«teries  of  religion.  The 
circumstance  of  his  giving  names  to  the  animals  is  cer- 
tainly no  sulficient  proof  of  his  having  attained  to  a 
philosoi)liical  acquaintance  with  their  qualities  and  dis- 
tinguishing haliits,  though  we  should  allow  the  names 
to  be  still  retained  in  the  Hebrew,  and  to  be  as  e.x- 
pressivo  of  their  peculiarities  as  some  expositors  have 
stated.  No  sullicient  time  appears  to  have  been  af- 
forded him  for  the  study  of  llieir  properties,  as  this 
event  took  place  |ircvious  to  the  liiniiatioii  of  Eve ;  and 
as  for  the  notion  of  bis  acquiring  knowledge  by  intui- 
tion, it  is  contradicted  by  th<'  rrrmlnl  fact,  tliat  angels 
themselves  acipiire  their  knowledge  by  observation  and 
study,  though,  no  doubt,  with  greater  rapidity  and  cer- 
tainly than  we.  The  whole  of  tin;  transaction  was 
sujiernatural ;  the  beasts  were  "  brought"  to  Adam, 
and  it  is  probable  thai  he  Tiamc d  them  under  a  Divine 
impulse.  He  has  been  supiio.sed  to  be  the  inventor  of 
language,  but  the  hiHlDry  shows  that  he  was  never 
without  language.  He  was  from  the  first  able  to  con- 
verso  with  God  ;  and  we  may,  therefore,  infer  that  lan- 
guage was  III  him  a  supernatural  and  mirnrulous  en- 
dowment. 'I'hat  his  understanding  was,  as  to  its  capa- 
city, deep  and  large  beyond  any  ol'  his  posterity,  irmst 
follow  from  the  perfi^ction  in  which  he  was  created, 
and  his  acquisitions  of  knowledge  would,  therefore,  be 
rapid  and  easy.  It  was,  however,  in  moral  and  reli- 
gious truth,  as  being  6f  the  first  concern  to  him,  that 
we  arc  to  suppose  the  excellence  of  his  knowledge  to 
have  consisted.    "  Ills  reason  would  be  dear,  liis  judg- 


ment  uncorrupted,  and  Ills  conscience  upright  and  sen- 
Riblc."(;<)  The  best  knowledge  would,  in  him,  be 
placed  first,  and  that  of  every  other  kind  be  made  sub- 
servient to  it,  according  to  its  relation  to  that.  The 
apostle  adds  to  knowledge,  "righteousness  and  true 
holiness,"  terms  which  express  not  merely  freedom 
from  sin,  but  positive  and  active  virtues. 

"A  rational  creature  thus  made,  must  not  only  be 
innocent  and  free,  but  must  be  Ibrmed  holy.  His  will 
must  have  an  inward  bias  to  virtue :  he  must  have  an 
inclination  to  please  that  God  who  made  him ;  a  su- 
preme love  to  his  (^'reator,  a  zeal  to  serve  him,  and  a 
tender  fear  of  offending  him. 

"  For  either  the  new  created  man  loved  God  su- 
premely or  not.  If  he  did,  not,  he  was  not  innocent, 
since  the  law  of  nature  requires  a  supreme  love  to 
God.  If  he  did  he  stood  ready  for  every  act  ol'  obe- 
dience: and  this  is /rwe  holiness  of  heart.  And,  in- 
deed, without  this,  how  could  a  God  of  holiness  love 
the  work  of  his  own  hands? 

"  There  must  be  al.so  in  this  creature  a  regular  sub- 
jection of  the  inferior  powers  to  the  superior  sense,  and 
ajipetite  and  passion  must  be  subject  to  reason.  The 
inind  must  have  a  power  to  govern  these  lower  faculties, 
that  he  might  not  offend  against  the  law  of  his  creation. 

"  He  must  also  liave  his  heart  inlaid  with  love  to 
the  creatures,  especially  those  of  his  own  species, 
if  he  should  be  placed  among  them:  and  with  a  prin- 
ciple of  hone.sty  and  truth  in  dealing  with  them.  And 
if  many  of  those  creatures  were  made  at  once,  there 
would  be  no  pride,  malice,  or  envy,  no  falsehood,  no 
brawls,  or  contentions  among  them,  but  all  harmony 
and  love.  "(4) 

Sober  as  these  views  are  of  man's  primitive  state,  it 
is  not,  perhajjs,  possible  for  us  fully  to  conceive  of  so 
exalted  a  condition  as  even  this.  Uelow  this  standard 
it  could  not  fall ;  and  that  it  implied  a  glory,  and  dig- 
nity, and  n  oral  greatness  of  a  very  exalted  kind,  is 
made  sufficiently  apparent  from  the  degree  of  guilt 
charged  upon  Adam  when  he  fell,  for  the  aggravating 
circumstances  of  his  offence  may  well  be  deduced 
from  the  tremendous  consequences  which  followed. 

The  creation  of  man  in  the  moral  image  of  God  be- 
ing^ so  clearly  stated  in  the  Scriptures,  it  would  be 
dliiicult  to  conceive  in  what  manner  their  testimony,  in 
this  point,  could  be  evaded,  did  we  not  know  the  readi- 
ness with  which  some  minds  form  objections,  and 
how  little  ingenuity  is  required  to  make  objections 
plausible.  The  objection  to  this  clearly  revealed  truth 
is  thus  slated  by  Dr.  Taylor,  of  Norwich,  and  it  lias 
been  followed  in  substance,  and  with  only  some  varia- 
tion of  |)hrasc,  by  the  Socinians  of  the  present  day. 
"Adam  could  not  be  originally  created  in  righteousness 
and  true  holiness;  because  habits  of  holiness  cannot 
be  created  without  our  knowledge,  concurrence,  or 
consent;  for  holiness  in  its  nature  implies  the  choice 
and  consent  of  a  moral  agent,  without  which  it  cannot 
be  holiness."  If,  however,  it  has  been  established  that 
God  xnademfixiupright ;  that  hcwas  created  in  "know- 
ledge," "  righteousness,"  and  "  true  holiness  ;"  and 
that  at  his  creation  he  was  pronounced  very  goiid ;  all 
this  falls  to  the  ground,  and  is  the  vain  reasoning  of 
man  against  the  explicit  testimony  of  God.  The  fal- 
lacy is,  however,  easily  detectiul.  It  lies  in  confound- 
ing "  habits  of  liolines.s"  with  the  principle  of  holiness. 
Now,  though  habit  is  the  result  of  acts,  and  acts  of  vo- 
luntary choice ;  yet  if  the  choice  be  a  right  one,  and 
right  it  must  be  in  order  to  an  act  of  holiness,  and  if 
tills  right  choice,  frequently  exerted,  produces  so  many 
acts  as  shall  form  what  is  called  a  habit,  then  either 
the  principle  from  which  that  right  choice  arises  must 
be  good  or  bad,  or  neither.  If  neither,  a  right  choice 
has  no  cause  at  all ;  if  bad,  a  right  choice  could  not 
originate  from  it ;  if  pood,  tlicn  there  may  be  a  holy 
principle  in  man,  a  right  nature  before  choice,  and  so 
that  jiarl  of  the  argument  falls  to  the  ground.  Now, 
in  Adam,  that  rectitude  of  princMjile  from  which  a  right 
choice  and  right  acts  flowed,  was  either  created  with 
him  or  tbrmed  by  his  own  volitions.  If  ilie  latter  be 
alfirmcd,  llien  he'niust  have  willed  right  befoic  he  had 
a  principle  of  rectitude,  which  is  absurd;  if  l  he  former, 
then  his  crealion  in  a  state  of  iiioial  rectitude,  with  an 
aplMiiili-  .iikI  disposition  to  good  is  established. 

Ml.  Wesley  ilius  answers  the  objection. 

"  What  IS  holiness?    Is  if  not  essentially  love  !    The 


(3)  Watts. 


(4)  Ibid. 


Chap.  XVIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


231 


love  of  God  and  of  all  mankind '  Love  producing 
'  bowels  of  mercies,'  liumbleness  of  mind,  meekness, 
gentleness,  loiig-sufforin;;  ?  And  cannot.  God  slied 
abroad  this  love  in  any  soul,  without  his  concurrence/ 
Antecedent  to  his  knowledge  or  consent '.  And  suppos- 
ing this  to  be  done,  will  love  change  its  nature?  Will 
it  be  no  longer  holiness?  This  argument  can  never  be 
sustained ;  unless  you  would  play  with  the  word  habils. 
Love  is  holiness  wherever  it  exists.  And  God  couid 
crt'ate  either  men  or  angels,  endued  from  the  very  first 
tnoment  of  their  existence,  with  whatsoever  degree  of 
love  he  pleased. 

"  You  '  think,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  demonstration, 
that  wo  cannot  be  righteous  or  holy,  we  cannot  ol/serve 
what  is  right  Without  our  own  free  and  cxpUcit  choice.' 
I  suppose  you  mean  practise  what  is  right.  But  a  man 
may  be  righteous  before  he  does  what  is  right,  holy  in 
heart  before  he  is  holy  in  life.  The  confounding  these 
two  all  along,  seems  the  ground  of  your  strange  ima- 
gination, that  Adam  '  must  choose  to  be  righteous,  must 
exercise  thought  and  reflection  before  he  could  be 
righteous.'  Why  so  1  '  Because  righteousness  is  the 
right  use  and  application  of  our  powers.'  Here  is  your 
capital  mistake.  No,  it  is  not :  it  is  the  right  state  of 
our  powers.  It  is  the  rif;ht  dispositinn  of  our  snul,  the 
right  temper  of  our  mind.  Take  this  with  you,  and 
you  will  no  more  dream,  that  '  God  could  not  create  man 
iu  righteousness  and  true  holiness.'  "(5) 

President  Edwards's  answer  is : 

"1  think  it  a  contradiction  to  the  nature  of  things  as 
judged  of  by  the  common  sense  of  mankind.  It  is 
agreeable  to  the  sense  of  men,  in  all  nations  and  ages, 
not  only  that  the  fruit  or  effect  of  a  good  choice  is  vir- 
tuous, but  that  the  good  choice  itself,  from  whence  that 
effect  proceeds,  is  so;  yea,  also  the  antecedent  food, 
disposition,  temper,  or  affection  of  mind,  from  whence 
proceeds  tliat  gnod  choice,  is  virtuous.  This  is  the 
general  notion--not  that  principles  derive  their  goodness 
from  actions,  but — that  actions  derive  their  goodness 
from  the  principles  whence  they  proceed  ;  so  that  the 
act  of  choosing  what  is  good,  is  no  farther  virtuous, 
than  it  proceeds  from  a  good  principle  or  virtuous  dis- 
position of  mind.  Which  supposes  that  a  virtuous 
disposition  of  mind  may  be  before  a  virtuous  act  of 
choice  ;  and  that,  therefore,  it  is  not  necessary  there 
should  first  be  tiiought,  reflection,  and  choice,  before  there 
can  be  any  virtuous  disposition .  If  the  choice  be  first,  be- 
fore the  existence  of  a  good  disposition  of  heart,  what  is 
the  character  of  that  choice  ?  There  can,  according  to  our 
natural  notions,  be  no  virtue  in  a  choice  which  proceeds 
from  no  virtuous  pruiciple,  but  from  mere  self-love,  am- 
bition, or  some  animal  appetites ;  therefore,  a  virtuous 
temper  of  mind  may  be  before  a  good  act  of  choice,  as 
a  tree  may  be  before  the  fruit,  and  the  fountain  before 
the  stream  which  proceeds  from  it."(f)) 

The_/t«a/  cnitse  of  man's  creation  was  the  display  of 
the  glory  of  God,  and  principally  of  his  moral  perlec- 
tions.  Among  these,  benevolence  shone  with  eminent 
lustre.  The  creation  of  rational  and  holy  creatures  was 
the  only  means,  as  it  appears  to  us,  of  accomplishing 
that  most  paternal  and  benevolent  design,  to  in'ipart  to 
other  beings  a  portion  of  the  Divine  felicity.  The  hap- 
piness of  God  is  the  residt  of  his  moral  perfection,  and 
it  is  complete  and  perfect.  It  is  also  sjiecific ;  it  is  the 
felicity  of  knowledge,  of  conscious  rectitude,  of  sutS- 
ciency,  and  independence.  Of  the  two  former,  creatures 
were  capable ;  but  only  rational  creatures.  Matter, 
however  formed,  is  unconscious,  and  is,  and  must  lor 
ever  remain,  incapable  of  happiness.  However  disposed 
and  adorned,  it  was  made  for  another,  and  not  at  all 
with  reference  to  itself  If  it  be  curiously  wrought,  it 
is  for  some  other's  wonder ;  if  it  has  use,  it  is  for  another's 
convenience  ;  if  it  has  beauty,  it  is  for  another's  eye ; 
if  harmony,  it  is  for  another's  ear.  Irrational  animate 
creatures  may  derive  advantage  from  mere  matter;  but 
it  does  not  appear  that  they  are  conscious  of  it.  They 
have  the  enjoyment  of  sense,  but  not  the  powers  of  re- 
flection, comparison,  and  taste.  They  see  without  ad- 
miration, they  combine  nothing  into  relatioii'-.  So  to 
know,  as  to  be  conscious  ol  knowing,  and  to  feel  the 
pleasures  of  knowledge ;  so  to  know,  as  to  impart  know- 
ledge to  others;  so  to  know,  as  to  lay  the  basis  of 
future  and  enlarging  knowledge,  as  to  discover  the 
efiicient  and  the  final  causes  of  tilings ;  and  to  enjoy  the 
pleasures  of  discovery  and  certainty,  of  imagination 


(5)  Original  Sin. 


(6)  Ibid 


and  taste, — this  is  peculiar  to  rational  beings.  Above 
all,  to  know  the  great  Creator  and  Lord  of  all ;  to  see 
the  distinctions  of  right  and  wrong,  of  good  and  evil  in 
his  law ;  to  have,  therefore,  the  consciousness  of  inte-. 
grity  and  of  well-ordered  and  jierfcctly  balanced  pas4 
sions ;  to  feel  the  felicity  of  universal  and  unbounded 
benevolence  ;  to  be  conscious  of  the  favour  of  God  him- 
self; to  have  perfect  confidence  in  his  care  and  constant 
benediction;  to  adore  liim;  to  be  grateful ;  to  exert  hope 
without  limit  on  future  and  unceasing  blessings;  all 
these  sources  of  felicity  were  added  to  the  pleasiires  of 
intellect  and  imagination  in  the  creation  of  rational 
beings.  In  whatever  part  of  the  universe  they  were 
created  and  placed,  we  have  sufficient  reason  to  believe 
that  this  was  the  primitive  condition  of  all ;  and  wc 
know,  assuredly,  from  God'sownrevelation,that  it  was 
the  condition  of  man.  In  his  creation  and  primeval 
condition,  the  "  kindness  and  love  of  God"  eminently 
appeared.  lie  was  made  a  rational  and  immortal  spirit, 
with  no  limits  to  the  constant  enlargenienl  of  his 
powers ;  for,  from  all  the  evidence  that  our  own  con- 
sciousness, even  in  our  fallen  state,  aflbrds  us,  it  appears 
possible  to  the  human  soid  to  be  eternally  approaching 
the  infinite  in  intellectual  strength  and  attainment.  He 
was  made  holy  and  happy;  he  was  admitted  to  hiter- 
course  with  God.  He  was  not  left  alone,  but  had  the 
pleasure  of  society.  lie  was  placed  in  a  world  of 
grandeur,  harmony,  beauty,  and  utility ;  it  was  caaojiied 
with  other  distant  worlds  to  exhibit  to  his  very  sense 
a  manifestation  of  the  extent  of  space  and  the  vastiiess 
of  the  varied  universe ;  and  to  call  both  his  reason,  his 
fancy,  and  his  devotion  into  their  most  vigorous  and 
salutary  exercises.  He  was  placed  in  a  paratlise.  wliere, 
probably,  all  that  was  sublime  and  gentle  in  the  scenery 
of  the  wliole  earth  was  exhibited  in  pattern ;  and  all 
that  could  delight  the  innocent  sense,  and  excite  the  cu- 
1  ious  inquiries  of  the  mind,  was  spread  before  him. 
He  hail  labour  lo  employ  his  attention  without  wearying 
him  ;  and  time  for  his  highest  pursuits  of  knowing  f!od, 
his  will,  and  his  works.  All  was  a  manifestation  of 
universal  love,  of  which  he  was  the  chief  visible  object; 
and  the  felicity  and  glory  of  his  condition  must,  by  his 
and  their  obethence  in  succession,  have  descended  to 
his  posterity  for  ever.  Such  was  our  world,  and  its 
rational  inhabitants,  the  first  pair ;  and  thus  did  its 
creation  manifest  not  only  the  power  and  wisdom,  but 
the  benevolence  of  Deity.  He  made  them  likeliini.self, 
and  he  made  them  capable  of  a  happiness  like  his  own. 

The  case  of  man  is  now  so  obviously  different,  that 
the  change  cannot  be  denied.  The  Scriptural  method 
of  accounting  for  this  is  the  disobedience  of  our  first 
parents ;  and  the  visitation  of  their  sin  upon  their  pos- 
terity, in  the  altered  condition  of  the  material  world,  in 
the  corrupt  moral  state  in  which  men  are  born,  and  in 
that  afflictive  condition  which  is  universally  imposed 
upon  them.  The  testimony  of  the  sacred  writings  to 
what  is  called,  in  theological  language,  the  Fall  ok 
MAN,(7)is,  therefore,  to  be  next  considered. 

The  Mosaic  account  of  this  event  is,  that  a  garden 
having  been  planted  by  the  Creator,  for  the  use  of  man, 
he  was  placed  in  it,  "to  dress  it,  and  to  keep  it ;"  thatiu 
tills  garden  two  trees  were  specially  distinguished,  one 
as  "  the  tree  of  life,"  the  other  as  "  the  tree  of  the 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil ;"  that,  from  eating  of  the 
latter  Adam  was  restrained  by  positive  interdict,  and 
by  the  penalty,  "  ui  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof  tliou 
Shalt  surely  die:"  that  the  serpent,  who  was  more 
subtle  than  any  beast  of  the  field,  tempted  the  woman 
to  eat,  by  denying  that  death  would  be  the  consequence, 
and  by  assuring  her,  that  her  eyes  and  her  husband's 
eyes  "  would  be  opened,"  and  that  they  would  "  be  as 
gods,  knowing  good  and  evil :"  that  the  woman  took  of 
the  fruit,  gave  of  it  to  her  husband,  who  also  ate ;  that 
(or  tills  act  of  disobedience  they  were  expelled  from  the 
garden,  made  subject  to  death,  and  laid  under  other 
maledictions. 

That  this  history  should  be  the  subject  of  much  criti- 
cism, not  only  by  infidels,  whose  objections  to  it  have 
been  noticed  in  the  first  part  of  this  work  ;  but  by  those 
who  hold  false  and  perverted  views  of  the  Christian 
system,  was  to  be  expected.  Taken  in  its  natural  and 
obvious  sense,  along  with  the  comments  of  the  subse- 

(7)  This  phrase  does  not  occur  ui  the  canonical  Scrip- 
tures; but  is,  probably,  taken  from  Wisdom  x.  1,  "She 
preserved  the  first  formed  father  of  the  world  that  was 
created,  and  brought  him  out  of  his  /'all." 


232 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  IL 


quent  Scriptures,  it  teaches  the  doctrines  of  the  exist- 
ence ot'  an  evil,  tomiiting,  invisible  spirit,  going  about 
seeking  whom  lie  may  deceive  and  devour ;  of  the  intro- 
duction of  a  state  of  moral  corraptnesf?  into  hura;in 
nature,  which  has  been  transmitted  to  all  men  ;  and  of 
a  vicarious  atonement  for  sin  :  and  wlicrevir  ihe  fnn- 
dameutal  truths  of  the  Christian  system  are  denied, 
attempts  will  be  made  so  to  interpret  this  part  of  the 
Mosaic  history  as  lo  obscure  the  testimony  which  it 
gives  to  them,  cither  explicitly,  or  by  just  induction. 
Interpreters  of  tliis  account  of  the  lapse  of  the  first  pair, 
and  the  origin  of  evil,  as  to  the  human  race,  have 
adoi)ted  various  and  often  strange  theories ;  but  those 
whose  opinions  it  seems  necessary  to  notice,  may  he  di- 
vided into  those  who  deny  the  literal  sense  of  the  relation 
entirely  ;  those  who  take  the  account  to  be  in  part  literal 
and  in  part  allegorical ;  and  those  who,  wtiile  they  con- 
tend earnestly  for  the  literal  interpretation  of  every  part 
of  the  history,  consider  some  of  the  terms  used,  and  sotne 
of  the  jiersons  introduced,  as  conveying  a  meaning  more 
extensive  than  the  letter,  and  as  constituting  several 
symbols  of  spiritual  things  and  of  spiriiual  beings. 

Those  who  have  denied  the  Uteral  sense  entirely,  and 
regard  the  whole  relation  as  an  instructive  mt/thos,  or 
fable,  have,  as  might  be  expected,  when  all  restraijit  of 
authority  was  thus  thrown  oflT  from  the  imagination, 
adopted  very  dilferent  interpretations.  Thus  we  have 
been  taught  that  tlus  account  was  intended  to  leach  the 
evil  of  yielding  to  the  violence  of  appetite  and  to  its 
control  over  reason  ;  or  the  introduction  of  vice  in  con- 
junction with  knowledge  and  the  artificial  refinements 
of  society  ;  or  the  necessity  of  keeping  the  great  mass 
of  mankind  from  acquiring  too  great  a  degree  of  know- 
ledge, as  being  hurtlul  to  society ;  or  as  another  ver- 
sion of  the  story  of  the  g:oldon  age,  and  its  being  suc- 
ceeded by  times  more  vicious  and  miserable ;  or  as  de- 
signed, enigmatically,  to  account  for  the  origin  of  evil, 
or  of  mankind.  This  catalogue  of  opinions  might  be 
much  enlarged :  some  of  them  have  been  held  by  mere 
visionaries ;  others  by  men  of  learning,  especially  by 
several  of  the  semi-infidel  theologians  and  biblical  cri- 
tics of  Germany  ;  and  our  own  country  has  not  been 
exempt  from  this  class  ot  free  expositors.  How  to  fix 
upon  the  moral  of  "  the  fable"  is,  however,  the  diffi- 
culty;  and  tins  variety  of  opinion  is  a  sufficient  refuta- 
tion of  the  general  notion  assumed  by  the  whole  class, 
since  scarcely  can  two  of  them  be  found  who  adopt  the 
same  interpretation,  after  they  have  discarded  the  literal 
acceptation. 

But  that  the  account  of  Moses  is  to  be  taken  as  a 
matter  of  p-eal  history,  and  according  to  its  literal  im- 
port, is  established  by  two  considerations,  against 
which,  as  being  facts,  nothing  can  successfully  be 
urged.  The  first  is,  that  the  account  of  the  fall  of  the 
first  pair  is  a  part  of  a  continuous  history.  The 
creation  of  the  world,  of  man,  of  woman ;  the  planting 
of  the  garden  of  Kden,  and  the  placing  of  man  there ; 
the  duties  and  prohibitions  laid  upon  him  ;  lus  disobe- 
dience ;  his  expulsion  from  the  garden  ;  the  subsequent 
birth  of  his  children,  their  lives  and  actions,  and  those 
of  their  posterity  down  to  the  flood;  and,  from  that 
event  to  the  life  of  Abraham,  are  given  in  the  same 
plain  and  unadorned  narrative,  brief,  but  yet  simple, 
and  with  no  inthnation  at  all  either  from  the  elevation 
of  the  style  or  otherwise,  that  a  fable  or  allegory  is  in 
any  part  introduced.  If  this,  then,  be  the  case,  and 
the  evidence  of  it  lies  upon  the  very  face  of  the  his- 
tory, it  is  clear,  thai  if  the  account  of  the  fall  be  ex- 
cepted from  the  whole  narrative  as  allegoric^,  any 
suhsequent  part,  from  Abel  to  Noah,  from  Noah  to 
Abraham,  from  Abraham  to  Moses,  may  be  excepted 
for  the  .same  reason,  which  is  neitjier  more  nor  less 
than  this,  that  it  does  not  agree  with  the  theological 
opinions  of  the  interpreter ;  and  thus  the  whole  of  the 
Pentateuch  may  be  rejected  as  a  history,  and  converted 
into  fable.  One  of  these  consequc-ncis  must,  ilurclbre, 
follow,  either  that  the  account  of  the  fall  must  be  taken 
as  history,  or  the  historical  chara<.ler  of  the  whole  five 
hooks  of  Moses  must  be  unsettled ;  and  if  none  but 
infidels  will  go  to  the  latter  con.sequence,  then  no  one 
who  admits  the  I'cntateiicli  to  be  a  true  history  gene- 
rally, can  coiisislciilly  refuse  to  admit  the  story  of  the 
fall  of  the  first  pan  to  be  a  narrative  of  real  events, 
because  it  is  written  in  Ihe  same  style,  and  presents 
the  same  character  of  a  continuous  record  of  events. 
So  conclusive  has  this  argument  been  felt,  that  the 
auti-literal  interpreters  have  endeavoured  to  evade  it, 


by  asserting  that  the  part  of  the  history  of  Moses  in 
question  bears  marks  of  being  a  separate  fragment, 
more  ancient  than  the  Pentateuch  itself,  and  tran- 
scribed into  it  by  Moses,  the  author  and  compiler  of  the 
whole.  This  point  is  examined  and  satisfactorily  re- 
futed in  the  learned  and  e.xcelleiit  work  referred  to 
below  ;(8)  but  it  is  easy  to  show  iliat  it  would  amount 
to  nothing,  if  granted,  in  the  mind  of  any  one  who  is  sa- 
tisfied on  the  previons  question  of  the  inspiration  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  For,  let  it  be  admitted  that  Moses,  in 
writing  the  Pentateuchal  history,  availed  himself  of 
the  traditions  of  the  patriarchal  ages,  a  supiiosition  not 
in  the  least  inconsistent  with  his  inspiration  or  with 
the  absolute  truth  of  his  history,  since  the  traditions  so 
introduced  have  been  authenticated  by  the  Holy  Spirit ; 
or  let  it  be  suiiposed,  which  is  wholly  gratuitous,  that 
he  made  use  of  previously  existing  documents ;  and 
that  some  difiircnccs  of  style  in  his  books  may  be 
traced  which  serve  to  point  out  his  quotations,  which 
also  is  an  assunqition,  or  rather  a  position,  which  some 
of  the  best  Hebraists  have  denied,  yet  two  things  are 
to  be  noted :  first,  that  the  inspired  character  of  the 
hooks  of  Moses  is  authenticated  by  our  Lord  and  liis 
apo.stles,  so  that  they  must  necessarily  be  wholly  true, 
and  free  from  real  contradictions;  and,  secondly,  that 
to  make  it  any  thing  to  their  purpose  who  conteml  that 
the  account  of  the  fall  is  an  older  document,  introduced 
by  Moses,  it  ought  to  he  shown  that  it  is  not  written  as 
truly  in  the  iiarrative  style,  even  if  it  could  he  proved 
to  be,  in  some  respects,  a  different  style,  as  that  which 
precedes  and  follows  it.  Now  the  very  literal  charac- 
ter of  our  translation  w^ill  enable  even  the  unlearned 
reader  to  discover  this.  Whether  it  be  an  imbodicil 
tradition,  or  the  insertion  of  a  more  ancient  docu- 
ment (though  there  is  no  foundation  at  all  for  tiie  latter 
supposition),  it  is  obviously  a  narrati%-c,  and  a  narrative 
as  simple  as  any  which  precedes  or  follows  it. 

The  other  indisputable  fact  to  which  I  just  now  ad- 
verted, as  establishing  the  literal  sense  of  the  history, 
is,  that,  as  such,  it  is  referred  to  and  reasoned  upon  in 
various  jiarts  of  Scripture. 

,Iob  XX.  4,  5,  "  Knowest  thou  not  this  of  old,  since 
man  was  placed  upon  earth,  that  the  triumphing  of  the 
wicked  is  short,  and  the  joy  of  the  hypocrite  but  for  a 
moment  ?"  The  first  part  of  the  quotation  "  might  .as 
well  have  been  rendered,  '  since  An.4>;  was  placed  on 
the  earth.'  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  but  that  this 
])assage  refers  to  the  fall  and  the  first  sin  of  man.  The 
date  agrees  ;  for  the  know  ledge  here  taught  is  said  to 
arise  from  facts  as  old  as  the  fim  pl.acing  of  man  upon 
earth,  and  the  sudden  punishment  of  the  iniquity  cor- 
responds to  the  Mosaic  account, — '  the  triumphing  of 
the  wicked  is  short,  his  joy  but  lor  a  moment.'  "(il) 

Job.  xxxi.  33,  "  If  I  cover  my  transgression  as  AnA>f, 
by  hiding  my  iniquity  in  my  bosom."  Magee  renders 
the  verse, 

"  Did  I  cover,  like  Adam,  my  transgrc-ision. 
By  hiding  in  a  lurking  place  mine  iniipiity  ?" 
and  adds,  "  I  agree  with  Peters,  that  this  contains  a 
reference  to  the  history  of  the  first  man,  and  his  en- 
deavours to  hide  himself  alter  his  trangreRsion."(l) 
Our  margin  reads,  "  after  the  manner  of  men  ;"  and 
also  the  old  versions;  but  the  Chaldee  paraphrase 
agrees  with  our  translation,  which  is  also  sati-sfactorily 
defended  by  numerous  critics. 

.Tub  XV,  11,  "  What  is  man,  that  he  should  be  clean  ? 
and  he  which  is  born  of  a  woman,  that  he  should  be  right- 
eous?' Why  not  clean?  Did  God  make  woman  or 
man  unclean  at  the  beginning  ?  If  he  did,  the  expostu- 
lation would  have  been  more  apposite,  and  much 
stronger,  had  the  true  cause  been  assigneil,  and  ,Tob  had 
said,  "  How  canst  thou  expect  cleanness  in  man,  w  lioiii 
thou  creatcdsl  unclean  ?"  Hut,  as  th(^  case  now  stands, 
the  expostulation  has  a  plain  reference  to  thi'  introduc- 
tion of  vanity  and  corruption  by  the  sin  of  the  woman, 
and  is  an  evidence  that  this  ancient  writi  r  was  sensi- 
ble of  the  evil  consequences  of  the  fall  upon  the  whole 
race  of  man.  ''Eden"  and  "  the  garden  of  the  l,ord" 
are  also  frequently  referred  to  in  the  proiiliels.  We 
have  the  "  tree  of  life"  mentioned  several  times  in  the 
Proverbs  and  in  the  Revelations.    "God,"  says  Solo- 


(8)  FIoi.pkn's  Dissertation  on  the  Fall  of  Man, chap.  ii. 
In  this  volume  the  literal  sense  of  the  Mosaic  account 
of  the  fall  is  largely  investigated  and  ably  establi-sbed 

(!))  .Sherlock  on  Prophecy. 

(1)  Discourses  on  the  Atonement 


Chap.  XVIII.J 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


233 


mon,  "mado  man  upright."  The  enemies  of  Christ 
and  liis  churcli  arc  spoken  of  botli  in  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  under  llie  names  of  "  the  serpent"  and 
"  the  dragon;"  and  the  habit  of  the  serpent  to  Uek  the 
dust  is  also  referred  to  bv  Isaiah. 

If  the  history  of  llie  fall,  as  recorded  by  Moses,  were 
an  allegory,  or  any  thing  but  a  literal  history,  several 
of  the  above  allusions  would  have  no  meannig ;  but 
the  matter  is  put  beyond  all  pos,sible  doubt  in  the  New 
Testament,  unless  the  .same  culpable  liberties  be  taken 
•with  the  interpretation  of  the  words  of  our  Lord  and 
of  St.  Paul  as  with  those  of  the  .Jewish  lawgiver.  Our 
Lord  says,  Matt.  .\ix.  4,  5,  "  Have  ye  not  read,  that  ha 
which  made  them  at  the  beginning,  made  them  male 
and  female  ;  and  said,  For  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave 
father  and  motlier,  and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife;  and 
they  twain  shall  be  one  flesh  ?"  This  is  an  argument 
on  the  subject  of  divorces,  and  its  foundation  rests  upon 
two  of  the  facts  recorded  by  Moses.  I.  That  God  made 
at  first  but  two  human  beings,  from  whom  all  the  rest 
have  sprung.  2.  That  the  intimacy  and  indissolu- 
bility of  the  marriage  relation  rests  upon  tlie  formation 
of  the  woman  from  the  man ;  for  our  Lord  quotes  the 
words  in  Genesis,  where  the  obligation  of  man  to  cleave 
to  his  wife  is  immediately  connected  with  that  circum- 
stance. "  And  Adam  said.  This  is  now  bone  of  my 
bones,  and  liesh  of  my  tlesh :  she  shall  be  called  wo- 
man, because  she  was  taken  out  of  man.  Thkkefore 
shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and  his  mother,  and  sliall 
cleave  unto  his  wife ;  and  they  shall  be  one  flesh." 
This  is  sufTiciently  in  proof  that  both  our  Lord  and  the 
Pharisees  considered  this  early  part  of  the  history  of 
Moses  as  a  narrative  ;  for  otherwise,  it  would  neither 
liave  been  a  reason,  on  his  part,  for  the  doctrine  >vhich 
he  was  inculcating,  nor  have  had  any  force  of  convic- 
tion as  to  them.  "■  In  Adam,"  says  the  apostle  Paul, 
"  all  die ;"  "  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world." 
"  But  I  fear  lest  by  any  means,  as  the  serpent  beguiled 
Eve  through  his  subtlety,  so  your  minds  should  be  cor- 
rupted from  the  simplicity  that  is  in  Christ."  In  the 
last  passage,  the  instrument  of  the  temptation  is  said  to 
he  a  serpent  (o0(s),  which  is  a  sufficient  an.swer  to  those 
who  would  make  it  any  other  animal ;  and  Eve  is  re- 
presented as  being  first  seduced,  according  to  the  ac- 
count in  Genesis.  This  St.  Paul  repeats  in  1  Tim.  ii. 
13,  14,  "Adam  was  first  formed,  then  Eve.  And  Adam 
was  not  deceived  (first  or  immediately),  but  tlie  woman 
being  deceived,  was  in  the  transgression."  And  offers 
this  as  the  reason  of  his  injunction,  "  Let  the  woman 
learn  in  silence  with  all  subjection."  When,  therefore, 
it  is  considered  that  these  passages  are  introduced  not 
for  rhetorical  illustration,  or  in  the  way  of  classical 
quotation,  but  are  made  the  basis  of  grave  and  impor- 
tant reasonings,  which  imbody  some  of  the  most  im- 
portant doctrines  of  the  Christian  revelation ;  and  of 
important  social  duties  and  points  of  Christian  order 
and  decorum ;  it  would  be  to  charge  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  with  the  grossest  absurdity,  wiih  even 
culpable  and  unworthy  trifling,  to  suppose  them  to  ar- 
gue from  the  history  of  the  fall,  as  a  narrative,  when 
they  knew  it  to  be  an  allegory  ;  and  if  we  are,  there- 
fore, compelled  to  allow  that  it  was  understood  as  a 
real  history  by  our  Lord  and  his  inspired  apostles,  those 
si)eculations  of  modern  critics,  which  convert  it  into  a 
parable,  stand  branded  with  their  true  character  of  in- 
fidel and  semi-infidel  temerity. 

The  objections  wliich  are  made  to  the  historical  cha- 
racter of  this  account  are  either  those  of  open  unbelievers 
and  scoffers,  or  such  as  are  founded  precisely  upon 
the  same  allegations  of  supposed  absurdity  and  un- 
suitableness  to  which  .such  persons  resort,  and  which 
suppose  that  man  is  a  competent  judge  of  the  proceed- 
ings of  liis  Maker,  and  that  ihe  latter  ought  to  regulate 
his  conduct  and  requirements  by  what  the  tbrmer  may 
think  fit  or  unfit.  If  the  literal  interpretation  of  the 
lirst  chapter  in  Genesis  could  be  proved  inconsistent 
with  other  parts  of  holy  writ,  then,  indeed,  we  should 
be  compelled  to  adopt  the  mode  of  explanation  by  alle- 
gory ;  hut  if  no  reason  more  weighty  can  be  offered 
for  so  violent  a  proceeding,  than  that  men  either  oliject 
to  the  doctrines  which  the  literal  account  includes  ;  or 
that  the  recorded  account  of  the  actual  dealings  of  God 
with  the  first  man  does  not  comport  with  their  notions 
of  what  was  fit  in  such  circumstances,  we  should  hold 
truth  with  little  tenacity,  were  we  to  surrender  it  to  the 
enemy  upon  such  a  summons.  The  fallacy  of  most 
of  tliese  objections  is,  however,  easily  pointed  out. , 


We  are  asked,  first,  whether  it  is  reasonable  to  sup- 
pose, that  the  fruit  of  the  tree  of  life  could  confer  im- 
mortality? But  what  is  there  irrational  in  supposing 
that,  though  Adam  was  made  exeniiu  from  divith,  yet 
tliat  the  fruit  of  a  tree  should  be  the  apiioiiiicd  instru- 
ment of  preserving  his  health,  repairin;;  tin;  wastes  of 
Ins  animal  nature,  and  ol'maiiilaiiiiug  iiim  in  perpetual 
youtli  ?  Almighty  God  could  have  accomplished  this 
end  without  means,  or  by  other  means  ;  but  since  he 
so  oflea  employs  instruments,  it  is  not  more  strange 
that  he  should  ordain  to  preserve  Adam  permanently 
from  death  by  food  of  a  special  quality,  than  that  now 
he  should  preserve  men  in  health  and  lilc,  for  threescore 
years  and  ten,  by  specific  foods ;  and  that,  to  counter- 
act disorders,  he  should  have  given  specific  medicinal 
qualities  to  herbs  and  minerals:  or  it",  with  some,  we 
regard  the  eating  of  the  tree  of  life  as  a  sacramental 
act,  an  expression  of  faith  in  the  promise  of  continued 
preservation,  and  a  means  through  which  the  conserv- 
ing influence  of  God  was  bestowed,  a  notion,  however, 
not  so  well  founded  as  the  other,  it  is  yet  not  inconsis- 
tent with  the  literal  interpretation,  and  involves  no 
really  unreasonable  consequence,  and  nothing  directly 
contrary  to  the  analogy  of  faith.  It  has  been,  also,  fool- 
ishly enough  asked  whether  the  fruit  of  the  jirolubited 
tree,  or  of  any  tree,  can  be  supposed  to  have  communi- 
cated "  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,"  or  have  had  any 
effect  at  all  upon  the  intellectual  powers?  But  this  is 
not  the  idea  conveyed  by  the  history,  however  literally 
taken,  and  the  objection  is  groundless.  That  tree 
might  surely,  without  the  least  approach  to  allegory,  be 
called  "  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil," 
whether  we  understand  by  this,  that  by  eating  it  man 
came  to  know,  by  sad  experience,  the  value  c*'  the 
"  good"  he  had  forfeited,  and  the  bitterness  of  "  evil," 
which  he  had  before  known  only  in  name ;  or,  as  others 
have  understood  it,  that  it  was  appointed  to  be  the  test 
of  Adam's  fidelity  to  his  Creator,  and,  consequently, 
was  a  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  a  tree 
for  the  purpose  of  knowing  (or  making  known)  whe- 
ther he  would  cleave  to  the  former,  or  make  choice  of 
the  latter.  The  first  of  these  interpretations  is,  I  think, 
to  be  preferred,  because  it  better  harmonizes  with  the 
whole  history ;  but  either  of  them  is  consistent  with  a 
literal  interpretation,  and  cannot  be  proved  to  involve 
any  real  absurdity. 

To  the  account  of  the  serpent,  it  has  been  objected 
that,  taken  literally,  it  makes  the  invisible  tempter  as- 
sume the  body  of  an  animal  to  carry  on  his  designs: 
but  we  must  be  better  acquainted  with  the  nature  and 
laws  of  disembodied  spirits  before  we  can  prove  this 
to  be  impossible,  or  even  unlikely ;  and  as  for  an  ani- 
mal being  chosen  as  the  means  of  ajiproach  to  Eve, 
without  exciting  suspicion,  it  is  manifest  that,  allowing 
a  superior  spirit  to  be  the  real  tempter,  it  was  good 
policy  in  him  to  address  Eve  through  an  animal  which 
she  must  have  noticed  as  one  of  the  inhabitants  of  the 
garden,  rather  than  in  a  human  form,  when  she  knew 
that  herself  and  her  husband  were  the  only  human 
beings  as  yet  in  existence.  The  presence  of  such  a 
stranger  would  have  been  much  more  likely  to  put  her 
on  her  guard.  But  then,  we  are  told  that  the  animal 
was  a  contemptible  rejrtUe.  Certainly  not  before  he 
was  degraded  in  form  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  one  of  the 
"beasts  of  the  earth,"  and  not  a  "creeping  thing;" 
and  also  more  "  subtle,"  more  discerning  and  saga- 
cious "  than  any  beast  of  the  field  which  the  Lord  God 
had  made" — consequently,  the  head  of  all  the  inferior 
animals  in  intellect,  and  not  unlikely  to  have  been  of  a 
corresponding  noble  and  beautiful  form;  for  this,  in- 
deed, his  bodily  degradation  imparts.(2)  If  there  was 
policy,  then,  in  Satan's  choosing  an  animal  as  the  in- 
strument by  which  he  might  make  his  approaches, 
there  was  as  much  good  taste  in  his  selection  as  the 
allegorists,  who  seem  anxious  on  this  point,  can  wish 
for  him.  The  speaking  of  the  serpent  is  another 
stumbling  block;  but  as  the  argument  is  not  here 
with  an  infidel,  but  with  those  who  profess  to  receive 


(2)  We  have  no  reason  at  all  to  sujipose,  as  it  is 
strangely  done  almost  uniformly  by  commentators,  that 
this  animal  had  the  serpentine  tbrm  in  any  mode  or 
degree  at  all  before  his  transformation.  That  he  was 
then  degraded  to  a  reptile,  to  go  "  upon  his  belly,"  im- 
ports, on  the  contrary,  an  entire  alteration  and  loss  of 
the  original  form— a  form  of  wliicU  it  is  clear  no  idea 
can  now  be  conceived. 


'234 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


the  Mosaic  recorJ  as  Divine,  the  speaking  of  the  ser- 
pent is  no  more  a  reason  for  interpreting  tlie  relation 
allegorically,  than  tlie  sjieaking  of  the  ass  of  Balaam 
can  be  for  allegorizing  the  wliole  of  that  transaction. 
That  a  good  or  an  evil  sjiirit  has  no  power  to  proiluci; 
articulate  sounds  from  the  organs  of  an  animal,  no 
philosophy  can  prove,  ami  it  is  a  fact  wliich  is,  there- 
fore, capable  of  being  rationally  subsiaiitialeil  by  testi- 
mony. There  is  a  clear  reason,  loo,  for  this  use  of  the 
power  of  Satan  iu  the  story  itself.  Uy  his  giving  speeih 
to  the  serpent,  and  representing  that,  as  appears  from 
the  account,  as  a  conseiiuence  of  the  serpent  having 
himself  eaten  of  the  fruit,(3)  he  took  the  most  effectual 
means  of  impre.ssing  Eve  with  the  dangerous  and 
fatal  notion,  that  the  prohibition  of  the  tree  of  know- 
ledge was  a  restraint  uiion  her  happiness  and  intellec- 
tual improvement,  and  thus  to  suggest  hard  thoughts 
of  her  Maker.  The  objection  that  Eve  maniltjsted  no 
surprise  wlien  she  heard  an  animal  speak,  whom  she 
mu.st  have  known  not  to  have  had  that  feculty  before, 
has  also  no  weight,  since  that  circumstance  might  have 
occurred  without  being  mentioned  in  so  brief  a  history. 
It  is  still  more  likely  that  Adam  should  have  expressed 
some  marks  of  surprise  and  anxiety  too,  when  his 
wife  presented  the  fruit  to  him,  though  nothing  of  the 
kind  is  mentioned.  But  allowing  that  no  surprise  was 
indicated  by  the  woman,  tlije  answer  of  the  author  just 
quoted  is  satisfactory. 

"  In  such  a  state,  reason  must  enjoy  a  calm  dominion  ; 
and  conse(2Uently  there  was  no  room  tor  those  sudden 
starts  of  imagination,  or  those  sudden  tumults,  agita- 
tion, failures,  and  stagnations  of  the  blood  and  spirits 
now  incident  to  human  nature  ;  and  therefore  Eve  was 
incapable  of  fear  or  surprise  from  such  accidents  as 
would  disquiet  the  best  of  her  jiosterity.  This  objec- 
tion then  is  so  far  from  prejudicing  the  truth  of  the 
Mosaic  history,  that  to  me  I  own  it  a  strong  presump- 
tion in  its  favour. 

"  But  after  all,  if  this  objection  has  any  weight  with 
any  one,  let  him  consider  what  there  is  in  this  philo- 
sophic serenity  of  our  first  parent,  supposing  the  whole 
of  her  conduct  on  this  occasion  fully  related  to  us,  so 
far  exceeding  the  serenity  of  Fabricius,  upon  the  sud- 
den appearance  and  cry  of  the  elephant  contrived  by 
Pyrrhns  to  discompose  him  ;  or  the  steadiness  of  Bru- 
tus upon  the  apjiearance  of  his  evil  genius;  and  yet  I 
believe  Plutarch  no  way  suffers  in  his  credit  as  an  his- 
torian by  the  relation  of  those  events  ;  at  least  had  he 
related  those  surprising  accidents  without  saying  one 
word  of  what  effects  they  had  upon  the  passions  of  the 
persons  concerned,  his  relations  had  certainly  been  lia- 
ble to  no  imputation  of  incredibility  or  improbability 
upon  that  account."(4) 

An  objection  is  taken  to  the  justice  of  the  .sentence 
pronounced  on  the  serpent,  if  the  tran.saction  be  ac- 
counted real,  and  if  that  animal  were  but  the  uncon- 
scious instrument  of  tlie  great  seducer.  To  this  the 
reply  is  obvious,  that  it  could  be  no  matter  of  just  com- 
plaint to  the  serpent  that  its  form  should  be  changed, 
and  its  species  lowered  in  the  scale  of  being.  It  had  no 
original  right  to  its  li>rmcr  superior  rank,  but  held  it  at  the 
plea.sure  of  the  Creator.  If  sjiccial  pain  and  sufferings 
had  been  inflicted  upon  the  serpent,  there  would  have 
been  a  semblance  of  jilausibility  in  the  objection  ;  hut 
the  serpent  suffered,  as  to  liability  to  pain  and  death, 
no  more  than  other  animals,  and  was  not,  therefore, 
any  more  than  another  irratinnal  creature,  accounted  a 

i  (Z)  "  '  And  when  the  woman  s.iw  that  the  tree  was 
good  for  food,'  Si-v.  Now  Eve  could  plainly  know,  by 
her  senses,  that  the  fruit  was  desirable  to  the  eye,  but 
it  was  iinimssible  she  could  know  that  it  was  good  for 
food,  but  from  the  example  and  exi)erimcnl  of  the  ser- 
pent. It  was  also  imiiossible  she  could  know  that  it 
■was  desirable  to  make  use  of  it,  but  by  the  example  of 
the  serpent,  whom  she  saw  from  a  brute  become  a  ra- 
tional and  vocal  creature,  as  she  thought  by  eating  that 
fruit.  The  text  says,  she  saw  it  was  good  for  food,  and 
that  it  was  desirable  to  make  wise,  and  siring  do.s  not 
imply  conjecture  or  belief,  but  certain  kn.jwledge ; 
knowledge  founded  upon  evidence  and  proof;  such 
proof  as  she  had  then  before  her  eyes.  And  when 
once  we  are  sure  that  she  had  this  jiroof,  as  it  is  evi- 
dent she  had,  the  whole  conlerenci>  between  her  and 
the  serpent  is  as  rational  and  intelligible  as  any  thing 
in  the  whole  Scri|)tures."— Dei.any's  Dissertations. 
(4)  Revelation  examined 


[Part  1L 

responsible  oHendcr.  Jts  degradation  was  evidently 
intended  as  a  memento  to  man,  and  the  real  puni.sh- 
mcnt,  as  we  shall  show,  fell  upon  the  real  transgressor 
who  used  the  serpent  as  his  instrument ;  while  the 
enmity  of  the  whole  race  of  serpents  to  the  human 
race,  their  cunning,  and  their  poisonous  quahties,  ap- 
pear to  have  been  wisely  and  graciously  intended  as 
standing  warnings  to  us  to  beware  of  that  great  spi- 
ritual enemy,  who  ever  lies  in  wait  to  wound  and  to 
destroy. 

These  are  the  principal  objections  made  to  the  literal 
interjiretation  of  this  portion  of  the  Mosaic  record,  and 
we  have  seen  that  they  are  either  of  no  weight  in  them- 
selves, or  that  they  cannot  be  entertained  without  lead- 
ing to  a  total  disregard  of  other  parts  of  the  inspired 
Scriptures.  Tradition,  too,  comes  in  to  the  suiijiorl  of 
the  literal  sense,  and  on  such  a  question  has  great 
weight.  The  Apocryphal  writings  afford  a  satisfac- 
tory" testimony  of  the  sentiments  of  the  Jews.  2  Es- 
dras  iii.  4—7,  "  O  Lord,  thou  bearest  rule,  thou  spakest 
at  the  beginning,  when  thou  didst  plant  the  earth,  and 
that  thyself  alone,  and  commandest  the  people ;  and 
gavest  a  body  to  Adam  without  soul,  which  was  the 
workmanship  of  thy  hands,  and  didst  breathe  into  liim 
the  breath  of  life,  and  he  was  made  hving  before  thee  ; 
and  thou  leddest  liim  into  Paradise,  which  thy  right 
hand  had  planted,  and  unto  him  thou  gavest  command- 
ment to  love  thy  way,  which  he  transgressed,  and  im- 
mediately thou  appoinledst  death  in  him  and  in  his  ge- 
nerations, of  whom  came  nations,  tribes,  people,  and 
kindreds  out  of  number."  2  Esdras  vii.  48,  "  O  thou 
Adam,  what  hast  thou  done?  for  though  it  was  thou 
that  sinned,  thou  art  not  fallen  alone,  but  we  are  all 
that  came  of  thee."  Wisdom  ii.  24,  "  Nevertheless, 
through  envy  of  the  Devil  came  death  into  the  world." 
Wisdom  X.  1,  "  She  (wisdom)  preserved  the  first  formed 
father  of  the  world,  that  was  created  alone,  and  brought 
him  out  of  his  fall."  Ecclesiasticus  xvii.  1,  &c.,  "The 
Lord  created  man  of  the  earth,  and  ttirned  him  into  it 
again.  He  gave  them  a  few  days  and  a  short  time,  and 
also  power  over  all  things  therein— he  filled  them  with 
the  knowledge  of  understanding,  and  showed  them  good 
and  evil."  By  these  ancient  Jewish  writers  it  is,  there- 
fore, certain,  that  the  account  of  the  fall  was  understood 
as  the  narrative  of  a  real  transaction ;  and,  except  on 
this  assumption,  it  is  impossible  to  account  fiir  those 
traditions  which  are  imbodied  in  the  mythology  of 
almost  all  Pagan  nations.  Of  these  fables  the  basis 
must  have  been  some  fact,  real  or  supjiosed ;  for  as  well 
might  we  exiiect  the  fables  of  jlisopto  have  impressed 
themselves  on  the  religious  ceremonies  and  belief  of 
nations,  as  the  Mosaic  fable  of  man's  fall ;  for  a  mere 
fable  it  must  be  accounted,  if  it  is  to  lose  its  literal  in- 
terpretation. 

Popular  convictions  every  where  prevailed  of  the  ex- 
istence of  some  beings  of  the  higher  order,  who  had 
revolted  from  their  subjection  to  the  heavenly  power 
which  presided  over  the  universe ;  and  upon  them  were 
raised  many  fabulous  stories.  It  is  probable,  that  these 
convictions  were  originally  founded  on  the  circum- 
stances referred  to  in  Scripture  with  rcsjiecl  to  Satan 
and  his  angels,  as  powerful  malevolent  beings,  who, 
having  first  seduced  Adam  fVom  his  obedience,  inces- 
santly laboured  to  deceive,  corrupt,  and  destroy  his  de- 
scendants. The  notion  of  the  magi  of  Pltnarch,  and  of 
the  Manichcans,  concerning  two  independent  princi- 
ples, acting  in  opixisition  to  each  other,  was  also 
founded  on  the  real  iinniiislano  sol  the  apostary  of  an- 
gels, and  of  their  inlc  rli  n  me  and  inlluencc  in  the  affairs 
of  men.  The  fictions  of  Indian  mylbology  with  regard 
to  contendhig  powers,  and  their  suliordmate  ministers, 
benevolent  and  malignant,  were  erected  on  the  same 
basis  of  truth  ;  and  the  Grecian  and  Roman  accounts 
of  the  battles  of  the  giants  against  Jupiter  were,  per- 
haps, built  on  the  corruptions  of  tradition  on  this  point. 

'•The  original  temptation,  by  whidi  Satan  drew  our 
first  parents  from  their  duty,  and  led  them  to  transgress 
the  oiilv  iirohibilion  which  (;od  had  imposed,  is  de- 
scribed'in  the  first  pages  of  Scripture  ;  and  it  is  re- 
peated under  much  disguise,  in  many  tables  of  classi- 
cal invlhology. 

"Origen  considers  the  allegorical  relations  lurmslied 
by  Plato,  with  respect  to  Porus  tempted  by  Penia  to  sin 
when  intoxicated  in  the  garden  of  .love,  as  a  disfigured 
history  of  the  fall  of  man  in  Paradise.  It  seems  to 
have  been  blended  with  the  story  of  Lot  and  his  daugh- 
ters.   Plato  miglil  have  acquired  in  Egypt  the  know- 


Chap.  XVIIL] 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


235 


ledge  ol'the  original  circumstances  of  the  fall,  and  have 
produced  them,  under  the  veil  of  allegory,  that  he  might 
not  ofTend  the  Greeks  by  a  direct  extract  from  the  Jew- 
ish Scriptures.  The  heathen  notions  with  respect  to 
the  Elysian  fields,  the  garden  of  Adonis,  and  that  of 
Hesperides,  in  which  the  fruit  was  watched  by  a  ser- 
pent, \"3re  prolialily  hormwt-d  from  the  sacred  accounts, 
or  from  traditiDiialreiiorls  with  resjiect  to  Paradise. 

"The  worship  estahlifilicd  towards  the  evil  spirit  by 
liis  contrivance,  soinelimes  under  the  very  appearance 
in  which  he  seduced  our  first  parents,  Is  to  be  found 
among  the  PlRcnicians  and  Egyptians.  The  general 
notion  of  the  serpent  as  a  mysterious  symbol  annexed 
to  the  Heathen  Deities ;  and  the  invocation  of  Eve  in 
the  Bacchanalian  orgies  (with  the  production  of  a  ser- 
pent, consecrated  as  an  emblem,  to  public  view),  seems 
to  bear  some  relation  to  the  history  of  the  first  tempta- 
tion, which  introduced  sin  and  death  into  the  world. 
The  account  of  Discord  being  cast  out  from  heaven, 
referred  to  by  Agamemnon,  in  the  lillh  Ixjok  of  Homer's 
Iliad,  has  been  thought  to  be  a  corrupt  traihtion  of  the 
fall  of  the  evil  angels.  Claudian  shows  an  acquaint- 
ance with  the  circumstances  of  the  seduction  of  man, 
and  of  an  ejection  from  Paradise,  and  his  description 
seems  to  have  furnished  subjects  of  imitation  to  Milton. 
"  It  has  been  imagined  that  the  Indians  entertained 
some  notions,  founded  on  traditionary  accounts,  of  Pa- 
radise :  and  the  representations  of  the  serpent  under  the 
female  form,  and  styled  the  Mexican  Eve,  are  said  to  be 
found  in  the  symbolical  paintings  of  Mexico. 

"  The  original  perfection  of  man,  the  corruption  of 
human  nature  resulting  from  the  fall,  and  the  increas- 
ing depravity  wliich  proceeded  with  augmented  vio- 
len<:e  from  generation  to  generation,  are  to  be  foimd  in 
various  parts  of  profane  literature.  Chryalus,  the  Py- 
thagorean, declared  that  man  was  made  in  the  image 
of  God.  Cicero  (as  well  as  Ovid)  speaks  of  man  as 
created  erect,  as  if  God  excited  him  to  look  up  to  his 
former  relation  and  ancient  abode.  The  loss  of  his  re- 
semblance to  God  was  supposed  to  have  resulted  from 
disobedience,  and  was  considered  aa  so  universal  that 
it  was  generally  admitted,  as  it  is  expressed  by  Horace, 
that  no  man  was  born  without  vices.  The  conviction 
of  a  gradual  deterioration  from  age  to  age — of  a  change 
from  a  golden  period,  by  successive  transitions,  to  an 
iron  depravity — of  a  lapse  from  a  state  devoid  of  guilt 
and  fear,  to  times  filled  with  iniquity,  was  universally 
entertained. 

"  Descriptions  to  this  effect  are  to  be  found  in  the 
writings  of  almost  all  the  poets,  and  they  are  confirmed 
by  the  reports  of  philosophers  and  historians.  Provi- 
detice  seems  to  have  drawn  evidence  of  the  guilt  of 
men  from  their  own  confessions,  and  to  have  pre- 
served their  testimonies  for  the  conviction  of  subsequent 
timcs."(5) 

In  the  Gothic  mythology,  which  seems  to  have  been 
derived  from  the  East,  Thor  is  represented  as  the  first- 
born of  the  supreme  God,  and  is  styled  in  the  Edda, 
thK  eldest  of  sons :  he  was  esteemed  a  middle  Divinity, 
a  mediator  between  God  and  man.  With  respect  to  his 
actions,  he  is  said  to  have  wrestled  with  death,  and,  in 
the  struggle,  to  have  been  brought  upon  one  knee  ;  to 
have  bruised  the  head  of  the  serpent  with  his  mace  ; 
and,  in  his  final  engagement  with  that  monster,  to  have 
beat  him  to  the  earth  and  slain  him.  This  victory,  how- 
ever, is  not  obtained  but  at  the  expense  of  his  own  life : 
"  Recoiling  back  nine  steps,  he  falls  dead  upon  the  spot, 
suffocated  with  the  floods  of  venom  which  the  serpent 
vomits  forth  upon  hiin."  Much  the  same  notion,  we  are 
informed,  is  prevalent  in  the  mythology  of  the  Hindoos. 
"  Two  sculptured  figures  are  yet  extant  in  one  of  their 
oldest  pagodas,  the  former  of  which  represents  Creeshna, 
an  incarnation  of  their  mediatorial  God  Veeshnu,  tram- 
pling on  the  crushed  head  of  the  serpent ;  wliile  in  the 
latter  it  is  seen  encircling  the  Deity  in  its  folds,  and 
biting  his  heel."  An  engraving  of  this  curious  sculp- 
ture'.is  given  in  Moore's  Ilindoo  Pantheon. 

As  to  those  who  would  interpret  the  account,  the 
literal  meaning  of  which  we  have  endeavoured  to  es- 
tablish, partly  literally,  and  iiartly  allegorically,  a  satis- 
factory answer  is  given  in  the  Ibllowing  observations 
of  Itishop  llorsley  : 

"  No  writer  of  true  history  would  mi.x  plain  matter 
of  fact  with  allegory  in  one  continued  narrative,  with- 
out any  intimation  of  a  transition  from  one  to  the  other. 


(5)  Gray's  Connexion. 


If,  therefore,  any  iiart  of  this  narrative  be  matter  of 
fact,  no  part  is  allegorical.  On  the  other  hand,  if  anv 
part  be  allegorical,  no  part  is  naked  matter  of  fact :  and 
the  consequence  of  this  will  be,  that  every  thing  in 
every  part  of  the  whole  narrative  must  be  allegorical. 
If  the  (brmation  of  the  woman  out  of  the  man  be  alle- 
gory, the  woman  must  be  an  allegorical  woman.  The 
man  therefore  must  bo  an  allegorical  man ;  for  of  such 
a  man  only  the  allegorical  woman  will  be  a  meet  com- 
panion. If  the  man  is  allegorical,  his  Paradise  will  be 
an  allegorical  garden;  the  trees  that  grew  in  it,  alle- 
gorical trees;  the  rivers  that  watered  it,  allegorical 
rivers;  and  thus  we  may  ascend  to  the  very  beginning 
of  thecreation ;  and  conclude  at  last,  that  the  heavens  are 
allegorical  heavens,  and  the  earth  an  allegorical  earth. 
Thus  the  whole  history  of  the  creation  will  be  an  alle- 
gory, of  which  the  real  subject  is  not  disclosed ;  and  iu 
this  absurdity  the  scheme  of  allegorizing  ends."(6) 

But  though  the  literal  sense  of  the  history  is  thus  es- 
tablished, yet  that  it  has  in  several  parts,  but  in  perfect 
accordance  with  the  literal  interpretation,  a  mystical 
and  higher  sense  than  the  letter,  is  eciually  to  be  proved 
from  the  Scriptures ;  and  though  some  writers,  who 
have  maintained  the  literal  interpretation  inviolate, 
have  run  into  unauthorized  fancies  in  their  interpre- 
tation of  the  mystical  sense,  that  is  no  reason  why  we 
ought  not  to  go  to  the  full  lenglVi  to  which  the  light  of 
the  Scriptures,  an  infallible  comment  upon  themselves, 
will  conduct  us.  It  is,  as  we  have  seen,  matter  of 
established  history,  that  our  first  parents  were  prohi- 
bited from  the  tree  of  knowledge,  and  after  their  fall, 
were  excluded  from  the  tree  of  life;  that  they  were 
tempted  by  a  serpent ;  and  that  various  maledictions 
were  passed  upon  them,  and  upon  the  instrument  of 
their  seduction.  But,  rightly  to  understand  this  his- 
tory, it  is  necessary  to  recollect — that  man  was  in  a 
state  of  trial ;  that  the  prohibition  of  a  certain  fruil  wa.<> 
but  one  part  of  the  law  mider  wlii(di  he  was  pUced ; 
that  the  serpent  was  but  the  instrument  of  the  real 
tempter;  and  that  the  curse  pronounced  on  tliB  in- 
strument was  symbolical  of  the  punishment  resorved 
for  the  agent. 

The  first  of  these  particulars  appears  on  the  fate  of 
the  history,  and  to  a  state  of  trial  the  power  of  noral 
freedom  was  essential.  This  is  a  subject  on  wliica  we 
shall  have  occasion  to  speak  more  at  large  in  the  sequel ; 
but,  that  the  power  of  choosing  good  and  evil  was 
vested  with  our  first  parents  is  as  apparent  froir  the 
account  as  that  they  were  placed  under  rule  and  re- 
straint. In  vain  were  they  commanded  to  obey,  if  obe- 
dience were  impossible ;  in  vain  placed  under  prohibi- 
tion, if  they  had  no  power  to  resist  temptation.  Both 
would,  indeed,  have  been  unworthy  the  Divine  legisla- 
tor ;  and  if  this  be  allowed,  then  their  moral  fret^dom 
must  also  be  conceded.  They  are  contemplated  thniugh- 
out  the  whole  transaction,  not  as  instruments,  tut  ast 
actors,  and,  as  such,  capable  of  reward  and  jiunishinent. 
Commands  are  issued  to  them ;  which  supposes  a 
power  of  obedience,  either  original  and  permanent  iu 
themselves,  or  derived  by  the  use  of  means  from  God, 
and,  therefore,  attainable ;  and,  however  the  question 
may  be  darkened  by  metaphysical  subtleties,  the  jiower 
to  obey  necessarily  imjilied  the  power  to  refuse  and 
rebel.  The  promised  continuance  of  their  haj)pii)ess, 
which  is  to  be  viewed  in  the  light  of  a  reward,  implies 
the  one  ;  the  actual  infliction  of  punishment  as  cer- 
tainly includes  the  other. 

The  power  of  obeying  and  the  power  of  disobeying 
being  then  mutually  involved,  that  which  determines 
to  the  one  or  to  the  other  is  the  will.  For,  if  it  were 
some  jiower  ab  extra,  operating  necessarily,  man  would 
no  longer  be  an  actor,  but  be  reduced  to  the  mere  con- 
dition of  a  patient,  the  mere  instrument  of  another. 
This  does  not,  however,  shut  out  solicitation  and  strong 
influence  from  without,  provided  it  be  allowed  to  be 
resistible,  either  by  man's  own  strength,  or  by  strength 
from  a  higher  source,  to  which  he  may  have  access, 
and  by  which  he  may  fortify  himself.  But,  as  no  abso- 
lute control  can  be  externally  exerted  over  man's  ac- 
tions, and  he  remain  accouulable ;  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  as  his  actions  are  in  lact  controllable  in  a  manner 
consistent  with  his  free  agency,  we  must  look  for  this 
power  in  his  own  mind  ;  and  the  only  liiculty  which 
he  possesses,  to  wliich  any  such  property  can  be  attri- 
buted, is  called,  for  that  very  reason,  and  because  of 


(fi)  IIorsley's  Sermons. 


236 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


[Part  U. 


that  very  quality,  his  will  or  choice ;  a  power  by  which, 
in  that  state  of  coiiipleteness  and  excellence  in  which 
Adam  was  <;rcat(!d,  must  be  siipiiosed  to  be  able  to 
comni.iiid  his  thoughts,  his  desires,  liis  words,  and  his 
conduct,  however  excited,  with  an  absolute  sove- 
reignty.(7) 

This  faculty  of  willing,  indeed,  appears  essential  to 
a  rational  being,  in  whatever  rank  he  may  be  placed. 
"  Every  rational  being,''  says  Dr.  Jenkins,  very  justly,  (8) 
"  must  naturally  liave  a  liberty  of  choice,  that  is,  it 
must  have  a  u-ill  to  choose  as  well  as  an  understand- 
i7ig  to  reason ;  because,  a  faculty  of  understanding,  if 
leil  to  itself  without  a  will  to  determine  it,  must  al- 
ways think  of  the  same  objects,  or  proceed  in  a  conti- 
nued series  and  connexion  of  thoughts,  without  any  end 
or  design,  which  would  be  labour  iii  vain,  and  tedious 
thouglilfulness  to  no  pnrpo.se."  ]3ut,  though  mv'W  be 
essential  to  rational  existence,  and  freedom  of  will  to  a 
creature  placed  in  a  stale  of  trial,  yet  the  degree  of 
external  influence  upon  its  determinations,  through 
whatever  means  it  may  operate,  may  be  very  ditreronl 
both  in  kind  and  degree ;  which  is  only  saying,  in  other 
words,  that  the  circumstances  of  trial  may  bo  varied, 
and  made  more  easy  or  more  difficult  and  dangerous,  at 
the  pleasure  of  the  great  Governor  and  Lord  of  all. 
Some  who  have  written  on  this  subject,  seem  to  have 
carried  their  views  of  the  circumstances  of  the  Para- 
disiacal proliation  too  high  ;  others  have  not  placed  them 
highenough.  The  first  have  represented  our  first  pa- 
Tents  to  have  been  so  exclusively  intellectual  and  devo- 
tioml,  as  to  be  almost  out  of  the  reach  of  temptation 
from  sense  and  passion ;  others,  as  approximating  too 
nearly  to  their  mortal  and  corrupt. descendants.  This, 
hovever,  is  plain  from  the  cicriptures,  the  guide  we 
ought  scrujiulously  to  follovv,  that  they  were  subject  to 
temptation,  or  solicitation  of  the  will,  from  intellectual 
priic,  from  sense,  and  iram' -passion,.  The  two  first 
operated  on  Eve,  and  probably  also  on  Adam;  to  which 
was  added,  in  him,  a  passionate  subjection  to  the 
wislies  of  his  wilf;.(9)  If,  then,  these  are  the  facts  of 
their  temptation,  the  circumstances  of  their  trial  are 
apparent.  "  The  .soul  of  man,"  observes  Stillingfleet,(l) 
"  is  seated  in  the  middle,  as  it  were,  between  those  more 
excellent  beings  which  live  perpetually  above,  with 
wlich  it  partakes  in  the  sublimity  of  its  nature  and  un- 
de-standiiig  ;  and  those  inferior  terrestrial  beings  with 
wMch  it  communicates  through  the  vital  union  which 
it  aas  with  the  body,  and  that,  by  reason  of  its  natural 
freedom,  it  is  sometimes  assimilated  to  the  one  and 
sometimes  to  the  other  of  these  extremes.  We  must 
observe  farther,  that  in  this  compound  nature  of  ours, 
there  are  several  powers  and  (inudties,  several  jiassions 
and  affections,  differing  in  their  nature  and  tendency, 
actirding  as  they  result  from  the  soul  or  bodj  ;  that 
eaci  of  these  has  its  proper  object,  in  a  due  application 
to  vhich  it  is  easy  and  satisfied ;  that  they  arc  none  of 
then  sinful  in  themselves,  but  may  be  instruments  of 
much  good,  when  rightly  api)lied,  as  well  as  occasion 
great  mischief  by  a  misapplication  :  whereupon  a  con- 
siderable jiart  of  virtue  will  consist  in  regulating  them, 
and  in  keeping  our  sensitive  part  subject  to  the  rational. 
Tb's  is  the  original  constitution  of  our  nature  ;  and, 
since  the  first  man  was  cndow(?d  with  the  powers  and 
fafulties  of  the  mind,  and  had  the  same  dispositions 
and  inclinations  of  body,  it  cannot  be  but  that  he  must 
Iwve  been  liable  to  the  same  sort  of  temptations,  and, 
consequently,  capable  of  conqilying  with  the  dictates 
of  sense  and  api)elile,  contrary  to  the  direction  of  rea- 
fon  and  the  conviction  of  Ins  own  mind ;  and  to  this 
cause  the  Scripture  seems  to  awcrilic  the  commission  of 
the  first  sin,  when  it  tells  us,  that  the  woman  saw  the 
trie,  that  it  luas  pood /or  food  and  pleasant  to  the  eye, 


(7)  "  Impulsus  ctsi  vchemens  valde  atque  potens 
esset,  voluntatis  tamen  Imperio  atipie  arbitrio  semper 
egressus  ejus  in  actum  sul)|ici(b;iiur.  I'olerat  enini 
voluntas,  divinu'  voluntatis  lon^ideratione  armata,  rc- 
sist(^re  lUi,  eiiinque  inonhnem  isl;ivi  redi:;ere  ;  alioquin 
enini  frnslanea  fuisset  legi'^lalio,  q>ia  alleclus  circum- 
scribebatur,  ct  refra;nabatur." — Ei'isioi-iu:',  Dispu- 
tatio  ix. 

(M)  Reasonableness  of  Christian  Religion. 

(y)  "  Accessit  in  Adamo  specialis  ([uidam  conjugis 
proptiiB  amor,  quo  adductus  in  graliani  illius,  alTi'itui 
8110  proclivius  intTulsit,  et  tentalioui  salliana;  lacilius 
cessit  auremque  prxbuit.'^— El'iscorius,  Disputalioix. 

(1)  Origincse  Sacra;. 


ayul  drsirahh:  to  malce  one  v>ise,  i.  e.  it  had  several  qua- 
lities that  were  adapted  to  her  natural  appetites  ;  was 
beautiful  to  the  sight,  and  delightful  to  the  ta.ste,  and 
improving  to  the  understanding,  which  both  answcrc<l 
the  desire  of  knowledge  implanted  in  her  spiritual,  and 
the  love  of  sensual  pleasure,  resulting  Irom  her  animal 
part  ;  and  these,  heightened  by  the  suggew.ions  of 
the  tempter,  abated  the  horror  of  God's  ]  roeibition, 
and  induced  her  to  act  contrary  to  his  e.xpi  ^ss  cont- 
mand." 

It  is  therefore  manifest,  that  the  state  of  trial  in  which 
otir  first  parents  were  placed  was  one  which  required, 
in  order  to  the  preservation  of  virtue,  vigilance,  prayer, 
resistance,  and  the  active  exercise  of  the  dominion  of 
the  will  over  solicitation.  No  creature  can  be  abso- 
lutely perfect  because  it  is  finite ;  and  it  would  appear, 
froin  the  example  of  our  first  parents,  that  an  imiocent 
and,  in  its  land,  a  jierfect  rational  being,  is  kept  from 
falling,  oidy  by  "taking  hold''  on  God  ;  and  as  this  is 
an  act,  there  must  be  a  determination  of  the  will  to  it, 
and  so  when  the  least  carelessness,  the  least  tanqienng 
with  the  desire  of  forbidden  gratifications  is  induced, 
there  is  always  an  enemy  at  hand  to  make  use  of  the 
opportunity  to  darken  the  judgment  and  to  accelerate 
the  progress  of  evU.  Thus,  "  when  desire  is  conceived, 
it  bringcth  forth  sin ;  and  sin,  when  it  is  finished, 
bringetti  forth  death."  This  is  the  only  account  we 
can  obtain  of  the  origin  of  evil,  and  it  resolves  itself 
into  three  principles: — 1.  The  necessary  finileness, 
and  therefore  imperfection  in  degree,  of  created  natures. 
2.  The  liberty  of  choice,  wiiich  is  essential  to  rational 
accountable  beings.  3.  The  influence  of  temptation 
on  the  will.  That  Adam  was  so  endowed  as  to  have 
resisted  the  temptation,  is  a  suflicient  proof  of  the 
justice  of  his  Maker  throughout  this  transaction ;  that 
his  circumstances  of  trial  were  made  precisely  what 
they  were,  is  to  be  resolved  into  a  wisdom,  the  full 
manifestation  of  which  is,  probably,  left  to  another 
state,  and  will  doubtless  there  have  its  full  declara- 
tion. 

The  following  acute  observations  of  Bishop  Butler 
may  assist  us  to  conceive  how  possible  it  is  for  a  per- 
fectly innocent  being  to  fall  under  the  power  of  evil, 
whenever  a  vigilant  and  resisting  habit  is  not  perfectly 
and  absolutely  persevered  in.  "  This  seems  distinctly 
conceivable,  from  the  very  nature  of  particular  affec- 
tions and  propensions.  For  suppose  creatures  intended 
for  such  a  particular  state  of  life,  for  which  such  pro- 
pensions  were  necessary  ;  svpixise  them  endovved  with 
such  iiropensions,  together  with  moral  tuiderstanding, 
as  well  including  a  practical  sense  of  virtue,  as  a  sjjecu- 
lative  perception  of  it ;  and  that  all  tiiesc  several  prin- 
ciples, both  natural  and  moral,  forirhng  an  inward  con- 
stitution of  nhnd,  were  in  the  most  exact  proportion 
possible ;  ;.  c.  in  a  i)roportion  the  most  exactly  adapted 
to  their  intended  state  of  life:  such  creatures  would  be 
made  upright  or  finitely  perfect.  Now,  particular  pro- 
pensions,  from  their  very  nature,  must  be  felt,  the  ob- 
jects of  them  being  present  ;  though  they  cannot  he 
gratified  at  all,  or  not  with  the  allowance  of  the  moral 
princi]}le.  lint  if  they  can  be  gratified  without  its  al- 
lowance, or  by  contradicting  it,  tlicn  they  nmstbe  con- 
ceived to  have  some  tendency,  in  how  low  a  degree 
soever,  yet  some  tendency,  to  induce  persons  to  such 
(iirbiddcn  gratifications.  This  tendency,  in  some  one 
particular  projiension,  may  be  increased  by  the  greater 
IrLMiucncy  of  the  occasions  naturally  exciting  it,  than 
of  occasions  exciting  others.  The  least  voluntary  in- 
dulgence in  forbidden  circumstances,  though  but  in 
thought,  wUl  increase  this  wrong  tendency ;  and  may 
increase  it  farther,  till  peculiar  conjunctions,  ])erhaps, 
consjiiring,  it  becomes  cllect;  and  danger  lh)m  de- 
viating from  right, ends  in  actual  deviation  from  it;  a 
danger  necessarily  arising  from  the  very  nature  of 
liropension,  and  which,  therefore,  could  not  have  been 
lirevenicil,  though  it  might  have  been  escaped  or  got 
innocently  through.  The  case  would  be,  as  if  we  were 
to  suppose  a  straight  path  marked  out  lor  a  person,  in 
which  such  a  degree  of  atlention  would  keep  liim 
steady :  but  if  he  would  not  allcnd  in  this  degree,  any 
one  of  a  thousand  objects  catching  his  eye  might  lead 
him  out  of  it.  Now  it  is  impossible  to  say,  how  much 
even  the  first  full  overt  act  of  irregularity  might  disor- 
der the  constitution,  unselllc  the  ailjuslmciKs,  and 
alter  the  proiiortions  which  formed  it,  and  in  which  the 
uprightness  of  its  make  consisted;  but  repetition  of 
irregularities  would  produce  habits,  and  tbua  the  con- 


Chap.  XVIIL] 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


237 


stitution  would  be  spoiled,  and  creatures  made  uprislit 
become  corrupt  and  depraved  in  their  settled  character, 
j)roportionabIy  to  their  repeated  irregularities  in  occa- 
sional acts."(2) 

Tliese  observations  are  general,  and  are  introduced 
only  to  illustrate  the  point  that  we  may  conceive  of  a 
creature  bcins;  made  innocent,  and  yet  still  dependent 
upon  the  exercise  of  caution  for  its  preservation  from 
moral  corruption  and  offence.  It  was  not,  in  fact,  by 
the  slow  and  almost  imperceptible  formation  of  evil 
habits,  described  in  the  extract  just  given,  by  which 
Adam  loll ;  that  is  but  one  way  in  wliich  we  may  con- 
ceive it  possible  for  sin  to  enter  a  holy  soul.  He  was 
exposed  to  the  wiles  of  a  tempter,  and  his  fall  was 
sudden.  But  this  exposure  to  a  particular  danger  was 
only  a  circumstance  in  his  condition  of  probation.  It 
was  a  varied  mode  of  subjecting  the  will  to  soli- 
citation ;  but  no  necessity  of  yielding  was  laid  upon 
man  in  consequence  of  this  circumslauce.  From  the 
history  we  learn,  that  the  Devil  used  not  force,  but  per- 
suasion, whicii  involves  no  necessity ;  and  that  the 
Devil  cannot  force  men  to  sin  is  suiliciently  plain  from 
this,  that  such  is  his  malevolence,  that  if  he  could  ren- 
der sin  inevitable,  he  would  not  resort  to  i>ersuasion 
aiKl  the  sophistry  of  error  to  accomplish  an  end  more 
directly  within  his  reach.(3) 

The  prohibition  under  which  our  first  parents  were 
placed  has  been  the  subject  of  many  "  a  fool-born  jest," 
and  the  threatened  punishment  has  been  argued  to  be 
disproportioned  to  the  offence.  Such  objections  are 
easily  dissipated.  We  have  already  seen,  that  all  ra- 
tional creatures  are  under  a  law  which  requires  su- 
preme love  to  God  and  entire  obedience  to  his  com- 
mands ;  and  that,  consequently,  our  first  parents  were 
placed  under  this  equitable  obligation.  We  have  also 
seen,  that  all  specific  laws  emanate  from  this  general 
law ;  that  they  are  manifestations  of  it,  and  always 
suppose  it.  The  Decalogue  was  such  a  manifestation 
of  it  to  the  Jews,  and  the  prohibition  of  the  Tree  of 
Knowledge  is  to  be  considered  in  the  same  light.  Cer- 
tainly this  restraint  presupposed  a  right  in  God  to  com- 
mand, a  duty  in  the  creatures  to  obey ;  and  the  particu- 
lar precept  was  but  the  exercise  of  that  previous  right 
which  was  vested  in  him,  and  the  enforcement  of  that 
previous  obligation  upon  them.  To  suppose  it  to  be 
the  only  rule  under  which  our  first  parents  were  placed 
would  be  absurd ;  for  then  it  would  follow,  that  if  they 
had  become  sensual  in  the  use  of  any  other  food  than 
that  of  the  prohibited  tree ;  or  if  they  had  refused  wor- 
ship and  honour  to  God  their  Creator  ;  or  if  they  had 
become  "  hateful,  and  hating  one  another,"  these  would 
not  have  been  sins.  This  precept  was,  however,  made 
prominent  by  special  injunction ;  and  it  is  enough  to 
say,  that  it  was,  as  the  event  showed,  a  sufficient  test 
of  their  obedience. 

The  objection  that  it  was  a  positive  and  not  a  moral 
precept,  deserves  to  be  for  a  moment  considered.  The 
difference  between  the  two  is,  that  "  moral  precepts  are 
tliose,  the  reasons  of  whicli  we  sec ;  positive  precepts 
those,  the  reasons  of  which  we  do  not  see.  Moral  du- 
ties arise  out  of  the  nature  of  the  case  itself,  prior  to 
external  command ;  positive  duties  do  not  arise  out  of 
the  nature  of  the  case,  but  from  external  command ; 
nor  would  they  be  duties  at  all,  were  it  not  for  such 
command  received  from  him  whose  creatures  and  sub- 
jects we  are."(4)  It  has,  however,  been  justly  ob- 
served, that  since  positive  precepts  have  somewhat  of 
a  moral  nature,  we  may  see  the  reasons  of  them  con- 
sidered in  this  view,  and  so  far  as  we  discern  the  rea- 
sons of  both,  moral  and  positive  precepts  are  alike.  In 
the  case  in  question,  no  just  objection,  certainly,  can  be 
made  against  the  making  a  positive  precept  the  special 
test  of  the  obedience  of  our  first  parents.  In  point  of 
obligation,  positive  precepts  rest  upon  the  same  ground 
as  moral  ones,  namely,  the  will  of  God.  Granting 
even  that  we  see  no  reason  for  them,  this  does  not 
alter  the  case  ;  we  are  bound  to  obey  our  Creator,  both 
as  matter  of  right  and  matter  of  gratitude ;  and  the 
very  essence  of  sin  consists  in  resisting  tlie  will  of 
God.    Even  the  reason  of  moral  precepts,  their  fitness, 


(2)  Analogy. 

(3)  "  Diab'olus  causa  talis  statui  non  polest ;  gina  ille 
suasionc  sola  usus  legittir :  suasio  aiUem  necessitatem 
nullam  affcrt,  sed  moraliler  tantiun  voluntatem  ad  se 
allicere  atque  attractiero  couatuf." — Enscoi'lfs. 

,    (4)  BuTLBu's  Analogy. 


suitableness,  and  inlluencc  upon  society,  do  not  con- 
stitute them  absolutely  obligatory  upon  us.  'The  obli- 
gation rests  upon  their  being  made  law  by  the  author- 
ity of  God.  Their  fitness,  &,c.  may  be  the  reasons  why 
he  has  made  them  parts  of  his  law ;  but  it  is  the  pro- 
mulgation of  his  will  which  makes  the  law,  and  brings 
us  under  obligation.  In  this  respect,  then,  moral  and 
positive  laws  are  of  equal  authority,  when  enjoinecl 
with  equal  explicitness.  To  see  or  not  to  see  llic  rea- 
sons of  the  Divine  enactments,  whether  moral  or  posi- 
tive, is  a  circumstance  which  affects  not  the  question 
of  duty.  There  is,  nevertheless,  a  distinction  to  be 
made  between  positive  precepts  and  arbitrary  ones, 
which  have  no  reason  but  the  will  of  liim  who  enacts 
them,  though,  were  such  enjoined  by  Almighty  God, 
our  obligation  to  obey  would  be  absolute.  It  is,  how- 
ever, proper  to  suppose,  that  when  the  reasons  of  posi- 
tive precepts  are  not  seen  by  us,  they  do  in  reality  ex- 
ist in  those  relations,  and  qualities,  and  habitudes  of 
things,  which  are  only  known  to  God ;  for  that  he  has 
a  sulHcient  reason  for  all  that  he  requires  of  us,  is  a 
conclusion  as  rational  as  it  is  pious ;  and  to  slight 
positive  precepts,  therefore,  is  in  fact  to  refuse  obe- 
dience to  the  Lawgiver. only  on  the  proud  and  presump- 
tuous ground  that  he  has  not  made  us  acquainted  with 
his  own  reasons  for  enacting  them.  Nor  is  the  institu- 
tion of  such  precepts  without  an  obvious  general  moral 
reason,  though  the  reason  for  the  injunction  of  particu- 
lar positive  injunctions  should  not  be  explained.  Hu- 
mility, wliich  is  the  root  of  all  virtue,  may  in  some 
circumstances  be  more  effectually  promoted  when  we 
are  required  to  obey  under  the  authority  of  God,  than 
when  we  are  prompted  also  by  the  conviction  of  the 
fitness  and  excellence  of  his  commands.  It  is  true, 
that  when  the  observance  of  a  moral  command  and  a 
positive  precept  come  into  such  opposition  to  one  an- 
other that  both  cannot  "be  observed,  we  have  examples 
in  Scrijiture  which  authorize  us  to  prefer  the  former  to 
the  latter, — as  when  our  Lord  healed  on  the  Sabbath- 
day,  and  justified  his  disciples  for  plucking  the  ears  of 
corn  when  they  were  hungry ;  yet,  in  point  of  fact,  the 
rigidness  which  forbade  the  doing  good  on  the  Sabbath 
day,  in  these  cases  of  necessity,  we  have  our  Lord's 
authority  to  say,  was  the  result  of  a  misinterpretation 
of  the  moral  precept  itself,  and  no  direct  infringement 
of  it  was  implied  in  either  case.  Should  an  actual  im- 
possibility occur  of  observing  two  precepts,  one  a  moral 
and  the  other  a  positive  one,  it  can  be  but  a  rare  case, 
and  our  conduct  must  certainly  be  regulated,  not  on 
our  own  views  merely,  but  on  such  general  princiides 
as  our  now  perfect  revelation  furnishes  us  with,  and  it 
is  at  our  risk  that  we  misapply  them.  In  the  case  of 
our  first  parents,  the  positive  command  neither  did,  nor 
apparently  in  their  circimistances  could,  stand  in  oppo- 
sition to  any  moral  injunction  contained  in  that  univer- 
sal law  under  which  they  were  placed.  It  harmonized 
perliictly  with  its  two  great  principles,  love  to  God  and 
love  to  our  neighbour,  for  both  would  be  violated  by 
disobedience;  one,  by  rebellion  against  the  Creator; 
the  other,  by  disregard  of  each  other's  welfare  and  that 
of  their  posterity. 

Nor,  indeed,  was  this  positive  injunction  without 
some  obvious  moral  reason,  the  case  with  probably  all 
positive  precepts  of  Divine  authority,  when  carefully 
considered.  The  ordinances  of  public  worship,  bap- 
tism in  the  name  of  Christ,  the  celebration  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  and  the  obsei-vance  of  the  Sabbath, 
have  numerous  and  very  plain  reasons  both  of  subjec- 
tion, recognition,  and  gratitude;  and  so  had  the  prohi- 
bition of  the  fruit  of  one  of  the  trees  of  the  garden. 
The  moral  precepts  of  the  Decalogue  would,  for  the 
most  part,  have  been  inappropriate  to  the  peculiar  con- 
dition of  the  first  pair ;  such  as  the  prohibitions  of  poly- 
theism, of  the  use  of  idolatrous  images,  of  taking  the 
name  of  God  in  vain,  of  theft  and  adultery,  of  murder 
and  covetousness.  Thus,  even  if  objectors  were  left  at 
liberty  to  attempt  to  point  out  a  better  test  of  obedience 
than  that  which  was  actually  apjwinted,  they  would 
find,  as  in  most  such  cases,  how  much  easier  it  is  to 
object  than  to  suggest.  The  law  was,  in  the  first 
place,  simple  and  exjilicit ;  it  was  not  difficult  of  ob- 
servation ;  and  it  accorded  with  the  circumstances  of 
those  on  whom  it  was  enjoined.  They  were  placed 
amid  abundance  of  pleasant  and  exhilarating  fruits, 
and  oftho.se  one  kind  only  was  reserved.  This  reser- 
vation inqilied  also  great  principles.  It  maybe  turned 
into  ridicule:   ao  by  ail  ignorant  persou  might  the 


238 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  IL 


reserve  in  our  customs  of  a  popper-corn,  or  other  quit- 
rent,  wliicli  yet  are  lU-.kiiowlcil^'niciits  of  subjection  ami 
sovereignty.  Tills  is  given  as  an  illustration,  not  in- 
ileed  as  a  parallel  ;  lor  tlicre  is  a  very  natural  view  of 
this  transactinu  in  I'urailise,  wliich  gives  to  it  an  aspect 
so  noble  and  <li;;ni(leil,  that  we  may  well  shudder  at  the 
impiety  of  that  jioor  wit  by  which  it  has  been  some- 
times ignoraiilly  assailed.  The  dominion  of  this  lower 
world  had  been  given  to  man,  but  it  is  e(iually  required 
iiy  the  Divine  glory,  and  by  the  benefit  of  creatures 
themselves,  that  all  should  acknowledge  their  subjec- 
tion to  him.  Man  was  required  to  do  this,  as  it  were, 
openly,  and  in  the  presence  of  the  whole  creation,  by 
a  public  token,  and  to  give  proof  of  it  by  a  continued 
abstinence  from  the  iirohibited  fruit.  lie  was  required 
to  do  it  also  in  a  way  suitable  to  his  excellent  nature, 
and  to  his  cli;'racter  as  lord  of  all  other  creatures,  by  a 
free  and  voluntary  obedience  ;  thus  acknowledging  the 
common  tireator  to  be  his  supreme  Lord,  and  himself 
to  be  dependent  u])on  his  bounty  and  favour.  In  this 
view  we  can  conceive  nothing  more  fitting,  as  a  test 
of  obedience,  and  nothing  more  important  than  the 
moral  lesson  continually  taught  by  the  obligation  thus 
openly  and  publicly  to  acknowledge  the  rigiit.5  and  au- 
thority of  him  who  was  naturally  the  Lord  of  all. (5) 

The  immediate  visible  agent  in  the  seduction  of  man 
to  sin  was  the  serpent ;  but  the  whole  testimony  of 
Scripture  is  in  jiroof  that  llie  real  tempter  was  that 
.subtle  and  powerful  evil  spirit,  whose  general  appella- 
tives are  the  Devil  and  S.tTAN.(6)  This  shows  that 
ridicule  as  to  the  serpent  is  quite  misplaced,  and  that 
one  of  the  most  serious  doctrines  is  involved  in  the 
whole  account,— the  doctrine  of  diabolical  influence. 
We  have  already  observed,  that  we  have  no  means  of 
ascertaining  the  pristine  form  and  qualities  of  this  ani- 
mal, except  that  it'was  distinguished  from  all  the 
beasts  of  the  field,  which  the  Lord  God  had  made,  by 
his  "subtlety,"  or  intelligence,  for  the  word  does  not 
necessarily  imply  a  bad  sense;  and  we  might,  indeed, 
1)0  content  to  give  credit  to  Satan  for  a  wily  choice  of 
the  most  fitting  instrument  for  his  purpose.  These  are 
questions  which,  however,  sink  into  nothing  before  the 
important  doctrine  of  the  liability  of  man,  both  in  his 
primitive  and  in  his  litUen  state,  to  temptations  mar- 
shalled and  directed  by  a  superior  tnalignant  intelli- 
gence. Of  this  the  fact  cannot  be  doubted,  if  we  ad- 
mit the  Scriptures  to  be  interirretcd  by  any  rules  wliich 
will  admit  them  to  be  written  for  explicit  instruction 
and  the  use  of  popular  readers ;  and,  although  we  have 
but  general  intimations  of  the  existence  of  an  order  of 
apostate  spirits,  and  know  nothing  of  the  date  of  their 
creation,  or  the  circumstances  of  their  probation  and 
fall ;  yet  this  is  clear,  that  they  are  pennitted,  for  their 
"  time,"  to  have  inlluenee  on  earth ;  to  war  against  the 
virtue  and  the  peace  of  man,  though  under  constant 
control  and  government;  and  that  this  entered  into 
the  circumstances  of  the  trial  of  our  first  parents,  and 
that  it  enters  into  ours.  In  this  part  of  the  liistory  of 
the  fall,  therefore,  without  giving  up  any  portion  of 
the  literal  sense,  we  must,  on  the  authority  of  other 
passages  of  (Scripture,  look  beyond  the  letter,  and  regard 
the  serpent  but  as  the  inntriiment  of  a  superhuman 
tempter,  who  then  commenced  his  first  act  of  warfare 
against  the  rule  of  f!od  in  this  lower  world  ;  and  began 
a  contest,  which,  for  purposes  of  wisdom  to  be  hereafter 
more  fully  diselosed,  he  has  been  allowed  to  carry  on 
for  ages,  and  will  slill  b('  ]iernjilted  to  maintain,  till  the 
result  shall  make  hisliill  more  marked,  and  bring  into 
view  moral  truths  and  principles  in  which  the  whole 
universe  ofimiocent  or  redeenred  creatures  are,  probably, 
to  be  instru(aed  to  their  eternal  ailvaiitage. 

In  like  manner,  the  maledniinn  pronounced  upon 
the  serpent,  while  it  is  to  be  understood  literally  as  to 
that  animal,  must  be  considered  as  teaching  more  than 
the  letter  simply  expresses ;  and  the  terms  of  it  are, 


(."i)  '•  Legem  tamen  banc  idcirco  homini  lalaui  fuisse 
arbitramur,  nl  el  olisiN|U<ndo  et  oblemperando,  iialain 
publiceque  veluli  leslarelur,  so,  cui  doiMiiiiurii  renim 
omnium  crealiirmn  a  Deoilelatuni  erat,  Deo  tamen  ipsi 
subjecluin  oliiioMuniqiie  esse  ;  utque  obsecpiio  endem 
HUO  tanquam  vasalhis  et  cliens,  Jiublico  ali(ini)  reeo^'iii- 
tionis  symbolo,  proliterelur,  se  in  omnibus  Deo  suo, 
tanquam  su|iriirio  Domino,  oblcmperaro  et  parore 
velle;  id  quod  .-equissiinum  eral."— lii'i.icorii's. 

(0)  The  Ibnner  word  signifies  a  traUuccr  nnd/atut 
auvser,  the  latter  an  adversary. 


therefore,  for  the  reason  given  above  (the  comment 
found  in  other  parts  of  Scripture),  to  be  regarded  a.s 
symbolical.  "  As  tlie  literal  sense  does  not  exclude  Iho 
mystical,  the  cursing  of  the  serpent  is  a  symbol  to  us, 
and  a  visible  jiledge  of  the  malediction  with  which  I  ho 
Devil  is  struck  by  Cod,  and  whereby  he  is  become  the 
most  abominable  and  miserable  of  all  creatures.  But 
man,  by  the  help  of  Ike  feed  of  the  xiioman,  that  is,  by 
our  Saviour,  shall  bruise  his  head,  wound  him  in  the 
place  that  is  most  mortal,  and  destroy  liiin  with  eternal 
ruin.  In  the  mean  time,  the  enmity  and  alihorrence  we 
have  of  the  serpent  is  a  contmual  warning  to  us  of  the 
danger  we  are  in  of  the  Devil,  and  how  heartily  we 
ought  to  abhor  him  and  all  his  works."{7)  To  this 
view,  indeed,  strenuous  objections  have  been  made ; 
and  in  order  to  get  quit  of  the  doctrine  of  so  early  and 
significant  a  iiromise  of  a  Redeemer, — a  promise  so 
expressed  as  necessarily  to  imply  redeiniition  through 
the  teirijiorary  suflering  of  the  Redeemer,  the  briiiyiiiij 
of  /lis  hill, — many  of  those  who  are  willing  to  give  uji 
the  letter  entirely  in  other  parts  of  the  narrative,  and 
to  resolve  the  whole  iiUo  fable,  resist  this  addition  of 
the  parabolical  meaning  to  the  literal,  anil  contend  for 
that  alone.     In  answer  to  this,  we  may  observe : — 

1.  That,  on  tln'  merely  literal  interimlalion  of  these 
words,  the  mam  insiniiDentol  the  transLTcssion  would 
remain  unsentenced  and  uniuniisbeil.  That  instrument 
was  the  Devil,  as  already  shown,  and  who,  in  evident 
allusion  to  this  circumstance,  is  called,  in  Scrqiture, 
"a  murderer  from  the  beginning,"  •' a /iar  and  the 
father  of  lies  ;"  "  that  old  Serjient,  called  the  Devil  and 
Satan,  which  der.eivetii  the  whole  world ;"  he  "  who 
sinneth  from  the  bes;iiining ;"  so  that  whosoever  "  com- 
mittelh  sin  is  of  thie  Devil,"  and  consequently  our  first 
parents.  It  is  also  in  plain  allusion  to  this  history,  and 
the  bruising  of  the  head  of  the  serpent,  that  the  apostle 
takes  the  phrase  of  "  bruising"  Satan  under  the  feet  of 
believers.  These  passages  can  only  be  disposed  of  by 
re.solving  the  whole  account  of  diaboUcal  agency  in 
Scripture  into  figures  of  speech  (the  theory  adopted  by 
Socinians,  und  which  will  be  sub.sequcnlly  refuted) ; 
but  if  the  agency  of  Satan  be  allowed  in  this  transac- 
tion, then  to  confine  ourselves  to  the  merely  literal 
sense  leaves  the  prime  mover  of  the  offence  without 
any  .share  of  the  malediction  ;  and  the  curse  of  the  ser- 
pent must,  therefore,  in  justice  be  concluded  to  fall  witk 
the  least  weight  upon  the  animal  instrument,  the  ser- 
pent itself,  and  with  its  liighest  emphasis  ujion  the  in- 
telligent and  accountable  seducer. 

2.  We  are  compelled  to  this  interpretation  by  the 
reason  of  the  case.  That  a  higher  power  was  identi- 
fied with  the  serpent  in  the  transaction,  is  apjiarenl 
from  the  intelligent  and  rational  jiowers  ascribed  to  the 
serpent,  winch  it  is  utlerl)  iiieonsisleiit  with  tbedistmc- 
tion  between  man  and  tlie  inferior  anim.ils  to  attribute 
to  a  mere  brute.  He  was  the  most  "  subtle"  of  the 
beasts,  made  suc-h  near  approaches  to  rationality  as  to 
be  a.  Jit  ill  strum  fill  by  wliich  to  deceive;  but,  a.ssu- 
redly,  the  use  of  speech,  of  reasoning  powers,  a  know- 
ledge of  the  Divine  law,  and  the  power  of  seductive 
artifice  to  entrai)  human  beings  in  their  state  of  perfec- 
tion into  sin  agai.:st  (iod,  are  not  the  faeullies  of  an 
irrational  ainmal.  The  solemn  manner,  too,  in  which 
the  Almighty  addresses  the  serpent  in  ]ironounciiig  the 
curse,  shows  that  an  intelligent  and  free  agent  was 
arraigned  belore  him,  and  it  would,  indeed,  be  ficUcu- 
lous  to  su)i|iose  to  the  contrary. 

3.  The  circumstances  of  our  first  parents  idso  con- 
firm the  symbolical  interpretation,  in  coiijuiuimn  wjih 
the  literal  one.  This  is  shown  by  liislaq)  Sherlock 
with  much  acutcness. 

"  They  were  now  in  a  state  of  sin,  standing  before 
God  to  receive  sentence  for  their  disobedience,  ami  had 
reason  to  expect  a  full  execution  of  the  jx'nalty  threat- 
ened, hi  the  day  thou,  catexl  thereof,  thou  shn'lt  surely 
die.  ItutGod  came  in  mercy  .as  wellas  jmlgnienl,  pur- 
pn.sing  not  only  to  puni.sh,  but  to  restore  man.  Tho 
judgment  is  awfhl  and  severe;  the  woman  is  doomed 
to  sorrow  in  conception;  the  man  to  sorrow  and  travail 
all  the  days  of  his  life;  the  ground  is  cursed  lor  his 
sake;  and'the  end  of  the  judgment  \s.diist  thou  art, 
and  tnito  diis/  Ihnii  shalt  return.  Had  they  been  left 
thus,  they  inigbt  have  comiiiucd  in  their  labour  and 
sorrow  for  their  appointed  lime,  and  at  last  have  re- 
turned to  dust,  without  any  well-grounded   hope  or 


(7)  Archbishop  King. 


Chap.  XVIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


230 


confidence  in  God :  tticy  must  li;ive  looked  upon  thein- 
Sflvos  as  rejected  by  tlicir  Milker,  delivered  up  to 
trouble  and  sorrow  In  this  world,  and  as  liavinj;;  no 
hope  in  any  other.  Upon  tliis  frround  I  conceive  there 
could  have  been  no  religion  left  in  the  world  ;  for  a 
sense  of  religion  without  hope  is  a  state  of  phrensy 
and  distraction,  void  of  all  inducements  to  love  and 
obedience,  or  any  thing  else  that  is  praiseworthy.  If, 
therefore,  Go<l  intended  to  preserve  them  as  objects  of 
mercy,  it  was  absolutely  necessary  to  communicate  so 
■muck  hopi-  to  them,  as  might  be  a  rational  foundation 
lor  their  future  endeavours  to  be  reconciled  to  him. 
'I'Uis  seems  to  be  the  primary  intention  of  this  first 
Divine  prophecy ;  and  it  was  necessary  to  the  state  of 
the  world,  and  the  condition  of  religion,  which  could 
not  possibly  have  been  supported  without  the  commu- 
nication of  such  hopes.  The  prophecy  is  excellently 
adapted  to  this  purpose,  and  manifestly  conveyed  such 
hopes  to  our  first  parents.  For  let  us  consider  in  what 
sense  we  may  suppose  them  to  understand  the  pro- 
phecy. Now,  they  must  necessarily  understand  the 
prophecy,  either  according  to  the  literal  meaning  of  the 
words,  or  according  to  such  meaning  as  the  whole  cir- 
cumstance of  the  transaction,  of  which  they  are  part, 
tloes  require.  If  we  sui)pose  them  to  understand  the 
words  literally  only,  and  that  God  meant  tliem  to  be  so 
understood,  this  passage  must  appear  ridiculous.  Do 
but  imagme  that  you  see  God  coming  to  judge  the  of- 
I'enders ;  Adam  and  Eve  before  him  in  the  utmost  dis- 
tress ;  that  you  hear  God  inflicting  pains,  and  sorrows, 
and  misery,  and  death  upon  the  tirst  of  human  race  ; 
and  that  in  the  midst  of  all  this  scene  of  wo  and  great 
calamity,  you  hear  him  foretelling  with  great  solemnity  a 
very  trivial  accident  that  should  sometimes  happen  in 
the  world  :  that  serpents  would  be  apt  to  bite  men  by 
the  heels,  and  that  men  would  be  apt  to  revenge  them- 
.selves  by  striking  them  on  the  head.  What  has  this 
tritle  10  do  with  the  loss  of  mankind,  with  the  corrup- 
tion of  the  natural  and  moral  world,  and  the  ruin  of^ 
all  the  glory  and  happiness  of  the  creation  ?  Great 
conifort  it  was  to  Adam,  doubtless,  after  telling  him 
that  his  days  would  be  short  and  full  of  misery,  and  his 
end  without  hope,  to  let  hiin  know  that  he  should  now 
and  then  knock  a  snake  on  the  head,  but  not  even  that, 
without  paying  dear  lor  his  poor  victory,  tor  the  snake 
should  often  bite  him  by  the  heel.  Adam  surely  could 
not  understand  the  prophecy  in  this  sense,  though  some 
of  his  sons  have  so  understood  it.  Leaving  this,  there- 
lore,  as  absolutely  absurd  and  ridiculous,  let  us  consider 
what  meaning  the  circumstances  of  the  transaction  do 
necessarily  fi.v  to  the  words  of  this  prophecy.  Adam 
temptecj  by  his  wile,  and  she  by  the  serpent,  had  fallen 
from  their  obedience,  and  were  now  in  the  presence  of 
God  e.tpecling  judgment.  They  knew  full  well  at  this 
juncture,  that  their/aW  was  {Xicvictory  of  the  serpent, 
whom  by  experience  they  found  to  be  an  enemy  to  God 
and  to  man ;  to  man,  whom  he  had  ruined  by  seducing 
him  to  sin  ;  to  God,  the  noblest  work  of  whose  creation 
he  had  defaced.  It  could  not,  therefore,  but  be  some 
comfort  to  them  to  hear  the  serpent  first  condemned, 
and  to  see  that,  however  he  had  prevailed  against 
them,  he  had  gained  no  victory  over  their  Maker,  who 
was  able  to  assert  his  own  honour,  and  to  punish  this 
great  author  of  inicjuity.  Ry  this  method  of  God's  pro- 
ceeding they  were  secured  from  thinking  that  there  was 
any  evil  being  equal  to  the  Creator  in  power  and  domi- 
nion :  an  opinion  which  gained  gromid  in  after-times 
through  the  prevalence  of  evil,  and  is,  where  it  does 
prevail,  destructive  of  all  true  religion.  The  belief  of 
(iod's  supreme  dominion,  which  is  the  foundation  of  all 
religion,  being  thus  preserved,  it  is  still  necessary  to 
give  them  such  hopes  as  they  could  not  but  conceive, 
when  they  heard  from  the  mouth  of  God  that  the  ser- 
pent's victory  was  not  a  complete  victory  over  even 
themselves ;  that  they  and  their  posterity  should  be 
enabled  to  contest  his  emjiire ;  and  though  they  were 
to  sufter  much  in  the  struggle,  yet  finally  they  should 
prevail  and  bruise  the  serpc;nt's  head,  and  be  delivered 
from  his  power  and  dominion  over  tliem.  What  now 
could  they  conceive  this  conquest  over  the  serpent  to 
mean  ?  Is  it  not  natural  to  expect  that  we  shall  re- 
cover that  by  victory  which  we  lost  by  being  defeated  ? 
They  knew  that  the  enemy  had  subdued  them  by  sin, 
could  they  then  conceive  hopes  of  victory  otherwise 
than  by  righteousness  !  They  lost  through  sin  the  hap- 
puiess  of  their  creation,  could  they  e\|)ect  less  from  the 
return  of  righteousness  tUaii  the  recovery  of  the  bless- 


ings forfeited  ?  What  else  but  this  could  they  expect  T 
For  the  certain  knowledge  they  had  of  their  loss  when 
the  serpent  prevailed,  could  not  but  lead  \\\nn  to  a  clear 
knowledge  of  what  they  should  regain  by  prevaihng 
against  the  serpent.  The  language  of  this  prophecy  is 
indeed  in  part  metaphorical,  but  it  is  a  great  mistake 
to  think  that  all  metaphors  are  of  uncertain  significa- 
tion ;  for  the  design  and  scope  of  the  sjieaker,  with  the 
circumstances  attending,  create  a  final  and  determinate 
sense." 

The  import  of  this  prediction  appears,  from  various 
,  allusions  of.  Scripture,  to  have  been,  that  the  Messiah, 
who  was  in  an  eminent  and  iieculiar  sense  the  seed 
of  the  woman,  should/  though  himself  bruised  in  the 
conflict,  obtain  a  complete  victory  over  the  malice  and 
power  of  Satan,  and  so  restore  those  benefits  to  man 
which  by  sin  he  had  lost.  From  this  time  hope  looked 
forwards  to  the  Giseat  Restorer,  and  sacrifices, 
which  are  no  otherwise  to  be  accounted  for,  began  to 
be  olf'ered  in  prefiguration  of  the  fact  and  efficacy  of 
Ills  sufferings.  From  that  first  promise,  that  light  of 
salvation  broke  forth,  which,  by  the  increased  illumi- 
nation of  revelation  through  following  ages,  shone 
brighter  and  brighter  to  the  perfect  day.  To  what  ex- 
tent our  first  parents  understood  this  promise  it  is  not 
possible  for  us  to  say.  Suflicieutly,  there  is  no  doubt, 
for  hope  and  faith  ;  and  that  it  might  be  the  ground  of 
a  new  dispensation  of  religion,  in  which  salvation  was 
to  be  of  grace,  not  of  works,  and  in  which  prayer  was 
to  be  ofTered  lor  all  necessary  blessings,  on  the  ground 
of  pure  mercy,  and  through  the  intercession  of  an  in- 
finitely worthy  Mediator.  The  Scriptures  cannot  be 
explained,  imless  this  be  admitted,  for  these  are  the 
very  principles  which  are  assumed  in  God's  govern- 
ment of  man  from  the  period  of  his  fall;  and  it  is, 
tiierefore,  probable,  that  in  those  earliest  patriarchal 
ages,  of  which  we  have  so  brief  and  rapid  an  accoimt 
in  the  writings  of  Moses,  and  which  we  may,  never- 
theless, collect,  were  ages  distinguished  by  the  fre- 
quent and  visible  intercourse  of  God  and  superior 
beings  with  men,  there  were  revelations  made  and  in- 
structions given  which  are  not  specifically  recorded, 
but  which  formed  that  body  of  theology  which  is  un- 
questionably presupposed  by  the  whole  Mosaic  insti- 
tute. But  if  we  allow  that  tliis  first  promise,  as  inter- 
preted by  us,  contains  more  than  our  first  parents  can 
be  supposed  to  have  discovered  in  it,  we  may  say,  with 
the  prelate  just  ([uoted,  "  Since  this  prophecy  has  been 
plainly  fulfilled  in  Christ,  and  by  the  event  appropri- 
ated to  him  only,  I  would  fain  know  how  it  comes  to 
be  conceived  to  be  so  ridiculous  a  thing  in  us  to  sup- 
pose that  God,  to  whom  the  whole  event  was  known 
from  the  beginning,  should  make  choice  of  such  ex- 
pressions as  naturally  conveyed  so  much  knowledge  to 
our  first  parents  as  he  intended,  and  yet  should  appear, 
in  the  fulness  of  time,  to  have  been  peculiarly  adapted 
to  the  event  which  he,  from  the  beginning  saw,  and 
winch  he  intended  the  world  should  one  day  see,  and 
which,  when  they  should  see,  they  might  the  more 
easily  acknowledge  to  be  the  work  of  his  hand,  by  the 
secret  evidence  which  he  had  enclosed  from  the  days 
of  old  in  the  words  of  prophecy." 

From  these  remarks  on  the  history  of  the  fall,  we  are 
called  to  consider  the  state  into  which  that  event  re- 
duced the  first  man  and  liis  posterity. 

As  to  Adam,  it  is  clear  that  he  became  liable  to  ine- 
vitable death,  and  that,  during  his  teiniiorarj'  life,  he 
was  doomed  to  severe  labour,  expressed'  in  Scrii)ture 
by  eating  his  bread  in,  or  "  by  the  sweat  of  his  brow." 
These  are  incontrovertible  points  ;  but  that  the  threat- 
ening of  death,  as  the  penalty  of  disobedience,  included 
spiritual  and  eternal  death  as  to  himself  and  his  posterity, 
has  been,  and  continues  to  be,  largely  and  resolutely 
debated,  and  will  require  our  consideration. 

On  tills  subject  the  following  are  the  leading  opi- 
nions : 

The  view  stated  by  Pclagius,  who  lived  in  the  fifth 
century,  is  (if  he  has  not  been  misrepresented)  that 
which  is  held  by  the  modern  Socinians.  It  is,  that 
though  Adam,  by  his  transgression,  exposed  himself 
to  the  displeasure  of  his  INIakcr,  yet  that  neither  were 
the  powers  of  his  own  nature  at  all  impaired,  nor  have 
his  posterity,  in  any  sense,  sustained  the  smallest  hurt 
by  his  disobedience :  that  he  was  created  nmrial,  and 
would,  Ihcrelbre,  have  died,  had  he  not  sinned ;  and 
that  the  only  evil  he  suflered  was  his  being  expelled 
from  Paradise,  and  subjected  to  the  discipline  of  labour. 


240 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


^Part  II. 


That  his  posterity,  like  liimsclt",  are  placed  in  a  state 
of  trial:  that  iltath  to  them,  as  to  him,  is  a  natural 
evi^iit ;  and  that  the  prospect  of  cerlain  dissolution, 
joined  to  the  conunon  calamities  of  life,  is  favourable 
to  the  cultivation  of  virtue.  By  a  proper  atlciitioii  we 
may  maintain  our  innocence  amid  surrounding  tempta- 
tions, and  may  also  daily  improve  in  moral  excellence, 
by  the  proper  use  of  reason  and  other  natural  powers. 
A  second  opinion  lias  been  altributed  to  the  fol- 
lowers of  Arminius,  on  which  a  remark  sliall  just 
now  be  ofl'ered.  It  has  been  thus  epitonii  cdhyDr.  liiU  : 
"According  to  this  opinion,  although  the  tir.st  man 
had  a  body  naturally  frail  and  niorlal,  his  lite  would 
have  been  forever  preserved  by  the  bounty  of  his  Crea- 
tor, had  he  continued  obedient ;  and  the  instrument 
employed  by  Ood,  to  preserve  his  mortal  body  from  de- 
cay, was  the  fruit  of  life.  Death  was  declared  to  be 
the  penalty  of  traiisgressiim  :  an<l,  therefore,  as  soon  as 
lie  transgressed,  tie  was  removed  at  a  distance  from 
tlie  tree  of  life  ;  and  his  [losterity,  inheriting  his  natural 
morttilily,  and  not  having  access  to  the  tree  of  lile,  are 
sulijei-ted  to  death.  It  is  therefore  said  by  St.  I'aul, 
'  By  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by 
sin,  and  so  death  jiassed  upon  all  men.  In  Adam  all 
die.  By  one  man's  otfence  death  reigned  by  one.' 
These  expressions  clearly  point  out  deatli  to  be  the 
conseijuence  of  Adam's  transgression,  an  evil  brought 
upon  his  posterity  by  his  fiiult:  and  this  IheArmiuians 
understand  to  be  the  whole  meaning  of  its  being  said, 
'  ,\(kini  begat  a  son  in  his  own  likeness,  alter  his 
image,'  Gen.  v.  3,  and  of  Paul  saying,  'We  have  borne 
the  image  of  the  earthly.' 

"  It  is  admitted,  however,  by  those  who  hold  the 
opinion,  that  this  change  upon  the  condition  of  man- 
kind, from  a  life  preserved  without  end,  to  mortality, 
was  most  unfavourable  to  their  moral  character.  The 
fear  of  death  enfeebles  and  enslaves  the  mind ;  the 
pursuit  of  those  things  which  are  necessary  to  su]iport 

,  i  frail  perishing  life  engrosses  and  contracts  the  soul ; 

.'Slid  the  desires  of  sensual  pleasure  are  rendered  more 
eager  and  ungovernable,  by  tlie  knowledge  that  the 
lime  of  enjoying  them  soon  passes  away.  Uehce 
arise  envying  of  those  who  have  a  larger  share  of  the 
good  things  of  this  lif(^ — strife  with  those  who  inter- 
fere in  our  enjoymeiils— impatience  under  restraint — 
and  sorrow  and  repiiiiii'.'  when  pleasure  is  abridged. 
And  to  this  variety  of  turbulent  passions,  the  natural 
fruits  of  the  punishment  of  Adam's  transgression, 
there  are  also  to  be  added,  all  the  fretfulness  and  dis- 
quietude occasioned  by  the  diseases  and  pains  which 
are  inseparable  from  the  condition  of  a  mortal  being. 
In  this  way  the  Arminians  explain  such  expressions  as 
these,  'by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made 
sinners  ;'  '  all  are  under  sin  ;'  '  behold  I  was  shapen  in 
iniquity,'  i.  e.  all  men,  in  conseijuence  of  Adam's  wn,, 
are  born  in  these  circumstances, — under  that  disposi- 
tion of  events  which  subjects  them  to  the  dominion  of 
passion,  and  exposes  them  to  so  many  temptations, 
that  it  is  imjiossible  for  any  man  to  maintain  his  in- 
tegrity. And  hfiu-e,  they  say,  arises  the  necessity  of  a 
Saviour,  who,  restoring  to  man  tlie  imniorlaldy  which 
he  had  forfeited,  may  be  said  to  have  aliolislKMl'  dcatli; 
who  clTectually  delivers  his  followers  from  that  lioiid- 
agc  of  mind,  and  that  corruption  of  duiraeter,  which 
arc  connected  with  the  fear  of  death  ;  wlio,  by  his  per- 
fect obedience,  obtains  pardon  for  those  sins  into 
which  they  have  neen  betrayed  by  their  condition  ; 
and  by  his  Spirit  enables  Ihem  to  overcome  the  tempta- 
tions which  human  nature  of  itself  cannot  withstaHid. 
"Accoriling  to  this  opniiim,  then,  the  human  race 
lias  suflered  universally  in  a  very  high  degree  by  the 
sin  of  their  first  parent.  At  the  same  time,  the  man- 
ner of  their  sulPering  is  analogous  to  many  circum- 
stances ill  the  ordinary  disjiensalions  of  Providence ; 
for  we  often  see  children,  by  the  ni!;lii.'em-e  or  fault  of 
tlieir  parents,  idaeed  in  situations  very  untavoiiralilc 
both  to  their  prosjierity  and  to  their  imiirovenieiit;  and 
we  can  trace  the  jirotligacy  of  their  cliaracler  to  the 
defects  of  llnir  ((lucation,  to  the  example  set  before 
them  in  their  youth,  and  to  the  multiplied  temptations 
in  which,  from  a  want  of  due  aitentioii  on  the  part  of 
others,  they  find  themselves  early  entaiigled."(S) 

That  this  is  a  very  defective  vii^w  of  the  effects  of 
the  original  offence  upon  Adam  and  his  dcsi-endanis 
must   bo  acknowledged.      Whether  Adam,   as  to  his 

(8)  Lectures. 


body,  became  mortal  by  positive  viflictiun,  or  by  being 
e.xcluded  from  the  means  of  warding  otT  disease  and 
mortality,  whii'h  were  provided  in  the  tree  of  life,  is  a 
speculative  point,  which  has  no  important  tlieological 
bearing;  but  that  the  corruplion  of  our  nature,  and  not 
merely  its  greater  liability  to  be  corrupted,  is  the  doc- 
trine of  Scripture  will  p.nsently  be  shown.  However, 
this  was  not  the  opinion  of  Arminius,  nor  of  his  imme- 
diate followers.  Nor  is  it  the  opinioir  of  that  large 
body  of  Christians,  often  called  Arminians,  who  follow 
the  theological  opinions  of  Mr.  Wesley.  It  was  tho 
opinion  of  Dr.  Wliilby  aiuj  several  divines  of  the  Eng- 
lish church,  who,  though  called  Arminians,  were  semi- 
Pelagians,  or  at  least  made  great  approaches  to  that 
error;  and  the  writer  just  ijuoted  has  no  authority  foi 
giving  tins  as  the  Anninian  opinion,  excejit  the  work 
of  Whitby's  entitled  Trrirta/iis  dc  li/ii'iitalione  PecciUi 
Adami.  In  this,  however,  lie  has  followed  others,  who, 
on  Whitby's  authority,  attribute  this  notion  not  only  to 
Arminius  singly,  but  to  the  body  of  the  Remonstrants, 
and  to  all  those  who,  to  this  day,  advocate  the  doctrine 
of  general  redemption.  This  is  one  proof  how  little 
pains  many  divines  of  the  Calvinislic  school  have 
taken  to  understand  the  opinions  they  have  hastily  con- 
demned in  mass. 

The  tbllowing  passages  from  the  writings  of  Anni- 
nius  will  do  justice  to  the  character  of  that  eminent  di- 
vine on  this  important  subject. 

In  the  15th  and  ItJlh  propositions  of  his  Tth  public 
Lecture  on  lite  first  Smof  the  Jirst  Man,  he  says, 

"The  immediate  and  proper  eflect  of  this  sin  was, 
that  Cod  was  offended  by  it.  For  since  the  form  of 
sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law,  1  .lohn  iii.  4,  such 
transgression  primarily  and  immediately  impinges 
against  the  Legislator  liimself,  Gen.  iii.  2;  and  it  im- 
pinges against  him.  Gen.  iii.  16,  I'J,  23, 21,  with  offence, 
it  having  been  his  will  that  his  law  should  not  be  in- 
fringed, Genesis  iii.  17:  From  which  ho  conceives  a 
just  wrath,  which  is  the  second  efTect  of  sin.  But 
this  wrath  is  followed  by  the  infliction  of  imiiishment 
which  here  is  twofold:  1.  A  liability  to  both  deaths, 
Rom.  vi.  23.  2.  A  privation  of  that  jirimeva!  holiness 
and  righteousness,  Luke  xix.  2fi,  which,  because  they 
were  the  eflbcts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  dwelling  in  man, 
ought  not  to  remain  in  man,  who  had  fallen  from 
the  favour  of  God,  and  had  incurred  his  anger.  For 
that  Spirit  is  a  seal  and  token  of  the  Divine  favour  and 
benevolence,  Rom.  viii.  14,  15  ;  1  Cor.  ii.  12. 

"  But  the  whole  of  this  sin  is  not  peculiar  to  our  first 
parents,  but  is  common  to  the  whole  race,  and  to  all 
their  jiosterily,  who  at  the  time  when  the  first  sin  was 
cominilted,  were  in  their  loins,  and  who  afterward  de- 
scended from  them  in  the  natural  mode  of  projiagation, 
according  to  the  primitive  benediction.  For,  in  Adam, 
all  have  sinned,  Rom.  v.  12.  Whatever  punishment, 
therefore,  was  inlliclcd  on  our  first  parents  has  also 
pervaded  all  their  posterity,  and  still  ojipresses  them  : 
So  that  all  are  by  nature  children  of  wraili,  Kph.  ii.  31, 
obnoxious  to  condeniiiation  and  to  death  temporal  and 
eternal,  Rom.  v.  12,  and  are,  lastly,  devoid  of  that  [pri- 
meval) righteousness  and  holiness:  With  which  evils 
they  would  continue  oppressed  lor  ever,  unless  they 
were  delivered  from  them  by  Jesus  Christ ;  to  whom 
be  glory  for  ever  and  ever!  Rom.  v.  1S,-1'J." 

In  the  epistle  which  Arminius  addressed  to  Hippo- 
lytus,  descrihiiig  grace  and  free-will,  his  views  on  this 
subject  are  still  more  clearly  expressed  : 

''  It  is  impossible  ftr  freewill  ^\i^llOut  grace  to  begin 
orperfei't  any  true  or  spintiuii  good.  I  say,  the  grace 
of  Christ  which  pertains  to  n  ;;iiieration  is  simply  and 
absolutely  necessary  for  the  illuminalion  of  the  mind. 
the  ordering  of  the  afl'ections,  and  the  inclination  of 
the  will  to  that  which  is  good.  It  is  thai  which  ope- 
rates on  the  mind,  the  affections,  and  the  will ;  which 
infuses  good  thoughts  into  the  mind,  inspires  good  de- 
sires into  (he  alfecliotis,  and  leads  the  will  to  cxpcute 
good  thoughts  and  gotxl  desires.  It  prevents  (goea 
before),  acconiiianies,  and  follows.  It  excites,  assists, 
works  in  us  to  will,  and  works  with  tis,  that  we  may 
not  will  in  vain.  It  averts  temptations,  stands  by  and 
aids  us  in  lemiilations,  supports  us  against  the  flesh, 
the  world,  and  Satan :  aiul,  in  the  conliict,  it  grants  us 
to  enjoy  the  victory.  Jt  raises  u|)  again  those  who  arc 
conquered  and  fallen,  it  establishes  them,  and  endues 
them  with  new  alrenglh,  and  renders  them  more  cau 
tious.  11  begins,  promotes,  lurfects,  and  ronsummatet 
siilvutioii.    I  coufCNS,  tUut  tlic  iniiid  of  the  iiaturtd  {am 


Chap.  XVIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


241 


malis)  and  carnal  man  is  darkened,  his  affections  are 
dejjraved  and  disordered,  his  will  is  refractory,  and 
that  tlie  man  is  d'lad  in  sins." 

And,  in  his  11th  Public  Disputation  on  the  Free-will 
of  Man,  and  its  powers,  lie  says,  "  that  the  will  of  man, 
with  respect  to  true  good,  is  not  only  wounded,  bruised, 
inferior,  croolied,  and  attenuated  ;  but  it  is  likewise  cap- 
tivated, distnii/fd,  and  lost ;  and  has  no  powers  what- 
ever, excejrt  such  as  are  excited  by  grace.'' 

The  doctrine  of  the  Remonstrants  is,  "That  God,  to 
the  glory  of  his  abundant  goodness,  having  decreed  to 
make  man  after  his  own  image,  and  to  give  him  an  easy 
and  most  eiiual  law,  and  add  thcreunlaa  threatening  of 
death  to  the  transgressors  thereof,  and  foreseeing  that 
Adam  would  wilfully  transgress  the  same,  and  thereby 
make  liimsi-lf  and  lis  posterity  liable  to  condemnation ; 
though  God"  was,  notwithstanding,  mercifully  afl'ected 
towards  man,  yet,  out  of  respect  to  his  justice  and  truth, 
he  would  not  give  way  to  his  mercy  to  save  man  till  his 
justice  should  be  satisfied,  and  his  serious  hatred  of  sin 
and  love  of  righteousness  should  be  made  known." 
The  condemnation  here  spoken  of,  as  aJTecling  Adam 
and  his  posterity,  is  to  be  understood  of  more  than  the 
death  of  the  body,  as  being  opposed  to  the  salvation 
procured  by  the  sacrifice  of  Christ;  and,  with  respect 
to  tlie  moral  state  of  human  nature  since  the  fall,  the 
third  of  their  articles,  exhibited  at  the  Synod  of  Dort, 
states,  that  the  Remonstrants  "  hold  that  a  man  hjth 
not  saving  faith  of  himself,  nor  from  the  power  of  his 
own  free-will,  seeing  that,  while  he  is  in  the  state  of 
sin,  he  cannot  of  himself,  nor  by  himself,  think,  will, 
or  do  any  saving  good.'XU) 

Tile  doctrine  of  the  Cliurch  of  England,  though  often 
claimed  as  exclusively  Calvinistic  on  this  point,  accords 
perfectly  with  trueArminianism.  ''Original sin  standeth 
not  in  the  following  or  imitation  of  Adam,  as  the  Pela- 
gians do  vainly  talk;  but  it  is  the  fault  or  corruption 
of  (he  nature  of  every  man,  that  naturally  is  engen- 
dered of  the  otTsprmg  of  Adam,  whereby  man  is 
very  far  gone  from  original  righteousness,  and  is  of 
his  ovv'u  nature  only  inclined  to  evil."  &c.  Some  of  the 
divines  of  this  church  have,  on  the  other  hand,  endea- 
voured to  soften  this  article,  by  availing  themselves  of 
the  phrase  "  very  far  gone,"  as  though  it  did  not  express 
a  total  defection  from  original  righteousness.  The  Ar- 
ticles were,  however,  subscribed  by  the  two  houses  of 
Convocation,  in  1571,  in  Latin  and  English  also,  and 
therefore  both  copies  are  equally  authentic.  The  Latin 
copy  expresses  this  phrase  by  "  quarn  longissime  dis- 
tet ;"  which  is  as  strong  an  expression  as  that  language 
can  furnish,  fixes  the  sense  of  the  compilers  on  this 
point,  and  takes  away  the  argument  which  rests  on  the 
alleged  equivocalness  of  the  English  version.  INor 
does  there  appear  any  material  discrepancV  between 
this  statement  of  the  fallen  condition  of  man  and  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  the  doctrine  of  the  French 
churches,  that  of  the  Calvinistic  church  of  Scotland, 
and,  so  far  as  the  moral  .state  of  man  only  is  concerned, 
the  views  of  Calvin  himself.  There  are,  it  is  true,  such 
expressions  as  "  contagion,"  "  infection,"  and  the  like,  in 
some  of  these  formularies,  which  are  somewhat  equi- 
vocal, as  bearing  upon  a  point  from  which  .some  divines, 
both  Arminians  and  Calvinists.  have  dissented, — the 
direct  corruption  of  human  nature  by  a  sort  of  judicial 
act  ;  but,  this  point  excepted,  to  which  we  shall  subse- 
quently turn  our  attention,  the  true  Arminian,  as  fully 
as  the  Calvinistic,  admits  the  doctrine  of  the  total  de- 
pravity of  human  nature  in  consequence  of  the  fall  of 
our  first  parents ;  and  is  indeed  enabled  to  carry  it 
through  his  system  with  greater  consistency  than  the 
Calvinist  himself.  For,  while  the  latter  is  obliged,  in 
order  to  account  for  certain  good  dispositions  and  occa- 
sional religious  inclinations  m  those  who  never  give  any 
evidence  of  their  actual  conversion  to  God,  to  refer  them 
to  nature,  and  not  to  grace,  which,  according  to  them, 
is  not  given  to  the  reprobate,  the  believer  in  general  re- 
demption maintains  the  total  incapacity  of  unassisted 
nature  to  produce  such  effects,  and  attributes  them  to 
that  Divine  gracious  influence  which,  if  not  resisted, 
would  lead  on  to  conversion.  Some  of  the  doctrines 
joined  by  Calvinists  with  the  corruption  of  our  common 
nature  are,  indeed,  very  dispiUabh;,  and  such  as  we 
sl-.all,  in  the  proper  place,  attempt  to  prove  unscriptural ; 
bni  in  this  Arminians  and  tht^  so  well  agree,  that  it  is 


('J)   See  Tenets  of  the   Remonstrants,  in   Nlchol's 
'  Calvinism  and  Arminianisni  Compared." 


an  entire  delusion  to  represent  tliis  doctrine,  as  it  is 
often  done,  as  exclusively  Calvinistic.  "The  Calvinists," 
says  Bishop  Tomline,  "  contend  that  the  sin  of  Adam 
introduced  into  liis  nature  such  a  radical  impotence  and 
depravity,  that  it  is  impossible  lor  his  descendants  to 
make  any  voluntary  efl'ort  [of  themsiilves]  towards  piety 
and  virtue,  or  in  any  respect  to  correct  and  improve 
their  moral  and  religious  character;  and  that  faith  and 
all  the  Christian  graces  are  communicateil  by  the  sole 
and  irresistible  operation  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  without 
any  endeavour  or  concurrence  on  the  part  of  man."Cl) 
The  latter  part  only  of  this  statement  gives  the  Cal- 
vinistic peculiarity ;  the  former  is  not  exclusively  theirs. 
We  have  seen  the  sentiment  of  Arminius  on  the  natural 
state  of  man,  and  it  perfectly  harmonizes  with  that  of 
Calvin  where  he  says,  in  his  own  forcible  manner, 
"  that  man  is  so  totally  overwhelmed,  as  with  a  deluge, 
that  no  part  is  free  from  sin,  and  therefore  whatever 
proceeds  from  him  is  accoimtedsiii."(2) 

But  in  bringing  all  these  opinions  to  the  test  of  Scrip- 
tural testimony,  we  must  first  inquire  into  the  import 
of  the  penalty  of  death,  threatened  upon  the  offences 
of  the  first  man. 

The  Pelagian  and  Socinian  notion,  that  Adam  would 
have  died  had  he  not  sinned,  requires  no  other  refutation 
than  the  words  of  the  apostle  Paul,  who  declares  ex- 
pressly that  death  entered  the  world  "  by  sin,"  and  so  it 
inevitably  follows  that,  as  to  man  at  least,  but  for  sin 
there  would  have  been  no  death. 

The  notion  of  others,  that  the  death  threatened  ex- 
tended to  the  annihilation  of  the  soul  as  well  as  the 
body,  and  was  only  arrested  by  the  interposition  of  a 
Redeemer,  assumes  a  doctrine  which  has  no  counte- 
nance at  all  in  Scripture,  namely,  that  the  penalty  of 
transgressing  the  Divine  law,  when  it  extends  to  the 
soul,  is  death  in  the  sense  of  annihilation.  On  the  con- 
trary, whenever  the  threat  of  death,  in  Scripture,  refers  to 
the  soul,  it  unquestionably  means  future  and  conscious 
punishment.  Besides  the  term  "  death,"  which  conveys 
the  threatening,  does  not  properly  express  annihilation. 
There  is  no  adequ^e  opposition  between  life  and  anni- 
hilation. If  there  were  such  an  opposition  between 
them,  then  life  and  non-annihilation  must  be  equivalent 
terms.  But  they  are  not ;  for  many  things  exist  which 
do  not  live ;  and  thus  both  the  sense  attached  to  the 
term  death,  in  Scripture,  when  applied  to  the  soul,  as 
well  as  the  proper  sense  of  that  term  itself,  and  the 
reason  of  the  thing,  forbid  that  interpretation. 

The  death  threatened  to  Adam,  we  conclude,  there- 
fore, to  have  extended  to  the  soul  of  man  as  well  as  to 
his  body,  though  not  in  the  sense  of  annihilation;  but, 
for  the  confirmation  of  this,  it  is  necessary  to  refer  more 
particularly  to  the  language  of  Scripture,  which  is  its 
own  best  interpreter,  and  it  will  be  seen,  that  the 
opinion  of  those  divines  who  include  in  the  penalty  at- 
tached to  the  first  offence,  the  very  "  fulness  of  death," 
as  it  has  been  justly  termed,  death  bodily,  spiritual,  and 
eternal,  is  not  to  be  puffed  away  by  sarcasm,  but  stands 
firm  on  inspired  testimony. 

Besides  death,  as  it  is  opposed  to  animal  life,  and 
which  consists  in  the  sejiaration  of  the  rational  soul 
from  the  body,  the  Scrijitures  speak  of  the  life  and  death 
of  the  soul  in  a  moral  sense.  The  first  consists  in  the 
union  of  the  soul  to  God,  and  is  manifested  by  those 
vigorous,  grateful,  and  holy  affections,  which  are,  by 
this  union,  produced.  The  second  consists  in  a  separa- 
tion of  the  soul  from  communion  with  God,  and  is  mani- 
fested by  the  dominion  of  earthly  and  corrupt  disposi- 
tions and  habits,  and  an  entire  indifference  or  aversion 
to  spiritual  and  heavenly  things.  This,  too,  is  repre- 
sented as  the  state  of  all  who  are  not  quickened  by  the 
instrumentality  of  the  Gospel  employed  for  this  purpose 
by  the  power  and  agency  of  its  Divine  Author.  "  And 
you  hath  he  quickened  who  were  pkad  in  trespasses 
and  sins."  The  state  of  a  regenerate  mind  is,  in  ac- 
cordance with  this  view,  represented  as  a  resurrection, 
«nd  a  passing  "from  death  unto  life;"  and  both  to 
Christ  and  to  the  Holy  Spirit  is  this  work  of  quickening 
the  souls  of  men  and  preserving  them  in  moral  or 
spiritual  life  attributed.  To  interpret,  then,  the  death 
pronounced  upon  Adam  as  including  moral  death, 
seeing  that  he,  i)y  his  trans-grcssion,  fell  actually  into 
the  same  moral  state  as  a  siim.  r  ;i^.iiiin<  <;iid,  in  which 
all  those  persons  now  are  who  aiv  ,h  ,iil  m  Ircspassesand 
sins,  is  hi  entire  accordance  wiili  the  laut'uagcof  Scrip- 


(1)  Refutation  of  Calvinism.         (2)  Institutes. 


242 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  IL 


ture.  For,  if  a  state  of  sin  in  them  is  a  state  oC  spiritual 
death,  then  a  state  oC  siu  in  hirn  was  a  stale  of  spiritual 
death;  and  that  t)otli  by  natural  consequence,  the  same 
cause  producing  the  same  elTect,  and  also  tjy  the  ap- 
pointment of  tied,  who  dejiarts  from  sinful  men,  and, 
withdrawing  himself  from  all  communion  witli  the 
guilty,  witlidraws  thereby  tlie  only  source  of  moral  or 
spiritual  life. 

But  the  hifihest  sense  of  the  term  "death,"  in  Scrip- 
ture, is  the  punishment  of  the  soul  in  a  future  stale,  liolli 
by  a  loss  of  tiaiiiuiuss  and  separation  from  (Jod,  and 
also  by  a  jjosiiivc  iiilhction  of  Divine  wrath.  Now  this 
is  stated,  not  as  peculiar  to  any  dispen.sation  of  religion, 
but  as  common  to  all ;  as  the  penalty  of  the  trans- 
gression of  the  law  of  God  in  every  degree.  "  Sin  is 
the  transgression  of  the  law,"  this  is  its  delinition ; 
"  the  wages  of  sin  is  death,"  this  is  its  penalty.  Here 
we  have  no  mention  made  of  any  particular  sin,  as  ren- 
dering tile  transgressor  liable  to  this  penalty,  nor  of  any 
particular  circumstance  under  wliich  .sin  maybe  com- 
mitted, as  calling  forth  that  fiital  expression  of  the  JL)i- 
vine  displeasure  ;  but  of  sin  itself  generally :— of  trans- 
gression of  the  Uivine  law,  in  every  Ibrm  and  degree, 
it  is  alfirnied,  "  the  wages  of  sin  is  death."  This  is, 
therefore,  to  be  considered  as  an  axiom  in  the  jurispru- 
dence of  lieaven.  "  Sni,"  says  St.  James,  with  like  ab- 
solute and  unqualified  manner,  "  when  it  is  finished, 
bringelh  Ibrth  death  ;"  nor  have  we  the  least  intima- 
tion given  in  Scripture,  that  any  sin  whatever  is  ex- 
empted from  this  penalty  ;  that  some  sins  are  punished 
in  this  life  only,  and  others  in  the  life  to  come.  The 
degree  of  punishment  will  be  varied  by  the  olfence  ;  but 
death  is  the  penalty  attached  to  all  sin,  unless  it  is 
averted  by  pardon,  wliich  itself  supposes  that  in  law  the 
penalty  has  been  incurred.  Wtiat  was  there,  then,  in 
the  case  of  Adam  to  take  him  out  of  this  rule?  llis 
act  was  a  transgression, of  Iht:  law,  and  therclbre  sin ;  as 
sin,  its  wages  was  "  death,"  which,  in  Scripture,  we  have 
seen,  means,  in  its  highest  sense,  future  punishment. 

To  this,  Dr.  Taylor,  whom  most  modern  writers  who 
deny  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  have  followed,  objects : 
"Death  was  to  be  the  consequence  of  his  disobedience, 
and  the  death  here  threatened  can  be  opposed  only  to 
that  life  God  gave  Adam  when  he  created  him." 

To  this  it  has  been  replied : 

"  True :  but  how  are  you  assured,  that  God,  when  he 
created  him,  did  not  give  him  spirtlual  as  well  as  am- 
mal  life  1  Now  spiritual  death  is  opposed  to  xinritiial 
life.    And  this  is  more  than  the  deatk  of  the  body. 

"  Jiul  this,  you  say,  is  pure  conjecture,  without  a  solid 
foundation.  For  no  other  life  ir.  spoken  of  before.  V'es 
there  is.  The  image  of  God  is  spoken  of  before.  This 
is  not,  therefore,  pure  coiijocturf  ;  but  is  grounded  upon 
a  solid  foundation,  upon  tile  plain  Word  of  Clod.  Allow- 
ing, then,  that  'Adam  could  iiiiderslaiid  it  of  no  other 
life  than  that  which  he  had  newly  received ;'  yet  would 
he  naturally  understand  it  of  t/ie  life  nf  God  in  his  soul, 
as  villi  as  of  Ihr  life  of  his  body.  In  this  light,  there- 
fore, tlie  sense  of  tlic  threatening  will  stand  Ihus  :  '  Thon 
Shalt  surely  die  ;'  as  if  he  had  said,  1  have  (brmcd  tliee 
of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  '  breathed  into  thy  nostrils 
the  breath  of  lives,'  both  of  animal  and  spiritual  life; 
and  in  both  respetas  thou  art  become  a  living  soul. 
'  But  if  thou  eatest  of  the  forbidden  tree,  thou  shall 
cease  to  he  a  living  soul.  For  I  will  take  from  tlice'  the 
lives  I  have  given,  and  thou  shalt  die  spiritually,  tempo- 
rally, otcrnally."(3) 

The  answer  of  Tresideni  Edwards  is  more  at  largo. 

"  To  this  I  would  say  ;  it  is  true,  death  is  nppnscd  to 
life,  and  must  be  uiulerslood  according  to  the  nature 
of  that  life  to  which  it  is  opjiosed.  But  does  it  there- 
fore follow,  that  nothing  can  be  meant  by  it  but  the  loss 
of  life?  Misery  is  opposed  to  happiness,  and  sorrow  is 
in  Scripture  ollen  ojiposed  to  joy  ;  hut  can  we  conclude 
from  thence,  that  nothing  is  meant  in  Scripture  by 
sorrow,  but  the  loss  of  joy  ?  Or  that  there  is  no  more 
in  misery,  than  the  loss  or  absence  of  happiness  ?  Anfi 
if  the  death  threatened  to  Adam  can,  with  certainty,  be 
opposed  only  to  the  life  given  to  Adam,  lehen  God  cre- 
ated him;  I  think  a  slate  of  perfect,  pcqietual,  and 
lioiielcHS  misery  is  jiropcrly  opposed  to  thai  state  Adam 
was  m  when  God  crralvd  him.  For  I  supjiose  it  will 
not  be  denied,  that  the  life  Adam  hail  was  truly  a  hapiiy 
life  ;  happy  in  iierfect  innocence,  in  llic  favour  of  Ins 
Maker,  surrounded  with  ihe  happy  fruits  and  lestimo- 


(3)  WjcsLiiv  on  Original  Sin. 


nics  of  his  love.  And  I  think  it  has  been  proved,  that  he 
also  was  happy  in  a  sUUe  of  perfect  righteousness. 
Notlung  is  more  manilist  tlian  that  it  is  agreeable  to 
a  very  common  accejiUition  of  the  word  life  in  Scripture, 
that  it  be  understood  as  signifying  a  stale  of  excellent 
and  happy  existence.  Now,  that  which  is  most  opi>ositc 
to  that  life  and  state  in  ikIii'Ii  Adam  was  created,  is  a 
slate  of  total, confirmed  wickediiiss,  and  perfect  hope- 
less misery,  under  the  Divine  displeasure  and  curse; 
not  excluding  tciii|ii)ral  death,  or  the  destruction  of  the 
body,  as  an  liitroiluction  to  it. 

'  Besides,  iluit  which  is  much  more  evident  than  any 
thing  Dr.  T.  says  on  this  head  is,  that  the  death  which 
was  to  come  on  Ailam,  as  the  jrunishment  of  his  dis- 
obedience, was  opposed  to  that  life  which  he  would  have 
had  as  the  reward  of  his  obedience  in  case  he  had  not 
sinned.  Obedience  and  disobedience  are  contraries ;  the 
threatenings  and  promises  which  are  sanctions  of  a 
law,  are  set  in  direct  opposition ;  and  the  pro-miscs,  re- 
vjards,  and  threatened  piintshmrnts  arc  most  projierly 
taken  as  each  other's  ojipusites.  But  none  will  deny, 
that  the  life  wliich  would  have  been  Adam's  reivard,  if 
he  had  persisted  in  obedience,  was  eternal  life.  And 
therefore  we  argue  justly,  that  the  death  which  stands 
opposed  to  that  life  (Dr.  T.  himself  being  judge)  is  ma- 
nifestly eternal  death,  a  death  widely  different  from  the 
death  we  now  die — to  use  his  own  words.  If  Adam  for 
his  persevering  obedience  was  to  have  had  everla.sting 
lilt3  and  happiness,  in  perfect  holiness,  union  with  his 
Maker,  and  enjoyment  of  his  favour,  and  this  was  the 
liti;  which  was  to  be  confirmed  by  the  tree  of  life ;  then, 
doubtless,  the  death  threatened  in  case  of  disobedience, 
which  stands  in  direct  opposition  to  this,  was  an  expo- 
sure to  everlnstnig  wickedness  and  misery,  in  separa- 
tion from  God,  and  in  enduring  his  wratk."(.i) 

The  nexl  (juestion  is,  wiiellier  Adam  is  to  be  consi- 
dered as  a  mere  individual,  the  consecjucnccs  of  whose 
misconduct  ternnnaled  in  himself,  or  no  otherwise  af- 
lected  his  posterity  than  incidentally,  as  the  misconduct 
of  an  ordinary  parent  may  aflcct  the  circumstances  of 
his  children ;  or  whether  he  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  pub- 
lic man,  the  head  and  representative  of  the  human  race, 
who,  in  consequence  of  his  fall,  have  fallen  with  him, 
and  received  direc-t  hurt  and  injury  in  the  very  constitu- 
tion of  their  bodies,  and  the  moral  state  of  their  minds. 

The  testimony  of  Scripture  is  so  explicit  on  this  point, 
that  all  the  alteiiipls  to  evade  it  have  been  in  vain.  In 
Romans  v.  Adam  and  Christ  are  contrasted  in  their  pub- 
lic or  federal  character,  and  the  hurl  which  mankind 
have  derived  from  the  one,  and  llic  healing  they  have 
received  from  the  other,  arc  also  cuntrasied  in  various 
particulars,  which  are  eijually  rt  presented  as  the  eflects 
of  the  "otience"  of  Adam,  and  of  the  "obedience"  of 
Christ.  Adam  indeed,  in  verse  14,  is  called,  with  cvi- 
d(;iit  allusion  to  this  public  representative  character,  the 
figure  (ruTTos),  type,  or  model  "  of  him  that  was  to  come." 
The  same  apostle  also  adopts  the  phrases,  "  the  first 
Adam"  and  "Hie  second  Adam,"  which  mode  of  speak- 
ing can  only  be  cxplaiiUMl  on  the  ground,  that  as  sin  and 
death  descended  iroin  one,  so  righteousness  and  life  flow 
from  the  other;  and  thai  what  (Christ  is  to  all  his  spi- 
ritual seed,  lliat  Adam  is  lo  all  his  natural  descendants. 
On  this,  indeed,  the  parallel  is  founded,  1  Cor.  xv.  22, 
"  For  as  hi  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be 
made  alive,"  words  which  on  any  other  hypothesis  can 
liavc  no  natural  signification.  Nor  is  there  any  weight 
in  the  obsjrvation,  that  this  relation  of  Adam  to  liis  de- 
scendants is  not  expressly  stated  in  the  history  of  the 
fall ;  since,  if  it  were  not  indicated  in  that  account,  the 
comment  of  an  inspired  apostle  is,  doubtless,  a  sufficient 
authority.  Bui  the  fact  is,  llial  the  threatenings  pro- 
nounced upon  the  first  pair  have  all  respect  to  their 
posterity  as  well  as  to  themselves.  The  death  threat- 
ened affects  all,—"  In  Adam  all  die,"  "  death  entered 
by  sin,"  that  is,  by  his  sin,  and  then  "  passed  upon 
all  men."  The  painfiU  chUdbearing  threatened  upon 
Eve  has  passed  on  to  her  daughters.  The  ground 
was  cursed,  but  that  aflecled  Ailain's  posterity  also, 
who  to  this  hour  are  doomed  lo  eat  their  bread  by  "  the 
sweat  of  llieir  brow."  Even  the  first  blessing,  "Be 
fruitful  and  multiply  and  replenish  Ihe  earth,  and  sub- 
due it,"  was  clearly  pronounced  ui)oii  them  as  public 
licrsons,  and  both  by  its  very  terms  and  the  nature  of 
Ihe  tiling,  since  they  alone  could  neilher  reidenish  the 
earth  nor  subject  it  to  llieir  use  and  dominion,  compre- 


{■!)  Original  Sin. 


Ciup.  XVIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


243 


hendcd  their  posterity.  In  all  these  cases  they  arc  tul- 
dressed  in  such  a  Ibrin  of  sfieech  as  is  appropriated  to 
individuals ;  but  the  circumstances  of  the  case  infallibly 
show,  that  ill  the  whole  transaction  they  stood  before 
their  Maker  as  public  persons,  and  as  the  Icpal  repre- 
sentatives of  their  descendants,  though  in  so  many 
words  they  are  not  invested  with  these  titles. 

The  condition  in  which  this  tederal  connexion  be- 
tween Adam  and  his  descendants  placed  the  latter  re- 
mains to  be  e.xhibited.  The  imputation  of  Adam's  sin 
to  his  jjosterity  has  been  a  point  greatly  debated.  In  the 
languatje  of  theologians,  it  is  considered  as  mediate  or 
immediate.  Our  mortality  of  body,  and  the  corruption 
of  our  moral  nature,  in  virtue  of  our  derivation  from 
him,  is  what  is  meant  by  the  mediate  imputation  of  his 
sin  to  us ;  by  immediate  inipulatiou  \s  meant  that 
Adam's  sin  is  accounted  ours  in  the  sight  of  (Jon,  by 
virtue  of  our  federal  relation.  To  sujiport  the  latter  no- 
tion, various  illustrative  phrases  have  been  used :  as, 
that  Adam  and  his  posterity  constitute  one  moral  per- 
son, and  that  the  whole  human  race  was  in  him,  its 
head,  consenting  to  his  act,  &c.  This  is  so  little  agree- 
able to  that  distinct  agency  which  enters  into  the  very 
notion  of  an  accountable  being,  that  it  cannot  be  main- 
tained, and  it  destroys  the  sound  distinction  between 
original  and  actual  sin.  It  asserts,  indeed,  the  imputa- 
tion of  the  actual  commission  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  de- 
scendants, which  is  false  in  fact;  makes  us  stand 
chargeable  with  the  full  latitude  of  his  transgression, 
and  all  its  attendant  circumstances ;  and  constitutes  us, 
separate  from  all  actual  voluntary  offence,  eiiually  guilty 
with  him,  all  which  are  repugnant  e(pially  to  our  con- 
sciousness and  to  the  equity  of  the  case. 

The  other  opinion  does  not,  however,  appear  to  go  the 
length  of  Scrii)ture,  which  must  not  be  warped  by  the 
reasonings  of  erring  man.  There  is  another  view  of 
the  imputation  of  the  ofTeuce  of  Adam  to  us  which  is 
more  consistent  with  its  testimony.  This  is  very  clearly 
slated  by  Dr.  Watts,  in  his  answer  to  Ur.  Taylor. 

'•  When  a  man  has  broken  the  law  of  his  country,  and 
is  punished  for  so  doing,  it  is  plain  that  sin  is  imputed 
to  him :  his  wickedness  is  upon  him ;  he  bears  his  ini- 
quity:  that  is.  he  is  reputed  or  accounted  guilty:  he  is 
condemned  and  dealt  with  as  an  offender. 

"  15ut  if  a  man,  having  committed  treason,  his  estate 
is  taken  from  him  and  his  children,  then  they  bear  ini- 
qiUty  of  tlieir  fattier,  and  his  sin  is  imputed  to  them  also. 

"  If  a  man  lose  his  life  and  estate  for  murder,  and  his 
children  therc'oy  become  vagabonds,  then  the  blood  of  the 
person  murdered  is  said  to  be  upon  the  murderer  and 
xipon  his  children  also.  So  the  Jews ;  His  blood  be  on 
us  and  on  our  children ;  let  us  and  our  children  be 
punished  for  it. 

"  But  it  may  be  asked,  how  can  the  acts  of  the  pa- 
rent's treason  be  imputed  to  his  little  child  \  Since  those 
acts  were  quite  out  of  the  reach  of  an  infant,  nor  was  it 
possible  for  him  to  commit  them  7 — I  answer, 

"  Those  acts  of  treason  or  acts  of  service  are  by  a 
common  figure  said  to  be  imputed  to  the  children,  when 
they  suffer  or  enjoy  the  consequences  of  their  father's 
tnason  or  eminent  service :  though  the  particular 
actions  of  treason  or  service,  could  not  be  practised  by 
the  children.  This  would  easily  be  understood  should 
it  occur  in  human  history.  And  why  not  wlien  it  occurs 
in  the  sacred  writings? 

"  6'wi  is  taken  either  for  an  act  of  disobedience  to  a 
law,  or  for  the  legal  result  of  such  an  act ;  that  is,  the 
guilt,  or  nobleness  to  punishment.  Now  when  we 
say,  the  sin  of  a  traitor  is  imputed  to  his  children,  we 
do" not  mean,  that  the  act  of  the  father  is  charged  upon 
the  child ;  but  that  the  guilt  or  liabteness  to  punishment 
is  so  transferred  to  him  that  he  suffisrs  banishment  or 
poverty  on  account  of  it. 

"Thus  the  sin  of  Achan  was  so  imputed  to  his  chil- 
dren, that  they  were  all  stoned  on  account  of  it,  .losh. 
vii.  24.  In  like  manner,  the  covetousiiess  of  Gehazi  was 
imputed  to  his  posterity,  2  Kings  v.  27.  When  God  by 
his  prophet  pronounced  that  the  leprosy  should  cleave 
unto  him  and  to  his  seed  for  ever. 

"  The  Scriptures  both,  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments use  the  words  sin  and  iniquity  {both  in  Hebrew 
and  Greek),  to  signily  not  only  the  criminal  actions 
themselves,  but  also  the  result  and  consecjueiii-cs  of 
those  actions,  that  is,  the  guilt  or  liableness  tu  piinisli- 
ment:  and  sometimes  the  punishment  itself,  wlielher 
it  fall  upon  the  original  crimiiial,  or  upon  others  on  his 
account. 
U2 


"  Indeed,  when  sin  or  rightcousnefts  is  said  to  be  im- 
puted to  any  man,  on  account  of  what  hinjsclf  hath  done, 
the  words  usually  denote  both  the  good  or  evil  actions 
themselves,  and  the  legal  result  oi  them.  But  when 
the  sin  or  righteousness  of  one  person  is  said  to  lie  im- 
puted to  another,  then  generally  those  words  mean  only 
the  result  thereof;  that  is,  a  liableness  to  punishment 
on  the  one  hand,  and  to  reward  on  the  other. 

"  But  let  us  say  what  we  will,  in  order  to  confine  the 
sense  of  the  imputation  of  sin  and  righteousness,  to  the 
legal  result,  the  reward  or  punishment  of  good  or  evil 
actions  ;  let  us  ever  so  e-\plicitly  deny  the  imputation 
of  the  actions  themselves  to  others,  still  Dr.  Taylor  will 
level  almost  all  his  arguments  against  the  imputation 
of  the  actions  themselves,  and  then  triumph  in  having 
demolished  what  we  never  built,  and  in  refuting  what 
we  never  asserted." 

In  the  sense,  then,  above  given,  we  may  safely  con- 
tend for  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  ;  and  this  agrees 
precisely  with  the  apostle  Paul,  who  speaks  of  the  im- 
putation of  sin  to  those  who  "  had  not  sinned  alter  the 
similitude  of  Adam's  transgression,"  that  i.s,  to  all  who 
lived  between  Adam  and  Moses,  and,  consequently,  to  in- 
fants who  personally  had  not  offended ;  and  also  declares, 
that  "  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made, 
constituted,  accounted,  and  dealt  with  as  sinners,"  and 
treated  as  though  they  themselves  had  actually  sinned  : 
lor,  that  this  is  his  sense,  is  clear  from  what  follows, 
"  so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made  right- 
eous,"— constituted,  accounted,  and  dealt  with  as  such, 
though  not  actually  righteous,  but,  in  liict,  pardoned 
criminals.  The  first  consequence,  then,  of  this  imputa- 
tion is  the  death  of  the  body,  to  which  all  the  descend- 
ants of  Adam  are  made  liable,  and  that  on  account  of  the 
sin  of  Adam—"  through  the  offence  of  one  many  are 
dead."  But  though  this  is  the  first,  it  is  far  from  beuig 
the  only  consequence.  For,  as  throughout  the  apostle's 
reasoning  in  the  5th  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans, to  which  reference  has  been  made,  "  the  gift," 
"  the  free  gift,"  "  the  gift  by  grace,"  mean  one  and  the 
same  thing,  even  the  whole  benefit  given  by  the  abound- 
ing grace  of  God,  through  the  obedience  of  Christ ;  and 
as  these  verses  are  evidently  parallel  to  1  Cor.  xv.  22, 
"  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be 
made  alive,"  "it  follows,  that  dj'ing  and  being  made 
alive,  in  the  latter  passage,  do  not  refer  to  the  body  only, 
but  that  dying  implies  all  the  evils  temporal  and  spirit- 
ual which  are  derived  from  Adam's  sin,  and  being  made 
alive,  all  the  blessings  wliich  are  derived  from  Clirist  in 
time  and  in  eternity."(5) 

The  second  consequence  is,  therefore,  death  spiritual, 
that  moral  state  which  arises  from  the  withdrawment 
of  that  intercourse  of  God  with  the  human  soul,  in  con- 
sequence of  its  becoming  polluted,  and  of  that  intluence 
upon  it  which  is  the  only  source  and  spring  of  the  right 
and  vigorous  direction  and  employment  of  its  powers  in 
which  its  rectitude  consists;  a. deprivation,  fromvihich 
a  depravation  consequently  and  necessarily  follows. 
This,  we  have  before  seen,  was  included  in  the  original 
threatening,  and  if  Adam  was  a  public  person,  a  repre- 
sentative, it  has  passed  on  to  his  descendants,  who,  in 
th?ir  'natural  state,  are  therefore  said  to  be  "  dead  in 
trespasses  and  sins."  Thus  it  is  that  the  heart  is  de- 
ceitful above  all  things,  and  desperately  wicked;  and 
that  all  evils  naturally  "  proceed  from  it,"  as  corrupt 
streams  from  a  corrupt  fountain. 

The  third  consequence  is  eternal  death,  separation 
from  God,  and  endless  banishment  from  his  glory  in  a 
future  -state.  This  follows  from  both  the  above 
Iiroinises, — from  the  federal  character  of  Adam ;  and 
from  the  eternal  life  given  by  Christ  being  ojiposed  by 
the  apostle  to  the  death  derived  from  Adam.  The 
justice  of  this  is  objected  to,  a  point  which  will  be 
immediately  considered  ;  but  it  is  now  sulhcient  to  say, 
that  if  the  making  the  descendants  of  Adam  liable  to 
eternal  death,  because  of  his  offence,  be  unjust,  the 
infliction  of  temporal  death  is  so  also;  the  duration  of 
the  punishment  making  no  difference  in  the  simple 
(iuestion  of  justice.  If  punishment,  whether  of  loss  or 
of  pain,  be  unjust,  its  measure  and  duration  may  be  a 
greater  or  a  less  injustice  ;  bvu  it  is  unjust  m  every  de- 
gree. If,  then,  we  only  confine  the  hurt  we  have 
received  from  Adam  to  bodily  death  :  if  this  legal  result 
of  his  transgression  only  be  imputed  to  us,  and  we  are 
so  constituted  sinners  as  to  become  liable  to  it,  we  are 

(5)  Wksley  on  Original  Bin. 


244 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


in  prccisclj-  the  same  difficulty,  as  to  the  equity  of  the 
procee(]iM^^  as  when  that  legal  result  is  extnided  fur- 
ther. The-  only  way  out  of  this  dileniina  is  that  adopted 
by  Dr.  Taylor,  to  consider  death  not  as  a  punishment, 
but  as  a  blessing,  wliich  involves  the  absurdity  of 
inakin";  Deity  threaten  a  benefit  as  a  penalty  for  an 
ollence,  which  stifficicntly  refutes  the  notion. 

The  objections  which  have  been  raised  against  the 
imputation  of  Adam's  olTence,  in  the  extent  wc  have 
stated  it,  on  the  ground  of  the  justice  of  tlw  proc<!eding, 
are  of  two  kinds.  The  former  are  levelled,  not  against 
that  Scriptural  view  of  the  case  which  lias  just  been 
exhibited,  but  against  that  repulsive  inid  shocking  per- 
version of  it  which  is  Ibund  in  the  high  Calvinistic 
creed,  which  consigns  infants,  not  elect,  to  a  conscious 
and  endless  punishment, and  that  not  of  loss  only,  but 
of  pain,  for  this  first  olRnie  of  another.  The  latter 
springs  from  regarding  the  legal  part  of  the  whole  trans- 
action which  alliiicd  our  first  parents  and  their  poste- 
rity, .separately  Irum  I  lie  evangelical  i)rovision  of  mercy 
which  was  concurrent  with  it,  and  which  included,  in 
like  manner,  both  them  and  their  whole  race.  With 
the  higli  Calvinistic  view  we  llave  now  nothing  to  do. 
It  will  stand  or  fall  with  the  doctrines  of  election  and 
reprobation,  as  held  by  that  school,  and  these  will  be 
examined  in  their  place.  The  latter  (dass  of  objections 
now  claim  our  attention ;  and  as  to  them  we  observe, 
that  as  the  (juestion  relates  to  the  moral  government 
of  God,  if  one  part  of  I  he  transaction  before  us  is  inti- 
mately and  inseparably  connected  with  another  and 
<:ollatcral  procedure,  it  cannot  certainly  bo  viewed  in 
its  true  light  but  in  that  connexion.  The  redemption 
of  man  by  Christ  was  not  certairdy  an  aller-thought 
brought  in  upon  man's  ajiostacy ;  it  was  a  provision, 
and  when  man  fell,  he  found  justice  hand  in  hand  with 
mercy.  What  are,  then,  the  facts  of  the  whole  case? 
For  greater  clearness,  let  us  take  Adam  and  the  case 
of  Ills  adult,  descendants  first.  All  bcconic  liable  to 
bodily  death;  here  was  justice,  the  end  of  which  is  to 
support  law,  as  that  supports  government.  Hy  means 
of  the  anticipated  sacrifice  of  the  Uedecrner's  atonement, 
which,  as  we  shall  in  its  jilace  show,  is  an  eiTectual 
means  of  declaring  the  justice  of  God,  the  sentence  is 
reversed,  not  by  exemption  from  bodily  death,  but  by  a 
happy  and  glorious  rc-surrection.  J'or,  as  this  was  an 
act  of  grace.  Almighty  God  was  free  to  choose,  speak- 
ing humanly,  the  circumstances  under  wliich  it  should 
be  administered,  in  ordering  which  the  ujierring  wis- 
dom of  (iod  had  its  natural  influence.  The  evil  of  sin 
was  still  to  be  kept  visible  before  the  universe,  for  its 
admonition,  by  the  actual  infliction  of  death  upon  all 
men  ;  the  grace  was  to  be  manifested  in  reparation  of 
the  loss  by  restoration  to  immortality.  Again,  (;od,  the 
fountain  of  sjHritual  life,  forsook  the  soul  of  Adam,  now 
j)ollulcd  by  sin,  and  unfit  for  his  residence.  He  became 
morally  dead  and  corrupt,  and,  as  "  that  which  is  born 
of  the  fiesh  is  flesh,"  this  is  the  natural  state  of  his  de- 
scendants. Here  was  justice,  a  disjilay  ofllieevil  of 
sin,  and  of  the  penalty  which  it  ever  immediately  in- 
duces— man  forsaken  by  God,  and,  thus  forsak(-n,  a  ]>i(v 
ture  to  the  whole  universe  of  corruption  and  mis.TV, 
resulting  from  that  dej)arture  from  hnn  whicti  isimplied 
in  one  sinful  act.  But  that  spiritual,  (piickening  iiiiiu- 
cnce  visits  him  from  another  quarter  and  tliroMgh  oilier 
means.  The  second  Adam  "  is  a  qunkcmng  spirit.'' 
The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  i)urchase  of  his  n  dein|ilion,  lo 
be  given  to  man,  that  he  may  again  infuse  into  his  cor- 
rupted nature  the  lieavenly  life,  and  sanctify  and 
regenerate  it.  Here  is  the  mercy.  As  loa  futurestatc, 
eternal  life  is  promised  to  all  men  believing  in  Christ, 
wliich  reverses  the  sentence  of  eternal  death.  Here 
again  is  the  manifestation  oi'  mercy.  Should  this  be 
rejected,  he  stands  liable  to  the  whole  penalty,  to  the 
punishment  of  loss  as  the  natural  consequence  of 
his  corrupted  nature  which  renders  him  unfit  for  hea- 
ven; lo  the  punishment  of  even  pain  for  the  original 
ofl'ence,  wc  may  also,  wiiliont  injustice,  say,  as  to  an 
adult,  whose  actual  transgresMoiis,  when  the  means  of 
deliverance  have  been  afTordid  liiiii  by  Christ,  is  a  con- 
Bcnting  to  all  rebellion  against  God,  and  to  that  of  Adam 
llimscif;  and  10  the  penally  of  his  own  acliial  tran.'?- 
gressions,  aggravated  by  hi.s  having  made  light  of  the 
Gospel.  Here  is  the  collateral  display  of  jusiice.  In 
all  this,  it  is  imiiossiblc  to  ini|)each  the  e(piiiy  of  the 
Divine  procedure,  since  no  man  snllcrs  any  loss  or 
injury  ultimately  by  the  sin  of  Adam,  but  by  his  own 
wilful  obaiiiiary — the  "  ubuunding  of  grace,"'  by  Cltrist 


having  placed  before  all  men,  upon  their  believing,  not 
merely  compensation  for  the  loss  and  injury  sustained 
by  Adam,  but  infinitely  higher  blessings,  both  in  kind 
and  degree,  than  were  forlisited  in  him.  As  to  adults, 
then,  the  objection  taken  from  Divine  justice  is  unsufi- 
ported. 

We  now  come  to  the  case  of  persons  dying  in  infancy. 
The  great  consideration  which  leads  to  a  solution  of 
this  case  is  found  in  IJomans  v.  18,  "  Therefore,  as  by 
the  oflence  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  con- 
demnation, even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one  the  free 
gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life."  In 
these  words,  the  sin  of  Adam  and  the  merits  of  Christ 
are  pronounced  to  be  coextensive ;  the  words  aiiplied 
to  both  are  precisely  the  same,  '•judgment  came  ujion 
ALL  MKN,"  "the  FRkK  GifT  Came  upon  ali,  mkn."  If 
the  whole  human  race  be  meant  in  the  former  clause, 
the  whole  human  race  is  meant  in  the  latter  also  ;  and 
it  follows,  that  as  all  are  injured  by  the  olTence  of 
Adam,  so  all  are  benefited  by  the  obedience  of  Christ. 
Whatever,  therefore,  that  benefit  may  be,  all  children 
dying  in  infancy  must  partake  of  it,  or  there  would  be  a 
large  portion  of  the  human  race  upon  whom  the  "  free 
gifi,"  the  efl'ects  of  "the  righteousness  of  one,"  did 
not  "  come,"  which  is  contrary  lo  the  apostle's  words. 

This  benefit,  whatever  it  might  be,  did  not  so  "  come 
upon  all  men"  as  to  relieve  tlic^ii  inrnndtalily  from  the 
sentence  of  death.  This  is  obvious,  from  men  being 
still  liable  to  die,  and  from  the  existence  of  a  corrupt 
nature  or  spiritual  death  in  all  mankind.  As  this  is  the 
case  with  adults,  who  grow  uj)  from  a  state  of  child- 
hood, and  who  can  both  trace  the  corruptness  of  their 
nature  to  their  earliest  years,  and  were  always  liable  lo 
bodily  death;  so,  for  this  reason,  it  did  not  come  imme- 
diately upon  children,  whether  they  die  in  infancy  or 
not.  I''or  there  is  no  more  reason  to  conclude,  that 
those  children  who  die  in  infancy  were  born  with  a 
jmre  nature,  than  they  who  live  to  manhood ;  and  the 
fact  of  their  being  born  liable  to  death,  a  part  of  the 
])eiialty,  is  suflicient  to  show,  that  they  were  born 
under  the  whole  malediction. 

The  "  free  gift,"  however,  which  has  come  upon  all 
men,  by  the  righteousness  of  one,  is  said  to  be  "  unto 
justification  of  life,"  the  full  reversal  of  the  penalty  of 
death;  and,  by  "the  abundance  of  grace,  and  of  ihe 
gift  of  righteousness,"  the  benefit  extends  lo  the  "  reign- 
ing in  life  by  one,  .lesus  Christ."  If  the  "  free  gift"  is 
so  given  to  all  men  that  this  is  the  end  for  which  it  is 
given,  then  is  this  "justification  of  life,"  and  this 
"  reigning  in  life  by  .lesus  Christ,"  as  truly  within  the 
reach  of  infants  dying  in  infancy,  as  within  the  reach 
of  adults  living  to  years  of  choice.  Tliis  "  free  gift"  is 
bestowed  upon  "  all  men,"  tij,  in  order  to  justification 
of  life;  it  follows  llien,  that,  in  the  case  of  infimls,  this 
gift  may  be  connected  with  the  end  for  whiili  it  was 
given,  as  well  as  in  the  case  of  adults,  or  it  would  be 
given  in  vain,  and,  in  fact,  be  in  no  sense  whatever  a 
gift  or  benefit,  standing  opposed,  in  its  result,  to  von- 
dciimation  and  ileath. 

iVow,  wc  know  clearly  by  what  means  the  "  free  gift," 
which  is  bestowed  in  order  to  jiistilication  of  life  (that 
is,  that  act  of  God  by  which  a  smner,  under  sentence  of 
death,  is  adjudged  to  life),  is  connected  with  that  end  in 
the  case  of  adults.  The  gift  "  comes  upon  them"  in  il.s 
effects,  vci\  largely,  inde|ieiidciil  of  any  thing  they  do — 
in  the  long-sufiLriiig  of  (iod  ;  in  (he  insiruciioiis  of  the 
(iospel ;  the  warnings  of  ministers;  the  corrective  dis- 
pensations of  Providence ;  above  all,  in  pnvrnting 
grace  and  the  injltienccs  of  the  Holy  .Spirit  removing  so 
much  of  their  .spiritual  death  as  lo  excite  in  them  vari- 
ous degrees  of  religious  feeling,  and  enabling  ihem  to 
seek  the  face  of  God,  to  turn  at  his  rebuke,  and,  by  im- 
proving that  grace,  lo  repent  and  believe  the  (Iospel. 
In  a  word,  "justification  of  life"  is  ofHreil  iheiii ;  nay, 
more,  it  is  pressed  upon  lliem,  ami  liny  fail  of  it  only 
by  rejecting  it.  If  they  yield  and  embrace  the  offer, 
then  the  cud  for  which  "  the  free  gift  came"  ujion  Ihem 
is  attained— "justification  of  life." 

As  to  infants,  they  are  not,  indeed,  born  justified  and 
regenerate;  so  that  to  say  that  original  sin  is  taken  away, 
as  to  infants,  by  Christ,  is  not  llie  correct  view  of  the 
case,  for  the  reasons  before  given  ;  but  they  arc  all 
born  under  the  "  free  gift,"  Ihe  ellecls  of  the"  righteou.s- 
ncs.s"  of  one,  which  exicndcd  l()"all  men;"  and  this 
free  gift  is  bestowed  on  them  in.  ordir  to  justification 
of  life,  the  adjudging  of  the  condemned  lo  live.  All  the 
mystery,  thcrelorc,  in  the  case  arises  Irum  this,  that  in 


Chap.  XVIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


245 


adults  we  sec  the  free  girt  connected  with  itse^rf,  actual 
juslilieation,  by  acts  of  tlicir  own,  repentance  and  faith ; 
but  as  to  infants,  wo  arc  not  inlbrmed  by  what  process 
justification,  with  its  attendant  blessings,  is  actually 
bestowed,  tliougli  the  words  of  the  aj)ostle  are  express, 
that  through  ••  the  rigliteousness  of  one"  they  are  entitled 
to  it.  \or  is  it  surprising,  that  this  i)roccss  stiould  bo 
hidden  ironi  us,  since  the  (lospol  was  written  lor  adults, 
though  the  benefit  of  it  is  designe<l  for  all ;  aii<l  the 
knowledge  of  this  work  of  God,  in  the  sjurit  of  an  infant, 
must  presuppose  an  acquaintance  with  the  properties 
of  the  human  soul,  wliich  is,  in  fact,  out  of  our  reach. 
If,  however,  an  infant  is  not  capable  of  a  voluntary 
acceptance  of  the  benefit  of  the  "  free  gift ;"  neither,  on 
the  other  hand,  is  it  capable  of  a  volnutary  rejection  of 
it ;  and  it  is  by  rejecting  it  that  adults  perish.  If  much 
of  the  benefit  of  this  "  free  gift''  conies  upon  us  as 
adults,  independent  of  our  seeking  it ;  and  if,  indeed, 
the  very  power  and  inclination  to  seek  justification  of 
life  is  thus  prevenient,  and  in  the  highest  sense  free; 
it  follows,  by  the  same  rule  of  the  Divine  conduct,  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  may  be  given  to  children ;  that  a  Divine 
and  an  effectual  inlluence  may  be  exerted  on  them, 
which,  meeting  vvith  no  voluntary  resistance,  shall 
cure  the  s]iiritual  death  and  corrupt  tendency  of  their 
nature  ;  and  all  this,  without  sitjiposing  any  great  dif- 
ference in  the  prhiciple  of  the  administration  of  this 
grace  in  their  case  and  that  of  adults.  But  the  different 
circumstances  of  children  dying  in  their  infancy,  and 
adults,  proves  also  that  a  different  administration  of 
the  same  grace,  which  is  freely  bestowed  upon  all, 
must  take  place.  Adults  are  personal  offenders, 
infants  are  not  ;  for  the  former,  confession  of  sin,  re- 
pentance, and  the  trust  of  persons  consciously  perish- 
ing for  their  transgressions,  are  appropriate  to  their 
circumstances,  but  not  to  those  of  the  latter ;  and  the 
very  wisdom  of  God  may  assure  us,  that,  in  prescrib- 
ing the  terms  of  salvation,  that  is,  the  means  by  which 
the  "  free  gift"  shall  pass  to  its  issue,  justification  of 
life,  the  circumstances  of  the  persons  must  be  taken 
into  account.  The  reason  of  pardon,  in  every  case,  is 
not  repentance,  not  faith,  not  any  thing  done  by  man, 
but  the  merit  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ.  Repentance 
and  faith  are,  it  is  true,  in  the  case  of  adults,  a  sine  qua 
-non,  but  in  no  sense  the  meritorious  cause.  The  rea- 
sons of  their  being  attached  to  the  promise,  as  condi- 
tions, are  nowhere  given,  but  they  are  nowhere  en- 
forced as  such,  except  on  adults.  If,  in  adults,  we  see 
the  meritorious  cause  working  in  conjunction  with  in- 
strumental causes,  they  are  capable  of  what  is  required  ; 
but  when  we  see,  even  in  adults,  that,  independent  of 
their  own  acts,  the  meritorious  cause  is  not  inert,  but 
fruitful  in  vital  influence  and  gracious  dealing,  we  see 
such  a  separation  of  the  operation  of  the  grand  merito- 
rious cause,  and  the  subordinate  instrumental  causes, 
as  to  prove  that  the  benefits  of  the  death  of  Christ  are 
not,  in  every  degree,  and  consequently,  on  the  same 
principle,  not,  in  every  case,  conferred  under  the 
restraints  of  conditions.  So  certainly  is  infant  salva- 
tion attested  by  the  Scriptures ;  so  explicitly  are  we 
told  that  the  free  gift  is  come  upon  all  men  to  justifi- 
cation of  life,  and  that  none  can  come  short  of  this 
blessing  but  those  who  reject  it. 

But  there  is  another  class  of  instrumental  causes  to 
be  taken  into  the  account  in  the  ca.se  of  children  ; 
though  they  arise  not  out  of  their  personal  acts.  The 
first  and  greatest,  and  general  one,  is  the  intercession 
of  Christ  himself,  which  can  never  be  fruitless  ;  and 
that  children  are  the  objects  of  his  intercession  is  cer- 
tain, both  from  his  ofHce  as  the  intercessor  of  all  man- 
kind, the  "  mediator  between  God  and  man,"  that  is, 
all  men;  and  from  his  actually  praying' for  children  in 
the  days  of  his  abode  on  earth.  "  He  took  them  up  in 
his  arms  and  blessed  them :"  which  benediction  was 
either  in  the  form  of  prayer,  or  it  was  authoritative, 
which  makes  the  case  still  stronger.  As  to  their 
future  state,  he  seems  also  to  open  a  sufficiently  encour- 
aging view,  when  he  declares  that  "  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven;"  for,  whether  we  understand  this 
of  future  felicity,  or  of  the  church,  the  case  is  settled ; 
in  neither  case  can  they  be  under  wrath,  and  liable  to 
condemnation. 

Other  instrumental  causes  of  the  communication  of 
this  benefit  to  infants,  wherever  iIk;  ordinances  of  the 
Christian  church  are  established,  and  used  in  faith, 
are  the  prayers  of  parents,  and  baptism  in  the  name  of 
Christ ;  means  which  cannot  be  without  their  effect, 


both  as  to  infants  who  die,  and  those  who  live;  and 
which,  as  God's  own  ordinances,  he  cannot  but  honour, 
in  different  degrees,  it  may  be,  as  to  those  who  live  and 
those  whom  he  intends  to  call  to  himself ;  but  which 
are  still  mean^  of  grace,  and  channels  rf  saving  influ- 
ence ;  or  they  are  dead  forms,  ill  becoming  that  which 
is  so  eminently  a  dispensation,  not  of  the  letter,  but  of 
tlie  spirit. 

The  injustice,  then,  alleged  as  implicated  in  tlic  doc- 
trine of  original  sni,  when  considered  in  this  its  ukole 
and  Scriptural  view,  entirely  vanishes ;  and,  at  the 
same  time,  the  evil  of  sin  is  manifested,  and  the  justice, 
also,  of  the  Lawgiver,  for  mercy  comes  not  by  relaxing 
the  hold  of  justice.  That  still  has  its  full  manifestation 
in  the  exaction  of  vicarious  obedience  to  death,  even  the 
death  of  the  cross,  from  the  second  Adam,  who  made 
himself  the  federal  head  of  fallen  men,  and  gave  "  justifi- 
cation unto  life"  only  by  his  submission  to  "judgment 
unto  condemnation." 

Having  thus  establi-shed  the  import  of  the  deaHi 
threatened  as  the  penalty  of  Adam's  transgression,  to 
include  corporal,  moral  or  spiritual,  and  eternal  death  ; 
and  showed  that  the  sentence  included  also  the  whole 
of  his  posterity,  our  next  step  is  to  ascertain  that  moral 
condition  in  which  men  are  actually  born  into  the  world, 
notwithstanding  that  gracious  provision  wliich  is  made 
in  Christ  for  human  redemption.  On  this  the  testimo- 
ny of  Scripture  is  so  explicit  and  ample,  and  its  hum- 
bling representations  are  so  borne  out  by  consciousness 
and  by  experience,  that  it  may  well  be  matter  of  sur- 
])rise,  that  the  natural  innncence  of  human  nature 
should  ever  have  had  its  advocates,  at  least  among 
those  who  profess  to  receive  the  Bible  as  the  Word  of 
God.  In  entering  uiion  the  subject  of  this  corruption 
of  human  nature,  it  must  first  be  stated,  that  there  are 
several  facts  of  liistory  and  experience  to  be  accounted 
for ;  and  that  they  must  all  be  taken  into  account  in  the 
ditrerent  tlieories  which  are  advocated. 

1.  That  in  all  ages  great  and  even  general  wicked- 
ness has  prevailed  among  those  large  masses  of  men 
which  are  called  yiatlons. 

So  far  as  it  relates  to  the  immediate  descendants  of 
Adam  before  the  flood;  to  all  the  nations  of  the  highest 
antiquity  ;  to  the  Jews  throughout  every  period  of  their 
history,  down  to  their  final  dispersion ;  aiid  to  the  em- 
pires and  other  states  whose  history  is  involved  in 
theirs ;  we  have  the  historical  evidence  of  Scripture, 
and  much  collateral  evidence  also  from  their  own  his- 
torians. 

To  what  does  this  evidence  go,  but,  to  sa)-  the  least, 
the  actual  depravity  of  the  majority  of  mankind  in  all 
these  ages  and  among  all  these  nations  1  As  to  the 
race  before  the  flood,  a  murderer  sprang  up  in  the  first 
family,  and  the  world  became  increasingly  corrupt, 
until "  God  saw  that  the  wckedness  of  rnan  was  great, 
and  that  every  imagination  of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart 
was  only  evil  continually :"  "  that  all  flesh  had  corrupted 
their  way  upon  earth;"  and  that  "the  earth  was  filled 
with  violence  through  them."  Only  Noah  was  found 
righteous  before  God ;  and  because  of  the  universal 
wickedness,  a  wickedness  which  s])urned  all  warning, 
and  resisted  all  correction,  the  flood  was  brought  ujion 
tiioworld  of  the  ungodly,  as  a  testimony  of  Divine  anger. 

The  same  course  of  increasing  wickedness  is  exhi- 
bited in  the  sacred  records  as  taking  place  alter  the 
flood.  The  building  of  the  tower  of  Babel  was  a 
wicked  act,  done  by  general  concert,  before  the  divi- 
sion of  nations ;  this  we  know  iiom  its  having  excited 
the  Divine  displeasure,  though  we  know  not  in  what 
the  particular  crime  consisted.  After  the  division  of 
nations,  the  history  of  the  times  of  Abraham,  Lot,  .la- 
cob,  .loseph,  and  Moses  sufficiently  show  that  idolatry, 
injustice,  oppression  and  gross  sensualities  character- 
ized the  people  of  Canaan,  Egypt,  and  every  other  coun- 
try mentioned  in  the  Mosaic  narrative. 

The  obstinate  inclination  of  the  Israelites  to  idolatry, 
through  all  ages  to  the  Babylonish  captivity,  and  the 
general  prevalence  of  vice  among  men,  is  acknow- 
ledged in  every  part  of  the  Old  Testament.  Their  mo- 
ral wickedness,  alter  their  rcinrn  from  Babylon,  when 
they  no  longer  practised  idolatry,  and  were,  therelbre, 
delivered  from  that  most  fruitlul  source  of  crime,  may 
be  collected  from  the  wrilcisof  the  Old  Testament  who 
lived  after  that  event ;  and  I  heir  general  corruption  in 
the  time  of  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  stands  forth  with 
di.sgusting  iirominenceiii  their  writings  and  in  the  writ- 
ings of  Josephus,  their  own  historian. 


246 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Paet  IL 


As  to  all  other  ancient  nations,  of  whom  wo  havR  any 
history,  the  accounts  ayree  in  stutini;  the  (leneral  pre- 
valence of  practical  inimorahly  and  ol  malignant  and 
destructive  passions  ;  and,  if  we  had  no  such  acknow- 
ledgments from  themselves;  if  no  such  rcproaclics  were 
mutually  cast  upon  each  other ;  if  history  were  not,  as 
indeed  it  is,  a  record  of  crimes,  in  action  and  in  detail ; 
and  if  poets,  rnorahsts,  and  satirists  did  not  all  give 
their  evidence,  by  assuming  that  men  were  inlluenced 
by  geiicral  iiniici\)lcs  of  vice,  expressing  iheinselvcs  in 
jmrtuiilar  iiiudcs  m  dillercnt  ages,  the  Ibllowing  great 
facts  would  jirove  the  case  : 

The  fact  of  cknerai.  religious  error,  and  tliat  In 
the  very  fundamental  principles  of  religion,  such  as  the 
existence  of  one  only  God  which  universal  corruption 
of  doctrine  among  all  the  ancient  nations  mentioned 
above,  shows  both  indilTt'rence  to  truth  and  hostihty 
against  it,  and  therefore  proves,  at  least,  the  general  cor- 
ruption of  men's  hearts,  of  which  even  indilfcrence  to 
religious  truth  is  a  sulficient  indication. 

The  universal  prevalence  of  idolatry,  which  not 
only  argues  great  debasement  of  intellect,  but  deep 
wickedness  of  heart,  because,  in  all  ages,  idolatry  has 
been  more  or  less  immoral  in  its  inllueiice,  and  gene- 
rally grossly  80,  by  leading  directly  to  sanguinary  and 
impure  practices. 

The  prevalence  of  superstition  wherever  idolatry 
has  prevailed,  and  often  when  tliat  has  not  existed,  is 
another  proof.  Tiie  essence  of  this  evU  is  the  transfer 
of  fear  and  hope  from  God  to  real  or  imaginary  crea- 
tures and  things,  and  so  is  a  renunciation  of  allegiance 
to  God,  as  the  (lovernor  of  the  world,  and  a  practical 
denial  either  of  liis  being  or  his  [irovidence. 

Aggressive  wars,  in  the  guilt  of  which  all  nations 
and  all  uncivilized  tribes  have  been  in  all  ages  involved, 
and  which  necessarily  suppose  hatred,  revenge,  cruelty, 
injustice,  and  ambition. 

The  accounts  Ibrmerly  given  of  the  innocence  and 
harmlessness  of  the  Hindoos,  Chinese,  the  inhabitants 
of  the  South  Sea  islands  and  other  parts  of  the  world, 
are  now  Ibund  to  be  total  mistakes  or  wilful  falsehoods. 

In  all  heathen  nations,  idolatry,  superstition,  fraud, 
oppression,  and  vices  of  almost  every  description  show 
the  general  state  of  society  to  be  exceedingly  and  even 
destructively  corrupt ;  and  though  Mahometan  nations 
escape  the  charge  of  idolatry,  yet  pride,  avarice,  ojiprcs- 
sion,  injustice,  cruelty,  sensuality,  and  gross  supersti- 
tion are  all  prevalent  among  them. 

The  case  of  Christian  nations,  though  in  them  immo- 
rality is  more  powerfully  checked  than  in  any  oilier, 
and  many  bright  and  inliuential  examples  of  the  high- 
est virtue  are  found  among  their  inhabitants,  sufficiently 
proves  that  tlie  majority  are  corrupt  and  vicious  in  their 
iiabits.  The  impiety  and  profaiieness,  the  neglect  of 
the  fear  and  worship  of  (fod,  the  fraud  and  villaiiy  con- 
tinually taking  place  in  the  commerce  of  mankind,  the 
intemperance  of  various  kinds  which  is  found  among 
all  classes,  the  oppression  of  the  poor,  and  many 
other  evils,  are  in  proof  of  this ;  and,  indeed,  we  may 
confidently  conclude,  that  no  advocate  of  the  natural 
innocence  of  man  will  contend  that  the  mahirtlij  of 
men,  even  in  this  country,  areactually  virtuous  in  their 
external  conduct,  and  much  less  that  the  fear  and  love 
of  God  and  habitual  respect  to  his  will,  which  are,  in- 
deed, the  only  principles  which  can  be  deemed  to  con- 
stitute a  person  rightcDiis,  iniliienoe  the  people  at  large, 
or  even  any  very  large  iiroporlion  of  them. 

The  fact,  then,  is  established,  which  was  before  laid 
down,  that  rnen  in  all  ages  and  in  all  places,  have  at 
least  been  generally  wicked. 

2.  The  second  fact  to  be  accounted  for  is,  the  strength 
of  that  tendency  to  the  wickedness  which  we  have  seen 
to  be  general 

The  strength  of  the  corrupting  iiriiieipio,  whatever  it 
may  be,  is  marked  by  two  (ireuMisiances. 

The  lirst  is,  the  greatness  of  the  crimes  to  which  men 
have  abandoned  themselves. 

If  the  effects  of  the  corrupt  principle  had  only  been 
manifested  in  trifling  errors  and  practical  infirmities,  a 
softer  view  of  the  moral  condition  in  which  man  is  born 
into  the  world  might,  jirobably,  have  been  adinilled  ;  but 
in  the  catalogueof  human  crimes,  inall  agis,  and  among 
great  numbers  of  all  nations,  hut  more  especially 
among  those  nations  where  there  has  been  the  least 
control  of  religion,  and  Ihen^fore,  where  the  mdund 
dispositions  of  men  have  e.xliihiled  thomselvea  under 
the  simplest  and  most  convincing  evidence,  wc  linU 


frauds,  oppressions,  faithlessness,  barbarous  cruelties 
and  murders,  falsehoods,  every  kind  of  unuleanness, 
uncontrolled  anger,  deadly  hatred  and  revcngit,  as  to 
their  fellow-creatures,  and  proud  and  scornful  rebellion 
against  God. 

The  second  is,  the  number  and  influence  of  the 
checks  and  restraints  against  which  this  tide  of  wck- 
edness  has  urged  on  its  almost  resistless  and  uruversal 
course. 

It  has  opposed  itself  against  the  law  of  Cod,  in  some 
degree  found  aiiunig  all  men;  consequently, agiiinst  the 
checks  and  renior.'^e  of  con.science ;  against  a  settled 
conviction  of  the  evil  of  most  of  the  actions  indulged 
in,  which  is  shown  by  their  having  been  blamed  in 
others  (at  least  whenever  any  have  suifered  by  them)  by 
those  who  themselves  have  been  in  the  habit  of  com- 
mitting them. 

Against  the  restraints  of  human  laws,  and  the  autho- 
rity of  magistrates ;  for,  in  all  ancient  states,  the  moral 
corruption  continued  to  spread  until  they  were  pohti- 
cally  dissolved,  society  not  being  able  to  hold  itself 
together,  in  consequence  of  the  excessive  height  to 
which  long  indulgence  had  raised  jiassion  and  ajipetite. 

Against  the  provision  made  to  check  human  vices  by 
that  judicial  act  of  the  Governor  of  the  world,  by  which 
ho  shortened  the  life  of  man,  and  rendered  it  micertain, 
and,  at  the  longest,  brief. 

Against  another  provision  made  by  the  Governor  of 
the  world,  in  part  with  the  same  view,  i.  e.  the  doom- 
ing of  man  to  earn  his  sustenance  by  labour,  and  thus 
providing  for  the  occupation  of  the  greater  portion  of 
time  in  what  was  innocent,  and  rendering  the  means  of 
sensual  indulgences  more  scanty,  and  the  opportuni- 
ties of  actual  inimorality  more  limited. 

Against  the  restraints  put  upon  vice  by  rendering  it, 
by  the  constitution  and  the  very  nature  of  things,  the 
source  of  misery  of  all  kinds  and  degrees,  national,  do- 
mestic, personal,  mental,  and  bodily. 

Against  the  terrible  judgments  which  God  hxs,  in  all 
ages,  brought  upon  wicked  nations  and  notorious  indi- 
viduals, many  of  which  visitations  were  known  and 
acknowledged  to  be  the  signal  manifestations  of  liis  dis- 
pleasure against  their  vices. 

Agamst  those  counteractive  and  reforming  influences 
of  the  revelations  of  the  will  and  mercy  of  God  which 
at  different  times  liave  been  vouclisaf'ed  to  the  world: 
as,  against  the  light  and  influence  of  the  ])atriarchal  re- 
ligion before  the  giving  of  the  law ;  against  the  Mosaic 
institute,  and  the  warnings  of  prophets  among  the  .lews ; 
against  the  religious  knowledge  which  was  transmitted 
from  them  among  heathen  nations  connected  with  their 
history,  at  dilferent  periods  ;  against  the  hifluence  of 
Christianity  when  introduced  into  the  Roman  empire, 
and  when  transmitted  to  the  (Jothic  nations,  by  all  of 
whom  it  was  grossly  corrupted  ;  and  against  the  con- 
trol of  the  same  Divine  religion  in  our  own  country, 
where  it  is  exhibited  in  its  purity,  and  in  which  the  most 
active  endeavours  are  adopted  to  enlighten  and  correct 
society. 

It  is  impossible  to  consider  the  number  and  power  of 
these  cheeks  without  acknowledging,  that  those  prin- 
ciples in  human  nature  which  give  rise  to  the  mass  of 
moral  evil  which  actually  e.vists,  and  has  always  existed 
since  nien  began  to  multiply  upon  the  earth,  are  most 
powerful  and  formidable  in  their  tendency. 

3.  The  third  fact  is,  that  the  seeds  of  the  vices  which 
exist  in  society  may  be  discovered  hi  children  in  their 
earliest  years ;  selfi.shncss,  envy,  pride,  resentment, 
deceit,  lying, and  often  cruelty;  and  so  much  is  this 
the  case,  so  explicitly  is  this  acknowledged  by  all,  that 
it  is  the  jirincijial  object  of  the  moral  branch  of  educa- 
tion to  restrain  and  correct  those  evils,  liolh  by  coercion 
and  by  diligently  imiiressmg  uikui  eliildnii,  as  their  fa- 
culties ojien,  the  evil  and  mischief  of  all  such  affections 
and  tendencies. 

4.  The  fourth  fact  is,  that  every  man  is  conscious  of 
a  n.ilural  tendency  to  many  evils. 

These  tendencies  are  different  in  degree  and  in 
kind.((i)  In  some,  they  move  to  ambition,  and  pride,  and 
excessive  love  of  honour;  in  others,  to  anger,  revenge, 
and  implaeablencss  ;  in  others,  to  cowardice,  meanness, 
and  fear ;  in  others,  to  avarice,  care,  and  distrust ;  in 
others,  to  sensuality  and  prodigality.  Ihit  where  is  the 
man  who  has  not  his  peculiar  constitutional  tendency 

(ti)  "  Omnia  in  omnibus  viiri  sum  ;  sed  non  onaiia  in 
eiiigulis  extant."— SBt<KCA. 


CuAP.  XVIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


247 


to  some  evil  in  one  of  these  classes !  But  thure  are,  also, 
evil  tuii(lein;ies  common  to  all.  These  arc,  to  love  crea- 
tures more  than  God  ;  to  forget  Cod ;  to  be  inditfcrent 
to  our  obligations  to  him ;  to  regard  the  opinions  of  men 
more  than  the  approbation  of  God ;  to  be  more  influ- 
enced by  the  visible  things  vyhich  surround  us  than  by 
the  invisible  God,  whose  eye  is  ever  upon  us,  and  by 
that  invisible  slate  to  which  we  are  all  hastening. 

It  is  the  constant  practice  of  those  who  advocate  the 
natural  innocence  of  man  to  lower  the  standai-d  of  the 
Divine  law  under  which  man  is  placed ;  and  to  this 
they  are  necessarily  driven,  in  order  to  give  some  i)lau- 
sibility  to  their  opinions.  They  must  palliate  the  con- 
duet  of  men  ;  and  this  can  only  be  done  by  turning 
moral  evils  into  natural  ones,  or  into  innocent  infirmi- 
ties, and  by  so  stating  the  reiiuisitions  made  upon  our 
obedience  by  our  Maker,  as  to  make  them  consistent 
with  many  irregularities.  But  we  have  already  shown 
that  the  love  of  God  requires  our  supreme  love  and  our 
entire  obedience ;  and  it  will,  therefore,  follow,  that 
whatever  is  contrary  to  love  and  to  entire  subjection, 
whether  in  principle,  in  thought,  in  word,  and  in  action, 
is  sinful ;  aiid  if  so,  then  the  tendency  to  evil,  in  every 
man,  must,  and  on  these  premisas  will,  be  allowed.— 
Nor  will  it  serve  any  purpose  to  say,  that  man's  weak- 
ness and  infirmity  is  such  that  he  cannot  yield  this  per- 
fect obeiUence ;  for  means  of  sanctification  and  supcr- 
Ratural  aid  are  provided  for  him  in  the  Gospel,  and  what 
is  it  that  renders  him  indifTerent  to  them  but  the  cor- 
ruptness of  his  heart  ? 

Besides,  this  very  plea  allows  all  we  contend  for.  It 
allows  that  the  law  is  lowered,  because  of  human  in- 
ability to  observe  it  and  to  resist  temptation  ;  but  this 
itself  proves  (were  we  even  to  admit  the  fiction  of  this 
lowering  of  tlic  requisitions  of  the  law),  that  man  is 
not  now  in  the  state  in  which  he  was  created,  or  it 
would  not  have  been  necessary  to  bring  the  standard  of 
obedience  down  to  his  impaired  condition. 

5.  The  fifth  fact  is,  that,  even  after  a  serious  wish 
and  intention  has  been  formed  in  men  to  renounce  these 
views  and  "  to  live  righteously,  soberly,  and  godly,"  as 
becomes  creatures  made  to  glorify  God  and  on  their 
(rial  for  eternity,  strong  and  constant  resistance  is  made 
by  the  passions,  appetites,  and  inclinations  of  the  heart 
at  every  step  of  the  attempt. 

This  is  so  clearly  a  matter  of  universal  experience, 
that,  in  the  moral  writings  of  every  age  and  country, 
and  in  the  very  phrases  and  turns  of  all  languages,  vir- 
tue is  associated  with  difficulty,  and  represented  under 
t/ie  notion  of  a  warfare.  Virtue  has  always,  therefore, 
been  represented  as  the  subject  of  acquirement ;  and 
resistance  of  evil  as  being  necessary  to  its  preserva- 
tion. It  has  been  made  to  consist  in  self-rule,  which 
is,  of  course,  restraint  upon  opposite  tendencies,  the 
mind  is  said  to  be  subject  to  diseases,(~)  and  the  re- 
medy for  these  diseases  is  placed  in  something  outward 
to  itself— in  religion,  among  inspired  men ;  in  philoso- 
sophy,  among  the  heathen.(8) 

This  constant  struggle  against  the  rules  and  resolves 
of  virtue  has  been  acknowledged  in  all  ages,  and  among 
Christian  nations  more  especially,  where,  just  as  the 
knowledge  of  what  the  Divine  law  requires  is  diffused, 
the  sense  of  the  difficulty  of  approaching  to  its  requisi- 
tions is  felt ;  and  in  proportion  as  the  efforts  made  to 
conform  to  it  are  sincere,  is  the  despair  which  arises  from 
repeated  and  constant  defeats,  when  the  aid  of  Divine 
grace  is  not  called  in.  "O  wretched  man  that  I  am  ! 
who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this  death  t" 

These  five  facts  of  universal  history  and  experience, 
as  they  cannot  be  denied,  and  as  it  would  be  most  ab- 
surd to  discuss  the  moral  condition  of  human  nature 
without  any  reference  to  them,  must  be  accounted  for; 
and  it  shall  now  be  our  business  to  inquire,  whether  they 
can  be  best  explained  on  the  hypothesis  drawn  from 
the  Scripture,  that  man  is  by  nature  totally  corrupt  and 
degenerate,  and  of  himself  incapable  of  any  good  thing ; 
or  on  the  hypothesis  of  man's  natural  goodness,  or,  at 
worst,  his  natural  indifference  equally  to  good  and  to 
evil ;  notions  wliich  come  to  us  ah  initio  with  this  dis- 
advantage, that  they  have  no  text  of  Scripture  to  ad- 
duce to  afford  them  any  plausible  support  whatever. 


(7)  "  Hac  conditione  nati  sumiis,  animalia  obno.\ia 
nonpaucioribusanimiquam  corporis  mnrbis." — Seneca. 

(S)  "  Videamus  (juanta  sint  qu.'e  a  philosophift  reme- 
dia  inorbis  anirnorum  adhibeaiitui ;  est  ciliin  qua^dam 
medicina  cert^,"  &c.— Cicero. 


The  testunoiiy  of  Scripture  18  decidedly  in  favour  of 
the  first  hypothesis. 

It  has  alre.Hdy  been  established,  that  the  ftill  penally 
of  Adam's  olTencc  jjasscd  ujion  bis  posterity :  and,  con- 
sequently, that  part  of  it  which  consists  in  the  spirit- 
ual death  which  has  been  belbre  explained.  A  full  pro- 
vision to  meet  this  case  is,  indcnd,  as  we  have  seen, 
made  in  the  Gospel ;  but  tliat  does  not  affect  the  state  in 
which  men  are  born.  It  is  a  cure  for  an  actually  exist- 
ing disease  brought  by  us  into  the  world ;  tor,  were  not 
this  the  case,  the  evangelical  institution  would  be  one 
ot  prevention,  not  of  remedy,  mider  which  light  it  is 
always  represented. 

If,  then,  we  are  all  bom  in  a  state  of  spiritual  death  ; 
that  is,  without  that  vital  influence  of  God  upon  our  fii- 
culties,  which  we  have  seen  to  be  necessary  to  give 
them  a  right,  a  holy  tendency,  and  to  maintain  them  in 
it ;  and  it  that  is  restored  to  man  by  a  dispensation  of 
grace  and  favour,  it  follows  that,  in  his  natural  state, 
he  is  born  with  sinful  propensities,  and  that,  by  nature, 
he  is  capable,  in  liis  own  strength,  of  "  no  good  thing." 

With  this  the  Scriptural  account  agrees. 

It  is  probable,  though  great  stress  need  not  be  laid 
upon  it,  that  when  it  is  said.  Genesis  v.  3,  that  "  Adam 
begat  a  son  in  his  own  likeness,"  that  there  is  an  implied 
opposition  between  the  likeness  of  God,  in  which  Adam 
was  made,  and  the  likeness  of  Adam,  in  whi(-h  his  son 
was  begotten.  It  is  not  said  that  he  begat  a  son  in  the 
likeness  of  God ;  a  very  appropriate  expression  if  Adam 
had  not  fallen,  and  if  human  nature  had  sustained  in 
consequence  no  injury ;  and  such  a  declaration  was 
apparently  called  for,  had  this  been  the  case,  to  show, 
what  woulil  have  been  a  very  important  fact,  that,  not- 
wthstanding  the  personal  delinquency  of  Adam,  yet 
human  nature  itself  had  sustained  no  deterioration,  but 
was  propagated  without  corruption.  On  the  contrary, 
it  is  said  that  he  begat  a  son  in  his  own  likeness; 
which,  probably,  was  mentioned  on  purpose  to  exclude 
the  idea  that  the  image  of  God  was  hereditary  in  man. 

In  Gen.  vi.  5,  it  is  stated,  as  the  cause  of  the  flood, 
that  "  God  saw  that  the  wickedness  of  man  was  great 
in  the  earth,  an/1  tliat  every  imagination  of  the  thoughts 
of  his  heart  was  only  evil  continually."  Here,  it  is 
true,  that  the  actual  moral  state  of  the  antediluvian.s 
may  only  be  spoken  of,  and  that  the  text  does  not  rfi- 
rectly  yiTo-^e  the  doctrine  of  hereditary  depravity  ;  yet 
is  the  actual  wickedness  of  man  traced  up  to  the  heart, 
as  its  natural  source,  in  a  manner  which  seems  to  inti- 
mate, that  the  doctrine  of  the  natural  corruption  of  man 
was  held  by  the  writer,  and  by  that  his  mode  of  expres- 
sion was  influenced,  "The  heart  of  man  is  here  put 
for  his  soul.  This  God  had  formed  with  a  marvellous 
thinking  power.  But  so  is  his  soul  debased,  that  every 
imnginatiort.,  figment,  formation  of  the  thoughts  of  it 
is  eitil,  only  evil,  cmuinuaily  evil.  Whatever  it  forms 
within  itself,  as  a  thinking  power,  is  an  evil  formation. 
If  all  men's  actual  wickedness  sprung  from  the  evil 
formation  of  their  corrupt  heart,  and  if,  conse<iuently,  they 
were  sinners  from  the  birth,  so  are  all  others  likewise. "(9) 

That  this  was  the  theological  sentiment  held  and 
taught  by  Moses,  and  implied  even  in  this  passage,  is 
made  very  clear  by  Genesis  viii.  21,  "I  will  not  again 
curse  the  ground  any  more  for  man's  sake ;  for  the  ima- 
gination of  man's  heart  is  evil  from  his  youth ;  neither 
will  I  again  smite  any  more  every  living  tiling."  The 
sense  of  which  plainly  is,  that,  notwithstanding  the 
wickedness  of  mankind,  though  they  sin  from  their 
childhood,  yet  would  he  not,  on  that  account,  again  de- 
stroy "  every  living  thing."  Here  it  is  to  be  observed, 
1.  That  the  words  are  spoken  as  soon  as  iVoah  came 
forth  from  the  ark,  and,  therelbre,  after  the  antediluvian 
race  of  actual  and  flagrant  transgressors  had  perished, 
and  before  the  family  of  Noah  had  begun  to  multiply 
upon  the  earth ;  when,  in  fact,  there  were  no  human 
beings  tipon  earth  but  righteous  Noah  and  his  fa- 
mily. 2.  That  they  are  spoken  of  "  man"  as  man  ; 
that  is,  of  human  nature,  and,  consequently,  of  Noah 
himself  and  the  persons  saved  with  him  in  the  .ark.  3. 
That  it  is  afiirmed  of  man,  that  is,  of  mankind,  that  the 
imagination  of  the  heart  "  is  evil  from  his  youth." 
Now  the  term  "imagination"  includes  the  thoughts, 
affections,  and  inclinations;  and  the  word  "youth"the 
whole  time  from  the  birth,  the  earliest  age  of  man. 
This  passage,  therefore,  affirms  the  natural  and  here- 
ditary tendency  of  man  to  evil. 


(9)  UEOrSN. 


248 


THEOLOGICAL  L\STITUTES. 


[Part IL 


The  book  of  Job,  which  imbodies  the  patriarchal  the- 
ology, gives  ample  testmiony  to  this  as  the  I'ailh  of 
those  ancient  times.  Job  xi.  1.',  "  Vain  man  would  be 
wise,  though  man  bo  bora  like  a  wild  ass's  colt ;"  tierce, 
imtractahlo,  and  scarcely  to  be  subjected.  This  is  the 
case  from  liis  birth;  it  is  affirmed  of  man,  and  is 
equally  applicable  to  every  age ;  it  is  his  natural  condi- 
tion, he  is  "  born,'''  literally,  "  the  colt  of  a  wild  ass." 

"Man  is  born  unto  trouble  as  the  sparks  fly  up- 
ward," Job  V.  7;  that  is,  he  is  inevitably  subjected  to 
trouble  ;  this  is  the  law  of  his  state  in  this  world,  as 
fixed  and  certain  as  one  of  the  laws  of  nature.  The 
proof  from  this  passage  is  inferential,  but  very  deci- 
sive. Unless  man  is  born  a  sinner,  it  is  not  to  be  ac- 
counted for  that  ho  should  be  born  to  trouble.  Pain 
and  death  are  the  coiiscciueiices  only  of  sin,  and  abso- 
lutely innocent  beiii;;s  must  be  exc^nipt  from  them. 

"  Who  can  bring  a  ileaii  thing  out  of  an  unclean  ?" 
Job  xiv.  4.  Tlie  won!  tiling  is  sujjpliod  by  our  trans- 
lators, but  persim  is  evidently  understood.  Cleanness 
and  uncleanness,  in  the  laiij;iiage  of  Scripture,  signify 
sin  and  holiness;  and  the  text  clearly  asserts  the  na- 
tural impossibility  of  any  man  being  born  sinless,  be- 
cause he  is  produced  by  guilty  and  defiled  parents. 

"  What  is  man,  that  he  should  be  clean  ;  and  he  which 
is  born  of  a  woman,  that  he  should  be  riglileoiis?"  Job 
XV.  14.  The  same  doctrine  is  hero  adiniKMl  as  in  the 
preceding  text,  only  more  fully,  and  it  may  be  taken  as 
an  explanation  of  the  former,  which  was,  perhaps,  a 
proverbial  expression.  The  rendering  of  the  LXX.  is 
here  worthy  of  notice ;  for,  though  it  does  not  agree  with 
the  present  Hebrew  text,  it  strongly  marks  the  senti- 
ments of  the  ancient  Jews  on  the  point  in  question. 
"  Who  shall  bo  clean  from  lilth  !  Notone;  even  though 
his  life  on  earth  he  a  sitigln  day." 

Psalm  li.  5,  "  Behold  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity,  and 
in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me."  What  possible 
sense  can  be  given  to  this  passage  on  the  hypothesis  of 
man's  natural  innocence?  It  is  in  vain  to  render  the 
first  clause,  "I  was  hrovght forth  in  iniquity;"  for 
nothing  is  gained  by  it.  Uavid  charges  nothing  upon 
his  mother,  of  whom  he  is  not  speaking,  but  of  himself  : 
he  was  conceived,  or,  if  it  please  better,  was  born  a 
sinner.  And  if  the  rendering  of  the  latter  clause  were 
allowed,  which  yet  has  no  authority,  "  in  sin  did  my 
mother  nurse  me  ;"  si  ill  no  progress  is  made  in  getting 
quit  of  its  testimony  to  the  moral  corruption  of  chil- 
dren, for  it  is  the  child  only  which  is  nursed,  and,  if 
that  be  allowed,  natural  depravity  is  allowed,  depravity 
before  reasonable  choice,  which  is  the  point  in  question. 

P.salm  Iviii.  3, 4,  "  The  wicked  are  estranged  from  the 
womb,  they  go  astray  as  soon  as  they  are  born,  speak- 
ing lies."  They  arc  alienated  from  the  womb ;  "  alien- 
ated from  the  life  of  God,  from  the  time  of  their  coining 
into  the  world."(l)  "Speaking  lies:"  they  show  a 
tendency  to  speak  lies  as  soon  as  they  are  capable  of  it, 
wliich  shows  the  existence  of  a  natural  principle  of 
falsehood. 

Proverbs  xxii.  15,  and  xxix.  15, "  Foolishness  is  bound 
in  the  heart  of  a  child,  but  the  rod  of  correction  shall 
drive  it  far  from  him."  "  The  rod  and  reproof  givi> 
wisdom,  but  a  child  left  to  himself  bringeth  his  mother 
to  shame."  "  These  passages  |iut  together  arc  a  plain 
testimony  of  the  inbred  corruption  of  young  children. 
'  l'"oolishiiess,'  ill  the  former,  is  not  barely  '  appetite,' 
or  a  want  of  the  knowledge  attainable  by  instruction, 
as  some  have  s:iiil.  Neither  of  these  deserve  that  sharp 
correction  recomineinled.  Hut  it  is  an  indisposedness 
to  what  is  good,  and  a  strong  propensity  to  evil.  This 
foolishness  '  is  liouiid  up  in  the  heart  of  a  child  ;'  it  is 
rooted  in  his  inmost  nature.  It  is,  as  it  were,  fastened 
to  him  by  strong  cords ;  so  the  original  word  signi- 
fies. From  this  corruption  of  the  heart  in  every  child, 
it  is  that  '  the  rod  of  correction'  is  neces.sary  to  give  him 
wisdom;  hence  it  is  tliat  a  cliilil  left  to  himself,  with- 
out correction, '  brings  his  mother  to  shame.'  Ifa  child 
were  born  equally  inclined  to  virtue  and  vice,  why 
should  the  wi.so  man  speak  of  liiolislimss,  or  wicked- 
ness as  fastened  so  closely  to  his  licarl  (  And  why 
should  the  rod  and  reproof  be  so  necessary  foi  him  ? 
These  texts,  thc^retbre,  are  another  clear  proof  of  the 
corruption  of  human  nature."(2) 

The  quotation  of  I'salm  xiv.  2,  3,  by  the  Apostle  Paul, 
in  Romans  iii.  10,  Ac.  is  also  an  imporluiit  SiTiptuial 
proof  of  the  universal  moral  corruption  of  Tiiaukiiul. 


(1)  WKSLey. 


(2)  II&DDUN. 


"  The  Lord  looked  down  from  heaven  upon  the  chil- 
dren of  men,  to  see  if  there  were  any  that  did  under- 
stand, and  seek  (iod.  They  are  all  gone  aside,  they  arc 
altogether  become  lilthy;  there  is  none  that  doethgood, 
no,  not  one."'  When  the  Psalmist  alhrms  this  of  the 
children  of  men,  it  is  fair  to  conclude  that  he  is  sjteak- 
ing  of  all  men,  and  of  human  nature  as  ongiimting  ac- 
tual depravity  ;  and  it  is,  indeed,  obvious  from  the  con- 
text, that  he  is  thus  accounting  for  atheism,  and  other 
evils,  the  prevalence  of  which  he  laments.  But,  as  the 
apostle  quotes  this  passage,  and  the  parallel  one  in  the 
.53d  Psalm  as  Scriptural  jirools  of  the  vniversal  cor- 
ruption of  mankind,  the  -sen.se  of  the  P.salmist  is  fixed 
by  his  authority,  and  cannot  be  questioned.  All,  in- 
deed, that  the  opponents  of  this  interpretation  can  say, 
is,  that  in  the  same  psalm  the  Psalmist  speaks  also  of 
righteous  persons,  "God  is  in  the  generation  of  the 
riifhteejtis ;"  but  that  is  nothing  to  the  pnrjiose,  seeing 
that  those  wlio  contend  for  the  universal  corrujition  of 
mankinil  allow  also  that  a  remedy  has  been  provided 
for  the  evil ;  and  that  by  its  application  some,  in  every 
age,  have  been  made  righteous,  who  were  originally 
and  naturally  sinful.  In  fact,  it  could  not  be  said,  with 
respect  to  man's  actual  moral  conduct  m  that,  or  pro- 
bably in  any  age,  that  "  not  one"  was  "  righteous ;"  but 
in  every  age  it  maybe  said,  that  not  one  is  so  originally, 
or  by  nature ;  so  that  the  jiassage  is  not  to  be  explained 
on  the  assumption  that  the  inspired  writer  is  speaking 
only  of  the  practice  of  mankind  in  his  own  times. 

Of  the  same  kind  are  all  those  passages  which  speak 
of  what  is  morally  evil  as  the  characteristic  and  dis- 
tinguishing mark,'  not  of  any  individual,  not  of  any 
particular  peojile,  living  in  some  one  age  or  part  of  the 
world ;  but  of  man,  of  human  nature ;  and  especially 
those  which  make  sinfulness  the  naturul  state  of  that 
part  of  the  human  race  who  have  not  undergone  that 
moral  renovation  which  is  the  fruit  of  a  Divine  opera- 
tion in  the  heart,  a  work  ascribed  particular!)'  to  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Of  these  texts  the  number  is  very  great, 
and  it  adds  also  to  the  strength  of  their  evidence,  that 
the  subject  is  often  mentioned  incidentally,  and  by  way 
of  illustration  and  argument  in  support  of  something 
else,  and  mast,  therefore,  be  taken  to  be  an  acknow- 
ledgiid  and  settled  opinion  among  the  .sacred  writers, 
both  of  the  Old  and  New  'IVstaments,  and  one  which 
neither  they  nor  those  to  whoin  they  spoke  or  wrote 
questioned  or  disputed. 

"  Cursed,"  says  the  prophet  Jeremiah,  "  is  he  that 
trusteth  in  man."  Why  in  man,  if  he  were  not,  by 
nature,  unworthy  of  trust?  On  the  scheme  of  man's 
natural  innocence,  it  would  surely  have  been  more  ap- 
propriate to  say.  Cursed  he  he  that  trusteth  indiscrimi- 
nately in  men,  some  of  whom  may  have  become  cor- 
rupt ;  but  here  human  nature  itself,  man,  in  the  ab- 
stract, is  held  up  to  suspicion  and  caution.  "  Tho 
heart,"  proceeds  the  same  prophet,  "  is  deceitful  above 
all  things,  and  desperately  wicked  ;  who  can  know  it  ?" 
which  is  the  reason  adduced  for  the  caution  preceding 
against  trusting  in  man.  It  is  precisely  in  the  same 
way  that  our  Lord  designates  human  nature,  when  he 
allirnis,  that  "  from  within,  out  of  the  heart,  proceed 
evil  thoughts,  adulteries,  murders,  <fcc. ;  all  these- 1  liings 
come  from  within  and  defile  tlie  man."  This  represent- 
ation would  not  be  true  on  tho  scheme  of  nalural  iii- 
innocence.  All  these  things  would  come  from  uilhoiil, 
not  from  xeithin,  as  their  orliiiiiiil  source.  The  heart 
must  first  be  corrupted  by  outward  circumstances,  be- 
fore it  could  botiK!  corrupter. 

Put  to  proceed  wilh  instances  of  the  more  incidental 
references  to  the  lault  and  di.sease  of  man's  very  nature, 
with  which  the  Scriptures  abound.  "  How  much  more 
abominable  and  filthy  is  7Ha/i,  who  drnikelli  niiquily 
like  water  ?"  Job  xv.  Ifi.  "  Madness  is  In  the  heart  ol 
the  sons  of  men  while  they  live,"  Ecclcs.  ix.  3.  "  Hut 
they,  like  mi  n.  have  transgressed  the  covenant,"  llos. 
vi.  7.  "  If  lie,  livnts  erit.  know  how  to  give  good  gifts 
unto  vour  iliildren,"  Matt.  vii.  11.  "Thou  savourest 
not  the  tliiims  that  beol'God  ;  hut  the  things  mat  be  of 
MK\,"Mall.  xvi  23.  "  Are  ye  not  carnal,  and  walk  as 
MKN?"  1  Cor.iii.  3.  "  That  tu^  no  longer  should  live 
the  rest  of  his  time  in  the  lusts  of  men;  but  to  the 
will  of  f!od,"  1  Peter  IV. 2.  "  We  are  ol  (;od.  and  the 
wliole  world  lieth  in  wickedness,"  1  John  v.  19.  "  Kx- 
cept  a  man  be  born  as;ain  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of 
tioD,"  John  iii.  8,  "That  ye  put  ofllho  old  man,  and 
be  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  your  mind  ;  and  that  ye  put 
on  the  new  man,"  lipli.  iv.  22—21. 


Chap.  XVIII.J 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


249 


The  above  texts  arc  to  be  considered  as  specimens 
of  the  nianner  in  which  tlie  sacred  writers  speak  ol  llie 
subject,  ratlier  tlian  as  approaching  to  an  enumeration 
of  tlie  passages  in  wliich  the  same  sentiments  are 
found  in  great  variety  of  expression,  and  whicli  are 
adduced  on  various  occasio!is.  They  are,  liowever,  suf- 
ficient to  show  that  man,  and  the  heart  of  man,  and  the 
moral  nature  of  man,  are  spoken  of  by  them  in  a  way 
not  to  be  reconciled  to  the  notion  of  tlieir  purity,  or 
even  their  indifl'erence  to  good  and  evil.  On  two  jiarts 
of  the  New  Testament,  however,  which  irresistilily  fix 
the  whole  of  this  evidence  in  favour  of  the  oi)inion  of 
the  universal  church  of  Christ  in  all  ages,  our  remarks 
may  be  somewhat  more  extended.  The  first  is  our 
Lord's  discourse  with  Nicodemus,  John  iii.,  in  which 
tie  declares  the  necessity  of  a  new  birth,  in  contradis- 
tinction to  our  natural  birth,  in  order  to  our  entrance 
into  the  kingdom  of  Gou;  and  lays  it  down,  that  the 
Spirit  of  God  is  the  sole  autlior  of  this  change,  and 
(hat  what  is  born  of  the  llesh  cannot  alter  its  nature; 
it  is  tlesh  still,  and  must  always  remain  so,  and  in  that 
state  is  unfit  for  heaven.  "  Excejit  a  man  be  born  of 
water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  the  kingdom 
of  God  ;  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and 
that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit."  Through- 
out the  New  Testament,  it  will  be  found,  that  when 
tlesh  and  spirit  are  in  a  moral  sense  opposed  to  each 
other,  the  one  means  the  corrupt  nature  and  habits  of 
men,  not  sanctified  by  the  (iospel ;  the  other,  either  the 
Iirincijile  and  habit  of  holiness  in  good  men,  or  the 
Holy  Spirit  himself,  who  imparts  and  constantly  nur- 
tures them.  "  1  know  that  in  me  (that  is,  in  my Jlesh) 
dwellcth  no  good  thing,"'  Rom.  vii.  IS.  "I  myself 
with  the  mind  serve  the  law  of  God ;  but  with  the 
Jk'sh,  the  law  of  sin,"  Rom.  vii.  25.  "  There  is,  there- 
fore, now  no  condemnation  to  them  which  are  in  Christ 
•lesus,  who  walk  not  after  the  Jlesli,  but  after  the 
Spirit,"  Rom.  viii.  1.  "  They  that  are  after  the  llesh  do 
mind  the  things  of  the  flesh  ;  but  they  that  are  after 
the  Spirit  the  things  of  the  Spirit.  For  to  be  carnally 
minded  is  death ;  but  to  be  spiritually  minded  is  lilie 
and  iieace.  Because  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against 
(iod;  for  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither 
indeed  can  be.  So  then  they  that  are  in  theflvsh  can- 
not please  God.  But  ye  are  not  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the 
Spirit,  if  so  be  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwell  in  you," 
lloin.  viii.  5—9. 

These  passages  from  St.  Paul  serve  to  fix  the  mean- 
ing of  the  terms  flesh  and  Spirit,  as  used  by  the  Jews, 
and  as  they  occur  in  the  discourse  of  our  Lord  with 
Nicodemus ;  and  they  are  so  e.xactly  parallel  to  it,  that 
they  fully  confirm  the  opinion  of  those  who  under- 
stand our  Lord  as  expressly  asserting  that  man  is  by 
nature  corrupt  and  sinful,  and  unfit,  in  consequence, 
for  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  and  that  all  amendment 
of  his  case  must  result,  not  from  himself,  so  totally  is 
he  gone  from  original  righteousness  ;  but  from  that  spe- 
cial operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  produces  a  new 
birth  or  regeneration.  Both  assert  the  natural  state 
of  man  to  be  fleshly,  that  is,  morally  coTrujit ;  both 
assert,  that  in  man  himself  there  is  no  remedy  ;  and 
liotli  attribute  principles  of  holiness  to  a  supernatural 
agency,  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  of  God  himself. 

No  criticism  can  make  this  language  consistent  with 
the  theory  of  natural  innocence.  St.  Paul  describes 
the  state  of  man,  before  he  comes  under  the  quickening 
and  renewing  influence  of  the  Spirit,  as  being  "  in  the 
llesh ;"  in  which  state  "  he  cannot  please  God ;"  as 
having  a  "  carnal  mind,"  which  "  is  not,  and  cannot  be, 
subject  to  the  law  of  God."  Our  Lord,  in  like  manner, 
describes  this  state  of -"the  flesh,"  this  condition  of 
entire  unfitness  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  as  our?;.a- 
tiiral  m-Ale;  and  to  make  this  the  stronger,  he  refers 
this  unfitness  for  heaven,  not  to  our  acquired  habits, 
but  to  the  state  in  which  we  are  born ;  for  the  very 
reason  which  he  gives  for  the  necessity  of  a  new  birth 
is.  that  "  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,"  and 
tlienfore,  we  "  must  be  bom  again."  To  interpret, 
therefore,  the  phrase,  "to  be  flesh,  as  being  born  of  the 
llesh,"  merely  to  signify  that  we  are  by  natural  birth 
endowed  with  the  physical  powers  of  human  nature,  is 
utterly  absurd  ;  for  what,  then,  is  it  to  be  born  of  the 
Spirit '  Is  it  to  receive  physical  powers  which  do  not 
belong  to  human  nature  ?  Or  if  they  go  a  step  farther, 
and  admit  that  "  to  be  flesh  as  being  born  of  the  flesh" 
means  to  be  frail  and  mortal  like  our  parents  ;  still  the 
interpretation  is  a  physical  and  not  a  moral  one,  and 


leads  to  this  absurdity,  that  we  must  interpret  the  being 
born  of  the  Spirit  physically,  and  not  morally  likewise. 
Now  since  the  being  born  of  the  Spirit  refers  to  a  change 
which  is  effected  in  time,  and  not  at  the  resurrection, 
because  our  Lord  sjieaksof  being  "  born  of  maifr"  as 
well  as  the  Spirit,  by  which  he  means  baptism ;  and  as 
St.  Paul  says  to  the  Romans  in  the  jiassat'e  above  quoted, 
"  ye  are  not  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the  Si)irit ;"  and  there- 
fore speaks  of  their  present  exjienence  in  this  world, — 
it  may  be  asked,  what  physical  change  did  in  reality 
take  place  in  them  in  consequence  of  being  "  born  of 
the  Sjiirit  V  On  all  hands  it  is  allowed  that  none  took 
place;  that  they  remained  "  frail  and  mortal"  still ;  and 
it  follows,  therefore,  that  it  is  a  moral  and  not  a  phy- 
sical change  which  is  spoken  of,  both  by  our  Lord  and 
by  the  apostle  ;  and  if  a  moral  change  from  sin  to  holi- 
ness, then  is  the  natural  state  of  man  from  his  birth, 
and  m  consequence  of  his  birth,  siiiCul  and  corrupt. 

The  other  passage  is  the  argument  in  the  third  chap- 
ter of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  in  which  the  apostle 
proves  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  under  sin,  "  that  every 
jnouth  may  be  stopped,  and  all  the  world  may  become 
guilty  belbre  God ;"  and  then  proposes  the  means  of 
salvation  by  faith  in  Christ,  on  the  express  ground  that 
"  all  have  sinned,  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God." 
Whoever  reads  that  argument,  and  considers  the  uni- 
versality of  the  terms  used,  all,  kvkkv,  all  the 
WORLD,  BOTH  Jkws  AND  Gentii.es,  must  couclude,  in 
all  fairness  of  interpretation,  that  the  whole  human 
race  of  every  age  is  intended.  But  if  any  will  con- 
strue his  words  partially,  then  he  is  placed  in  the 
following  dilemma:— The  apostle  grounds  the  wisdom 
and  mercy  of  that  pro\'ision  which  is  made  for  man's 
salvation  in  the  Gospel  upon  man's  sinfulness,  danger, 
and  helplessness.  Now  the  Gospel,  as  a  remedy  for 
disease,  as  salvation  from  danger,  is  designed  for  all 
men,  or  but  for  a  part:  if  for  all,  then  all  are  diseased 
and  in  danger ;  if  but  for  a  part,  then  the  undiseased 
part  of  the  human  race,  those  who  are  in  no  danger, 
have  no  interest  in  the  Gospel,  it  is  not  adapted  to  their 
case ;  and  not  only  is  the  argument  of  the  apostle  lost, 
but  those  who  advocate  this  notion  must  explain  how 
it  is  that  our  Lord  himself  commanded  the  Gospel  to  be 
preached  "  to  every  creature,"  if  but  a  part  of  mankind 
needs  its  salvation. 

The  doctrine,  then,  of  Scripture  ie,  I  think,  clearly 
established  to  be  that  of  the  natural  and  universal  cor- 
ruption of  man's  nature ;  and  we  now  consider,  whe- 
ther on  this  ground,  or  on  the  hypothesis  of  man's 
natural  innocence,  or  indifference  to  good  or  to  evil,  the 
facts  above  enumerated  can  be  best  explained.  They 
are,  L  The,  at  least,  general  corruption  of  manners  in 
all  times  and  countries.  2.  The  strength  of  the  ten- 
dency in  man  to  evil.  3.  The  early  appearance  of  the 
principles  of  various  vices  in  children.  4.  Everyman's 
consciousne.ss  of  a  natural  tendency  in  his  mind  to 
one  or  more  evils.  5.  That  general  resistance  to  virtue 
in  the  heart,  which  renders  education,  influence,  watch- 
fulness, and  conflict  necessary  to  counteract  the  force 
of  evil.  These  points  have  been  already  explained 
more  at  large ;  and  they  are  facts  which,  it  is  presumed, 
cannot  be  denied,  and  such  as  have  the  confirmation  of 
history  and  experience. 

That  they  are  easily  and  fully  accounted  for  by  the 
Scriptural  doctrine  is  obvious.  The  fountain  is  bitter, 
and  the  tree  is  corrupt ;  the  bitter  stream  and  the  bad 
fruit  are,  therefore,  the  natural  consequences.  But  the 
advocates  of  the  latter  hypothesis  have  no  means  of 
accounting  for  these  moral  phenomena,  except  by 
1  referring  them  to  bad  example  and  a  vicious  educa- 
tion. 

I  Let  us  take  the  first.  To  account  for  general  wicked- 
ness, they  refer  to  general  example. 

But,  L  This  does  not  account  for  the  introduction 
of  moral  wickedness.  The  children  of  Adam  were  not 
born  until  after  the  repentance  of  our  first  parents  and 
their  restoration  to  the  Divine  favour.  They  apjiear  to 
have  been  his  devout  worshippers,  and  to  have  had 
access  to  his  "presence,"  the  visible  glory  of  the  Sche- 
chinah.  From  what  example,  then,  did  Cain  learn 
maUce,  hatred,  and  finally  murder?  Example  will  not 
account,  also,  for  the  too  common  fact  of  the  children 
of  highly  virtuous  parents  becoming  immoral  ;  for 
since  the  examples  nearest  to  them  and  constantly  pre- 
sent with  them  are  good  exampl(!S,  if  the  natural  dis- 
position were  as  good  as  this  hypothesis  assumes,  the 
good  example  always  present  ought  to  be  more  inilueij- 


250 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


tial  than  bad  examples  at  a  distancf,  and  only  occa- 
sionally seon  or  heard  of. 

2.  If  men  are  naturally  disposed  to  good,  or  only  not 
indisposed  to  it,  it  is  not  accounted  lor,  on  this  hypo- 
thesis, how  bad  examjde  should  have  beromc  gene- 
ral, that  is,  how  men  should  generally  have  become 
wicked. 

If  the  natural  disposition  be  more  in  favour  of  good 
than  evil,  then  there  oui^ht  to  have  been  more  good 
than  evil  in  the  world,  which  is  contradicted  by  tact; 
if  there  had  been  only  an  indifll-rcnce  in  our  minds  to 
good  and  evil,  then  at  least  l^  (piaiitum  of  vice  and 
virtue  in  society  ought  to  liav>  jeen  pretty  equally  di- 
vided, which  is  also  contrary  lo  fact ;  and  also  it  ought 
to  have  followed  from  this,  that  at  least  all  the  children 
of  virtuous  persons  woulil  liave  been  virtuous  ;  that, 
for  instance,  the  descendants  of  Seth  would  have  fol- 
lowed in  succession  the  steps  of  their  righteous  fore- 
(iithers,  though  the  children  of  Cain  (passing  by  the 
(hfficulty  of  his  own  lapse)  should  have  become  vi- 
cious. On  neither  supposition  can  the  existence  of  a 
general  evil  example  in  the  world  be  accounted  for.  It 
ought  not  to  have  e.visted,  and  if  so,  the  general  cor- 
ruption of  mankind  cannot  be  explained  by  it. 

3.  This  very  method  of  explaining  the  general  vicious- 
ness  of  society  does  itself  suppose  the  power  of  bad 
example ;  and,  indeed,  in  this  it  agrees  with  universal 
opinion.  All  the  moralists  of  public  and  domestic 
life,  all  professed  teachers,  all  friends  of  youth,  all  pa- 
rents have  repeated  their  cautions  against  evil  society 
to  those  whom  they  wished  to  preserve  from  vice. 
The  writings  of  moralists,  heathen  and  inspired,  are 
full  of  these  admonitions,  and  they  are  imbodied  in 
the  proverbs  and  wise  traditional  sajlngs  of  all  civil- 
ized nations.  But  the  very  force  of  evil  example  can 
only  be  accounted  for,  by  supposing  a  proncness  in 
youth  to  be  corrupted  by  it.  Why  should  it  be  more 
inlluential  than  good  example,  a  fact  universally  ac- 
knowledged, and  so  strongly  felt,  that  for  one  person 
preserved  by  the  sole  inliuence  of  a  good  example, 
every  body  expects  that  a  great  number  would  be  cor- 
rupted by  an  evil  one?  But  if  the  hypothesis  of  man's 
natural  innocence  were  true,  this  ought  not  to  be  ex- 
pected as  a  probable,  much  less  as  a  certain  result. 
Bad  example  would  meet  with  resistance  from  a  good 
nature;  and  it  would  bo  much  more  difficult  to  influ- 
ence by  bad  examples  than  by  good  ones. 

4.  Nor  does  example  account  for  the  other  facts  in  the 
above  enumeration.  It  does  not  account  for  that  stroiii; 
bias  to  evil  in  men,  which  in  all  ages  has  borne  down 
the  most  powerful  restraints ;  for  from  this  tendemy 
that  corrupt  general  example  has  sprung,  which  is  al- 
leged as  the  cause  of  it ;  and  it  must,  therefore,  have 
existed  previously,  because  the  general  example,  that 
is,  the  general  corrupt  practice  of  men  is  its  eirect. 
We  cannot,  in  this  way,  account  for  the  early  mani- 
festation of  wrong  principles,  tempers,  and  affections 
in  children  ;  since  they  ajipearat  an  age  when  example 
can  have  little  influence,  and  even  when  the  surround- 
ing examples  are  good,  as  well  as  when  they  are  evil. 
Why,  too,  should  virtue  always  bo  found  more  or  less 
aconlUct?  so  that  self-government  and  self-resistance 
are  in  all  cases  necessary  for  its  preservation.  The 
example  of  others  will  not  account  lor  this  ;  lor  mere 
example  can  only  influence  when  it  is  approved  by  the 
judgment ;  but  here  is  a  case  in  which  evil  is  not  ap- 
proved, in  which  "  what.soever  things  are  true,  what- 
soever things  are  pure,"  are  approved,  desired,  and 
cultivated;  and  yet  the  resistance  of  the  heart  to  the 
judgment  is  so  powerful,  that  a  constant  warfare  and 
a  strict  commanil  are  necessary  to  perseverance. 

Let  us  then  see  whether  a  bad  education,  the  other 
cause  u.sually  alleged  to  account  Ibr  these  facts,  will 
be  more  successful. 

1.  This  cause  will  no  more  account  for  the  introduc- 
tion of  passions  so  hateful  as  those  of  Cain,  issuing  in 
a  fratricide  so  odious,  into  the  family  of  Adam,  than 
■will  example.  As  there  was  no  example  ol  these  evils 
in  the  primeval  family,  so  certainly  there  was  no  edu- 
cation which  could  incite  and  encourage  them.  We 
are  also  lelV  still  witlinut  a  reason  why,  in  well  or- 
dered and  religious  lamilies,  where  education  and  the 
example  too  is  good,  so  many  instances  of  their  inelh- 
cacy  should  oc(  ur.  It  bad  education  corrupts  a  natu- 
rally Well-dispoK(!d  mind,  then  a  good  education  ought 
Kllll  more  powerfully  lo  alfecl  it  and  give  it  a  right  ten- 
aeiicy.    It  is  aJluwed,  that  good  example  uud  yood  odu- 


[Part  II. 

cation  are,  in  many  instances,  effectual ;  but  we  can 
account  (or  them,  without  giving  up  the  doctrine  of  the 
natural  corruption  of  the  heart.  It  is,  however,  im- 
possible for  those  to  account  for  those  failures  of  both 
example  and  instruction  which  often  take  jilace,  since, 
on  the  hypothesis  of  man's  natural  innocence  and  good 
lUsposition,  they  ought  never  to  occur,  or  at  least  but 
in  very  rare  cases,  and  when  some  singular  coimter- 
acting  external  causes  lia])pen  to  come  into  operation. 

2.  'VV'e  may  also  ask,  how  it  came  to  pass,  unless 
there  were  a  preihsposing  cause  to  it,  that  education  as 
well  as  example  should  have  been  generally  bad  ?  Of 
education,  indeed,  men  are  usually  more  careful  than 
of  example.  The  lijis  are  often  right  when  the  life  ia 
wrong ;  and  many  i>iaclise  evil  who  will  not  go  so  lar 
as  to  teach  it.  II  human  nature,  then,  be  born  jmre, 
or,  at  worst,  eijually  disposed  to  good  and  evil,  then  Iho 
existence  of  a  generally  corrupting  system  of  educa- 
tion, in  all  countries  and  among  all  jieojile,  cannot  be 
accounted  for.  We  have  an  etlect  either  contrary  to 
the  assigned  cause,  or  one  to  wtiich  the  cause  is  not 
adeciuate  ;  it  is  the  case  of  a  pure  fountain  sending 
Ibrth  corrupt  streams ;  or  that  ol  a  stream,  which,  if 
turbid,  has  a  constant  tendency  to  defecation,  and  yet 
becomes  still  more  muddy  as  it  Hows  along  its  course. 

3.  It  is  not,  however,  the  lact,  that  education  is  di- 
rectly and  universally  so  corrupting  a  cause,  as  to  ac- 
count for  the  depravity  of  mankind.  In  niany  instances 
it  has  been  defective ;  it  has  often  inculcated  UUse 
views  of  interest  and  honour ;  it  has  fostered  preju- 
dices, and  even  national,  though  not  social  hatreds  :  but 
it  has  only  in  few  cases  been  employed  to  teach  thoso 
vices  into  which  men  have  commonly  fallen.  In  fact, 
education  in  all  countries  has  been  in  no  small  degree 
opposed  to  vice ;  and  as  the  majority  of  the  worst  peo- 
ple among  us  would  shudder  to  have  their  children 
instructed  in  the  vices  which  they  themselves  practise, 
so,  in  the  worst  nations  of  antiijuity,  the  characters  of 
schoolmasters  were  required  to  be  correct,  and  many 
principles  and  maxims  of  a  virtuous  kind  were,  doubt- 
less, taught  to  children.  When  Horace  says  of  youth, 
'•Cereus  in  vitiam  flecti,  monitoribus  asper,"  he  ac- 
knowledges its  natural  tendency  to  receive  vicious 
impressions,  but  shows  too,  that  it  was  not  left  with- 
out contrary  admonition.  Precisely  in  those  vices 
which  all  education,  even  the  most  defective,  is  do- 
signed  to  guarrl  against,  the  world  has  displayed  its 
ilopravity  most  obviously  ;  and  thus,  so  far  from  edu- 
cation being  suflicient  to  account  for  the  evils  which 
have  stained  society  in  all  ages,  its  influence  has  been 
in  no  small  degree  opposed  to  them. 

4.  To  come  to  the  other  facts  which  must  be  ac- 
counted for,  education  is  jilaced  niion  the  same  ground 
in  the  argument  as  example.  The  early  evil  di.sposi- 
tions  in  children  cannot  thus  be  explained,  for  they 
apiiear  before  education  commences ;  nor  does  any  man 
refer  to  education  hid  |iropeiisity  to  constitutional  siiis  ; 
the  resistance  he  oltiii  leels  to  gtwd  in  his  heart;  his 
proneness  to  forget  (Jod,  and  to  be  iiiditferent  to  spi- 
ritual and  eternal  objects;  all  these  he  feels  to  be  op- 
iwscd  to  those  very  principles  which  his  judgment  ap- 
proves, and  with  which  it  was  furnished  by  education. 

It  is  only,  then,  hy  the  scnjitural  account  of  the  natu- 
ral and  hereditary  corruption  of  the  human  race,  com- 
monly called  original  sin,(3)  that  these  facts  are  fully 
accounted  ibr ;  and  as  the  facts  themselves  cannot  be 
denied,  such  an  interpretation  of  the  Scrijiture  as  we 
have  given  above,  is  therefore  abundantly  confirmed. 

As  the  fact  of  a  natural  inclination  to  evil  cannot  bo 
successfully  combated,  some  have  taken  a  milder  view 
of  the  case;  and,  allowing  these  tendencies  to  various 
excesses,  account  for  them  by  their  being  natural  ten- 
dencies to  what  is  pleasing,  and  so,  lor  this  reason, 
they  deny  them  to  be  sinful,  until  they  are  complied 
with  and  approved  by  the  will.  This  appears  to  bo 
the  view  of  Liniborch,  and  some  of  the  later  divines 
of  the  Arminian  school,  who,  on  this  and  other  ]ioints, 
very  maierially  departed  from  the  tenets  of  their  mas- 
ter.(4)  ^lHhlng,  however,  is  gained  by  this  notion, 
when  strictly  examined;  for,  let  it  be  granted  that 
these  projiensitlcs  are  to  things  natunUly  pleasing,  and 

(3)  The  term  "original  sin"  appears  to  have  been 
lirst  introduced  by  St.  Augustine,  m  his  tontrovcrsy 
with  the  I'elagians. 

(4)  Sec  LiMuoRcji's  Thcologia  Chribiiana,  Liber  iii. 
Caput  4. 


Chap.  XVIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


251 


that,  in  excess,  thoy  are  out  of  their  proper  order;  yet 
as  it  happens  tliat,  as  soon  as  every  person  comes  to 
years  to  know  that  tliey  are  wrong,  as  being  contrary 
to  the  Divine  law,  he  yet  cliooses  them,  and  thus, 
without  dispute,  nv:kes  tliem  sins ;  this  universal  com- 
pUance  of  the  ivill  with  what  is  known  to  be  evil  is 
also  be  accounted  for,  as  well  as  the  natural  tendency 
to  sinful  gralifications.  Now,  as  we  have  proved  the 
universahty  of  sin,  this  universal  tendency  of  the  will 
to  chouse  and  sanction  the  natural  propensity  to  un- 
lawful gratification  is  the  proof  of  a  natural  stale  of 
mind,  not  only  defective,  but  corrupt,  which  is  what 
we  contend  for.  If  it  be  said,  that  these  natural  jiro- 
pensities  to  various  evils  in  children  are  not  sinful 
before  they  have  the  consent  of  the  will,  all  that  can 
be  maintained  is  that  they  are  not  actual  sins,  which 
no  one  asserts ;  but  as  a  universal  choice  of  evil,  when 
accountableness  takes  place,  proves  a  universal  jjravity 
of  the  will,  previous  to  the  actual  choice,  then  it  in- 
evitably follows,  that,  though  inlanls  do  not  commit 
actual  sin,  yet  that  theirs  is  a  sinful  nature. 

Finally,  the  death  and  sutfcrings  to  which  children 
are  subject  is  a  proof  that  all  men,  from  their  birth, 
are  "  constituted,"  as  the  apostle  has  it,  and  treated  as 
"  sinners."  An  innocent  creature  may  die;  no  one  dis- 
putes that ;  but  to  die  was  not  the  original  law  of  our 
species,  and  the  Scriptures  refer  death  solely  to  sin  as 
its  cause.  Throughout  the  sacred  writings,  too,  it  is 
represented  as  a  penalty,  as  an  evil  of  the  highest 
kind ;  and  it  is  in  vain  to  find  out  ingenious  reasons  to 
prove  it  a  blessing  to  mankind.  They  prove  nothing 
against  the  directly  opposite  character  which  has  been 
stamped  upon  death  and  the  suffering  of  moral  disease, 
tiy  the  testimony  of  God.  On  the  hypothesis  of  man's 
natural  innocence,  the  death  of  the  innocent  is  not  to 
be  reconciled  to  any  known  attribute  of  God,  to  any 
manifested  principle  of  his  moral  government ;  but  on 
that  of  his  natural  corruptness  and  tiideral  relation  to 
Adam  it  is  explained :  it  is  a  declaration  of  God's  ha- 
ired of  sin ;  a  proclamation  of  the  purity  and  iutle.xi- 
bility  of  his  law  ;  while  the  connexion  of  this  state, 
•with  the  provisions  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  present 
"  mercy  and  truth  meeting  together,  righteousness  and 
peace  kissing  each  other." 

As  to  that  in  which  original  sin  consists,  some  divines 
and  some  public  formularies  have  so  expressed  them- 
selves, that  it  might  be  inferred  that  a  positive  evil,  in- 
fection, and  taint  had  been  Judicially  infused  into  man's 
nature  by  God,  which  has  been  transmitted  to  all  his 
posterity.  Others,  and  those  the  greater  number,  both 
of  the  Calvinist  and  Arminian  schools,  have  resolved 
it  into  privation.  This  distinction  is  well  stated  in  the 
Private  Disputations  of  Arminius. 

"  But  since  the  tenor  of  the  covenant  into  which 
God  entered  with  our  first  parents  was  this,  that  if  they 
continued  in  the  favour  and  grace  of  God,  hy  the  ob- 
servance of  that  precept  and  others,  the  gilts  which 
had  been  conferred  upon  them  should  be  transmitted 
to  their  posterity,  by  the  like  Divine  grace  which  they 
had  received ;  but  if  they  should  render  themselves 
unworthy  of  those  favours,  tlu-ough  disobedience,  that 
their  posterity  should  likewise  be  deiirived  of  them,  and 
should  be  liable  to  the  contrary  evils :  hence  it  followed, 
that  all  men,  who  were  to  be  naturally  propagated  from 
them,  have  become  obnoxious  to  death  temporal  and 
eternal,  and  have  been  destitute  of  that  gift  of  the  Holy 
Sjiirit,  or  of  original  righteousness.  This  punishment  is 
usually  called  a  privation  of  the  image  of  God,  and  ori- 
ginal sin. 

"  But  we  allow  this  point  to  be  made  the  subject  of 
discussion — beside  the  want  or  absence  of  original 
righteousness,  may  not  some  other  contrary  quality  be 
constituted,  as  another  part  of  original  sin  ?  We  think 
it  is  more  probable,  that  this  absence  alone  of  original 
righteousness  is  original  sin  itself,  since  it  alone  is 
sufficient  for  the  commission  and  production  of  every 
actual  sin  whatever." 

This  is  by  some  divines  called,  with  great  aptness, 
"  a  depravation  arising  from  a  deprivation,"  and  is  cer- 
tainly much  more  consonant  with  tlie  Scriptures  than 
the  opinion  of  the  infusion  of  evil  qualities  into  the 
nature  of  man  by  a  positive  cause,  or  direct  tainting  of 
the  heart.  This  has  been,  indeed,  probably  an  opinion, 
in  the  proper  sense,  with  few,  and  has  rather  been  col- 
ificted  from  the  strong  and  rhetorical  expressions  under 
•which  the  moral  siate  of  man  is  often  exhibited,  and, 
on  this  account,  has  been  attacked  as  a  part  of  the 


doctrine-  of  original  sin,  by  the  advocates  of  original  in- 
nocence, and  as  making  God  directly  the  author  of 
sin.  No  such  difficulty,  however,  accompanies  the  ac- 
curate and  guarded  statement  ot  that  doctrine  in  the 
sense  of  Scripture.  The  depravation,  the  perversion, 
the  delect  of  our  nature  is  to  be  traced  to  our  birth,  so 
that  in  our  tlesh  is  no  good  thing,  and  they  that  are  in 
the  flesh  cannot  please  God ;  but  this  state  arises  not 
from  the  infusion  of  evil  into  the  nature  of  man  by  God, 
but  from  that  separation  of  man  from  (ion,  that  extinc- 
tion of  spiritual  life  which  was  ellected  by  sin,  and  the 
coiLsequent  and  necessary  corruption  of  man's  moral 
nature.  For  that  positive  evil  and  corruption  may  flow 
from  a  mere  privation  may  be  illustrated  by  that  which 
supjilies  the  figure  of  speech,  "  death,"  under  which 
the  Scriptures  represent  the  state  of  mankind.  For,  as 
in  the  death  of  the  body,  the  mere  privation  of  the  prin- 
ciple of  life  produces  inflexibility  of  the  muscles,  the 
e.\tinction  of  heat,  and  sense,  and  motion,  and  surren- 
ders the  body  to  the  operation  of  an  agency  which  lit'e, 
as  long  as  it  continued,  resisted,  nainely,  that  of  che- 
mical decomjiosition ;  so,  from  the  loss  of  spiritual  life, 
followed  estrangement  from  God,  moral  inability,  the 
dominion  of  irregular  passions,  and  the  rule  of  appetite ; 
aversion,  in  consequence,  to  restraint ;  and  enmity  to 
God. 

Tills  connexion  of  positive  evil,  as  the  effect,  with 
privation  of  the  life  and  image  of  God,  as  the  cause,  is, 
however,  to  be  well  understood  and  carefully  main- 
tained, or  otherwise  we  should  fall  into  a  great  error  on 
the  other  side,  as,  indeed,  some  have  done,  who  did  not 
perceive  that  the  corruption  of  man's  nature  necessarily 
tbllowed  upon  the  privation  referred  to.  It  is,  there- 
fore, a  just  remark  of  Calvin,  that  "  those  who  have 
defined  original  sin  as  a  privation  of  the  original  right- 
eousness, though  tliey  comprise  the  whole  of  the  subject, 
yet  have  not  used  language  sufiicienlly  expressive  of  its 
operation  and  influence.  For  our  nature  is  not  only 
destitute  of  all  good,  but  is  so  fertile  in  all  evils,  that  it 
cannot  remain  inactive. "(0)  Indeed,  tliis  privation  is 
not  fully  expressed  by  the  phrase  "  the  loss  of  original 
righteousness,"  unless  that  be  meant  to  include  in  it 
the  only  source  of  righteousness  in  even  the  first  man, 
the  life  which  is  imparted  and  supplied  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  A  similar  want  of  explicitness  we  observe 
also  in  Calvin's  own  statement  in  his  generally  very 
able  chapter  on  this  subject,  that  Adam  lost  "  the  or- 
naments" he  received  from  his  Maker  for  us  as  well  as 
for  himself;  unless  we  understand  by  these  original 
"  ornaments"  and  "  endowments"  of  human  nature  in 
him,  the  principle  also,  as  above  stated,  from  which 
they  all  flowed ;  and  winch,  being  forteited,  could  no 
longer  be  imparted  m  the  way  of  nature.  For  when 
the  Spirit  was  restored  to  Adam,  being  pardoned,  it  was 
by  grace  and  favour ;  and  he  could  not  impart  it  by  na- 
tural descent  to  his  posterity,  though  born  of  liim  when 
in  a  slate  of  acceptance  with  God,  since  these  influences 
are  the  gifts  of  God,  which  are  imparted  not  by  the 
first  but  by  the  second  Adam ;  not  by  nature,  but  by  a 
free  gift,  to  sinful  and  guihy  man,  the  law  being  irre. 
versible,  "  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh," 

Arminius,  in  the  above  quotation,  has  more  forcibly 
and  explicitly  expressed  that  privation  of  which  wc 
speak,  by  the  forfeiture  "  of  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit" 
by  Adam,  for  himself  and  his  descendants,  and  the 
loss  of  original  righteousness  as  the  consequence. 

This  I  take  to  be  at  once  a  simple  and  a  Scriptural 
view  of  the  case.  President  Edwards,  who  well  argues 
against  the  notion  of  the  infusion  of  evil,  perplexes  his 
subject  by  Ins  theory  of  "  natural  and  supernatural  prin- 
ciples," which  the  notes  of  Dr.  Williams,  his  editor,  who 
has  introduced  the  peculiarities  of  liis  system  of  passive 
power,  have  not  relieved.  So  far,  certainly,  both  are 
right ;  the  latter,  that  the  creature  cannot  uphold  itself, 
either  physically  or  morally,  without  God ;  the  former, 
that  our  natural  passions  and  appetites  can  only  bo 
controlled  by  the  higher  principles,  which  are  "  sum- 
marily comprehended  in  Divine  love."  But  the  power 
which  upholds  the  rational  creature  in  spiritual  life  is 
the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  the  source  of  these  controlling 
supernatural  powers,  comprehended  in  "  Divine,"  is 
also  the  Holy  Spirit ;  from  the  loss  of  which  all  the 
depravation  of  man's  nature  proceeded. 

This  point  may  be  brielly  elucidated.  The  infliction 
of  spiritual  death,  which  we  have  already  shown  to  bo 

(5)  Institutes. 


252 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  IL 


included  in  the  orieinal  sentonce,  consisted,  of  course, 
ill  tlie  loss  of  spiriiuiil  lilr,  wliiili  was  that  principle 
from  wluchall  nj;tit  ilircction  aiiiJ  control  of  tlie  various 
powers  ami  facullies  of  man  llowed.  liut  this  spiritual 
life  in  tiic  lirsl  iniin  was  not  a  natural  effect,  that  is,  an 
etTect  which  would  follow  from  his  mere  creation,  in- 
dependent of  Ihe  vouchsafed  inllucnce  of  the  Holy  .Spi- 
rit. This  may  be  inl'erred  from  the  "  new  creation,'' 
which  is  the  renewal  of  man  alter  the  image  of  him 
who  at  first  created  him.  This  is  the  work  of  the  Itoly 
.Spirit ;  but  even  al^er  this  change,  this  being  "  born 
again,"  man  is  not  able  to  preserve  himself,  in  the  re- 
newed condition  into  which  he  is  brought,  but  by  the 
continuance  of  the  same  ijuickening  and  aiding  inllu- 
cnce, No  future  growth  in  knowledge  and  experience  ; 
no  power  of  habit,  loni;  pcrs.vi'red  in,  render  him  inde- 
pendent of  the  help  <il'  I'll'  Holy  Kpirit ;  he  has  rather, 
in  proportion  to  this  uniwtli,  a  deeper  consciousness  of 
his  need  of  the  irulwelling  of  (;oil,  and  of  what  tile 
apostle  calls  his  "  mighty  working."  The  strongest 
aspiration.-j  of  this  new  life  is  after  communion  and 
constant  intercourse  with  God;  and  as  that  is  the 
source  of  new  strength,  so  this  renewed  strength  ex- 
presses itself  in  a  "  cleaving  unto  the  Lord"  with  a 
still  more  vigorous  "  purpose  of  heart."  In  a  word, 
the  sanctity  of  a  Christian  is  dependent  wholly  ujion  the 
presence  ol  the  Sanriifier.  We  can  only  work  out  our 
own  salvation  as  "  God  worketh  in  us  to  will  and  to  do." 
This  is  the  constant  language  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment ;  but  if  we  are  restored  to  what  was  lost  by 
Adam,  through  the  benefit  brought  to  us  by  tiie  second 
Adam  ;  if  there  be  any  correspondence  between  the 
moral  state  of  the  regenerate  man  and  that  of  man  be- 
fore his  fall,  we  do  not  speak  ol' degree,  but  of  .substan- 
tial sameness  of  kind  and  quality  ;  if  love  to  God  he  in 
us  what  it  was  in  him ;  if  holiness,  in  its  various 
branches,  as  it  flows  from  love,  be  in  us  what  it  was  in 
him ;  we  have  sufficient  reason  to  infer,  that  as  they 
are  supported  in  us  by  the  influence  of  the  Divhie  Spi- 
rit, they  were  so  supported  in  him.  (Certain  it  is,  that 
before  we  are  thus  (juickened  by  the  Spirit,  we  are 
"dead  in  tresjjasses  and  sins;"  and  if  we  are  made 
alive  by  that  Spirit,  it  is  a  strong  presumption  that  the 
withdrawing  of  that  Spirit  from  Adam,  when  he  wil- 
fully sinned,  and  from  all  his  posterity,  that  is,  from 
human  nature  itself,  was  the  cause  of  the  death  and  the 
depravation  which  Ibllowed. 

But  this  is  not  left  to  mere  inference.  For,  as  Mr. 
Howe  justly  observes,  when  speaking  of  "  the  retrac- 
tion of  God's  Sjiirit  from  Adam,"  "  This  we  do  not  say 
gratuitously  ;  for  do  but  consider  that  plain  te.xt,  Gal. 
iii  13,  '  Christ  hath  nMleenied  us  from  the  curse  of  the 
law,  being  mad(^  a  curse  for  us ;  for  cursed  is  every 
one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree ;  that  the  blessing  of  Abra- 
ham might  coi.ic  Ufion  us  Gentiles,  that  we  might  re- 
ceive the  i)romise  of  the  Spirit  through  faith.'  If  the 
remission  of  the  curse  carry  with  it  the  conferring  of 
the  grace  of  tlie  Spirit,  then  Ihe  curse,  while  it  did  con- 
tinue, could  not  but  include  and  carry  in  it  the  privation 
of  the  Snirit.  This  was  part  of  the  cur.se  upon  apos- 
tate Adam,  the  loss  of  God's  Spirit.  As  soon  as  Ihe 
law  was  broken,  man  was  cursed,  so  as  that  thereby 
this  Spirit  should  be  withheld,  should  be  kept  off, 
otherwise  than  as  upon  the  Redeemer's  account,  and 
according  to  his  methods  it  should  be  restored.  Here- 
upon it  could  not  but  ensue  that  the  holy  unage  of  God 
must  he  erased  and  vaiiished."(li) 

'I'his  accounts  fiir  the  whole  case  of  man's  corrup- 
tion. The  Si)irit's  mlliK^nce  in  him  did  not  i)revent  the 
possibility  of  his  sinning,  though  il  afforded  sulhciitut 
securitv  to  him,  as  long  as  he  lookeil  up  to  that  source 
of  strength,  lie  did  sin,  and  the  Spirit  retired;  and, 
the  tide  of  sin  once  turned  in,  ili<!  mound  of  resistance 
being  removed,  it  overllowiMl  Ins  whole  nature.  In  this 
stale  of  alienation  from  (iod  men  are  born,  with  all 
these  tendencies  to  evil,  bc<ause  the  only  controlling 
and  sanctifying  power,  Ihe  presence  of  the  S[iiril,  is 
wanting,  and  is  now  given  to  man,  not  as  whin  first 
brought  into  being,  as'  ^  eretUure ;  but  is  sicurcil  to 
liini  by  the  mercy  and  grace  of  a  new  and  diflcrcnt 
dispensation,  under  which  the  Spirit  is  admiiii.stired 
in  different  dcgre<«,  times,  and  modes,  according  to  the 
wisdom  of  (iod,  never  on  the  ground  of  our  being  crea- 
tures, but  as  rcdoenu^d  from  the  cur.su  of  the  law  by  him 
who  became  a  curse  for  us. 

(B)  Posthumous  Works. 


A  quest  ion,  as  to  the  transmission  of  this  corruiition 
of  nature  from  parents  to  chUdren,  has  been  debated 
among  those  who,  nevertheless,  aihnit  the  fact;  .some 
conteiiiling,  lliat  the  soul  is  ex  tradvce;  others,  that  it 
is  Ijy  inmiriliale  creation.  It  is  certain  that,  as  to  the 
metapliysicil  part  of  tlus question,  we  can  come  to  no 
salisliutory  conclusion.  The  Scriptures,  however,  ap- 
jiear  to  be  more  in  favour  of  the  iloctniie  of  traduction. 
"  Adam  begat  a  son  in  his  own  likeness."  "  That 
which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,"  which  refers  cer- 
tainly to  the  soul  as  well  as  to  the  body.  The  fact  also 
of  certain  dispositions  and  eminent  faculties  of  the  mind 
being  often  found  in  families  appears  to  favour  this  no- 
tion ;  though  it  may  be  plausibly  ssiid,  that,  as  the  mind 
operates  by  bodily  instruments,  there  may  be  a  family 
constitution  of  th<^  body,  as  there  is  of  likeness,  whicFi 
may  be  more  favouralile  to  Ihe  excitement  andexeftion 
of  certain  facullies  lliaii  others. 

The  usual  argument  against  this  traduction  of  the 
huin.tn  spirit  is,  that  the  doctrine  of  ils  generation  tends 
to  materialism.  But  this  arises  ft-om  a  mistaken  view 
of  that  in  which  the  jirocreation  of  a  human  being  lies, 
which  does  not  consist  in  the  production  out  of  nothing 
of  either  of  the  parts  of  which  the  comiiounded  being, 
man,  is  constituted,  but  in  the  uniting  them  substan- 
tially with  one  another.  The  matter  of  the  body  is  not, 
tben,  first  made,  but  disposed,  nor  can  it  be  supposed 
that  the  soul  is  by  that  act  first  produced.  That  belongs 
to  a  higher  power;  and  then  the  only  question  is, 
whether  all  souls  were  created  in  Adam,  and  are  trans- 
miit(;d  by  a  law  peculiarto  themselves,  which  is  always 
under  Ihe  control  of  the  will  of  that  same  watchful 
i'rovidence,  of  whose  constant  agency  in  the  production 
anil  nnlering  of  the  kinds,  sexes,  and  circumstances  of 
Ihe  amiiial  creation  we  have  abundant  proof;  or  whether 
they  are  immediately  created.  The  usual  objection  to 
the  last  notion  is,  that  God  cannot  create  an  evil  nature  ; 
but  if  our  corruption  is  Ihe  result  of  privation,  not  of 
jiositive  infection,  the  notion  of  the  immediale  crealioil 
of  the  sold  is  cleared  of  a  great  difliculty,  though  it  is 
not  wholly  disentangled.  But  the  tenet  of  the  soul's 
descent  apjiears  to  have  most  countenance  from  the 
language  of  Scriiiture,  and  it  is  no  small  confirmation 
of  it,  that  when  God  designed  to  incarnate  hisow-n  Son, 
he  Ktejiped  out  of  the  ordinary  course,  and  formed  a 
sinless  human  nature  immediately  by  the  jiowcr  of  Ihe 
Holy  Ghost.  The  philosophical  difficulties  which  have 
presented  themselves  to  this  ojiiiiion  appear  chiefly  to 
have  arisen  from  supposing  that  consciousness  is  an 
essential  attribute  of  spirit;  and  that  the  soul  is  na- 
tiiraUy  immortal ;  the  former  of  which  cannot  be  jiroved, 
while  the  latter  is  contradicted  by  Scripture,  which 
makes  our  iminorlality  a  gill  dependent  on  the  will  of 
the  giver.  Other  difliculties  have  arisen  for  want  of 
considering  the  constant  agency  of  God  in  regulating 
the  ])roduction  of  all  things,  and  of  rational  accountable 
creatures  especially. 

But  whicliever  of  these  views  is  adopted,  the  soul 
and  Ihe  body  are  united  before  birth,  and  man  is  born 
under  that  curse  of  the  law  which  has  deprived  fallen 
human  nature  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  who  can  only  be 
restored  by  Christ.  It  is,  therefore,  well  and  forcibly 
said  by  Calvin, — "to  enable  us  to  understand  this  sub- 
ject (man's  birth  in  sin),  w»e  have  no  need  to  enter  on 
that  tedious  dispute,  with  which  llie  falhers  were  not  a 
lillle  perplexed,  whether  Ihe  soni  proceeds  by  derivation. 
We  oughl  to  lie  satisfied  with  this,  that  the  Lord  ilepo- 
siled  with  Adam  the  eiidownienls  he  chose  to  confer 
upon  human  nature  ;  and  thcnlore,  that  when  he  lost 
Ihe  favours  he  had  received,  he  lost  Iheni  not  only  lor 
himself,  but  for  us  all.  Who  will  he  solicitous  about  a 
transmission  of  the  soul,  when  he  hears,  that  Adam  re- 
ceived the  ornaments  that  he  lost  no  less  for  us  than  for 
himself?  that  they  were  given,  not  to  one  man  only,  but 
to  the  whole  human  nature  .'  There  is  nothing  absurd, 
therefore,  if,  in  consequence  of  his  being  spoiled  of  his 
dignities,  that  nature  be  now  destitute  and  poor."(") 

From  this  view  of  the  total  alienation  of  the  naluro 
of  man  from  (ion,  it  does  not,  however,  follow,  that 
there  should  be  nothing  virtuous  and  praiseworihy 
among  miMi  until,  in  the  proper  sense,  they  become  Iho 
subjects  of  thercL'cneralion  insisted  njionin  theilospcl 
as  necessary  to  qualify  men  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
I'roni  the  virtues  which  have  existed  among  heathens, 
and  from  men  being  called  uiion  to  repent  and  believo 

(7)  Institutes. 


Chap.  XVIIL] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


253 


the  Gospel,  it  Uaa  been  ari^ued  that  human  nature  is  not 
so  entirely  corrupt  and  disabled  as  the  above  repre- 
sentation would  suppose ;  and,  indeed,  on  the  Calvinistic 
theory,  which  denies  that  all  men  are  interested  in  the 
benefits  procured  by  the  death  of  Christ,  it  would  be 
extremely  difficult  for  any  to  meet  this  objection,  and  to 
iriaintain  their  own  views  of  the  corruption  of  man  with 
consistency.  On  the  contrary  theory  of  God's  universal 
love  nothing  is  more  easy  ;  because,  in  consequence  of 
the  atonement  olfered  for  all,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  adminis- 
tered to  all,  and  to  liis  secret  operations  all  that  is  really 
spintual  and  tiood,  in  its  principle,  is  to  be  ascrilied. 

Independent  of  tliis  influence,  indeed,  it  may  be  con- 
ceived that  there  may  be  much  restraint  of  evil,  and 
many  acts  of  external  goodness  in  the  world,  without  at 
all  impugning  the  doctrine  of  an  entire  estrangement  of 
the  heart  from  God,  and  a  moral  death  in  trespasses 
and  sins. 

1.  The  understanding  of  man  is,  by  its  nature, 
adapted  to  perceive  the  evidence  of  demonstrated  truth, 
and  has  no  means  of  avoiding  the  conviction  but  by 
turning  away  the  attention.  Wherever,  then,  revela- 
tions of  the  Divine  law,  or  traditional  remembrances  of 
it,  are  found,  notions  of  right  and  wrong  have  been  and 
must  be  found  also. 

2.  So  mucli  of  what  is  right  and  wrong  is  connected 
with  the  i)iterests  of  men,  that  they  have  been  led  pub- 
licly to  approve  what  is  right  in  all  instances,  in  all  in- 
stances where  it  is  obviously  beneficial  to  society,  and 
to  disapprove  of  wrong.  They  do  this  by  public  laws, 
by  their  writings,  and  by  their  censures  of  offenders. 
Amoral  standard  of  judging  of  vice  and  virtue  has, 
therefore,  been  found  every  where,  though  varying  in 
degree ;  which  men  have  generally  honestly  applied  to 
others  in  passing  a  judgment  on  their  characters,  though 
they  have  not  used  the  same  fidelity  to  theiiiselves. 
More  or  less,  therefore,  the  practice  of  what  is  con- 
demned as  vice  or  approved  as  virtue  is  shameful  or 
creditable,  and  the  interests  and  reputation  of  men  re- 
quire that  they  obtain  what  is  called  a  cimracter,  and 
preserve  it ;  a  circumstance  which  often  serves  to  re- 
strain vicious  practices,  and  to  produce  a  negative 
virtue,  or  an  aflfectation  of  real  and  active  virtue. 

3.  Though  the  seeds  of  sin  lie  hid  in  the  heart  of  all, 
yet  their  full  developement  and  manifestation  in  action 
can  only  take  place  slowly  and  by  the  operation  of  ex- 
citing circumstances.  Much  of  the  evil  in  the  world, 
also,  lies  in  the  irregularities  of  those  natural  appetites 
and  the  excesses  of  those  passions  which  are  not  in 
themselves  evil,  and  such  corrupt  habits  cannot  be 
formed  until  after  opportunities  of  frequent  indulgence 
have  been  given.  This  will  account  for  the  comparative 
innocence  of  infancj-,  of  youth,  and  of  those  around 
whom  many  guards  have  been  tlu-own  by  providential 
arrangement. 

4.  We  may  notice,  also,  that  it  is  not  possible,  were 
all  men  equally  constituted  as  to  their  moral  nature, 
that  all  sins  should  show  themselves  in  all  men  ;  and 
that  although  there  is  nothing,  in  the  proper  sense,  good 
in  any,  that  society  should  present  an  unvarying  mass 
of  corruption,  which  some  appear  to  think  a  necessary 
corollary  from  the  doctrine  of  the  universal  corruption 
of  human  nature.  Avarice,  the  strong  desire  of  getting 
and  of  hoarding  wealth,  necessarily  restrains  from  ex- 
pensive vices.  An  obsequious  and  a  tyrannical  temper 
cannot  coexist  in  the  same  circumstances,  and  yet,  in 
other  circumstances,  the  obsequious  man  is  often  found 
to  be  tyrannical,  and  the  latter  obsequious.  Certain 
events  excite  a  latent  passion,  such  as  ambition,  and  it 
becomes  a  master-passion,  to  which  all  others  are  sub- 
ordinated, and  even  vicious  dispositions  and  habits  con- 
trolled in  order  to  success:  just  on  the  same  principle 
that  the  ancient  athletse(8)  and  our  modern  prize-fighters 
abstain  from  sensual  indulgenci>s,  in  order  to  qualify 
themselves  for  the  combat ;  but  who  show,  by  the  habits 
in  which  they  usually  live,  that  jiarlicular  vices  are  sus- 
pended only  under  the  influence  of  a  stronger  pnssion. 
Perhaps,  too,  that  love  of  counlry,  that  passion  lor  its 
glory  and  aggrandizement,  which  produced  so  many 
splendid  actions  and  characters  among  the  Greeks  and 
Romans,  a  circumstance  wliich  has  been  urged  against 
the  doctrine  of  man's  depravity,  may  come  under  this 
rule.    That  it  was  not  itself  the  result  of  a  virtuous 

(8)  "  Qui  studet  optatam  cursu  contingere  mctam, 
Multa  tulit  fecitque  puer ;  sndavit  et  alsit ; 
Abstinuit  vcnere,  et  vino." — IIouAct. 


state  of  mind  in,  at  least,  the  majority  of  cases,  is  clear 
from  the  frauds,  injustice,  oppressions,  (•ruclties,  and 
avarice  with  which  it  was  generally  connected. 

5.  It  is  a  fact,  too,  which  cannot  be  denied,  that  men 
have  constitutional  evil  tendencies,  some  more  power- 
fully bent  to  one  vice,  some  to  another.  Whether  it 
results  from  a  different  constitution  of  the  mind  that 
the  general  corruption  should  act  more  powerfully  in 
one  direction  in  this  man,  and  in  another  in  that;  or  from 
the  temperament  of  the  body ;  or  from  some  law  im- 
pressed by  God  upon  a  sinful  nature  (which  it  involves 
no  difficulty  to  admit,  inasmuch  as  society  could  scarcely 
have  existed  without  that  balance  of  evils  and  that 
check  of  one  vice  upon  another  which  this  circumstance 
jiroduces), — such  is  the  fact ;  and  it  gives  a  reason  tor 
the  existence  of  much  negative  virtue  in  society. 

From  all  these  causes,  apjiearances  of  good  among 
unregenerate  men  will  present  themselves,  without 
affording  any  ground  to  deduct  any  thing  from  those 
statements  as  to  man's  fallen  state  which  have  been 
just  made  ;  but  these  negative  virtues,  and  these  imita- 
tions of  actions  really  good  from  interest,  ambition,  or 
honour,  have  no  foundation  in  the  fear  of  God,  in  a  love 
to  virtue  as  such,  in  a  right  will,  or  in  spiritual  affections ; 
and  they  afford,  therefore,  no  evidence  of  spiritual  lifie, 
or,  in  other  words,  of  religious  principle.  To  other 
vices,  to  which  there  is  any  temptation,  and  to  those 
now  avoided,  whenever  the  temptation  comes,  men  uni- 
formly yield ;  and  this  shows,  that  though  the  common 
corruption  varies  its  aspects,  it  is,  nevertheless,  unre- 
lieved by  a  real  virtuous  principle  in  any,  so  far  as  they 
are  left  to  tliemselvgSM/^ 

But  virtues  groiijBHion  principle,  though  an  imper- 
fect one,  and  therera^neither  negative  nor  simulated, 
may  also  be  found  among  the  unregenerate,  and  have 
existed,  doubtless,  in  all  ages.  These ,  however,  arc 
not  from  man,  but  from  God,  whose  Holy  Spirit  has 
been  vouchsafed  to  "  the  irorhi,"  through  the  atone- 
ment. This  great  truth  has  often  been  lost  sight  of  in 
this  controversy.  Some  Calvinists  seem  to  acknow- 
ledge it  substantially,  under  the  name  of  "  common 
grace  ;"  others  choose  rather  to  refer  all  appearances 
of  virtue  to  nature,  and  thus,  by  attempting  to  avoid 
the  doctrine  of  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  to  all  mankind,  at- 
tribute to  nature  what  is  inconsistent  with  their  opinion 
of  its  entire  corruption.  But  there  is,  doubtless,  to  be 
sometimes  found  in  men  not  yet  regenerate  in  the 
Scripture  sense,  not  even  decided  in  their  choice,  some- 
thing of  moral  excellence,  which  cannot  be  referred  to 
anv  of  the  causes  above  adduced ;  and  of  a  much 
higher  character  than  is  to  be  attributed  to  a  nature 
which,  when  left  to  itself,  is  wholly  destitute  of  spi- 
ritual life.  Compunction  for  sin,  strong  desires  to  be 
freed  from  its  tyranny,  such  a  fear  of  God  as  preserves 
them  from  many  evils,  chanty,  kindness,  good  neigh- 
bourhood, general  respect  for  goodness  and  good  men, 
a  lofty  sen.se  of  honour  and  justice,  and,  indeed,  as  the 
very  command  issued  to  them  to  repent  and  believe 
the  Gospel  in  order  to  their  salvation  inii)lie»,  a  power 
of  consideration,  prayer,  and  turning  to  God,  so  as  to 
commence  that  course  which,  persevered  in,  would 
lead  on  to  forgiveness  and  regeneration.  To  say  that 
all  these  are  to  be  attributed  to  mere  nature,  is  to  sur- 
render the  argument  to  the  semi-Velagian,  who  con- 
tends that  these  are  proofs  that  man  is  not  wholly  de- 
generate. They  are  to  be  attributed  to  the  controlling 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  to  his  incipient  workings 
in  the  hearts  of  men ;  to  the  warfare  which  he  tlierc 
maintains,  and  which  has  sometimes  a  partial  victory, 
before  the  final  triumph  comes,  or  when,  through  the 
fault  of  man,  through  "resisting,"'" grieving,"  "vex- 
ing," "quenching"  that  Holy  Spirit,  that  final  triunij)h 
may  never  come.  It  is  thus  that  one  part  of  Scripture 
is  reconciled  to  another,  and  both  to  fact ;  the  declara- 
tion of  man's  total  corruption,  with  the  presumption 
of  his  power  to  return  to  God,  to  repent,  to  break  off 
his  sins,  which  all  the  commands  and  invitations  to 
him  from  the  Gospel  imply  :  and  thus  it  is  that  we 
understand  how,  especially  in  Christian  countries, 
where  the  Spirit  is  more  largely  effused,  there  is  so 
much  more  general  virtue  than  in  others  ;  and  in  those 
circles,  especially,  in  which  Christian  education,  and 
the  prayers  of  the  pious,  and  the  power  of  example 
are  applied  and  exnibiled. 

The  Scriptural  proof  that  the  Spirit  is  given  to  "  the 
ivorld"  is  obvious  and  dc-cisive,  We  have  seen  that 
the  curse  of  the  law  implied  a  denial  of  the  Spirit ;  the 


254 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Paut  n. 


removal  of  that  curse  implies,  therefore,  the  gift  of  the 
Kpirit,  and  the  benefit  must  bo  as  lartjc  and  extensive 
as  the  atonement.  Hence  we  find  the  Spirit's  opera- 
tions spoken  of,  not  only  as  lo  the  t^oot],  but  tlie  wirked, 
in  all  the  three  dispensations.  In  tlic  patriarchal,  "  the 
Spirit  strove  with  men  ;"  with  the  antecUluvian  race, 
hel'ore  and  all  the  lime  the  ark  was  preparing.  The 
Jews  in  the  wilderness  are  said  lo  have  "ve.xed  his 
Holy  Spirit ;"  Christ  promises  to  send  the  Spirit  to 
convince  the  world  of  sin;  and  the  book  of  God's  Re- 
velations concludes  by  rej)rcsenting  the  Spirit  as  well 
as  the  Bride,  the  Holy  Ghost  as  wi;[l  as  the  Church  in 
her  ordinances,  inviting  all  to  coine  and  take  of  the 
water  of  life  freely.  All  this  is  the  fruit  of  our  re- 
demption and  the  new  relation  in  which  man  is  placed 
tot.'od;  as  a  sinner,  it  is  true,  still ;  but  a  sinner  for 
whom  atonement  has  been  made,  and  who  is  to  be 
wooed  and  won  to  an  accejitancc  of  the  heavenly 
mercy.  Christ  having  been  made  a  ciu^se  for  us,  the 
curse  of  the  law  no  longer  shuts  out  that  Spirit  from 
us ;  nor  can  justice  e.xclaim  against  this  going  Ibrlh 
of  the  Spirit,  as  it  has  been  beautifully  expressed,  "  to 
make  gentle  trials  upon  the  spirits  ot  men ;"  to  inject 
some  beams  of  light,  lo  inspire  contntc  emotions, 
which,  if  they  comply  with,  may  lead  on  to  those 
more  powerful  and  ellectual.  If,  however,  they  rebel 
against  tliom,  and  oppose  their  sensual  imaginations 
and  desires  to  the  secret  promptings  of  God"s  Spirit, 
they  ultimately  provoke  him  to  withdraw  his  aid,  and 
they  relapse  into  a  state  more  guilty  and  dangerous. 
Again  and  again  they  are  visited  in  various  ways,  in 
honour  of  the  Redeemer's  atonement,  and  for  the  mani- 
festation of  the  long-sufTering  of  God.  In  some  tlie 
issue  is  life;  in  others,  an  aggravated  death;  but  in 
most  cases  this  struggle,  this  "  striving  with  irian," 
this  debating  with  him,  this  standing  between  him  and 
death,  cannot  fail  to  correct  and  jirevent  much  evil,  to 
bring  into  existence  some  "goodness,"  though  it  may 
bo  as  the  morning  cloud  and  the  early  dew,  and  to  pro- 
duce civil  and  social  virtues,  none  of  which,  however, 
are  to  be  placed  to  the  account  of  nature,  nor  used  lo 
soften  our  views  of  its  entire  alienation  from  God  ;  but 
are  to  be  acknowledged  as  magnifying  that  grace  wliicli 
regards  the  whole  of  the  sinning  race  with  comjias- 
sioii,  and  is  ever  employed  in  seeking  and  saving  that 
which  is  lost. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 
Redumption.— Principles  of  God's  Moral  Govern- 

ME.NT. 

'  Wk  have  established  it  as  the  doctrine  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture, that  all  men  are  born  with  a  corrupted  nature, 
and  that  from  this  nature  rebellion  against  the  Divine 
authority  universally  Hows,  and  that,  in  consequence, 
the  whole  world  is,  as  St.  Paul  forcibly  expresses  it, 
"  guilty  before  God." 

Before  any  issue  proceeded  from  the  first  pair,  they 
were  restored  to  the  Divine  favour.  Had  no  method 
of  forgiveness  and  restoration  been  established  with 
respect  to  human  ollenders,  the  penalty  of  death  must 
have  been  forthwith  e.xeciited  upon  tlu-m,  there  being 
no  doubt  of  the  fact  of  their  diliiiqnency,  and  no  rea- 
aon,  in  that  case,  for  delaying  ihiir  punishment;  and 
with  and  in  them  the  human  nice  must  have  utterly 
perished.  The  covenant  of  pardon  and  salvation 
which  was  made  with  Adam,  did  not,  however,  termi- 
nate upon  him;  but  comprehendeil  all  his  race.  This 
IS  a  point  made  indubitabU^  by  those  passages  we  have 
already  quoted  from  the  apusile  Paul,  in  which  he  con- 
trasts the  injury  which  the  human  race  have  received 
from  the  disobedience  of  Adam,  with  the  benelH 
brought  to  them  by  the  obedience  of  .Tesus  Christ. 
"  For  if,  through  the  offence  of  one  many  be  dead, 
much  more  the  grace  of  God,  and  the  gill  by  grace, 
which  is  by  one  man,  Jesus  Christ,  hath  al)oiinde(l 
unto  many." — "  Therefore,  as  by  the  olTem-e  of  one 
judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation;  even 
so  by  the  rigliteousne«s  of  one  the  free  gill  came  upon 
all  men  unio  justification  of  life." 

Since,  then,  the  penalty  of  death  was  not  imme- 
diately executed  in  all  its  e.vtcnl  U|(on  the  hrst  siimiiig 
pair,  and  iu  not  immediately  executed  upon  their  sin- 
ning descendants ;  since  they  were  actually  restored 
lo  the  Divine  favour,  and  the  sanio  blessing  is  oll'erud 


to  us,  our  inquiries  must  next  be  directed  to  the  nature 
and  reason  of  that  change  in  the  conduct  of  the  Divine 
Being,  in  which  he  lays  aside,  in  so  great  a  measure, 
the  sternness  and  inllexibility  of  his  office  as  Judge, 
and  becomes  the  dispenser  of  grace  and  favour  to  ihe 
guilty  themselves. 

The  existimce  of  a  Divine  Law,  obligatory  upon  man, 
is  uol  doubti'd  by  any  who  admit  the  existence  and  go- 
vernment of  God.  We  have  already  seen  its  require- 
ments, its  extent,  and  its  sanctions,  and  have  proved 
that  its  penalty  consists  not  merely  of  severe  sufferings 
in  tins  life;  hut  in  death,  itiat  is,  the  separation  of  the 
body  and  the  soul, — the  former  being  lell  under  the 
power  of  corruption,  llic  oilier  being  separated  from 
God,  and  made  liable  to  punishment  in  another  state 
of  being. 

It  is  important  to  keep  in  view  the  fact  of  the  extent 
and  severity  of  the  punishment  denounced  against  all 
transgressions  of  the  law  of  Gon,  because  tliis  is  illus- 
trative of  the  character  of  God ;  both  with  reference 
to  his  essential  holiness  and  to  his  proceedings  as  Go- 
vernor of  the  world.  The  miseries  connected  with  sin, 
as  consequences  affecting  the  transgressor  himself  and 
society,  and  the  alllietions,  personal  and  national, 
which  are  the  results  of  Divine  visUation,  must  all  be 
regarded  as  jninilive.  Corrective  effects  may  be  se- 
condarily connected  with  them,  but  primarily,  they 
must  all  be  punitive.  It  would  be  abhorrent  to  all  our 
notions  of  the  Divine  character,  to  suppose  perfectly 
innocent  beings  subject  to  such  miseries ;  and  they 
are  only,  therefore,  to  be  accounted  for  on  the 
ground  of  their  being  the  results  of  a  supreme  judicial 
administration,  which  bears  a  strict,  and  often  a  very 
terrible  character.  If,  to  the  sufferings  and  death 
which  result  from  offences  in  the  present  life,  we  add 
the  future  punishment  of  the  wicked,  we  shall  be  the 
more  impressed  with  the  depth  and  breadth  of  that  im- 
press of  justice  which  marks  the  character  and  tho 
government  of  God.  Say  that  this  punishment  is  that 
of  toss,  loss  of  the  friendship  and  jiresence  of  God,  and 
all  the  advantages  which  must  result  from  that  imme- 
(Uate  intercourse  with  him  wliich  is  promised  to 
righteous  persons ;  and  that  this  loss,  which,  confess- 
edly, must  be  unspeakably  great,  is  eternal ;  even  then 
it  must  follow  thai  the  turpitude  of  moral  delinquency 
is  regarded  by  our  Divine  Legislator  and  Judge  as  ex- 
ceedingly mighty  and  aggravateil.  But  when  to  the 
punishment  of  loss  in  a  Ihture  life,  we  add  that  of  pain, 
which  all  the  representations  of  this  subject  in  Scrip- 
ture certainly  establish,  whether  they  are  held  to  be 
expressed  in  literal  or  in  figurative  phrase ;  to  which 
pain  also  the  all  impressive  circumstance  of  eternity 
is  to  bo  added ;  then  is  our  sense  of  the  guilt  and  de- 
serving of  human  offence  against  God,  according  to 
the  principles  of  the  Divine  law,  raised,  if  not  to  a  full 
conception  of  the  evil  of  sin  (for  as  we  cannot  measure 
the  puni.shnient  we  cannot  measure  the  quality  of  the 
ollcnce),  yet  to  a  standard  of  judging,  which  may  well 
warrant  the  Scriptural  exclamation,  "  it  is  a  fcarfUl 
thing  to  fall  into  tne  hands  ol'  the  living  God." 

These  jiremises  are  unqueslionable,  if  any  respect  is 
paid  to  the  authority  of  Scripture,  and,  indeed,  God's 
severity  against  moral  offence  is  manifested,  as  to  this 
present  life,  by  facts  of  uiuversiil  observation  and  unin- 
terruiited  history,  quite  iiiilipciiiliiii  of  Scripture.  Hut 
it  is  to  the  testimony  of  Cod  liiinsc  If,  in  his  own  wonl, 
that  we  must  resort  for  the  most  miiiortant  illustrations 
of  the  Divine  character,  and  especially  of  its  Holinkss 
and  Justice. 

With  respect  to  the  former,  they  show  us  that  Holi- 
ness in  t;od  is  more  than  a  mere  absence  of  moral  evil ; 
more  than  ajiproval  and  even  delight  in  moral  good- 
ness; more  than  simple  aversion  and  displeasure  at 
what  is  contrary  to  it.  They  prove  that  the  holiness 
of  God  is  so  intense,  that  whatever  is  ojiposcd  to  it  is 
the  object  of  an  active  lUsplacencc,  of  hatr.d.ol  opposi- 
tion, and  rcsLstance,  and  that  this  sentiment  is  mllexi- 
ble  and  eternal.  Agreeably  to  this,  Oon  is.  in  Scrip- 
ture, said  to  be  "  of  purer  eyes  than  to  behold  iniquity" 
—and  we  are  tanjjlit  that  "  the  thoughts  of  the  wicked 
are  an  abomni:ition"  to  him. 

With  respect  to  the  Justuk  of  God,  it  is  necessary 
that  we  should  enter  into  a  larger  view,  since  a  right 
coiic,i:|ition  of  that  attribute  of  {\w.  Divine  nature  lies  at 
the  foundation  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  atonement. 

Jusliee  is  usu.Uly  considereil  as  univcrsiil  or  particu- 
lar.   Universal  justice  or  righteousness  includcB  holi- 


Chap.  XIX.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


255 


ness,  anJ,  indeed,  comprLhcnds  all  the  moral  attributes 
of  (toll,  all  the  Divine  virtiiis  of  every  kind.  Particulur 
justice  is  either  commutaticc,  which  resjiects  ecjuals  ; 
or  distributive,  which  is  the  dispensintr  of  rewards  and 
punishnients,  and  is  exercised  only  by  governors.  It 
is  the  justice  of  God  in  this  last  view,  but  still  in  con- 
nexiori  with  universal  justice,  with  which  we  are  now 
concerned  ;  that  mctoral  s(rvircisiiju~-'iict'  by  which  he 
maintains  his  own  rights,  and  the  rights  of  others,  and 
gives  to  every  one  his  due  accordini;  to  that  leyal  con- 
stitution which  he  has  himself  establislied.  And  a.s 
this  legal  constitution,  under  which  he  has  placed  his 
creatures,  is  the  result  of  universal  justice  or  righteous- 
ness, the  holiness,  goodness,  truth,  and  wisdom  of  G'od 
united ;  so  his  distributive  justice,  or  his  respect  to  the 
laws  wliich  he  has  himself  established,  is,  in  every 
respect  and  degree,  faultless  and  perfect.  In  this  legal 
constitution  no  rights  are  inislaken  or  misstated ;  and 
nothing  is  enjoined  or  prohibited,  nothing  proiiused  or 
tlireatened  but  what  is  exactly  conformable  to  the  uni- 
versal righteousness  or  absolute  moral  perfi;ction  of 
God.  This  is  the  constant  doctrine  of  Scripture ;  tliis 
the  uniform  praise  bestowed  upon  the  Divine  law,  that 
it  is.  in  every  respect,  conformable  to  abstract  truth, 
purity,  holiness,  and  justice,  and  is  itself  truth,  purity, 
holiness,  and  justice.  "  The  statutes  of  the  Lord  are 
iiioHT,  rejoicing  the  heart ;  the  commandment  of  the 
Lord  is  pure,  enlightening  the  eyes ;  the  fear  of  the 
Lord  is  clean,  enduring  tor  ever;  the  judgments  of 
the  Lord  are  true  and  RtGHTKOus  altogether."  I'.salin 
xLx.  8,  9.  "  The  law  is  holy,  and  the  commandment 
HOLY,  JUST,  and  good."    Rom.  vii.  12. 

Of  the  strictness  and  severity  of  the  punitive  justice 
of  God,  the  sentence  of  death,  which  we  have  already 
seen  to  be  pronounced  upon  "  sin,"  and,  therefore,  upon 
all  transgressions  of  God's  law,  lor  "  sin  is  the  trans- 
gression of  the  law,"  is  sufficient  evidence  ;  and  the 
actual  infliction  of  death,  as  to  the  body,  is  the  standing 
proof  to  the  world,  that  the  threatening  is  not  a  dead 
letter,  and  that  in  the  Divine  administration  continual 
and  strict  regard  is  had  to  the  claims  and  disi)ensations 
of  distributive  justice.  On  the  other  hand,  as  this  di.s- 
tributive  justice  emanates  from  the  entire  holiness  and 
moral  rectitude  of  the  Divine  nature,  it  is  established, 
by  this  circumstance,  that  the  severity  does  not  go  be- 
yond the  equity  ot  the  case  ;  and  that,  to  the  full  extent 
of  that  punislunent  which  may  be  inflicted  in  another 
life,  and  which  is,  therefore,  eternal,  there  is  nothing 
which  is  contrary  to  the  full  and  complete  moral  per- 
fection of  God,  to  his  goodness,  holiness,  truth,  and 
justice  united ;  but  that  it  is  fully  agreeable  to  them 
all,  and  is,  indeed,  the  result  of  the  perfect  existence  of 
such  attributes  in  the  Divine  nature. 

The  Scriptures,  therefore,  are  frequently  exceedingly 
emphatic  in  ascribing  a  perfect  rishtcnvsness  to  the 
judicial  and  penal  visitations  of  sinful  individuals  and 
nations ;  and  that  not  merely  with  reference  to  such 
visitations  being  confoniiable  to  the  penalties  threat- 
ened in  the  Divine  law  itself,  in  which  case  the 
righteousness  would  consist  in  their  not  exceeding  the 
penalty  threatened;  but,  more  abstractedly  considered, 
in  their  very  nature,  and  with  reference  to  even'  the 
highest  standard  of  nqhtemisness  and  holiness.  ''  Shall 
not  the  Judge  of  the  whole  earth  do  right  1"  "  It  is  a 
RIGHTEOUS  THING  \vith  God  to  uiscoMPENSE  tribula- 
tion to  them  that  trouble  you."  2  Thcss.  i.  6.  "  The 
day  of  wrath  and  revelation  of  the  righteous  .judg- 
ment of  God."  Rom.  ii.  5.  "  Even  so,  Lord  God 
AliTughty,  TRUE  and  righteous  are  thy  judgments." 
Rev.  xvi.  7. 

The  legal  constitution,  then,  which  we  are  under, 
secures  life  to  the  obe(Uent,  but  dooms  offenders  to  die. 
It  is  the  office  of  distributive  justice  to  execute  this 
penalty,  as  well  as  to  bestow  the  reward  of  obedience  ; 
and  the  appointment  of  the  penalty  and  the  execution 
of  it  are  both  the  restdts  of  the  essential  rectitude  of 
God. 

This  is  most  obvious  as  the  doctrine  of  Scripture ; 
but  have  we  any  means  of  discerning  the  connexion 
between  the  essential  justice  or  universal  righteou.s- 
ncss  of  God,  and  such  a  constitution  of  law  and  govern- 
ment as,  in  the  first  instance,  ordains  so  severe  a 
penalty  against  sin  as  death,  muinlaiMs  it  uniliangeably 
through  all  the  generations  of  time,  and  carries  ii  into 
eternity  ?  This  is  an  important  question,  not  without 
its  (hfficulties,  and  yet  it  may  not  altogether  elude  our 
iuijuirits.    Whether  we  succeed  or  not  iii  discovering 


this  connexion,  the  fact  remain."?  the  same,  firmly 
grounded  on  the  most  explicit  testimony  of  God  in  his 
own  word.  It  is,  however,  an  inquiry  worthy  our 
attention. 

The  creation  of  beings  capable  of  choice,  and  en- 
dowed with  affections,  seeins  necessarily  to  have  in- 
volved the  possibility  of  volitions  and  acts  contrary  to 
the  will  of  the  Creator,  and,  conse()uently,  it  involved 
a  liability  to  misery.  To  iireveiit  this,  bolli  justice  and 
lionevolence  were  concerned.  Justice,  seeing  that  the 
Creator  has  an  absolute  right  to  the  entire  obedience  of 
the  creatures  he  has  made,  and  all  opposition  to  that 
will  is  the  violation  of  a  right,  and  the  practice  of  a 
tvrong,  which  justice  is  bound  to  prevent,  lienevolence, 
because  this  opposition  to  the  wUl  of  God,  which  will 
is  the  natural  law  of  a  creature,  must  be  the  source  of 
misery  to  the  offender,  and  that  independent  of  direct 
punishment.  This  is  manifest.  Some  end  was  pro- 
posed in  creation,  or  it  could  not  have  been  a  work 
of  wisdom ;  the  felicity  of  the  creature  must  also  have 
been  propo.sed  as  an  end,  either  principal  or  subordi- 
nate, or  creation  could  not  have  been  a  (lisplay  of  good- 
ness ;  a  capacity  and  power  of  holiness  must  also  have 
been  imparted  to  moral  agents,  or,  in  a  moral  nature, 
every  act  would  have  been  morally  corrupt,  and  there- 
lore,  the  creature  must  have  been  constantly  displeasing 
to  the  holy  God,  and  not  "  very  good,"  as  all  his  works, 
including  man,  were  jironounced  to  be  at  the  beginning. 
The  end  proposed  inthefbrmingof  intelligent  creatures 
could  only  be  answered  by  their  continual  compliance 
with  the  will  of  God.  This  implied  both  the  power  and 
the  exercise  of  holiness,  and  with  that  the  felicity  of 
the  creature  was  necessarily  connected.  It  was  adapted 
to  a  certain  end,  and  in  attaining  that  its  happiness  was 
secured.  To  be  disobedient  was  to  set  itself  in  opposi- 
tion to  God,  to  exist  and  act  for  ends  contrary  to  the 
wisdom  and  holiness  of  God,  and  was,  therefore,  to 
frustrate  his  benevolent  intentions  also  as  to  its  happi- 
ness, and  to  become  miserable  from  its  very  hostility 
to  God,  and  the  disorder  arising  from  the  misapplica- 
tion of  the  powers  with  which  it  had  been  etidowed. 
To  prevent  all  these  evils,  and  to  secure  the  purposes 
for  wliich  creative  power  was  exerted,  were  the  ends, 
therefore,  of  that  adii.inistration  which  arose  out  of  the 
existence  of  moral  agents.  This  rule  takes  date  from 
their  earliest  being.  No  sooner  did  they  exist,  than  a 
Divine  government  was  established  over  them  ;  and  to 
the  ends  just  mentioned  all  its  acts  must  have  been 
directed. 

The  first  act  was  the  pubUcation  of  the  will  or  law 
of  God,  for  where  there  is  no  declared  law  there  is  no 
rational  government.  The  second  act  was  to  give 
motives  to  obedience,  for  to  creatures  liable  to  evil, 
though  created  good,  these  were  necessary ;  but  as 
they  were  made  free  and  designed  to  yield  a  loilling 
service,  more  than  motives,  that  is,  rational  induce- 
ments, operating  through  the  judgment  and  affections, 
could  not  be  applied  to  induce  obedience : — external 
Ibrce  or  necessary  impulse  could  have  no  place  in  the 
government  of  such  creatures.  The  promise  of  the 
continuance  of  a  happy  and  still  improving  lile  com- 
prehended one  class  of  motives  to  obedience ;  the  real 
justice  of  yielding  obedience  another.  But  was  no 
motive  arising  from  fear  also  to  be  applied  ?  There 
was  much  to  be  feared  from  the  very  nature  of  things ; 
from  the  misery  which,  in  the  way  of  natural  and  ne- 
cessary consequence  alone,  must  follow  from  opposi- 
tion to  the  will  of  God,  and  the  wilfid  corrupting  of  a 
nature  created  upright.  Now,  since  this  was  what  the 
creature  was  liable  to,  the  administration  of  the  Divine 
government  would  have  been  obviously  defective,  had 
this  been  concealed  by  Him,  who  had  himself  established 
that  natiu'al  order,  by  which  disobedience  to  the  will 
of  God,  in  a  moral  being,  should  be  followed  by  certain 
misery,  and  he  would  apparently  have  been  chargeable 
with  not  having  used  every  means,  consistent  with  free 
agency,  to  prevent  so  fatal  a  result.  So  far  we  conceive 
that  this  is  indubitable. 

But  now  let  us  suppose  that  nothing  less  than  a  posi- 
tive penalty,  of  the  most  tremendous  kind,  could  be 
a  sufficient  motive  to  deter  these  free  and  rational 
beings  from  transgression ;  that,  even  that  threatened 
penalty  itself,  though  the  greatest  possible  evil,  would 
not,  in  all  cases,  be  sufficient ;  but  that,  in  none  a  less 
powerful  motive  would  prove  sufficiently  cautionary ; 
then,  hi  such  circumstances,  the  moral  perfection  of 
the  Divine  nature,  his  universal  rectitude  and  bcncvo- 


256 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


Icncc,  would  undoubtedly  require  the  ordination  of  that 
penalty,  however  troinciidous.  The  cuse  niif.'hi  be  a 
choice  between  the  universal  disobedience  of  all,  and 
Iheir  being  lell  to  the  miseries  which  follow  from  sin 
by  natural  consequence;  and  the  preservation  of  some, 
jierhaps  the  majority,  though  the  guilty  remainder 
should  not  only  be  punished  by  the  misery  which  is 
the  natural  result  of  vice ;  but,  in  addition,  should  be 
subject  to  that  positive  penalty  of  death,  which,  as  to 
the  soul,  runs  on  with  immortality,  and  is,  therefore, 
eternal. 

On  such  an  alternative  as  this,  which  may  surely  be 
conceived  possible,  and  which  contradicts  no  attribute 
of  (;od,  does  the  essential  justice  or  rectitude  of  the 
Divine  nature  demand  that  such  a  penalty  should  be 
adopted  !  The  afBrinaliveof  this  question  will  be  sup- 
ported, I  think,  by  the  Ibllowiiig  considerations : — 

1.  The  holiness  of  God,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  is 
so  intense  as  to  abhor  and  detest  every  kind  and  degree 
of  moral  evil,  would,  from  its  very  nature,  its  active 
and  irreconcilable  ojijiosition  to  evil,  determine  to  the 
adoption  of  the  most  eirectual  means  of  preventing  its 
introduction  among  the  ralioiial  beings  which  should  be 
created,  and,  vvlieii  introduced,  of  checking  and  limiting 
its  progress.  So  ttiat,  in  proportion  to  that  aversion, 
must  be  his  propension  to  adopt  the  most  effectual 
means  to  deter  his  creatures  from  it ;  and  if  nothing 
less  than  such  a  penalty  could  be  effectual,  even  in  the 
majority  of  cases,  then  it  resulted  iieces-sarily,  from  the 
holiness  of  Gun,  that  the  penalty  of  death,  in  all  its 
scriptural  extent,  should  be  attached  to  transgression. 

2.  The  consideration  of  the  essential  justice  or  recti- 
tude of  {;od,  that  principle  which  leads  to  an  unchange- 
able resjiect  to  what  is  riftlit  and  equitably^f,  leads  to 
the  same  conclusion.  God  has  his  own  rights  as  maker, 
and,  therefore,  proprietor  and  Lord  of  all  creatures, 
and  it  is  fit  they  should  be  maiiuaiiied  and  vindicated. 
To  surrender  them,  or  unsteadily  and  uncertainly  to 
assert  them,  would  be  an  encouragement  to  evil,  and 
his  very  regard  to  mere  abstract  right  and  moral  fitness 
must,  therefore,  be  considered  as  determining  (Jod  to  a 
steady  and  unchangeable  assertion  of  his  rights,  since 
their  surrender  could  present  no  end  worthy  of  his  cha- 
racter, or  consistent  tvith  his  holiness.  Kut  wherever 
more  created  beings  exist  than  one,  the  rights  of  others 
also  come  into  consideration ;  both  the  indirect  right 
of  a  dependent  creature,  under  government,  to  be  pro- 
tected, as  far  as  may  be,  from  the  contagion  of  bad  e.x- 
ample,  and  the  more  direct  right  of  jirotection  from 
those  injuries  which  many  sins  do,  in  their  own  nature, 
imply.  For  no  man  can  be  ambitious,  unjust,  Ace.  with- 
out inflicting  injury  upon  others  The  essential  recti- 
tude of  God  was  concerned,  therefore,  to  regard  these 
rights  in  the  creatures  dependent  upon  him,  and  to 
adopt  such  a  legal  constitution  and  mode  of  govern- 
ment, under  which  to  place  them,  as  should  respect  the 
maiijleriaiice  Of  his  own  rights  of  sovereignty,  and  the 
rigliieuus  claims  wkich  his  creatures,  that  is,  the  gene- 
ral society  of  created  beings,  had  upon  him.  All  this, 
it  may  be  said,  only  proves  that  the  essential  rectitude 
of  God  required  that  such  a  government  should  be 
adopted  as  should  inflict  some  marked  penally  on  of- 
fences. It  proves  this,  but  it  proves  more,  namely,  that 
the  Divine  rectitude  required  that  the  most  i(j<ctual 
means  should  be  adopted  to  uphold  these  rights,  both 
as  they  existed  primarily  in  God,  and  secoiidarUy  in  his 
creatures.  This  must  (bllow :  for  if  there  was  any 
obligation  to  uphold  them  at  all,  it  was  an  obligation  to 
uphold  them  in  the  most  effectual  manner,  since,  if  in- 
rdiictual  means  only  had  been  adopted,  when  more 
effectual  means  were  at  hand,  a  will\tl  abandonment 
of  those  rights  would  have  been  implied.  If,  therefore, 
there  were  no  means  equally  effectual  for  these  pur- 
poses as  the  issuing  of  a  law,  accompanied  by  a  sanc- 
tion of  death  as  its  jienalty,  the  essential  rectitude  of 
God  required  its  adoption. 

S.  The  same  maybe  said  of  the  Divine  goodness  and 
wisdom,  for,  as  the  former  is  tenderly  dispo.sed  to  pre- 
serve all  sentient  creature.s  from  misery,  so  the  latter 
would,  of  necessity,  adopt  the  most  effectunl  means  of 
rouiiieraciin!;  moral  evil,  which  is  the  only  source  of 
misery  m  tlie  creation  of  Gon. 

The  whole  question,  then,  dcjicnds  on  this,  whether 
the  penalty  of  death,  as  the  punishnirni  of  sin,  bi;  the 
most  effectual  means  of  accomplishing  Ihisend;  (he 
answer  to  which  is,  to  all  who  believe  the  Uible,  that 
as  this  lias  actually  been  adopted  at)  the  universal 


[Part  II. 

penalty  of  transgressing  the  Divine  law  (gee  Chapter 
xviii.),  and  as  this  is  confessedly  the  highest  possible 
penalty,  nothing  less  than  this  could  be  cllectual  to  the 
purpose  of  government,  and  to  the  manifestation  of  the 
Divine  holiness  and  rectitude.  If  it  could,  then  a  super- 
fluous and  excessive  means  has  been  adopted,  lor  which 
no  reason  can  be  given,  and  which  im|ieachcs  the  wis- 
dom of  (;od,  the  olfice  of  which  attribute  it  is  to  ada])t 
means  to  ends  by  an  e.xact  adjustinent ;  if  not,  then  it 
was  refjuired  by  all  the  moral  attributes  of  the  Divine 
nature  to  wluch  we  have  referred. 

The  next  question  w  ill  be,  whether,  since,  as  the  re- 
sidt  of  the  moral  perfection  of  (iod,  a  legal  constitution 
has  been  established  among  rational  creatures  xvhich 
accords  life  to  obedience,  and  denounces  death  against 
transgression,  the  justice  of  (;od  obliges  to  the  execu- 
tion of  the  penalty ;  or  xvhether  we  have  any  reason 
to  conclude,  that  the  rights  of  God  are  in  many,  or  in 
all  cases,  rehixed,  and  punishment  remitted.  All  the 
opponents  of  the  doctrine  of  atonement  strenuously  in- 
sist upon  this;  and  argue,  first,  that  (Jod  has  an  un- 
questionable power  of  giving  up  his  own  rights,  and 
jiardoning  sin  on  prerogative,  without  any  compensa- 
tion whatever  ;  second,  that  when  repentance  succeeds 
to  offence,  there  is  a  moral  fitness  in  forgiveness,  since 
the  person  offending  presents  an  altered  and  reformed 
character;  and  finally,  that  the  very  affections  of  goiid- 
ness  and  mercy,  so  eminent  in  the  Divine  character, 
require  us  to  conclude  that  he  is  always  readj,  upon 
repentance,  to  forgive  the  delinquencies  of  all  his  crea- 
tures, or,  at  most,  to  make  their  punishments  light  and 
temporary. 

In  the  first  of  these  arguments,  it  is  contended  that 
God  may  give  up  his  own  rights.  This  must  mean 
either  his  right  to  obedience  from  his  creatures,  or  bis 
right  to  punish  disobedience,  xvhen  that  occurs.  With 
respect  to  (Jod's  right  to  be  obeyed,  nothing  can  be 
more  obvious  than  that  the  perfect  reiiliuiie  of  his  na- 
ture forbids  him  to  give  up  or  to  relax  that  rijilit  at  all. 
No  king  can  morally  give  up  his  right  to  be  obeyed  in 
the  full  degree  which  may  be  enjoined  by  the  laws 
of  his  kingdom.  No  [larent  can  give  up  his  right  to 
obedience,  in  things  lawful,  from  his  children,  and 
be  blameless.  In  both  cases,  if  this  be  done  volun- 
tarily, it  argues  an  indifference  to  that  principle  of  rec- 
tituile  on  which  such  duties  depend,  and,  then  fore,  a 
moral  imperlection.  Now  this  cannot  be  attributed  to 
God,  and,  therelbre,  he  never  can  yield  up  his  right  to 
be  obeyed,  which  is  both  agreeable  to  abstract  recti- 
tude, and  is,  moreover,  for  the  benefit  of  the  creature 
himself,  as  the  contrary  would  be  necessarily  inju- 
rious to  him.  But  may  he  not  give  up  his  right  to  pu- 
nish, when  disobedience  has  actually  taken  place  ? 
Only,  it  is  manifest,  where  he  would  not  appear  by  this 
to  give  up  his  claim  to  obedience,  which  would  be  a 
winking  at  offence;  and  where  he  has  not  absolutely 
bound  himself  to  punish.  But  neither  of  these  can 
occur  here.  It  is  only  by  punitive  acts  that  the  Su- 
preme Governor  makes  it  manifest  that  he  stands  upon 
his  right  to  be  obeyed,  and  that  he  will  not  relax  it. 
If  no  punishment  ensue,  then  it  must  (bllow,  that  that 
right  is  given  up.  From  the  same  principle  that  past 
oli'ences  are  regarded  with  impunity,  it  would  also 
follow,  that  all  future  ones  might  be  overlooked  in  like 
manner,  and  thus  government  would  be  abrogated,  and 
the  obligation  of  subjection  to  God  be,  in  effect,  can- 
celled. If,  again,  impunity  were  confined  to  a  few 
offenders,  then  would  there  be  partiality  in  God ;  if  it 
were  extended  to  all,  then  would  he  renounce  his  sove- 
reignty, and  show  himself  inditferent  to  that  love  of 
rectittide  which  is  the  characteristic  of  a  holy  being, 
and  to  that  moral  order  which  is  the  character  of  a 
righteous  governor.  But  in  addition  to  I  his,  we  have 
already  seen  that,  by  a  formal  law,  punislimeni  is  ac- 
tually "threatened,  and  that  in  the  extreme,  and  in  all 
cases  of  transgression  whatever.  Now,  from  this  it 
follows,  that  nothing  less  than  the  attachment  of  such 
a  penally  to  transgression  was  determined  by  the  wis- 
dom of  God  to  be  sullicient  to  uphold  the  authority  of 
his  laws  among  his  creatures;  that  even  this  secu- 
rity, in  all  iii.stances,would  not  deter  them  from  sin  ;  and, 
Iherelbre,  that  a  less  awful  saiiclion  would  have  been 
w-lioUy  inaileciuiile  to  the  case.  If  so,  then  not  lo  exact 
the  penalty  is  to  repeal  the  law,  to  reduce  its  sanction 
to  an  empty  Ihreal,  unworthy  the  veracity  of  God,  and 
to  render  it  altogether  inert,  inasmuch  as  it  would  bo 
soon  discovered  whether  sin  were  followed  by  puiiish- 


Chap.  XIX.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


257 


ment  or  not.  This  is  a  princijilc  so  fully  recognised 
In  human  govoninicntM,  that  their  laws  have  gemirally 
defined  the  measure  of  punishment,  and  the  fact  belnif 
proved,  the  punishment  Ibllows  as  a  thing  of  cotirse  in 
the  regular  order  of  administration.  It  is  true,  that  n 
power  of  parelon  is  generally  hidged  with  the  prince ;  but 
the  reason  of  this  is  the  imperfection  which  must  ne- 
cessarily cleave  to  all  human  institiUions,  so  that  there 
may  be  circumstances  in  the  offence  which  the  law 
could  not  provide  against ;  or  there  may  be  an  exjic- 
diency  or  reason  of  state  which  supposes  some  com- 
promise of  strict  principle,  some  weakness  on  the  part 
of  the  sovereign  power,  some  desire  to  disarm  resent- 
ment, or  to  obtain  popularity,  or  to  gratify  some  pow- 
erful interest.  But  these  are  the  exceptions,  not  the 
rule ;  for,  in  general,  the  supreme  power  proceeds 
calndy  and  firmly  in  the  exercise  of  punitive  justice,  in 
order  to  maintain  the  auttiority  of  the  laws,  and  to  de- 
ter others  from'ofliending.  Nov\?  none  of  those  imper- 
fections, or  sinister  interests,  which  interfere  to  pro- 
duce these  exceptions,  can  have  any  place  in  the  Di- 
vine government ;  and  even  if  it  could  be  proved,  that 
in  some  special  cases,  exceptions  might  occur  in  tlie 
administration  of  God,  yet  this  would  not  meet  the  case 
of  those  who  wouM  establish  the  hope  of  pardon  in 
behalf  of  offending  men,  upon  the  prerogative  of  God 
to  relax  his  own  rigltts  and  to  remit  punishment,  since 
what  is  required  is  to  prove  that  there  is  a  general  rule 
of  parilon,  not  a  few  special  cases  of  exemption  from 
tlie  denounced  penalty.  It  may,  therefore,  be  confi- 
dently concluded,  that  there  is  no  relaxation  of  right  in 
the  Divine  administration,  and  no  forgiveness  of  sin  by 
tlie  exercise  of  mere  prerogative. 

The  notion  which  has  been  added  to  this,  that  repent- 
ance, on  the  part  of  the  olfender,  places  him  in  a  new 
relation,  and  renders  him  a  fit  object  of  pardon,  will  be 
found  equally  fallacious. 

This  argument  assume.s  that,  in  a  case  of  impeni- 
tence, the  moral  fitness  which  is  supposed  to  present 
itself,  in  the  case  of  penitents,  to  claim  the  exercise 
of  forgiveness,  does  not  exist,  and,  therefore,  that  it 
would  be  morally  unfit,  that  is,  wrong,  to  exercise  it. 
Tliis  is,  indeed,  expressly  conceded  by  Socinus,  wlio 
says,  that  not  to  give  pardon  in  case  of  impenitence, 
is  d>ie  to  the  rectitud';  and  equity  of  God. (1)  It  follows, 
then,  that  the  principle  before  stated,  that  the  preroga- 
tive of  God  enables  him  to  forgive  sin,  must  be  given 
up  by  all  who  hold  that  it  is  only  when  repentance 
takes  place,  that  a  moral  fitness  is  created  for  the  ex- 
ercise of  this  act  of  grace.  Upon  their  own  showing, 
sin  is  not,  and  cannot,  consistently  with  rectitude,  be 
forgiven  by  a  voluntary  surrender  of  right,  or  from 
mere  compassion;  but,  in  order  to  make  this  an  act  of 
moral  fitness,  that  is,  [a  right  and  proper  proceeding, 
some  consideration  must  be  presented,  independent  of 
the  misery  to  which  the  offender  has  exposed  himself, 
and  which  misery  is  the  object  of  pity ;  sometliing  which 
shall  make  it  right  as  weU  as  merciful,  in  God  to  for- 
give. Those  wlio  urge  that  repentance  is  this  consi- 
dcration,do  thus,  unwittingly,  give  up  their  own  prin- 
ciple, and  tacitly  adopt  that  of  the  satisfactionists,  dif- 
fering only  as  to  what  does  actually  constitute  it  right 
in  God  to  forgive.  But  the  sufficiency  of  mere  repent- 
ance to  constitute  a  moral  fitness  in  forgiveness,  all 
who  consider  the  death  of  Christ  as  a  necessary  atone- 
ment for  sin  do,  of  course,  deny  ;  and  there  are,  indeed, 
many  considerations  suggested  to  us  by  turning  to  our 
true  guide,  the  Scriptures,  wholly  unfavourable  to  this 
opiuion. 

In  the  first  place,  we  find  no  intimation  in  them  that 
the  penalty  of  the  laWis  not  to  be  executed  in  case  of 
repentance: — certainly  there  was  none  given  in  the 
promulgation  of  the  law  to  Adam  ;  there  is  none  in  the 
Decalogue  ;  none  in  any  of  those  passages  in  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  wliich  speak  of  the  legal  conse- 
quences of  sin,  as  "  that  the  wages  of  sin  is  death ;" 
"  the  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die,"  &c.  Repentance  is 
enjoined  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  it  is  true, 
but  then  it  is  in  connexion  with  a  system  of  atone- 
ment and  satisfaction,  independent  of  repentance; 
with  sacrifices  under  the  Mosaic  in.«titution,  and  with 
the  death  and  redemption  of  Christ  under  the  new  co- 


(1)  "  Non  resipiscentibus  veniam  non  concedere,  id 
dcmum  naturje  divinae,  et  decretis  ejus,  et  proi)terea 
rectitudini,  et  equitati  debitum  est  ac  coiisentaneum" 
— SociN.  de  Servat. 
R 


venant.  In  both,  something  more  Is  referred  to,  as  the 
means  of  human  recoviiry,  besides  repentance,  and  of 
which,  indeed,  .repentance  itself  Is  represented  as  an 
effect  and  fruit.  Wherever  the  Divine  Being  and  his 
creatures  arc  regarded  simply  iu  their  Ugal  relation, 
one  as  governor,  the  other  as  subjects,  there  is  certainly 
no  such  qualification  of  the  threatenings  of  his  violated 
law,  as  to  warrant  any  one  to  expect  remission  of  pu- 
nishiricnt  u])on  repentance. 

2.  It  is  not  true,  that  repentance  changes,  as  they 
urge,  the  legal  relation  of  the  guilty  to  God  whom  they 
have  offended.  They  arc  offemlers  stUl,  though  peni- 
tent. The  sentence  of  the  law  is  directed  against 
transgression,  and  repentance  does  not  annihilate,  but, 
on  the  contrary,  acknowledges  the  fact  of  that  trans- 
gression. The  charge  lies  against  the  offender ;  he  may 
be  an  obdurate  or  a  penitent  criminal ;  but,  in  either 
case,  he  is  equally  criminal  of  all  for  which  he  stands 
truly  charged,  and  how  then  can  his  relation  to  the 
lawgiver  be  changed  by  repentance?  In  the  nature  of 
the  thing,  nothing  but  pardon  can  change  that  relation ; 
for  nothing  but  pardon  can  cancel  crime,  and  it  is 
clear  that  repentance  is  not  pardon. 

3.  So  far  from  repentance  producing  this  change  of 
relation,  and  placitig  men  in  the  same  situation  as 
though  they  had  never  offended,  we  have  proofs  to  the 
contrarj-,  both  from  the  Scriptures  and  from  the  esta- 
blished course  of  Providence.  For  the  first,  though  men 
are  now  under  a  dispensation  of  grace,  yet,  after  long 
continued  obstinacy  and  refusal  of  grace,  the  Scriptures 
represent  repentance  as  incapable  of  turning  away  the 
coming  vengeance.  "  Because  I  have  called  and  ye 
refused ;  I  have  stretched  out  my  hand,  and  no  man 
regarded  ; — When  your  fear  comelh  as  desolation,  and 
your  destruction  as  a  whirlwind  ;  when  distress  and 
anguish  cometh  upon  you ;  then  shall  they  call  upon 
me,  but  I  will  not  answer  ;  they  shall  seek  me  early, 
but  they  shall  not  find  me."  Here,  to  call  itpon  God, 
and  to  seek  him  early,  that  is,  earnestly  and  carefully, 
are  acts  of  repentance  and  reformation  too,  and  yet 
they  have  no  effect  in  changing  the  relation  of  the 
guilty  to  God,  their  judge,  and  they  are  proceeded 
against  for  their  past  offences,  which,  according  to  the 
theory  of  the  Socinians,  they  ought  not  to  be.  The 
course  of  Providence  in  this  life  is,  also,  in  opposition 
to  the  notion  of  the  efficacy  of  mere  repentance  to  ar- 
rest punishment.  For,  as  Bishop  Butler  has  so  well 
shown,(2)  the  sufferings  which  follow  sin  in  this  pre- 
sent life  by  natural  consequence,  and  the  estalilished 
constitution  of  things,  are  as  much  the  effect  of  God's 
appointment  as  the  direct  penalties  attached  by  him  to 
the  violation  of  his  laws  ;  and  though  they  may  differ 
in  degree,  that  does  not  affect  the  question.  Whether 
the  punishment  be  of  long  or  of  short  duration,  intUcted 
in  the  present  state  or  in  the  next,  if  the  justice  or  be- 
nevolence of  God  requires  that  punishment  should  not 
be  inflicted,  when  repentance  has  taken  place,  it  can- 
not be  inflicted  consistently  witli  those  attributes  in 
any  degree  whatever.  But  repentance  does  not  pre- 
vent these  penal  consequences — repentance  does  not 
restore  health  injured  by  intemperance,  property  wasted 
by  profusion,  or  character  dishonoured  by  an  evil  prac- 
tice. The  moral  administration  under  which  we  are, 
therefore,  shows  that  indemnity  is  not  necessarily  the 
effect  of  repentance  in  the  present  life,  and  we  have, 
consequently,  no  reason  to  conclude  that  it  will  be  so 
in  another. 

4.  The  true  nature  of  repentance,  as  it  is  stated  in 
the  Scriptures,  seems  entirely  to  have  been  overlooked 
or  disregarded  by  thos(;  who  contend  that  repentance  is 
a  reason  for  the  non-execulion  of  the  penalty  of  the 
law.  It  is  either  a  sorrow  for  sin,  merely  because  of 
the  painful  consequences  to  which  it  lias  exposed  the 
offender,  unless  forgiven,  or  it  arises  from  a  ])erccption 
also  of  the  evil  of  sin,  and  a  dislike  to  it  as  such,  with 
real  remorse  and  sorrow  that  the  authority  of  God  lias 
been  slighted,  and  his  goodness  abused.  Now  if  by 
repentance  is  meant  repentance  in  the  former  sense, 
then  to  give  pardon  on  such  a  condition  would  be  tan- 
tamount to  the  entire  and  aljsolute  repeal  of  all  law, 
and  the  annihUation  of  all  government,  since  every  cri- 
minal, when  convicted,  and  finding  himself  in  imme- 
diate danger  of  punishment,  wouUl  as  necessarily  re- 
pent as  he  would  necessarily  be  sorry  to  be  liable  to 
pain ;  and  this  sorrow  being,  in  tliat  case,  repentance, 


(2)  Analogy  of  Natural  and  Revealed  Religion. 


258 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Pabt  n." 


it  woulfl  in  all  cases,  according  to  tliis  doctrine,  render 
it  monUIy  fit  and  right  ttiat  Tor^iveness  shoulJ  liie  exer- 
cised, and  consequently  wrong  that  it  should  he  refused. 
In  no  case,  therel'orc,  could  the  penalty  of  the  law  be  in 
any  degree  enforced. 

But  if  repentance  bo  taken  in  the  second  sense,  and 
this  is  certainly  the  light  in  which  true  repentance  is 
exhibited  in  the  Scriptures,  then  it  is  forgotten  that 
such  is  the  corrupt  state  of  man,  that  he  is  incapable 
of  penitence  of  this  kind.  This  Ibilows  Irom  that  view 
of  human  depravity  which  we  have  already  established 
from  the  Scriptures,  and  which  we  need  not  repeat. 
In  conformity  with  this  view  of  the  entire  corruptness 
of  man's  nature,  therefore,  repentance  is  said  to  be  the 
gift  of  (Jhrist,  who,  in  conseijuence  of  being  exalted 
10  be  a  Princ'o  and  a  Saviour,  "  gives  reiieiitance,"  as 
well  as  "  remission  of  sins,"  a  gitt  quite  superfluous,  if 
to  repent  truly  were  in  the  power  of  man,  and  iiide- 
))endent  of  Christ.  To  suppose  man  to  be  capable  of 
a  repentance  which  is  the  result  of  genuine  principle, 
is  to  assume  human  nature  to  be  what  it  is  not.  The 
whole  rests  on  thi.s  question :  for,  if  man  be  totally 
corrupt,  the  only  iirinciples  from  which  that  repentance 
and  correction  of  manners,  which  are  supposed  in  the 
argument,  can  How,  do  not  exi.st  in  his  nature ;  and  if 
we  allow  no  more  than  that  the  propensity  to  evil  in 
liim  is  stronger  than  the  propensity  to  good,  it  would 
be  absurd  to  suppose  tliat  in  opposing  propensities,  the 
weaker  should  ever  resist  the  more  powerlul. 

IJut  take  it  that  repentance,  in  the  best  interpreta- 
tion, is  possible  to  fallen  unassisted  man,  and  that  it 
is  actually  exercised  and  followed  even  by  a  better  con- 
duct, still  in  no  good  sense  can  it  be  shown,  that  this 
would  make  it  morally  right  and  Jit  in  the  Supreme 
Being  to  forgive  offences  against  his  government.  So- 
cinus,  we  have  seen  in  the  above  (juotation,  allows  that 
it  would  not  be  right,  not  consistent  witli  God's  moral 
attributes,  to  forgive  the  impenitent ;  and  all,  indeed, 
who  urge  repentance  as  the  sole  condition  of  pardon, 
adopt  tlie  same  principle ;  but  how,  tiien,  docs  it  ap- 
pear that  to  grant  pardon  upon  repentance  is  right,  tliat 
is,  just  in  itself,  or  a  manifestation  of  a  just  and  right- 
eous government  ? 

If  Tight  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  moral  fitness,  its 
lowest  sense,  the  moral  correspondence  of  one  tiling 
with  another,  it  cannot  be  morally  fit  in  a  perfectly 
holy  being  to  be  so  indifferent  to  offences,  as  not  to  ex- 
press towards  the  offiMiders  any  practical  displeasure 
of  any  kind  ;  yet  this  the  argument  supposes,  since  the 
Nlif;ht(!st  inlhction  of  punishment,  should  repentance 
take  place,  would  be  contrary  to  the  principle  assumed. 
If  justice  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  giving  to  every  one 
what  is  due,  the  Divine  Heing  cannot  be  just  in  this 
sense,  should  he  treat  an  ollender,  though  afterward 
penitent,  precisely  as  he  treats  those  who  have  perse- 
vered in  obedience,  without  defect  of  any  kind ;  and 
yet,  if  repentance  be  pleaded  as  a  moral  reason  lor  en- 
tirely overlooking  olleiice,  tlien  will  all  be  treated  alike, 
wh-ilicr  olKilicnl  or  tlie  contrary,  liut,  finally,  if  llie 
justice  of  (iod  be  considered  with  reference  to  goverii- 
iiient,  the  impossibility  of  exon<;rating  a  penitent  ol- 
lender, and  the  ujiholding  of  a  righteous  admiiiistra- 
tration,  is  most  apparent.  That  we  are  under  gov.:rn- 
iiient  is  certain  ;  that  we  are  under  a  settled  law  is 
equally  so,  and  that  law  explains  to  us  the  nature  of 
tho  government  by  which  we  are  controlled.  In  all 
the  statements  made  respecting  this  government  in 
Scripture,  the  government  of  earthly  sovereigns  and 
magistrates  is  the  shadow  nni!"r  which  it  is  repre- 
sented, and  the  one  is  the  jierlect  model  alter  which 
the  other  has  been  imperfectly  framed.  Nothing  that 
is  said  of  (Iod  being  a  father  is  ever  adduced  to  lower 
ills  claims  as  Lord,  or  to  iliminlsh  the  reverence  and 
fear  of  his  creatures  towards  hiiu  under  that  character. 
Tho  ])cnalty  of  transgression  is  Dkatii.  This  is  too 
plainly  written  in  the  Scriptures  to  be  for  a  moment 
denied,  and  if  it  were  righteous  to  attach  that  penalty 
to  olfenci!,  it  is  most  certainly  righteous  to  execute  it ; 
and,  tbcrclbre,  administrative  justice  caimol  be  maiii- 
lajiicit  ifittii!  not  executed.  As  to  the  iiii|ieiiit(iil,  this, 
indeed,  IS  coriccilrd  ;  but  penitence  miiki'siHiditlcreiicc  ; 
lor,  if  llie  end  of  attaching  this  jirnally  to  olliiice  was 
to  muiuUiin  the  authority  of  the  law,  I  Inn  not  to  exe- 
cute it  miun  the  repentant  would  still  be  to  aimnl  that 
authority.  This  repentance  is  either  in  the  povv(;r  of 
the  transgressor,  or  it  is  not.  If  the  liirmer,  he  will 
alwayi;  be  Uibiioswi  to  cAertisc  ii,  when  the  danger  ap- 


[iroaches,  rather  than  die ;  and.  so  he  may  sin  as  often 
as  he  pleases,  and  yet  have  it  always  in  his  jiower  la 
turn  aside  the  punishment,  which  amounts  to  a  sub- 
stantive repeal  of  the  law  and  the  abrogation  of  all  go- 
vernment. If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  production  of  a 
penitent  disposition  is  not  in  his  own  power,  and  can 
only  come  from  above,  as  a  matter  of  grace,  it  is  a 
strange  anomaly  to  supi)0se  a  gov(-rnment  so  established 
as  to  oblige  the  governor  to  concur  in  producing  repent- 
ance in  those  w  lio  despise  his  authority,  so  that  they 
may  avoid  |juiiisIimriiI.  Tins  would  be  grace,  {inA  not 
law,  mosteniiiliaiically  :  for  if  the  governor  were  bound 
by  any  i)rincii)le  of  any  kind  to  produce  this  sentiment 
of  rejientance  in  order  to  constitute  a  moral  fitness  in 
the  exercise  of  pardon,  he  would,  for  any  tiling  we  catj 
see,  be  bound  by  it  to  use  the  same  means  to  render  all 
penitent,  that  all  might  escape  j)Unishment ;  and  to  do 
this,  too,  as  ollenas  they  fell  into  sin,  that  punishment 
might,  in  no  ease,  follow,  except  when  the  means  cm- 
ployed  by  him  for  that  purpose  were  obstinately  resisted ; 
and  thus  repentance  would  be  brought  in  as  the  substi- 
tute of  obedience.  liut  since  the  end  of  law  is  to  com- 
mand obedience,  and  it  is  invested  with  authority  for 
the  purpo.se  of  elfecling  that,  it  ceases  to  answer  the 
purpose  for  which  it  was  established,  when  it  accepts 
repentance  in  the  place  of  obedience.  This  is  not  its 
end,  as  an  instrument  of  moral  government ;  nor  is  it 
a  means  to  its  proper  end,  which  is  obedience ;  for  re- 
pentance can  give  no  security  for  future  obedience, 
since  a  penitent  transgressor,  whose  nature  is  infected 
with  a  corrupt  moral  principle  and  habit,  is  much  more 
liable  to  sin  again  than  when  innocent  as  in  liis  first 
estate ;  and,  as  this  scheme  makes  no  provision  at  all 
for  the  moral  cure  of  man's  i'allen  nature  by  the  renew- 
ing influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  so  it  abolishes  all  law 
as  an  instrument  of  moral  order,  and  substitutes  pardon 
as  an  knd  of  government  instead  of  obedience. 

With  this  view  of  the  insufficiency  of  repentance  to 
obtain  pardon  the  Scriptures  agree ;  lc)r,  not  now  to  ad- 
vert to  the  doctrine  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  will 
be  subsequently  considered,  we  need  only  refer  to  the 
Gospel,  which  is  professedly  a  declaration  of  the  mercy 
of  God  to  sinning  men,  and  which  also  professedly 
lays  down  the  means  by  which  the  pardon  of  their  ol- 
fences  is  to  be  attained.  Without  entering  at  all  into 
other  subjects  connected  with  this,  it  is  enough  here  to 
show  that,  in  the  Gospel,  pardon  is  not  connected  with 
mere  repentance,  as  it  must  have  been  had  the  doc- 
trine against  which  we  have  contended  been  true. 
John  the  liaptist  was,  ein])liatically,  a  preacher  of  re- 
pentance, and,  had  nothing  but  mere  repentance  been 
requircil  in  order  to  salvation,  he  would  have  been  the 
must  suciessliil  of  preaihcrs.  So  numerous  were  the 
iMUltiludc'S  which  submitled  to  the  power  of  his  minis- 
try, tliat  the  largest  terms  are  used  by  the  evangelist 
Matthew  to  express  the  effect  produced  by  it — "Then 
went  out  all  .ludea,  and  all  Jerusalem,  and  all  the  region 
round  about  Jordan,  and  were  bapti/.ed  of  him  in  Jor- 
dan, confessing  their  sins."  Of  the  truth  of  their  re- 
lientance,  no  doubt  is  expressed.  On  the  contrary, 
when  John  excepts  only  "  many  of  the  Sadducees  and 
Pharisees"  who  came  ''to  his  baptism"  as  hypocrites, 
we  are  bound  to  conclude,  that  he,  who  appears  to  have 
had  the  supernatural  gilt  of  discovering  the  spirits  of 
men,  allowed  the  repentance  of  the  rest  generally  to 
be  genuine.  It  would  Ibllow,  then,  from  the  principle 
laid  down  by  the  adversaries  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
atonement  of  (Christ,  namely,  that  repentance  aloiio 
renders  it  morally  fit  in  God  to  forgive  sin,  and  that, 
therelbre,  he  can  require  nothing  else  hut  ti-ue  repent- 
ance in  order  to  jiardon,  tliat  the  disciples  of  the  liap- 
tist needed  not  to  look  for  any  thing  be\ond  what  their 
master  was  the  instrument  of  imparting  by  his  minis- 
try. Hut  this  is  contradicted  by  the  fact.  lie  taught 
them  to  look  for  a  higher  baptism,  that  of  the  Holy 
Ghost;  and  to  a  more  effectual  teacher,  the  Chrixt, 
whose  voice  or  herald  he  was ;  all  ho  did  and  said  bore 
u])on  it  a  jirejiaratory  cliaracler,  and  to  this  character 
he  was  most  careful  to  give  the  utmost  distinctness, 
that  his  hearers  might  not  be  mistaken.  To  two  of  his 
disciples,  slaiidwig  with  him  when  "  he  looked  upon 
Jesus  as  he  walked,"  lie  said,  "  Heboid  the  Lamb  of 
(iod  which  taketh  away  the  sm  of  the  world;"  and 
thus  he  confessed  that  it  was  not  himself,  nor  his  doc- 
trine, nor  the  rcjientancu  which  it  produced,  which  took 
away  sin  ;  hul  that  it  was  taken  away  by  Christ  alone, 
ana  that  in  hiy  sacrificial  charucler,  ae  "  the  Lamb  of 


Chap.  XX.] 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


259 


God."  Nay,  what,  indeed,  is  still  more  explicit,  ho  him- 
self declares  that  everlasting  life  was  not  attained  by 
the  repentance  which  ho  preached,  but  by  beliei'insr  on 
Christ ;  for  he  poncludes  his  discourse  concerning 
Jesus  (John  iii.  25,  3(1)  with  these  memorable  words, 
"  He  that  lidtmetk  on  the  Son  hath  everlasting  life  ; 
and  he  that  helieveth  not  the  Son  shall  not  see  life ;  but 
the  wrath  ul  (Jod  abideth  on  liim."  The  testimony  of 
John  was,  therolbre,  that  more  than  repentance,  even 
faith  in  Clirist,  was  necessary  to  salvation.  Such 
also  was  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord  himself,  though.he, 
too,  was  a  jjrcacher  of  repentance ;  and  that  of  the 
apostles,  ^vho,  proclaiming  that  "  all  men  every  where" 
should  repent,  not  less  explicitly  preached  that  all  men 
every  where  should  believe  ;  and  that  tliey  were  "  jusli- 
lied  by  faith,"  and  thus  had  "  peace  with  God  through 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 


CHAPTER  XX. 

Redemption. — Death  of  Christ  Propitiatorv. 

These  points,  then,  being  so  fully  established,  that 
sin  is  neither  forgiven  by  the  mere  prerogative  of  God, 
nor  upon  the  account  of  mere  repentance  in  man,  we 
proceed  to  inquire  into  the  Scripture  account  of  the  real 
consideration  on  which  the  execution  of  the  penalty  of 
transgression  is  delayed,  and  the  offer  of  forgiveness  is 
made  to  offenders. 

To  the  statements  of  the  New  Testament  we  shall 
first  direct  our  attention,  and  then  point  out  that  har- 
mony of  doctrine  on  this  subject  which  pervades  the 
whole  Scriptures,  and  makes  both  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  give  their  agreeing  testimony  to  that  one 
method  of  love,  wisdom,  and  justice,  by  which  a  mer- 
ciful God  justifies  the  ungodly. 

L  The  first  thing  which  strikes  every  attentive  and, 
indeed,  every  cursorj'  reader  of  the  New  Testament, 
must  be,  that  the  pardon  of  our  sin,  and  our  entire  sal- 
vation, is  ascribed  to  the  death  of  Christ.  We  do  not, 
now,  inquire  in  what  sense  his  death  availed  to  these 
great  results ;  but  we,  at  present,  only  state  that,  in 
some  sense,  our  salvation  is  expressly  and  emphati- 
cally connected  with  that  event.  "  I  lay  down  my  li/e 
for  the  sheep."  "He  gave  himself  Cor  us."  He  died, 
"  the  just  for  the  unjust,  that  he  might  bring  us  to  God." 
"  Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear  the  sins  of  many." 
"  While  we  were  yet  sinners  Christ  died  for  us."  "  In 
whom  we  have  redemiition  through  his  blood,  the  for- 
giveness of  our  sins."  "  He  gave  his  Ufe  iyansom  for 
many."  "  We  who  were  afar  off  are  made  nigh  by  the 
blood  of  Christ."  "  Unto  him  that  loved  us,  and  washed 
us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood ;"  with  innumerable 
other  passages,  in  which,  with  equal  emphasis,  the  sal- 
vation of  man  is  connected  with  the  death  of  Christ. 

This  is  so  undeniable,  that  it  is,  to  a  certain  extent, 
recognised  in  the  two  great  schemes  opposed  to  that 
which  has  been  received  generally  by  tlie  church  of 
Christ,  which  in  all  ages  has  proclaimed  that  the  d*ath 
of  Christ  was  an  expiatory  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  men, 
and  necessary  to  make  tlie  exercise  of  pardon  consis- 
tent witli  the  essential  righteousness  of  God,  and  with 
his  righteous  government.  The  Socinian  scheme  ad- 
mits that  the  death  of  Christ  was  important  to  con- 
firm his  doctrine,  and  to  lead  to  his  resurrection,  the 
crowning-  miracle  by  which  its  truth  was  demonstrated ; 
and  that  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood,  the 
forgiveness  of  sins,  because  "  we  are  led,  by  the  due 
consideration  of  Christ's  death  and  its  consequences, 
to  that  repentance  which,  under  the  merciful  consti- 
tution of  the  Divine  government,  always  obtains  for- 
giveness." The  .second  scheme,  which  is  that  of  the 
modern  Arians,  goes,  farther.  It  represents  the  coming 
of  Christ,  whom  they  consider  to  be  the  most  exulted 
of  the  creatures  of  God,  into  the  world,  and  his  labours 
and  sufferings  in  behalf  of  men  as  acts  of  the  most  dis- 
interested and  tender  benevolence,  in  reward  and  honour 
of  which  he  is  allowed  to  bestow  pardon  upon  liis  dis- 
ciples, upon  their  sincere  repentance,  and  to  plead  his 
interest  with  God,  who  delights  to  honour  the  generous 
conduct  of  his  Son  towards  the  human  race.  His  vo- 
luntary sufferings  and  death  for  the  sins  of  mankind, 
according  to  them,  gave  to  his  intercession  with  God 
great  efficacy,  and  thus,  by  liis  mediation,  sinners  are 
reconciled  to  God,  and  raised  to  eternal  life. 

Far  as  even  the  latter  of  these  theories  fiills  below 
the  sense  of  Scripture  on  this  subject,  yet  both  arc,  in 
B2 


this  respect,  important,  that  they  concede  that  the  death 
of  Christ,  as  the  means  of  human,  salvation,  is  made 
so  prominent  in  the  New  Testament,  that  it  cannot  be 
Icfl  out  of  our  consideration  when  the  doctrine  of  man's 
•salvation  is  treated  of;  and  also,  that  this  is  a  doctrine  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures  which  must,  in  someway  or  other, 
be  accounted  for  and  explained.  The  Socinian  accounts 
for  it  by  making  the  death  of  Chri.st  the  means  by  which 
repentance  is  produced  in  the  heart  of  man,  so  as  to 
constitute  it  morally  fit  that  he  should  be  forgiven.  The 
modern  Arian  accounts  for  it  by  connecting  with  this 
notion  that  kind  of  jnerit  in  the  death  of  Christ  which 
arises  from  a  generous  and  benevolent  self-devotion ; 
and  which,  when  pleaded  by  him  in  the  way  of  media- 
tion, God  is  pleased  to  honour  by  accepting  repentance, 
when  it  is  produced  in  the  heart,  and  accompanied  with 
purpo.ses  of  amendment  in  place  of  perfect  obedience. 

2.  But  the  views  given  us  of  the  death  of  Christ  by 
the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  go  much  farther 
than  these,  because  they  represent  the  death  of  Christ 
as  necessary  to  the  salvation  of  men,  a  principle  which 
both  the  hypotheses  just  mentioned  wholly  exclude. 
The  reason  of  forgiveness  is  placed  by  one  in  repent- 
ance merely  ;  by  the  other  also  in  the  exercise  of  the 
right  which  God  had  to  pardon,  but  which  he  chose  to 
exerci.se  in  honour  of  the  philanthropy  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Both  make  the  death  of  Clirist,  though  in  a  different 
way  and  in  a  very  subordinate  sense,  the  means  of  ob- 
taining pardon,  because  it  is  a  means  of  bringing  men 
into  a  state  in  which  they  -dre  Jit  objects  for  the  exer- 
ci.se  of  an  act  of  grace  ;  but  the  Scripture  doctrine  is, 
that  the  death  of  Christ  is  not  the  meritorious  means, 
but  the  meritorious  cause  of  the  exercise  of  forgive- 
ness ;  and  repentance  but  one  of  the  instrumental 
means  of  actually  obtaining  it ;  and  in  consistency 
with  this  view,  they  speak  of  the  death  of  Christ,  not 
as  one  of  many  means,  by  which  the  same  end  might 
have  been  accomplished ;  but  as,  in  the  strictest  sense, 
necessary  to  man's  &-alvation. 

This  has,  indeed,  been  considered,  even  by  some 
divines  professing  orthodoxy,  to  be  a  bold  position,  but, 
as  we  shall  see,  with  little  consistency  on  their  part. 
It  follows,  of  course,  from  the  Socinian  and  Arian  hy- 
potheses, that  if  our  Lord  were  a  rnan  or  an  angelic 
creature;  and  if  he  were  rather  the  mere  messen- 
ger of  a  mercy  which  might  be  exercised  on  preroga- 
tive, than  the  procuring  cause  of  it ;  any  other  creature 
beside  himself  might  have  conveyed  the  message  of  tl'.is 
mercy,  might  have  exhibited  a  generous  devotion  in 
our  behalf,  and  been  an  effectual  instrument  to  bring 
men  to  that  repentance  which  would  prepare  them  to 
receive  it.  But  when  it  is  admitted  that  Christ  was 
the  Divine  Son  of  God ;  that  he  was  "  God  manifest  in 
the  fiesh  ;"  that  the  forgiveness  of  sin  required  a  satis- 
faction to  Divine  justice  of  so  noble  and  infinitely  ex- 
alted a  kind  as  that  which  was  oflbred  by  the  sutrerings 
and  death  of  the  incarnate  Deity ;  even  from  such  pre- 
mises alone  it  would  seem  necessarily  to  follow,  that  but 
for  the  interposition  of  Christ,  sin  could  not  have  been 
forgiven  consistently  with  a  perfectly  righteous  govern- 
ment, and  therefore  not  forgiven  at  all,  unless  a  sacri- 
fice of  eiiual  merit,  which  supposes  a  being  of  equal 
glory  and  dignity  as  its  subject,  could  have  been  found. 
If  no  such  being  existed  out  of  the  Godhead,  then  hu- 
man hope  rested  solely  on  the  voluntary  incarnation 
of  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  the  overwhelming  fact  and 
mystery  of  his  becoming  flesh  in  order  to  suffer  for  us, 
itself  shows  that  the  case  to  be  remedied  was  one  of  a 
character  absolutely  extreme,  and  therefore  not  olher- 
wi.se  remediable.  If  inferiormeaiis had  been  sullicient, 
then  more  was  done  by  the  Father,  when  heielivered  up 
his  Son  for  us,  than  was  necessary  ;  a  conclusion  of  an 
impious  character:  and  if  tlie  great  est  possible  gift  was 
b(!stowed,  then  nothing  less  could  have  been  effectual 
and  this  wasnecessary  to  human  salvation.  Every  be- 
liever in  the  Divinity  of  Christ  is  bound  to  this  conclusion. 
This  matter  is,  however,  put  beyond  all  reasonable 
question  by  the  testimony  of  Scripture.  "  Thus  it  is 
written,  and  thus  it  behooved  Christ  to  suffer  and  to  rise 
from  the  dead."  Here  a  neressily  for  the  death  of 
Christ  is  plainly  expressed.  If  it  be  .said  that  the  ne- 
cessity was  the  fulfilment  of  what  "had  been  written" 
in  the  prophets  concerning  the  sufferings  of  Messiah, 
it  is  to  be  remembered,  that  what  was  predicted  on  this 
subject  by  the  prophets aro.se  out  of  a  jirevious  ai>point- 
mcnt  of  God,  in  whose  eternal  counsel  Christ  had  been 
designated  as  the  Redeemer  of  man ;  and  that  the  sole 


260 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


end  and  reason  or  the  death  of  Christ  could  not,  there- 
fore, be  the  mere  fUUilnient  of  the  projihecies  respect- 
ing him.  The  verse  wliieh  lollows  abundantly  proves 
tliis:  "Ami  that  repentance  and  remission  of  sins 
should  be  i)reached  in  his  name."  Luke  xxiv.  47.  His 
death  was  not  only  necessary  for  the  aeconiiilishment 
of  prophecy,  but  for  the  ])ublication  of  "  r(i)eiitance 
and  remission  of  sins  in  his  name,"  both  ol  which, 
therefore,  depenilcd  upon  it.  It  was  God's  purpose  to 
oHer  forgiveness  to  man,  before  the  prophets  issued 
their  predictions ;  it  was  his  purpose  to  do  this  m  "his 
name,"  on  account  of  and  ia  consideration  of  his  dying 
for  them:  this  was  predicted  ;  but  the  necessity  of  the 
death  of  Christ  rested  on  this  pre\  ious  a])pointment  to 
which  the  prophecies  corresponded.  In  Matthew  xvi. 
21,  the  same  seniiniont  is  expressed,  without  any  re- 
ference to  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy.  "From  that 
time  forth  began  .lesus  to  show  unto  his  disciples,  how 
that  he  must  go  nnlo  Ji-rusalcm,  and  suffer  many 
things  of  the  elders,  and  ctiief  priests,  and  scribes,  and 
be  killed,  and  be  raised  again  the  third  day."  The  an- 
swer, too,  of  our  Lord  to  Peter,  who  upon  this  declara- 
tion, said,  "  Be  it  far  from  thee.  Lord  :  this  shall  not  l>c 
\inlo  thee,"  is  remarkable.  "  But  he  turned  and  said 
unto  Peter,  Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan ;  thou  art  an 
offence  to  me ;  for  thou  savourest  not  the  things  that 
be  of  God,  but  those  that  be  of  men."  These  words 
plainly  imply,  that  for  Christ  to  sulTer  and  die,  and  in 
this  manner,  and  not  according  to  the  carnal  and  hu- 
man views  of  Peter,  to  accom]plish  the  purpose  of  his 
coining  into  the  wr)rld,  was  "  of  God ;"  it  was  his 
purpose,  his  apjioiiitmeiit.  This  is  not  language  to  be 
used  as  to  a  martyr  dying  to  prove  his  sincerity;  for 
death,  in  such  cases,  is  rather  permitted  than  purjioscd 
and  appointed,  and  it  would  be  to  adopt  language  never 
applied  to  such  rases  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  to  say 
that  the  suH'eriags  and  death  of  martyrs  arc  "of  God.'\ 
The  necessiiy  of  Christ's  death,  then,  rested  on  Divine 
appointment,  and  that  on  the  necessity  of  the  case; 
and  if  he  "  must"  die  in  order  that  we  might  live,  then 
we  live  only  in  consequence  of  his  death. 

The  same  view  is  conveyed  by  a  strongly  figurative 
expression  in  John  xii.  23,  2i :  "  And  Jesus  ausvvcred 
them,  saying,  The  hour  is  come  that  the  Son  of  Man 
should  be  glorified.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you, 
E.\cej)t  a  corn  of  wheat  fall  into  the  ground  and  die,  it 
abideth  alone;  but  if  it  die,  it  hringelh  fonh  much 
fruit."  From  wliicli  it  inevitably  follows,  that  the 
death  of  Christ  was  as  necessary  to  human  salvation 
as  the  vegetable  death  of  the  seed  of  corn  to  the  i)ro- 
duction  of  the  harvest ;  necessary,  therefore,  in  this 
sense,  that  one  could  not  take  place  without  the  other. 
But  for  this  he  would  have  remained  "  alone,"  and  have 
brought  no  "sons  to  glory." 

In  a  word,  all  those  passages  of  Scripture  which 
speak  of  our  salvation  from  death  and  misery  by  the 
suirerings  of  Christ,  and  call  upon  our  gratitude  on 
this  account,  are  founded  upon  the  same  doctrine. 
These  are  t<x>  numerous  to  bo  cited,  and  are  sufliciently 
femiliar.  "  We  have  redemptinii  through  Ins  liletnd ;" 
"  We  are  saved  from  wrath  through  him,"  &c.  Such 
forms  of  speech  are  eontiiuially  n.curring,  and  the 
highest  Rscriptions  of  praise  arc  given  to  the  Father 
and  to  the  Son  on  this  account.  But  most  clearly,  they 
all  suppose  that "  wrath"  and  "  death,''  but  for  this  m- 
lerposltion  of  the  jiassion  of  Christ  on  our  account, 
would  have  been  the  doom  of  siriiijiig  men.  They  con- 
tain not  the  most  distant  iiitiuiaiioii,  that  had  not  he 
come  into  the  world  "to  seek  uiiil  to  save  them  that 
were  lost,'"  they  would  have  liceii  saved  by  any  other 
means ;  tliat  had  not  lie,  the  good  Shejiherd,  laid  down 
his  life  for  the  sheep,  they  would  have  been  brought  by 
some  other  proc'.:ss  into  the  In  ;ivciily  Iblil.  The  very  em- 
))haslsollhecxiiressuii\"  lost"  implies  a  desperate  case, 
for  as  lost  lliey  could  not  have  Ikcii  ilcscriljcd,  if  pardon 
had  been  oH'cred  them  on  mere  repentance ;  and  if  the 
death  ol  Christ  had  been  one  only  of  many  means, 
through  Koinc  of  which  that  disposition  of  (Jod  to  for- 
give oifcnitcrs  Timst  havo  oiwtrated,  which  is  the  doc- 
trine of  all  who  set  up  the  goodnews  of  the  Divine  go- 
vernment against  its  justice.  In  that  ca,se,  mankind 
could  not  have  been  in  a  hopeless  state,  imlepindiiit 
of  Christ's  redemption,  the  view  which  is  niiilormly 
taken  of  their  case  in  Scripture,  wlicre  the  ilraili  oi 
Christ  is  exhibited,  not  as  one  expedient  of  many,  but 
as  the  oiUtj  hiipc  of  the  guilty, 
'.t.  The  ttcriptureti,  iti  biieukuig  of  the  death  of  Cluiut. 


inform  us  that  he  died  "  for  us,"  that  is,  in  our  room 
and  stead.  With  this  representation,  neither  of  the 
hyjiotheses  to  which  we  have  adverted,  as  attempting 
to  account  for  the  importance  attached  to  the  death  of 
our  Lord  in  the  New  'I'cstameiit,  agrees,  and  therefore 
both  of  them  fall  far  below  the  whole  truth  of  the 
case.  The  Socinian  scheme  makes  the  death  of  Christ 
only  an  incidental  benefit,  as  sealing  the  trutli  of  his 
doctrine,  and  setting  an  examjile  of  eminent  pa.ssive 
virtue.  In  tliis  sens<;,  indeed,  they  acknowledge  that 
he  died  "/or"  men,  because  in  this  indirect  manner 
they  derive  the  benefit  of  instruction  from  Ids  death, 
and  because  some  of  the  motives  to  virtue  are  placed  in 
a  stronger  light.  The  modern  Arian  scheme,  some- 
times called  the  intercession  liypotliesis,  acknowledges 
that  he  acijuired,  by  his  disinterested  and  generous 
sufferings,  the  highest  degree  of  virtue,  and  a  powerful 
interest  with  God,  by  which  his  intercession  on  behalf 
of  penitent  offenders  is  honoured  by  an  exercise  of 
higher  mercy  than  would  otherwise  have  taken  place; 
but  it  by  no  means  follows  from  this,  that  repentance 
might  not  otherwise  have  taken  place,  and  mercy  have 
been  otherwise  exercised.  According  to  this  view, 
then,  Christ  died  for  the  benefit  indeed  of  men,  some- 
what more  directly  than  on  the  Socinian  scheme ;  but 
he  did  not  die  for  them  in  the  sense  of  the  Scriptures, 
that  is,  in  their  room  and  stead ;  his  death  was  not  vi- 
carious, and  it  is  not  on  that  account  directly  that  the 
guilty  are  absolved  from  condemnation. 

To  |)rove  that  our  l>ord  died /or  men,  in  the  sense  of 
dying  in  their  stead,  the  testimony  of  the  sacred  writers 
must,  however,  be  adduced,  and  it  is  equally  abundant 
and  explicit.  St.  Peter  says  he  died,  "  the  just/w  the 
unjust,"  that  "  he  suffered /or  us."  St.  Paul,  that  "  he 
died /or  all,"  that  "lie  tasted  death /or  every  man," 
that  he  died  '■\fur  the  ungodly,"  that  "  he  gave  himself 
a  r-^nsom/or  all,"  and  our  Lord  himself  declares  "  that 
,  'le  gave  liimself  a  ransom/or  many."  To  show,  how- 
ever, that  this  phrase  means  no  more  than  a  final 
cause,  and  that  the  only  notion  intended  to  be  conveyed 
is,  that  Christ  died  lor  our  benefit,  it  is  argued  by  the 
objectors,  that  the  Greek  prepositions  used  in  the  above 
quotations,  vr.tp  and  avri,  do  not  always  signify  sul)- 
stilution ;  but  are  sometimes  to  be  rendered  "  on  ac- 
count of,"  as  when  Christ  is  said  to  have  "  suffered/or 
our  sins,"  which  cannot  be  rendered  instead  of  our 
sins.  All  this  may,  hidecd,  be  granted  ;  but  then  it  is 
as  certain  that  these  prepositions  do  often  signify  sub- 
stitution ;  and  that  the  (Greeks,  by  these  forms  of  ex- 
l)ression,  wa-e  wont  to  exjiress  a  vicarious  death,  is 
abundantly  proved  by  the  examples  given  by  Raphellus, 
on  Ilomans  v.  8.  Nor  are  instances  wanting  of  textd 
ill  which  t^et^  particles  can  only  be  interpreted  when 
taken  in  the  sense  of  "  instead  of,"  and  in  "  the  place 
of"  So  in  the  speech  of  Caiaphas,  "  It  is  expedient 
that  one  man  should  die  (vrttp)  for  the  people,  and  that 
the  whole  nation  perish  not ;"  he  plainly  declares,  that 
either  Christ  or  the  nation  must  perish  ;  and  that,  by 
putting  the  former  to  death,  he  would  die  iiistead  i/tho 
nation.  In  Romans  v.  6 — 8,  the  sense  in  which  Christ 
"  died/of  us"  is  indubitalily  fixed  by  the  context.  "  For 
scarcely  for  a  righteous  man  will  one  die,  yet  perad- 
venture  for  a  gcioil  miiii  some  would  even  dare  to  die  ; 
but  God  coiiimciiilcih  liis  love  towards  us,  in  that  wlulc 
we  were  yd  sinners,  Christ  died /or  us;"  on  which 
jiassage  Doddridge  lias  observed,  "  One  can  hardly  ima- 
gine any  one  would  die  for  a  good  man,  unless  it  were 
to  redeem  liis  life  by  giving  up  lus  own."  In  this  sense 
also,  avTL  is  used  by  the  LXX.  2  Sam.  xviii.  i'i,  whcro 
David  says  concerning  Absalom,  "  Would  to  God  1  had 
died  for  thee,"  {avri  (row.)  Here  he  could  mean  nothing 
else  but  to  wish  that  he  had  died  in  Absalom's  stead. 
In  the  sense  of  "  in  the  room  or  stead  ol^"  hi't-i  is  also 
used  ill  many  places  of  the  New  Testament;  as  "  Ar- 
chilauH  did  reign  in  Judca  (ai'n)  in  the  room  of  his 
father  lb  rod  ,"  "If  he  ask  a  fish,  will  he  (uiri)  for  a 
fish  (111  jilace  or  instead  of  a  fish),  give  him  a  serpent?" 
When,  ilierelbre,  the  same  prciiosition  is  used,  Mark 
X.  45,  "  'J'lic  Son  of  Man  came  to  give  his  life  a  ransom 
fbr(ai'ri)  many,"  there  can  surely  be  no  reason  drawn 
from  the  meaning  of  tlin  particle  itself  to  prevent  its 
lieiiig  so  understood.  That  it  may  he  so  taken  is  cer- 
tain, for  this  is  a  sense  of  the  )>r(posilion  constantly 
occurring  ;  ami  if  that  sense  is  rejected,  and  another 
chosen,  the  reason  must  be  brought  from  the  contra- 
riety of^  the  doctrme  which  it  conveys  to  some  other  ; 
whcieay  uut  one  paaBuge  is>  even  jirtieuded  to  be  pro- 


Chap.  XX.) 


THEOLOGICAL  IiNSTlTUTES. 


261 


duced,  which  denies  that  Christ  did  thus  die  in  the 
stead  of  the  ungodly,  and  give  his  Ufe  a  ransom  in  ttie 
place  or  stead  of  the  lives  of  many.  The  particles  ti7r£(i 
and  avTi  have  other  senses ;  this  is  not  denied ;  hnt  as 
Bishop  StilUngtleet  has  observed, "  a  substitution  could 
not  be  more  properly  expressed  than  it  is  in  Scripture 
by  them." 

The  force  of  this  has  at  all  times  been  felt  by  the 
Socinians,  and  has  rendered  it  necessary  for  them  to 
resort  (o  subterfuges.  Kocinus  acknowledges,  and 
after  him  CrelUus,  that  "  when  redemption  is  spoken 
of,  nvTi  implies  commutation ;"  but  they  attempt  to 
escape,  by  considering  both  the  redemption  and  the 
commutation  metaphorical.  Dr.  Priestley,  too,  admits 
the  probability  of  the  interpretation  of  Christ's  dying 
for  us,  being  to  die  instead  of  us,  and  then  contends 
that  he  did  this  consequentially  and  not  directly  so, 
"as  .1  substitute  for  us;  for  if,  in  consequence  of 
Christ's  not  having  been  sent  to  instruct  and  reform 
the  world,  mankind  had  continued  unreformed,  and  if 
the  necessary  consequence  of  Christ's  coming  was  his 
death,  by  whatever  means,  and  in  whatever  manner  it 
was  brought  about ;  it  is  plain  that  there  was,  in  fact, 
no  other  alternative  but  his  death  or  ours.'\3)  Thus, 
under  the  Ibrce  of  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament, 
that  Christ  died  in  our  stead,  he  admits  the  absolute 
necessity  of  the  death  of  Christ  in  order  to  human  sal- 
vation, contrary  to  all  the  principles  he  elsewhere  lays 
down,  and  in  refutation  of  his  ovi'n  objections  and  those 
of  his  follovvers  to  the  orthodo.x  view  of  the  death  of 
our  Saviour  as  being  the  only  means  by  which  mercy 
could  be  dispensed  to  mankind.  But  that  Christ  died 
for  us  directly  as  a  suhstUute,  which  is  still  the  point 
denied,  Ls  to  be  fully  proved  from  those  Scriptures,  in 
which  he  is  said  to  have  borne  the  punishment  due  to 
our  qffencAS ;  and  this  being  established,  it  puts  an 
entire  end  to  all  quibbling  on  the  import  of  the  Greek 
prepositions. 

To  prove  this,  the  passages  of  holy  writ  are  exceed- 
ingly numerous ;  but  it  will  be  more  satisfactory  to 
select  a  few,  and  point  out  their  force,  than  to  give  a  long 
list  of  citations. 

Grotius(4)  thus  clearly  proves  that  the  Scriptures  re- 
present our  sins  as  the  impulsive  cause  of  the  death  of 
Christ : 

"  Another  cause  which  moved  God  was  our  sins, 
which  deserve  i)imishnient.     Christ  was  delivered  for 
ouroirences.  Rom.iv.2.S.   Here  the  ajiostle  uses  the  pre- 
position 6ta  with  the  accusative  case,  which  with  all 
Greek  authors,  sacred  and  profane,  is  the  most  usual 
manner  of  expressing  an  impulsive  cause.     For  in- 
stance, Sta  ravTu,  '  because  of  these  things  cometh  the 
wrath  of  God  upon  the  children  of  disobedience.'  Eph. 
V.  6.    Indeed,  whenever  the  expression,  because  of  sins, 
is  coupled  with  the  mention  of  sufferings,  it  never  ad- 
mits of  any  other  interpretation.    '  I  will  chastise  you 
seven  times,  because  of  your  sins.'    Levit.  xxvi.  28. 
'  Because  of  these  abominations  the  Lord  God  cast 
them  out  from  his  sight.'    Deut.xviii.  12.    So  it  is  used 
in  many  other  places  of  the  sacred  writings,  and  no 
where  in  a  different  sense.    The  expression,  for  sins, 
is  also  evidently  of  the  same  force,  whenever  it  is  con- 
nected with  suiTerings,  as  in  the  example  following : — 
'  Christ  died  for  our  sins.'    1  Cor.  xv.  3.    '  Christ  hath 
once  sufTered  for  sins.'     1  Peter  iii.  18.     '  Christ  gave 
himself  lor  our  sins.'    Gal.  i.  4.     '  Cluist  offered  one 
sacrifice  for  sins.'    Heb.  x.  12.    In  all  which  places  we 
have  either  vnen  or  nepi  with  the  genitive  case.     But 
Socinus  maintains,  tliat  in  all  these  places  a  final  and 
not  an  impulsive  cause  is  intended.    He  even  goes  so 
far  as  to  assert,  that  the  Latin  pro  and  the  Greek  vztp 
never  denote  an  impulsive,  but  always  a  final  cause. 
Many  examples  prove  the  latter  assertion  to  be  untrue. 
For  both  utts/)  and  ireiu  are  used  to  signify  no  less  an 
impulsive  than  a  tinal  cause.    The  Gentiles  arc  said  to 
praise  God  vircp  cXcm  tor  his  mercy.    Rom.  xv.  0.— 
Paul  says  thanks  are  given  dttep  rjnow  for  us.    Eph. 
i.  16.   And  uTTfp  mti'T(i)v  for  all ;  Eph.  v.  20.    '  We  pray 
you'  vTzep  xpKjTov  for  Christ.    2  Cor.  v.  20.    '  Great  is 
my  glorying  for  you'  vttw  vjifov.    2  Cor.  vii.  4,  ix.  2, 
and  xii.  5.   '  Di.stresses  (uTrtp  xpiotk)  for  Christ.'  2  Cor. 
xii.  10.    '  I  thank  God  (vircp  vitav)  for  you.'  1  Cor.  i.  4. 
'  God  shall  reprove  all  the  ungodly  (ttepi  navrtov  cpydiv 
aatljciai)  for  all  their  works  of  ungodliness.'    Jude  15. 


In  the  same  inaimer,  the  Latins  say,  to  give  or  render 
thaidis  (pro  bcneficiis)  lor  beiielils,  as  olleil  in  Cicero. 
He  also  says  '  to  take  vengeance  (pro  injuriis)  for  inju- 
ries ;'  '  to  suffer  imnishmenl  (pro  magnitudinc  sceleris) 
tor  the  greatness  of  a  crime ;'  to  fear  torments  (pro 
maleficiis)  lor  evil  deeds.  Plautus,  'to  chastise  (pro 
commcrita  noxia)  for  faults  which  deserve  it.'  And 
Terence,  '  to  take  vengeance  (pro  dictis  ct  faclis)  for 
words  and  deeds.'  Certainly,  in  all  these  places,  pro 
does  not  signify  a  final,  but  an  impulsive  cause.  So, 
when  Christ  is  said  to  have  suffiired  and  died  for  sins, 
the  subject  will  not  allow  us,  as  Socinus  w'ishes,  to 
understand  a  final  cause  Uence,  also,  as  the  Hebrew 
particle  7D  denotes  an  antecedent  or  impulsive  cause 
(see  Psalm  xxxviii.  9,  and  many  other  places),  the  words 
of  Isaiah  liii.  cannot  lie  better  translated,  or  more  agree- 
ably with  other  scriptures,  than  He  was  wounded  on 
accmtnt  of  our  transgressions ;  he  was  bruised  on  ac- 
count of  our  iniquities.  And  what  can  Romans  vi.  10, 
rr]  anapria  arieOavcv,  denote,  but  that  he  died  on  ac- 
count of  sin  V 

Crcllms,  who  attempted  an  answer  to  Grotitis,  at 
length  acknowledges  sin  to  have  been  an  impulsive 
cause  of  the  death  of  Christ ;  but  neutralizes  the  ad- 
mission by  sophistry,  on  which  Bishop  StiUingtlcet  has 
well  observed,  that  we  understand  not  an  impulsive 
cause  in  so  remote  a  sense,  as  though  our  sins  were  an 
occasion  of  Christ's  dying,  so  that  his  death  w;.s  one 
argument,  among  many  others,  to  believe  his  doctrine, 
the  belief  of  which  would  cause  men  to  leave  their 
sins;  but  we  contend,  for  a  nearer  and  more  proper 
sense,  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  primarily  intended 
for  the  expiatio7i  of  sins,  with  respect  to  God,  and  not 
to  us,  and  that  our  sins,  as  an  impulsive  cause,  are  to 
be  considered  as  so  displeasing  to  God,  that  it  was  ne- 
cessary, for  the  vindication  of  honour  and  the  deterring 
the  world  from  sin,  that  no  less  a  sacrifice  of  atonement 
should  be  offered  than  the  blood  of  the  Son  of  God.— 
The  sufferings  of  Christ,  when  considered  with  respect 
to  our  sins,  are  to  be  considered  as  a  punishment ;  when 
with  respect  to  God,  as  being  designed  lo  expiate  them 
as  a  sacrifice  of  atonement. 

It  is  thus  that  Christ  is  said  to  bear  our  sins.  "  Who 
his  owuself  bare  our  sins  in  his  own  body  ontlie  tree." 
1  Peter  ii.  24,  where  the  apostle  evidently  <iuotes  from 
Isaiah  liii.  "  He  shall  bear  their  iniquities."  "  He  boru 
the  sin  of  many."  The  sam.e  expression  is  used  by 
St.  Paul  (Heb.  ix.  28),  "  So  Christ  was  once  offered  to 
bear  the  sins  of  many."  Now  to  bear  sin  is,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Scripture,  to  bear  the  punishment  of  sin,(5) 
and  the  use  of  the  compound  verb  aj/a0rpw,  by  both 
apostles,  is  worthy  of  notice.  St.  Peter  "  might  have 
.said  simply  riviyKe,  he  bore  ;  but  wishing  at  the  same 
time  to  signify  his  being  lifted  up  on  the  cross,  he  said 
amincyKe,  he  bore  up,  meaning,  he  bore  by  going  up 
to  the  cross."(6)  St.  Paul,  too,  uses  the  same  verb  with 
reference  to  the  Levitical  sacrifices,  which  were  carried 
to  an  elevated  altar ;  and  to  the  sacrifice  of  Christ.  So- 
cinus and  his  followers  cannot  deny  that  to  bear  sin,  in 
Scripture  generally,  signifies  to  bear  the  punishment  of 
sin  ;  but,  availing  themselves  of  the  very  force  of  the 
compound  verb  avaiptpui,  just  pointed  out,  they  inter- 
pret the  passage  in  St.  Peter  to  signify  the  bearing  up, 
that  is,  the  bearing  or  carrying  away  of  our  sins,  which, 
according  to  them,  may  be  effected  in  many  other  ways 
than  by  a  vicarious  sacrifice.  To  this,  Grotins  rcphes, 
"  the  particle  ava  ■will  not  admit  of  such  a  sense,  nor  is 
the  word  ever  so  used  by  any  Greek  writer.  In  the 
New  Testament  it  never  occurs  in  such  a  meaning." 
It  is  also  decisive  as  to  the  sense  in  which  St.  Peter 
uses  the  phrase  to  bear  sin,  that  he  quotes  from  Isaiah 
Uii.  II,  "For  he  shall  bear  their  iniquities,"  where  the 
Hebrew  word,  by  the  confession  of  all,  is  never  used  lor 
taking  away,  but  for  bearing  a  burden,  and  is  employed 
to  exi)ress  the  punishment  of  sin,  as  in  Lamentations 
v.  7.  "  Our  fathers  have  sinned,  and  are  not,  and  we 
have  borne  their  iniquities.''' 

Similar  to  this  expression  of  bearing  sins,  and  equally 
impracticable  to  the  criticism  of  the  Socinians,  is  the 
declaration  of  Isaiah  in  the  same  chapter,  "  he  was 
wounded  for  our  transgressions,  he  was  bruised  for  our 
iniquities;"  and  then  to  show  in  what  sense  he  was 
wounded  and  bruised  /or  our  transgressions,  hs  adds, 
"  the  chastisement  of  oiir  peace  was  ujion  him,  and  With 


(3)  History  of  Corruptions,  «fcc. 

(4)  De  Saiisfactione. 


(5)  Leviticus  xiii.  'J     Ezekiel  xviii.  20. 

(ti).GROTIl'S. 


262 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


his  strlpijs  we  arc  healoil."  Now,  cliastisemcnt  is  the 
punishnieiil  of  a  liiult ;  but  the  suflerinj;  person,  of 
wliom  the  projihct  speaks,  is  declared  by  hirn  to  be 
wholly  free  fyom  trai]S};rcs8ion;  to  be  perfectly  and  em- 
phatically innocent.  This  prophecy  is  applied  to  Christ 
by  the  apostles,  whose  constant  doctrine  is  the  entire  iin- 
maculateness  of  their  master  and  Lord.  If  chastise- 
ment, therelore,  was  laid  upon  Christ,  it  could  not  be 
on  account  of  faults  of  his  own  ;  his  suflerings  were 
the  chastisement  of  our  faults,  the  price  of  our  peace, 
and  his  "  stripes,"  another  punitive  expression,  were 
borne  by  him  for  our  "  healing."  The  only  course  which 
Socinus  and  his  followers  have  taken,  to  endeavour  to 
escape  the  (brce  of  this  passage,  i."  to  render  the  word 
not  chastisement,  but  affliction ;  m  answer  to  which, 
Grotius  and  subsequent  critics  have  abundantly  proved 
that  it  is  useil  not  to  signifv  allhction  of  any  kind ;  but 
that  which  has  the  nature  of  punishment.  These  pas- 
sages, therefore,  prove  a  substitution,  a  svffmng  la 
our  stead.  The  chastisement  of  offences  was  laid 
upon  him,  in  order  to  our  peace ;  and  the  ofTences  were 
ours,  since  they  co\i\A  not  be  his  "  who  did  no  sin,  nei- 
ther was  guile  found  in  liis  mouth." 

The  same  view  is  presented  to  ua  under  another,  and 
even  still  more  forcible  i)hrase,  in  the  0th  and  7th  verses 
of  the  same  chai)ter.  "  All  wo  like  sheep  have  gone 
astray,  we  have  turned  every  one  to  his  own  way,  and 
the  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  [literally  hath  made  to  meet 
on  him]  the  i;ii(]Uity  of  us  all ;  he  was  oppressed  and 
he  was  afflicted."  Ihshop  Lowth  translates  this  pas- 
sage, "  and  the  Lord  hath  made  to  light  upon  him  the 
iniquity  of  us  all ;  it  was  exacted  and  he  was  made 
answerable."  In  a  similar  manner,  several  former  cri- 
tics,(7)  "  he  put  or  fixed  together  upon  him  the  imciuity 
of  us  all ;  it  was  exacted  and  he  was  afflicted."  This 
sense  is  fully  established  by  Grotius  against  Socinus, 
and  by  Bishop  Slillingllcet  against  Crellius,  and  (hus 
the  passage  is  obviously  incapable  of  explanation,  ex- 
cept by  allowing  the  sunVrings  and  death  of  our  Lord 
to  be  vicarious.  Our  iniquities,  that  is,  according  to  the 
Hebrew  mode  of  speaking,  their  iiunisliment,  are  made 
to  meet  upon  him ;  they  arc  lixcil  togetlier  and  laid  upon 
him  ;  the  penalty  is  exacted  fioin  liiiri,  though  he  him- 
self had  incurred  no  penalty  personally,  and,  therefore, 
it  was  in  consequence  of  that  vicarious  exaction  that 
lie  was  "  afflicted,"  was  "  made  answerable,"  and,  vo- 
luntarily submitting,  "he  opened  not  his  mouth." 

In  2  Cor.  v.  21,  the  apostle  uses  almost  the  same  lan- 
guage. "  For  ho  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  [a  sin-oflcr- 
ing]  for  us,  who  knew  no  sin  ;  that  we  might  be  made 
the  righteousness  of  God  in  him."  The  Socinian  Im- 
proved Version  has  a  note  on  this  passage  so  obscure 
that  the  point  is  evidently  given  up  in  despair.  Socinus 
bclbre  had  atleinpted  an  elusive  interpretation,  which 
requires  scan  el y  an  elfort  to  refute.  By  Christ's  be- 
ing made  "  sin,"  he  would  understand  being  esteemed 
a  sinner  by  men.  But,  as  Grotius  observes,(8)  neither 
is  the  Greek  word,  translated  sin,  nor  the  Hebrew  word 
answering  to  it,  ever  taken  in  such  a  sense.  Besides, 
the  apostle  has  attributed  this  act  to  Gon  ;  it  was  he 
who  made  him  to  be  sin  :  but  he  certainly  did  not  cause 
the  Jews  and  others  to  esteem  (Uirist  a  wicked  man. 
On  the  contrary,  by  a  voice  from  heaven,  and  by  mira- 
Tacles,  he  did  all  that  was  proper  to  prove  to  all  men  his 
innocence.  Farther,  St.  Paul  jilaces  "  sin"  and  "  righte- 
ousness" in  opposition  to  each  other — "we  are  made 
the  righteousness  of  Gon,"  that  is,  are  justified  and 
freed  from  Divine  punishment ;  but,  in  order  to  this, 
Christ  was  "  made  sin,"  or  bore  our  []unishm(iil.  There 
is  also  another  antithesis  in  the  apostle's  words — (Jod 
made  liim  who  knew  no  sin,  and  consequently  de- 
served no  imnishment,  to  be  sin  ;  that  is,  it  pleased  him, 
that  he  should  be  punished  ;  hut  Christ  was  innocent, 
not  only  according  to  human  laws,  but  according  to  the 
law  of  God ;  the  antithesis,  therefore,  reijuires  us  to 
understand,  that  he  bore  the  penally  of  the  law,  and 
that  he  bore  it  in  our  slead. 

How  explicitly  the  death  of  Christ  is  representi^d  in 
the  New  Testament  as  lunuil,  which  it  ctould  not  be  In 
any  other  way  than  by  his  taking  our  place,  and  suf- 
fering in  our  stead,  is  manifest  also  from  Galaliaus  iii. 
13,  "Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the 
law,  being  made  a  curse  [an  execration]  for  U8,j)brit  is 
wrillun.  Cursed  is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree." 
The  passage  in  Moses,  to  which  St.  I'aul   refers,  is 


(7)  Vj^,.  I'oli  Syiiop. 


(8)  De  Satisfactione. 


Dent.  XXI.  22,23:  "  If  a  man  have  committed  a  sin 
worthy  of  death,  and  be  put  to  death,  and  they  hang 
him  on  a  tree  ;  his  body  shall  not  remain  all  night  upon 
the  tree,  but  thou  shalt  in  any  wise  bury  him  that  day, 
fnr  he  that  is  hani^ed  is  accursed  (/  (lod,  that  thy  land 
be  not  dcfded."  This  infamy  was  only  inflicted  upon 
great  offenders,  and  was  designed  to  show  the  light  in 
which  the  person,  thus  exposed,  was  viewed  by  God — 
he  was  a  curse  or  execration.  On  this,  the  remarks  of 
Grotius  are  most  forcible  and  conclusive.  "Socinus 
says,  that  to  be  an  execration  means  to  be  under  the 
punishment  of  execration,  which  is  true.  For  Karapa. 
every  where  denotes  punishment  proceeding  from  the 
sanction  of  law.  1  Peter  ii.  24.  Mark  xv.  41.  So- 
cinus also  admits,  that  the  cross  of  Christ  was  this 
curse ;  his  cross,  therefore,  had  the  nature  of  punish- 
ment, which  is  what  we  maintain.  Perhaps  Socinus 
allows  that  the  cross  of  Christ  was  a  punishment,  be- 
cause Pilate,  as  a  judge,  inllieted  it ;  but  this  does  not 
come  uj)  to  the  intention  of  the  apostle ;  for,  in  order  to 
prove  that  Christ  was  made  obnoxious  to  punishment, 
he  cites  Moses,  who  expressly  asserts,  that  whoever 
hangs  on  a  tree,  according  to  the  Divine  law,  is  '  ac- 
cursed of  God'— consequently,  in  the  words  of  the 
ajxjstle,  who  cites  this  place  of  Moses,  and  refers  it  to 
Christ,  we  must  supply  the  same  circumstance, '  ac- 
cursed of  God'  as  if  he  had  said  Christ  was  made 
accursed  of  God,  or  obnoxious  to  the  highest  and  most 
ignominious  punishment  '  for  us,  that  the  blessing  of 
Abraham  might  come  upon  the  Gentdes,'  &e.  For  when 
the  ajjostles  speak  of  the  suflerings  of  Christ  in  reference 
to  our  good,  they  do  not  regard  the  acts  (if  men  in  them, 
but  the  act  of  Goa"(9) 

4.  We  are  carried  still  farther  into  the  real  nature  and 
design  of  the  death  of  Christ,  by  those  passages  of  Holy 
Scripture  which  connect  with  it  ;)ro;)i7ja<w?!,n«o/if7nCTit, 
recoiiciliatinn,  and  the  making  peace  between  God  and 
man  ;  and  the  more  attentively  these  are  considered, 
the  more  unfounded  will  the  Socinian  notion  appear, 
which  rejiresents  the  death  of  Christ  as,  indirectly 
only,  a  benefit  to  us,  and  as  saving  us  from  our  sins 
and  their  jiunishnient  only  as  it  is  a  motive  to  repentance 
and  virtue. 

To  iiro()itiate  is  to  appease,  to  atone,  to  turn  away  the 
wrath  of  an  offended  person.  In  the  case  before  us  the 
wrath  turned  away  is  the  wrath  of  God  ;  the  person 
making  the  propitiation  is  Christ,  the  propitiating 
offering  or  sacrifice  is  his  blood.  All  this  is  expressed, 
in  most  explicit  terms,  in  the  following  pa.ssages :  1  John 
ii.  2,  "Ami  he  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins."  1  John 
iv.  10,  "  Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God  ;  but 
that  he  loved  us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation 
for  our  sins."  Rorn.  iii.  25,  "  Whom  God  hath  set  forth 
to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood."  The 
word  used  in  the  two  former  passages  is  iXacfioi ;  in  the 
last  iXaBTijpiuv.  Both  arc  from  the  verb  iXdoicu,  so 
often  used,  by  Greek  writers,  to  express  the  action  of  a 
person,  who,  in  some  appointed  way,  turned  away  the 
wrath  of  a  Deity  ;  and,  therefore,  cannot  bear  the  sense 
which  Socinus  would  jmu  ujion  it,~lhe  destruction  of 
sin.  This  is  not  su]ipurted  by  a  single  example:  with 
all  Greek  aiithoritiis,  whether  poets,  historians,  or 
others,  the  word  iik  aiis  lo propitiate,  and  is,  forthe  most 
part,  cori>true(l  \\  iili  an  accusative  case,  designating  the 
person  whose  disiileasurc  is  avertcd.(l)  As  this  could 
not  be  denied,  Crellius  comes  to  the  aid  of  Socinus,  and 
contends,  that  the  sense  of  this  word  was  not  to  be 
taken  from  its  common  use  in  the  Greek  tongue ;  hut 
from  the  Hellenistic  use  of  it,  namely,  its  use  in  the 
Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  the  LXX.,  and  the  Apo- 
crypha. But  this  will  not  serve  him  ;  for,  both  by  the 
LXX.  and  in  the  Apocrypha  it  is  used  in  the  same  sense 
as  in  the  Greek  classic  writers.  E/.ekiel  xliv.  27,  "Ho 
shall  offer  his  sin-ojf'crin^  U^aonov)  sailh  the  Lord 
God  ;"  E/.ckiel  xlv.  11),  "  And  the  priest  shall  take  of  the 
blood  of  the  sin-oflcring,  tliXaann."  Num.  v.  8.  "  The 
ram  of  the  atonnnoit,"  /cpioi  tu  t\aaun ',  to  which  may 
be  added,  out  of  the  Apocrypha,  2  Slaccabecs  iii.  33, 
"  Now  as  I  he  high  priest  was  making  an  atonement," 
iKaaiiitv.  The  propitiatory  sense  of  llie  word  iXaauoi 
being  thus  fl.xed,  the  modern  Socinians  have  conceded, 
in  their  note  on  John  ii.  2,  in  their  Improved  Version, 
that  it  means  "  the  pacifying  of  an  oU'ended  party ;  but 
they  subjoiti,  that  Christ  is  a  propitiation,  because  "  by 

(9)  De  Satisfactione. 

(1)  Grotius  Dc  Satisfactione. 


CaAP.  XX.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


263 


his  gospel  he  brings  sinners  to  repentance,  and  thua 
averts  the  Divine  displeasure."  The  concession  is  im- 
portant ;  and  the  comment  cannot  weaken  it,  because 
of  its  absurdity ;  for,  in  that  interpretation  of  propitia- 
tion, Moses,  or  any  of  the  apostles,  or  any  minister  of 
the  Gospel  now,  who  succeeds  in  bringing  sinners  to 
repentance,  is  as  truly  a  propitiation  for  sin  as  Christ 
himself.  On  Rom.  in.  25,  however,  the  authors  of  the 
Improved  Version  continue  to  follow  their  master  So- 
cinus,  and  translate  the  passage,  "  whom  God  hath  set 
forth  a  propitiation,  through  laith  in  liis  blood,"  "  wliom 
God  hath  set  forth  as  a  mercy  scat,  in  his  own  blood  ;" 
and  lay  great  stress  upon  this  rendering,  as  removing 
*'  that  countenance  to  the  doctrine  of  atonement  by  vi- 
carious sufferings,"  which  the  common  translation 
affords.  The  word  tXacrrnpiov  is  used  m  the  Septuagint 
Version,  and  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  to  express 
the  utercy  seat  or  covering  of  the  ark.  Cut  so  little  is 
to  be  gained  by  taking  it  in  tliis  sense  in  this  passage, 
that  this  rendering  is  adopted  by  several  orthodox  com- 
mentators as  expressing,  by  a  figure,  or  rather  by  sup- 
plymg  a  type  to  the  antitype,  in  a  very  emphatic  man- 
ner, the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  atonement.  The  mercy 
seat  was  so  called,  because,  under  the  Old  Testament, 
h  was  the  place  where  the  high  priest,  on  the  feast  of 
expiation,  sprinkled  the  blood  of  the  sin-offerings,  in 
order  to  make  an  atonement  for  himself  and  the  whole 
congregation ;  atid,  since  God  accepted  the  offering 
which  was  then  made,  it  is,  tor  this  reason,  accounted 
the  medium,  through  which  God  showed  himself  pro- 
pitious to  the  people.  With  reference  to  this,  Jesus 
Christ  may  be  called  a  mercy  seat,  as  being  the  person 
in  or  through  whom  God  shows  himself  propitious 
to  mankind.  And  as,  under  the  law,  God  was  pro- 
pitious to  those  who  came  to  him  by  appearing  before 
his  mercy  seat  with  the  blood  of  their  sin  offerings ;  so, 
under  the  Gospel  di.«pensation,  he  is  propitious  to  those 
who  come  unto  him  by  Jesus  Christ,  through  faith  in 
that  blood,  which  is  elsewhere  -'ailed  "  the  blovd  of 
sprinkling"  which  he  shed  for  tlie  remission  of  sins. 
Some  able  critics  have,  however,  argued,  from  the  force 
of  the  context,  that  the  word  ought  to  be  talien  actively, 
and  not  merely  declaratively ;  not  as  "  a  propitiatory" 
but  as  a  "  propitiation,"  which,  says  Grotius,  "  is  shown 
by  the  mention  wliich  is  afterward  made  of  blood,  to 
which  the  power  of  propitiation  is  ascribed."  Others 
supply  ^v/ia.  or  icnaov,  and  render  it  expiatory  sac- 
rilice.(2)  But,  whichever  of  these  renderings  be 
adopted,  the  same  doctrine  is  held  forth  to  us.  The 
covering  of  the  ark  was  rendered  a  propitiatory  only  by 
tlie  blood  of  the  victims  sprinkled  belbre  and  upon  it ; 
and  when  the  apostle  says,  that  God  hath  set  forth  Jesus 
Christ  to  be  a  propitiatory,  he  immediately  adds,  having 
the  ceremonies  of  the  temple  in  his  view,  "  through 
faith  in  his  blood."  The  text,  therefore,  contains  no  ex- 
hibition of  any  means  of  obtaining  mercy  but  through 
tke  blood  of  sacrifice,  according  to  the  rule  laid  down  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  "  without  shedding  of  blood 
there  is  no  remission ;"  and  is  in  strict  accordance  with 
Ephesians  i.  7,  "We  have  redemption  through  his 
blood,  the  remission  of  sins."  It  is  only  by  his  blood 
that  (Jhrist  himself  reconciles  us  to  God. 

Unable,  then,  as  they  who  deny  the  vicarious  nature 
of  the  sulTerings  of  Christ  are,  to  evade  the  testimony 
of  the  above  passages  which  speak  of  our  Lord  as  a 
propitiation,  what  is  their  next  resource?  They  deny 
tlie  existence  of  wrath  in  God,  in  the  hope  of  proving 
that  propitiation,  in  a  proper  sense,  cannot  be  the  doc- 
trine of  Scripture,  whatever  may  be  the  force  of  the 
mere  terms  which  the  sacred  writers  employ.  In 
order  to  give  plausibility  to  their  statement,  they  per- 
vert and  caricature  the  opinion  of  the  orthodox,  and 
argue  as  though  it  formed  a  part  of  the  doctrine  of 
Christ's  propitiation  and  oblation  for  sin,  that  God  is 
naturally  an  implacable  and  vengeful  being,  only  made 
placable  and  disposed  to  show  mercy  by  satisfaction 
being  made  to  his  displeasure  through  our  Lord's  suf- 
ferings and  death.  This  is  as  contrary  to  Scripture  as 
it  is  to  the  opinions  of  all  sober  persons  who  hold  the 
doctrine  of  Christ's  atonement.  i;od  is  love ;  but  it  is 
not  necessary,  in  order  to  support  this  truth,  to  assume 
that  lie  is  nolhing  else.  He  has,  as  we  have  seen, 
other  attributes,  which  harmonize  with  this  and  with 
each  other,  though  assuredly  that  harmony  cannot  be 
exhibited  by  any  who  deny  the  propitiation  for  sin 


(2)  Vide  Elsneb  Obs.  Schleusner  sub.  voce. 


made  by  the  death  of  Christ  Tlxjir  system,  tliere- 
Ibre,  obliges  them  to  deny  the  existence  of  some  of  the 
attributes  of  (iod,  or  to  explain  them  away. 

It  is  sufficient  to  show  that  there  is  not  only  no  im- 
placability in  (lOd,  but  a  most  tender  and  placable 
affection  towards  the  sinning  human  race  itself,  that 
the  Son  of  God,  by  whom  the  propitiation  was  made, 
was  the  free  gift  of  the  Father  to  us.  This  is  the  most 
eminent  proof  of  his  love,  that  for  our  sakes,  and  that 
mercy  might  be  extended  to  us,  "  he  spared  not  his 
own  son;  but  deUvered  him  up  freely  lor  us  all." 
Thus  he  is  the  fountain  and  first  moving  cause  of  that 
scheme  of  recovery  and  salvation,  which  the  incarna- 
tion and  death  of  our  Lord  brought  into  full  and  effi- 
cient operation.  The  question,  indeed,  is  not  whether 
God  is  love,  or  whether  he  is  of  a  placable  nature;  in 
that  we  are  agreed ;  but  it  is,  whether  God  is  holy  and 
just ;  whether  we,  his  creatures,  are  mider  law  or  not ; 
whether  this  law  has  any  penalty,  and  whether  God, 
in  his  rectoral  character,  is  bound  to  execute  and  up- 
hold that  law.  These  are  points  which  have  already 
been  established,  and  as  the  justice  of  God  is  punitive 
(for  if  it  is  not  punitive  his  laws  are  a  dead  letter), 
then  is  there  wrath  in  God ;  then  is  God  angry  with 
the  wicked ;  then  is  man,  as  a  sinner,  obnoxious  to 
this  anger;  and  so  a  propitiation  becomes  necessary  to 
turn  it  away  from  him.  Nor  are  these  terms  unscrip- 
tural ;  they  are  used  in  the  New  Testament  as  em- 
phatically as  in  the  Old,  though  in  a  special  sense,  a 
revelation  of  the  mercy  of  God  to  man.  John  the  Bap- 
tist declares,  that  if  any  man  believeth  not  on  the  Son 
of  God,  "  the'  vn-ath  of  God  'abideth  upon  him."  St. 
Paul  declares,  that  "  the  wrath  of  God  is  revealed  from 
heaven  against  all  ungodliness  and  unrighteousness  of 
men."  The  day  of  judgment  is,  with  reference  to  the 
ungodly,  said  to  be  "  the  day  of  wrath ;"  God  is  called 
"  a  amsuming  fire ;"  and  as  such,  is  the  object  of  "  re- 
verence and  godly  fear."  Nor  is  tliis  his  displeasure 
light,  and  the  consequences  of  it  a  trifling  and  tempo- 
rary inconvenience.  When  we  only  regard  the  conse- 
quences which  have  followed  sin  in  society,  from  the 
earliest  ages,  and  in  every  part  of  the  world,  and  add 
to  these  the  many  direct  and  fearful  inffictioiis  of  [lu- 
nishment  wliich  have  proceeded  from  the  "  Judge  of 
the  whole  earth,"  to  use  the  language  of  Scripture, 
"  our  flesh  may  well  tremble  because  of  his  judgments." 
But  wlien  we  look  at  the  future  state  of  the  wicked, 
as  it  is  represented  in  Scripture,  though  expressed 
generally,  and  surrounded  as  it  is  with  the  mystery  of 
a  world,  and  a  condition  of  being,  unknown  to  us  in 
the  present  state,  all  evils  wliich  history  has  crowded 
into  the  lot  of  man,  appear  insignificant  in  comparison 
of  banishment  from  God— separation  from  the  good-— 
public  condemnation— torment  of  spirit— "  weeping, 
walling,  and  gnashing  of  teeth"—"  everiasting  destruc- 
tion"—" everlasting  fire."  Let  men  talk  ever  so  much 
and  eloquently  of  the  pure  benevolence  of  God,  they 
cannot  abolish  the  facts  recorded  in  the  history  of  hu- 
man suffering  in  this  world  as  the  effect  of  transgres- 
sion ;  nor  can  they  discharge  these  feart'ul  commina- 
tions  from  the  pages  of  the  Book  of  God.  They  cannot 
be  criticised  away ;  and  if  it  is  "  Jesus  who  saves  us 
from  his  wrath  to  come,"  that  is,  from  tho.se  effects  of 
the  wrath  of  God  wliich  are  to  come,  then,  but  for  him, 
we  should  have  been  liable  to  them.  That  principle  in 
God,  from  which  such  effects  follow,  the  Scriptures 
call  \vrath  ;  and  they  who  deny  the  existence  of  wrath 
in  God,  deny,  therefore,  the  Scriptures. 

It  by  no  weans  follows,  however,  that  those  who 
thus  bow  to  inspired  authority,  must  intcrjiret  wrath 
to  be  a  passion  in  God ;  or  that,  though  we  conclude 
the  awful  attribute  of  his  justice  to  reijuire  satisfac- 
tion, in  order  to  the  forgiveness  of  the  guilty,  we  afford 
reason  to  any  to  charge  us  with  atiribuling  vengeful 
affections  to  the  Divhie  Being.  "Our  adversaries," 
says  Bishop  Stillingfleet,  "  first  make  opinions  for  us, 
and  then  show  that  they  are  unreasonable.  They  first 
suppose  that  anger  in  God  is  to  be  considereil  as  a  pas- 
sion, and  that  passion  a  desire  of  revenge,  and  then 
tell  us,  that  if  we  do  not  prove  that  this  desire  of  re- 
venge can  be  satisfied  by  the  suflerings  of  Christ,  then 
we  can  never  prove  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  to  ba 
true ;  whereas  we  do  not  mean,  by  God's  anger,  any 
such  passion,  but  the  just  declaration  of  God's  will  to 
punish,  upon  our  provocation  of  him  by  our  sins ;  we 
do  not  make  the  design  of  the  satisfaction  to  be  that 
God  may  please  liimself  in  the  revenging  the  sinsof  iho 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  H.' 


guilty  upon  the  most  innocent  person,  because  vvc 
make  the  design  of  punishment  not  to  be  the  satisfac- 
tion of  anjier  as  a  desire  of  revenge,  but  to  be  f  lie  vin- 
ihcatlon  of  the  honour  and  rights  of  the  ofTendcd  per- 
son by  such  a  way  as  he  himself  shall  judge  satisfac- 
tory to  the  ends  of  his  govenunent."(3) 

This  is  a  sufficient  answer ;  and  wc  now  proceed 
with  those  passages  of  Scripture,  the  phraseology  of 
which  still  farther  eslablishes  the  doctrine  of  Christ's 
atonement.  To  those  in  which  Christ  is  called  a  pro- 
pitiation we  add  those  which  speak  of  rccnnciliatioa 
and  the  establishment  of  peace  between  God  and  man 
as  the  design  and  direct  eflecl  of  his  death.  So  Col.  i. 
19,  22,  "  I-'or  it  pleased  the  l''atbcr  that  in  him  should 
all  fulness  dwell,  and  having  made  peace  through  the 
blood  of  his  cross,  by  him  to  ncimcik  all  things  unto 
himself;  by  him,  I  say,  whether  they  be  things  inearth, 
or  things  in  heaven ;  and  you  that  were  some  time 
alienated  and  enemies  in  your  mind  by  wicked  works, 
yet  now  hath  he  reconciled,  in  the  body  of  his  tlesh 
through  d^ath."  Romans  v.  10,  11,  "  For  if  when  we 
were  enemies,  we  were  reconciled  to  God,  by  the  death 
of  Ills  Son,  much  more,  being  reconciled  we  shall  be 
saved  by  his  life.  And  not  only  so,  but  we  also  joy  in 
God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  by  whom  we  have 
now  received  the  atonement.'"  2  Cor.  v.  18,  19,  "And 
all  things  are  of  God  who  hath  reconciled  us  to  liimself 
by  .Jesus  Christ,  and  hath  given  to  us  the  ministry  of 
reconciliation."  The  verbs  translated  to  reconcile  are 
KaraWaacij)  and  a7roxaraXA«(Ta(o,  which  signify  a 
change  from  one  state  to  another:  but,  in  tlicKC  pas- 
sages, the  connexion  determines  the  nature  of  the 
change  to  be  a  change  from  enmity  to  friendship.  In 
Rom.  V.  II,  the  noun  KinaXKayi]  is  rendered,  In  our 
translation,  atonement;  but  it  is  contended,  that  it 
ought  to  have  been  rendered  reronciiiation,  unless  we 
admit  the  primitive  meaning  of  the  English  word  atone- 
ment, which  is  being  at  one,  to  be  affixed  to  it.  It  was 
not  in  this  sense  certainly  that  the  word  atonement 
was  used  by  the  translators,  and  it  is  now  fixed  in  its 
meaning,  and,  in  common  language,  signifies  propUia- 
timi  in  the  proper  and  sacrificial  sense.  It  is  not,  how- 
ever, at  all  necessary  to  stand  upon  the  rendering  of 
KaraXXayij  in  this  passage  by  the  term  atonement. 
We  lose  nothing,  as  we  shall  see,  and  the  Soeinians 
gain  nothing  by  rendering  it  reconciliation,  which,  in- 
deed, appears  more  agreeable  to  the  context.  The 
word  atonement  would  liave  been  a  proper  substitute 
lor  ^'■propitiation^'  in  those  pas.sages  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament in  which  it  occurs,  as  being  more  obvious  in 
its  meaning  to  the  common  reader ;  and  because  the 
original  word  answers  to  the  Hebrew  *133,  which  is 
used  for  the  legal  atonements ;  "  but  as  the  reconcilia- 
tion which  we  have  received  through  Christ  was  the 
fcllect  of  atonement  made  lor  us  by  his  death,  words 
which  denote  the  former  simi)ly,  as  KaraWayr),  and 
words  from  the  same  root,  may,  when  applied  to  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ,  be  not  unfitly  expressed  by  the  lat- 
ter, as  containing  in  them  its  full  import.'X'l)  We  may 
observe,  also,  that  if,  as  it  is  contended,  we  must  ren- 
der Romans  v.  11,  "  by  whom  we  have  received  tlie 
recmciliation,"  the  jireceding  verse  must  not  bo  over- 
looked, which  declares  "  when  we  were  enemies  we 
were  reconciled  to  GoJ,  by  the  death  of  his  Hon," 
which  death  we  have  just  seen  is  in  oilier  jiassages 
called  a  ^^ propitiation'''  or  "  atonement ;'"  and  so  the 
apostle  conveys  no  other  idea  by  the  term  reconciliation 
than  reconciliation  through  an  atonement. 

The  expressions  "  recoiu'iliation''  and  "  making 
peace,"  necessarily  suppose  a  previous  state  of  hos- 
tility bctwrcTi  <;(id  ami  iir.iii,  which  is  reciprocal.  This 
is  somitiiiios  {-ailed  cjiiMity,  a  term,  as  it  respects  God, 
rather  niifurluii.iti',  sir]i<:  enmity  is  almost  fixed  in  our 
language  to  signify  a  malignant  and  revengeful  feeling. 
Of  this,  the  opimginrs  of  the  doctrine  of  the  atone- 
ment have  .availed  llu^ni.selves  to  argue,  that  as  there 
can  be  no  such  alTection  in  the  Divine  nature,  there- 
fore, reconciliation  in  Scripture  docs  not  mean  the  re- 
conciliation of  God  to  man,  but  of  man  to  God,  whose 
emnity  the  examiile  and  teaching  of  IMiri.st  tliey  tell  us 
are  very  olIi;clual  to  subdue.  It  is,  indeed,  a  s;id  and 
humbling  truth,  and  one  which  the  Soeinians  in  their 
discussions  on  the  natural  innocence  of  man  are  not 


(%)  Discourse  on  the  Sufleriligs  of  Christ. 
(4)  Maoek's  Discourses. 


wilUiig  to  admit,  that  by  the  Infection  of  sin  "  the  car- 
nal mind  is  enmity  to  God,"  that  human  nature  is  ma- 
lignantly hostile  to  God,  and  to  the  control  of  his  law ; 
but  this  13  far  from  expressing  the  whole  of  that  rela- 
tion of  man,  in  which,  in  Scripture,  he  is  said  to  be  at 
enmity  with  Gon,  and  so  to  need  a  reconciliation, — the 
making  of  peace  between  God  and  him.  That  relation 
is  a  legal  one,  as  that  of  a  sovereign  in  his  judicial  ca- 
pacity and  a  criminal  who  has  violated  his  laws,  and 
risen  up  against  his  authority,  and  who  is,  therefore, 
treated  as  an  enemy.  The  word  trx'^P"?  '*  used  in  this 
passive  sense,  both  in  the  Greek  writers  and  in  the 
New  Testament.  So,  in  Romans  xi.  28,  the  Jews  re- 
jected and  punished  lor  refusing  the  Gospel  are  said  by 
the  apostle,  "  ,as  concerning  the  Gosi)el"  to  be  "  ene- 
mies for  your  sakes ;"  treated  and  accounted  such  ; 
"  but,  as  touching  the  election,  they  are  beloved  for  the 
fathers'  sakes."  In  the  same  epistle,  chap.  v.  10,  the 
term  is  used  precisely  in  the  same  sense,  and  that  with 
reference  to  the  "  reconciliation"  by  (Christ, — "  for  if 
when  we  were  enemies  we  were  reconciled  to  God  by 
the  death  of  his  Son" — that  is,  when  we  were  objects 
of  the  Divine  judicial  displeasure,  accounted  as  ene- 
mies, and  liable  to  be  capitally  treated  as  such.  En- 
mity, in  the  sense  of  malignity  and  the  sentiment  of 
hatred,  is  added  to  this  relation  in  the  case  of  man ; 
but  it  is  no  part  of  the  relation  itself,  it  is  rather  a 
cau.se  of  it,  as  it  is  one  of  the  actings  of  a  corrupt  na- 
ture  which  render  man  obnoxious  to  the  disiileasurc 
and  the  penalty  of  the  law  of  God,  and  place  him  in 
the  condition  of  an  enemy.  It  is  this  judicial  variance 
and  opposition  between  God  .and  man,  which  is  re- 
ferred to  in  the  term  "  reconciliation,"  andin  the  phrase 
"making  peace,"  in  the  New  Testament;  .and  the 
hostility  is,  therefore,  in  its  o^ni  nature,  muival. 

But  that  there  is  no  truth  in  the  notion  just  retYited, 
viz.  that  reconciliation  means  no  more  than  our  laying 
aside  our  enmity  to  God,  may  .also  be  shown  from  several 
express  passages.  The  first  is  the  passage  we  have  above 
cited,  I{om.ans  v.  11,  "For  if  when  we  were  enemies 
we  wore  rcconcUed  to  God."  Here  the  act  of  reconciling 
is  ascribed  to  God  and  not  to  us ;  but  if  this  reconcilia- 
tion consisted  in  the  laying  aside  our  own  enmity,  tho 
act  woulil  be  ours  alone ;  and,  farther,  that  it  could  not 
be  the  laying  aside  of  our  enmity,  is  clear  from  the  text, 
which  speaks  of  reconciliation  while  we  were  yet  ene- 
mies. "  The  reconciliation  spoken  of  here,  is  not,  as 
Socinus  and  his  followers  have  s.aid,  our  conversion. 
For  that  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  a  benefit  obtained  for 
us  previous  to  our  conversion,  .appears  evident  from  tho 
opposite  members  of  the  two  sentences.  That  of  the 
former  runs  thus ;  '  much  more  being  justified,  we  shall 
be  saved  from  wrath  through  hiin,"  and  that  of  the  lat- 
ter, 'much  more  being  reconciled  we  shall  be  saved  by 
his  life.'  The  apostle  argues  from  the  greater  to  the 
less.  If  God  were  so  benign  to  us  bclbre  our  conver- 
sion, what  may  wc  not  expect  from  him  now  we  are 
converted  ?  To  reconcUe  here  cannot  mean  to  convert ; 
for  the  apostle  evidently  speaks  of  something  greatly 
remarkable  in  the  act  of  Christ ;  but  to  convert  sinners 
is  nothing  remarkable,  since  none  but  sinners  can  be 
ever  converted ;  whereas  it  was  a  rare  and  singular  thing 
for  (/hrist  to  die  lor  sinners,  and  to  reconcile  sinners  to 
God  by  his  death,  when  there  have  been  but  very  few 
good  men,  wlm  have  died  lor  their  friends.  In  the  next 
place,  con  veiMiiii  is  rclirreil  nidie  properly  to  his  glorious 
life,  tlian  to  Ins  shaimltd  death  ;  but  this  reconciliation 
is  attributed  to  his  death,  as  contra-distinguished  from 
his  glorious  life,  as  is  evident  from  the  antithesis  con- 
tained in  the  two  verses.  Besides,  it  is  from  the  latter 
benefit  that  we  learn  the  nature  of  the  former.  The  lat- 
ter, which  belongs  only  to  the  converted,  consists  of  the 
jieace  of  Gon,  and  salvation  (Irom  wrath,  verse  9,  10. 
This  the  apostle  allerward  calls  receivini:  the  recon- 
ciliation, and  wliai  is  it  to  receive  the  reconciliation,  but 
to  receive  the  n  mission  of  sins  ?  Acts  x.  43.  To  receive 
conversion  is  a  mode  of  speaking  entirely  unknown. 
If.  then,  to  receive  the  reconciliation  is  to  receive  the  re- 
mission of  sins,  and  in  effect  to  be  delivered  from  wrath 
or  iinnisliment,  to  be  reconciled  must  have  a  correspond- 
ing signification.'XS) 

2  Cor.  v.  19,  "God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the 
World  to  himself,  not  inijuiting  ilnir  ifcspasses  unto 
them."  Here,  the  manner  of  this  nconeiliation  is  ex- 
pressly said  to  be  not  our  laying  aside  our  enmity,  but 


(&)  Vide  Ukotius  De  Sutisfaciionc. 


Chap.  XX.  J 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


265 


the  non-imputation  of  our  trespasses  to  us  by  Ood,  in 
otiier  words,  tlie  pardiniiiij;  our  offences  and  restorinjf 
us  to  favour.  Tlie  pniniiso,  on  God's  part,  to  do  tliis  is 
expressive  of  liis  previous  reconciliation  to  the  world  ))y 
the  death  of  Christ ;  lor  our  actual  reconciliation  is  dis- 
tinguished from  this  by  what  follows,  and  halh  "  com- 
mitted to  us  the  ministry  of  reconciliation,"  by  virtue 
of  which  all  men  were,  by  the  apostles,  entreated  and 
besought  to  be  reconciled  to  God.  The  reason,  too,  of 
this  reconciliation  of  God  to  the  world,  by  virtue  of 
wliich  he  promises  not  to  impute  sin,  is  grounded  by  Itie 
apostle,  in  the  last  verse  of  the  chapter,  not  upon  the 
laying  aside  of  enmity  by  men,  but  upon  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ : — "  For  he  liath  made  him  to  be  sin  (a  sin-of- 
fering) for  us,  who  knew  no  sin,  that  we  might  be  made 
the  righteousness  of  God  in  hitn." 

Ephesians  ii.  16,  "  And  that  he  might  reconcile  both 
unto  God  in  one  body  by  the  cross,  having  slain  the  en- 
mity thereby."  Here,  the  act  of  reconciling  is  attributed 
to  Christ.  Man  is  not  spoken  of  as  reconciling  himself 
to  God,  but  Christ  is  said  to  reconcile  Jews  and  Ceutiles 
together,  and  both  to  God,  "  by  his  cross."  Thus,  says 
the  apostle,  "he  is  our  peace;"  but  in  what  manner  is 
the  peace  effected  ?  Not,  in  the  first  instance,  by  sub- 
duing the  enmity  of  man's  heart,  but  by  removing  the 
enmity  of  "  the  law."  "  Having  abolislied  in,  or  by,  his 
flesh  the  enmity,  even  the  law  of  commandments." 
The  ceremonial  law  only  is  here,  probably,  meant;  for 
by  its  abolition  through  its  fulfilment  in  Christ  the  en- 
mity between  .Tews  and  Gentiles  was  taken  away ;  but 
still  it  was  not  only  necessary  to  reconcile  .lew  and  Gen- 
tile together,  but  to  "  reconcile  both  unto  God."  This 
he  did  by  the  same  act ;  abolislung  the  ceremonial  law 
by  becoming  the  antitype  of  all  its  sacrifices;  and  thus, 
by  the  sacrifice  of  himself,  effecting  the  reconciliation 
of  all  to  God,  "  slaying  the  enmity  by  his  cross,"  taking 
away  whatever  hindered  the  reconciliation  of  the  guilty 
to  God,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  not  enmity  and 
hatred  to  Goo  in  the  human  mind  only,  but  that  judicial 
hostility  and  variance  which  separated  God  and  man  as 
/  Judge  and  criminal.  The  feeble  criticism'  of  Socinus, 
on  this  passage,  in  which  he  has  been  followed  by  his 
adherents  to  this  day,  is  thus  answered  by  Grotius. 
"  In  this  passage,  the  dative  Btio,  to  God,!  can  only  be 
governed  by  the  verb  aTTuKaraXlialri,  that  he  might  re- 
concile ;  for  the  interpretation  of  Socinus,  which  makes 
*  to  God'  stand  by  itself,  or  that  to  reconcile  to  God  is 
to  reconcile  them  among  themselves,  that  they  might 
serve  Gon,  is  distorted  and  without  example.  IVor  is 
the  argument  valid  which  is  drawn  from  thence,  that  in 
this  place  St.  Paul  properly  treats  of  the  peace  made  be- 
tween Jews  and  Gentiles ;  for  neither  does  it  follow, 
from  this  argument,  that  it  was  beside  his  purpose  to 
mention  the  peace  made  for  each  with  God.  For  the 
two  opposites  which  are  joined,  are  so  joined  among 
themselves,  that  they  should  be  primarily  and  chiefly 
joined  by  that  bond ;  for  they  are  not  united  among 
themselves,  except  by  and  for  that  bond.  Gentiles  and 
Jews,  therefore,  are  made  friends  among  themselves  by 
friendship  with  Gor)."(6) 

i  Here  also  a  critical  remark  will  be  appropriate.  The 
above  passages  will  show  how  falsely  it  has  been  as- 
serted that  God  is  nowhere  in  Scripture  said  to  be  re- 
conciled to  us,  and  that  they  only  declare  that  we  are 
reconciled  to  God  ;  but  the  fact  is,  that  the  very  jihrase 
of  our  hiiiig  recmiiriled  to  God,  imports  the  turning 
away  his  wrath  from  us.  Whitby  observes,  on  the 
words  KaToXKaTTuv  and  KnTaX\ayr],  "  that  they  natu- 
rally import  the  reconciliation  of  one  that  is  angry  or 
displeased  with  us  both  in  profane  and  Jewish  "wri- 
ters.''(7)  When  the  Philistines  suspected  that  David 
■would  appease  the  anger  of  Saul,  by  becoming  their  ad- 
versary, they  said,  "  wherewith  should  he  reconcile 
himself  to  his  Master  ?  Should  it  not  be  with  the  heads 
of  these  men?" — not,  surely,  how  shall  he  remove  his 
own  anger  against  his  master ;  but  how  shall  he  re- 
move liis  master's  anger  against  him ;  how  shall  he  re- 
store himself  to  his  master's  favour?  "If  thou  bring 
thy  gift  to  the  altar,  and  there  rememberest  that  thy 
brother  hath  augiit  against  tliee,"  not  that  thou  hast 
aught  against  thy  brother,  "  first  be  reconciled  to  thy 
[brother ;"  that  is,  appease  and  conciliate  lum :  so  that 
.the  words,  in  fact,  import  "  see  that  thy  brother  be  recvn- 

\  (6)  De  Satisfactione. 
(7)  See  also  Hammohd,  RosENMCLtER,  and  Schlbus- 

MBR. 


died  U)  the.e,''  since  that  which  goes  before  is  not  that 
he  hath  done  thee  an  injury,  but  thou  him.(H) 

Thus,  then,  for  us  to  be  reconciled  to  (.'od  is  to  avail 
ourselves  of  the  means  by  which  the  anger  of  God 
towards  us  is  to  be  appeased,  which  the  New  Testament 
expressly  declares  to  be  generally  "  the  sin-oHering"  of 
hint  "  who  knew  no  sin,'"  and  instrumcntally,  as  to  each 
individual  personally,  "  faith  in  his  blood." 

A  general  objection  of  the  Socinians  to  this  doctrine 
of  reconciliation  may  be  easily  answered.  When  we 
speak  of  the  necessity  of  Christ's  atonement,  in  order  to 
man's  forgiveness,  we  are  told,  that  we  represent  the 
Ucity  as  implacable  ;  when  we  rebut  that  by  showing 
that  it  was  liis  very  placability,  his  boundless  and  inef- 
fable love  to  men,  which  sent  his  Son  into  the  world  to 
die  lor  the  sins  of  mankind,  they  rejoin  with  their  lead- 
ers, Socinus  and  Crellius,  that  then  "  God  was  recon- 
ciled before  he  sent  his  Son,  and  that,  tlierefore,  Christ 
did  not  die  to  reconcile  God  to  us."  The  answer  plainly 
is,  that  in  this  objection,  they  either  mean  that  God  had, 
from  the  placability  and  compassion  of  his  nature,  de- 
termined to  be  reconciled  to  offenders  upon  the  sending 
his  Son,  or  that  he  was  actually  reconciled  when  our 
Lord  was  sent.  The  first  is  what  we  contend  for, 
and  is  in  no  wise  inconsistent  with  the  submission  of 
our  Lord  to  death,  since  that  was  in  pursuance  of  the 
merciful  appointment  and  decree  of  the  Father ;  and 
the  necessary  medium  by  which  this  placabiUty  of  God 
could  honourably  and  consistently  show  itself  in  ac- 
tual reconciliation,  or  the  pardon  of  sin.  That  God  was 
not  actually  reconciled  to  man,  that  is,  that  he  did  not 
forgive  our  offences,  independent  of  the  death  of  Christ, 
is  clear,  for  then  sin  would  have  been  forgiven  before  it 
was  committed,  and  remission  of  sins  could  not  have 
been  preached  in  the  name  of  Christ,  nor  could  a  minis- 
try of  reconciliation  have  been  committed  to  the  apos- 
tles. The  reconciliation  of  God  to  man  is,  throughout, 
a  conditional  one,  and,  as  in  all  conditional  processes  of 
this  land,  it  has  three  stages.  The  first  is  wlien  the 
party  offended  is  disposed  to  admit  of  terms  of  agree- 
ment, which,  in  God,  is  matter  of  pure  grace  and  fa- 
vour; the  second  is  when  he  declares  his  acceptance 
of  the  mediation  of  a  third  person,  and  that  he  is  so  sa- 
tisfied with  what  he  hath  done  in  order  to  it,  that  he  ap- 
points it  to  be  announced  to  the  offender,  that  if  the 
breach  continues,  the  fault  lies  wholly  upon  himself; 
the  third  is  when  the  offender  accepts  of  the  terms  of 
agreement  which  are  offered  to  him,  submits,  and  is  re- 
ceived into  favour.  "  Thus,"  says  Bishop  Stillingfleet, 
"  upon  the  death  and  sufferings  of  Christ,  God  declares 
that  he  is  so  satisfied  with  what  Christ  hath  done  and 
suffered  in  order  to  the  reconciliation  between  himself 
and  us,  that  he  now  publishes  remission  of  sins  to  the 
world,  U])on  those  terms  which  the  Mediator  hath  de- 
clared by  his  own  doctrine  and  the  apostles  he  sent  to 
preach  it.  Hut  because  remission  of  sins  doth  not  im- 
mediately Ibllow  upon  the  death  of  Christ,  without  any 
supposition  of  any  act  on  our  part,  theretbre  the  state 
of  favour  doth  commence  from  the  performance  of  the 
conditions  which  arc  required  of  us."(9)  Whoever  con- 
siders these  obvious  distinctions  will  have  an  ample 
answer  to  the  Soeinian  objection. 

5.  To  the  texts  which  speak  of  reconciUation  with 
God  as  illustrative  of  the  nature  of  the  death  of  Christ 
for  us,  we  ad(i  those  winch  speak  of  "  redemption ;" 
either  by  employing  that  word  itself,  or  others  of  the 
same  import.  Rom.  iii.  24,  "  Being  justified  freely  by  his 
grace,  through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus." 
Gal.  ni.  13,  "Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curso 
of  the  law,  being  made  a  curse  for  us."  Ephesians  i.  7, 
"  In  whom  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood,  the 
forgiveness  of  sins,  according  to  the  riches  of  his  grace." 
I  Peter  i.  18,  19,  "Forasmuch  as  ye  know  that  ye  were 
riot  redeemed  with  corruptible  things,  as  silver  and  gold, 
from  your  vain  conversation  received  by  tradition  from 
your  fathers ;  but  with  the  precious  blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a 
lamb  without  blemish,  and  without  spot."  I  Cor.vi.  19,20, 
"And  ye  are  not  your  owm,  for  ye  are  bought  with  a  price." 

(8)  The  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  say  some,  de- 
rive this  mode  of  expression  from  the  force  of  the  He- 
brew word  n^*1  transferred  to  the  Greek  word ;  but 
Palairet,  Grotius,  and  Schlkusnkr  give  instances 
of  the  use  of  the  term,  in  the  same  signification,  in  wri- 
ters purely  Greek. 

(9)  Discourse  on  the  Sufferings  of  Christ.  See  also 
Grotius  Ue  Satisfactione,  cap.  vij. 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


By  redeniptinn,  those  who  fleny  the  atonement  made 
by  (Jhrist  wish  to  understand  deliverance  merely,  re- 
gardint;  only  the  eireet,  and  studiously  putting  out  of 
sight  the  cause  from  which  it  tlows.  liut  the  very 
terms  used  in  the  above-cited  passages,  "  to  redeem,''' 
and  "to  be  bought  with  a  price,"  will  each  be  found 
to  refute  this  notion  of  a  gratuitous  di.livcrauce, 
whether  from  sin  or  punishment,  or  both.  Our  English 
word  to  redeem,  literally  means  to  buy  back ;  and  Au- 
7puM,  to  redeem,  and  aituKvlpiaaii;,  redemjit.in/t,  are,  both 
in  Greek  writers  and  in  the  New  Testament,  used  for 
the  act  of  setting  free  a  captive,  by  paying  Xv'jpov,  a 
ransom  or  redemption  price.  15ut,ast;rotius(l)has  fully 
shown,  by  reference  to  the  use  of  the  words  both  in  sa- 
cred and  profane  writers,  redemption  signifies  not 
merely  the  liberation  of  cajuives,  but  deliverance  from 
exile,  death,  ami  every  other  evil  from  which  we  may 
be  freed;  and  Xv'Jpov  signifies  every  thing  which  satis- 
fies another,  so  as  to  ellect  this  deliverance.  The  na- 
ture of  this  ri^demption,  or  purcha-seil  d(;liveranee  (for 
it  is  not  gratuitous  liberation,  as  will  presently  appear), 
is,  therefore,  to  be  ascertained  by  the  circumstances  of 
those  who  are  the  subjects  of  it.  The  subjects  in  the 
case  before  us  are  sinful  men.  They  are  under  guilt, 
— under  "  the  curse  of  the  law,"  the  servants  of  sin, 
under  the  power  and  dominion  of  the  Devil,  and  "  taken 
captive  by  him  at  his  will" — liable  to  the  death  of  the 
body  and  to  eternal  punishment.  To  the  whole  of  tWs 
case,  the  redemption,  the  pvrchased  deliverance  of  man, 
as  proclauned  in  the  Gospel,  applies  itself  Hence,  in 
the  above-cited  and  other  passages,  it  is  said  "  we  have 
redemption  through  his  blood  the  forgiveness  of  sins,"  in 
opposition  to  guilt ;  redemption  from  "  the  curse  of  the 
law ;  deliverance  from  sin,  ttiat  "  we  should  be  set  free 
from  sin ;"  deliverance  from  the  power  of  Satan  ;  from 
death,  by  a  resurrection  ;  and  from  future  "  wrath,"  by 
the  gift  of  eternal  lile.  lliroughout  the  whole  of  this 
glorious  doctrine  of  our  redenijition  from  these  tremen- 
dous evils  there  is,  however,  in  the  New  Testament,  a 
constant  reference  to  the  Xvjpov,  the  redemption  price, 
which  XvTnnv  is  as  constantly  declared  to  be  the  death 
of  Christ,  which  he  endured  in  our  stead.  Matt.  xx.  28, 
"The  Son  of  Man  came  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  (_Xv- 
Ipov)  for  many."  1  Tim.  ii.  G,  "  Who  gave  himself  a 
ransom  {av']CKv']f>ov)  for  all."  Ephesians  i.  7, "  In  whom 
we  have  redemption  (r?;i/  inruXvrpuxnv)  through  his 
blood."  1  Peter  i.  IS,  I'J,  "Ye  were  not  redeemed (tXw- 
"JpwOnlf)  with  corruptible  things,  as  silver  and  gobl— 
but  with  the  precimijt  blood  of  (Jlurist."  That  deliver- 
ance of  man  from  sin,  misery,  and  all  other  penal  evils 
of  his  transgression  which  constitutes  our  redemption 
by  Christ  is  not,  therefore,  a  gratuitous  deliverance, 
granted  without  a  consideration,  as  an  act  of  mere  |ire- 
rogative ;  the  ransom,  the  redemption  price,  was  exact- 
ed and  paid  ;  one  thing  was  given  for  another,  the  pre- 
cious blood  of  (Christ  for  cajitive  and  coMdriiiiicd  nun. 
Of  the  same  imjiort  are  those  passages  winch  rcjircscnt 
us  as  having  been  "  bought,"  or  ''purchased"  by  Clirist. 
St.  Peter  speaks  of  tlio.se  "who  denied  the  Lord  that 
bought  them"  (rov  nyopaaavja  avlovs),  and  St.  Paul, 
in  the  passage  cited  above,  says  "  ye  are  bought  (tiynpna- 
Orpt)  with  a  price ,"  which  price  is  expressly  said  by 
St.  John,  Rev.  v.  9,  to  be  the  blooil  of  (Jhrist— "  Thou 
■wast  slain,  and  hast  redeemed  us  to  God  (jjyopaaai,  hast 
pnrr.liased  us)  by  I  by  blood."  . 

The  means  by  which  it  has  been  attempted  to  evade 
the  force  of  these  most  express  statements  of  the  in- 
spired writers  remain  to  be  pointed  out  and  refuted. 

The  first  is  to  allege  that  the  term  redemption  is 
sometimes  used  for  simple  deliverance,  where  no  price 
or  consideration  is  suppused  to  be  given  ;  as  when  we 
read  in  the  (Jlii  Testament  of  God's  redeeming  his  jieo- 
ple  from  trouble,  frtirn  death,  from  danger,  where  no 
price  Is  mentioned;  and  when  iMosesis  called.  Acts  vii. 
35,  'Kv']itio']ii<;,  a  n-deemer,  because  lie  delivered  his  peo- 
ple from  the  bondage  of  Egypt.  Hut  (he  occasional  use 
of  the  term  in  an  iinpniperand  allusive  sense  cannot  be 
urged  against  its  strict  and  proper  sigiulication  univer- 
s.ally ;  and  granting  the  occasicmal  usi'  of  it  in  an  im- 
jiroper  sense,  it  will  still  remain  to  be  jiroved,  that  in  the 
passages  just  addu<-ed  out  of  the  New  Tolamcnt,  it  is 
used  in  this  manner.  The  propriety  of  words  is  not  to 
be  receded  from  but  for  weighty  reasons.  The  strict 
meaning  of  the  verb  (o  redeem  is  to  deliver  from  cap- 
tivity by  jiaying  a  ransom ;  it  is  extended  to  signify  de- 


(1)  Uo  Satisfaclione,  cap.  viii. 


[Part  IL 

liverance  from  evils  of  various  kinds  by  the  intervention 
of  a  valuable  consideration;  it  is,  in  some  cases,  used 
for  deliverance  by  any  means;  the  context  of  the  pas- 
sage, in  which  the  word  occurs,  and  the  circumstances 
of  the  case  must,  therefore,  be  resorted  to  in  order  to  de- 
termine the  sense  in  which  the  word  is  used.  Fair  cri- 
ticism reiiuires  that  we  take  wordsintheirproper  sense, 
unless  a  sufiicient  reason  can  be  shown,  from  their  con- 
nexion, to  the  conlrary;  and  not  that  we  are  first  to 
take  them  in  their  iniprdiier  sense  until  the  proper  sense 
is  Ibrccd  upon  us  Ijy  ;irgiiment.  This,  however,  is  not 
acaseofargumint,  but  ol'the  obvious  sense  of  the  words 
used  ;  for  if  deliverances,  in  some  passages  of  the  Old 
Testament,  from  trouble  and  danger  are  spoken  of  as  a 
redemption,  without  reference  to  a  \v']pov,  or  ransom, 
our  redemption  by  Christ  is  not  so  spoken  of;  but,  on  the 
contrary,  the  Xurpuv,  or  redemption  jirice,  is  rejieatedly, 
expressly,  and  emphatically  menlioned,  and  that  price  is 
said  to  be  "the  blood  of  Christ."  When  Greek  writers 
speak  of  rtTToivu  and  AuTpn,  with  reference  lo  the  relexse 
of  a  prisoner,  nothing  could  be  more  absurd  than  to  at- 
tempt lo  resolve  these  terms  hito  a  figurative  meaning; 
because  their  nK^ition  of  the  price,  ami  the  act  of  paying 
it,  and  the  circumstances  under  which  it  was  ])aid,  all 
show  that  they  use  the  terms  in  the  proper  and  sinct  sense. 
For  the  same  reason  must  they  be  so  un<lerstood  in  the 
New  Testament,  since  the  price  itself  which  constitutes 
the  \vrnov,  and  the  person  whopaiil  it,  and  the  circum- 
stances under  which  the  transaction  took  place,  are  all 
given  with  as  minute  an  historical  precision,  and  a  figura- 
tive interpretation  would  involve  us  in  as  great  an  ab- 
surdity in  the  one  case  as  the  other.  We  apply  this  to  the 
case  of  Moses  being  called  a  redeemer,  with  rc;ference  to 
his  delivering  Israel  from  Egypt,  and  remark,  that  the 
improper  use  of  that  term  may  be  allowed  m  the  case  of 
Moses,  because  he  is  nowhere  said  to  have  redeemed  Is- 
rael by  his  death,  nor  by  his  bluod,  nor  to  have  )nirchased 
the  Jews  with  a  price,  nor  to  have  given  himself  as  a 
ransom ;  nor  to  have  interposed  any  other  consideration, 
on  account  of  which  he  was  allowed  to  lead  his  people 
out  of  captivity.  He  is  said  to  be  a  deliverer,  a  re- 
deemer, and  that  is  all ;  btit  the  idea  of  a  proper  redemp- 
tion could  not,  in  the  nature  of  things,  ajiply  to  the  case, 
and,  therefore,  it  is  impossible  to  interpret  the  term  in 
its  proper  sense.  The  Jews  were  captives,  and  he  de- 
livered them  ;  this  was  sufficient  to  warrant  the  use  of 
the  term  redemption  in  its  improper  sense,  a  very  cus- 
tomary thing  in  language;  but  their  captivity  was  not 
i\\c\r fault,  as  ours  is;  it  was  not  pentU,  as  ours;  they 
were  delivered  from  uii.iust  oiiprcssion;  and  God  re- 
([Uiredof  Mo.ses  no  redtniption  iiricc,  as  a  consideration 
lor  interposing  to  free  them  from  boiulage.  In  our  case, 
the  ca|)livity  was  penal ;  there  was  a  right  bidgcd  with 
thejusticeof  God  todetain  us, and  toinlln  t  iiuiiisliment 
ujion  us;  and  a  consideration  was  tlurelbie  rciiuired, 
III  respect  of  which  that  right  was  relaxed.  In  one  in- 
stance, weare,  therefore,  eompellrd  tn  Interpret  the  word 
in  an  improper  sense  ;  in  the  other,  strictly  ;  at  least,  no 
argument  can  be  drawn  trom  the  use  of  the  word  with 
rc'rereiice  to  Moses,  to  turn  it  out  of  its  proper  significa- 
tion when  used  of  Christ ;  and  especially  when  all  tho 
eircuiiistances,  which  the  word  in  its  proper  sense  was 
intendeil  to  convey,  are  found  in  thi;  case  to  which  the 
redemption  of  man  by  Christ  is  applied.  Above  all,  the 
word  'Xvrpov  is  added  by  Sciiiilurc  to  the  deliverance  of 
men  clfcc'tcd  by  Christ ;  but  it  is  iinwlirrf  addi  il  to  the  de- 
liverance efTectcd  for  the  IsriK'lltcs  by  iVlosis  ;  and  by  this 
it  is,  in  fact,  declared,  that  the  modi  by  wliicli  i be  redemp- 
tion of  each  waselTected,  was  not  the  sanic^  -llieone  was 
by  the  destruction  of  the  enemies  ol  the  Israelites;  the 
other  by  the  death  of  the  Deliverer  him.self.(2) 


(2)  "  Nam  Mosis  cum  Chri.sto  instituta  cnliatio,  rcs- 
ponsione  vix  indiget,  cum  omnis  similitudo  cerloshabeat 
termliios,  quos  extra  protendi  nequeal.  ('omparan- 
tur  illi,  ipia  liberatores,  non  ob  liberamli  modum.  Nc- 
que  magis  ex  eo  sequitur,  Christum  satlsfacicndo  nos 
non liberasse,  quia  Moses  id  non  fecerit,  (luainClinsium 
nos  liberasse  jier  hominuin  mortem,  (piia  id  lecerit  Mo- 
ses. Uuod  SI  ad  modum  quoque  libcraiuli  coiiiparalio 
pertineret,  ea  ut  rectius  jirocederel,  diceiidum  esset, 
(Jhristum  nos  liberasse  miraculis  (ut  JMo.sesi,  non  au- 
tem  sua  morte  suoque  sanguine,  (iuihI  MosI  iiec  adscri- 
bitur,  nee  adscribi  potest.  Sed  praciiilimi  est,  ijuod  vox 
XxiTpoi  de  CUIUS  vi  hic  ugmius,  lilieratmni  per  AliLsen 
partus  niLsquam  addilur.  Uuld  quod  ne  est  fSocini  qui- 
I  dem  aententia  modus  liboraudi  idem  est  ?    Nam  Moses, 


Chap.  XX.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


267 


It  has  been  attempted  to  evade  the  literal  import  of 
the  important  terms  on  which  we  have  dwelt,  by  ursin;; 
that  such  an  interpretation  would  involve  the  absurdity 
of  paying  a  price  to  Satan,  the  power  said  to  liold  men 
captive  at  his  will. 

But  why  should  the  idea  of  redemption  be  confined 
to  the  purchasing  of  a  captive  ?  The  reason  appears  to 
be,  that  the  objection  may  be  invested  with  some  plausi- 
bility. The  fact,  however,  is,  that  this  is  but  one  species 
and  instance  of  redernjition ;  for  the  word,  in  its  proper 
jmd  general  sense,  means  deliverance  fVom  evil  of  any 
kind,  a  Auroov  or  valuable  consideration  intervening; 
which  valuable  consideration  may  not  always  be  literally 
a  price,  that  is,  not  money,  but  something  done,  or 
something  suffered,  by  which,  in  the  case  of  commuta- 
tion of  punishment,  the  lawgiver  is  satisfied,  though  no 
benefit  occurs  to  liim ;  because  in  punislimcnt  respect 
is  not  had  to  the  benefit  of  the  lawgiver,  but  to  the 
common  good  and  order  of  things.  So  when  Zaleucus, 
the  Locrian  lawgiver,  had  to  pass  sentence  upon  his 
son,  for  a  crime  which,  by  his  own  laws,  condemned 
the  aggressor  to  the  loss  of  both  his  eyes,  rather  than 
relax  his  laws  by  sparing  his  son,  he  ordered  him  to  be 
deprived  of  one  of  his  eyes,  and  submitted  to  be  deprived 
of  one  himself.  Thus  the  eye  of  Zaleucus  was  the 
Xvrpov  of  that  of  his  son ;  and,  in  a  decimation  of  mu- 
tinous soldiers,  those  who  are  punished  are  the  Xvrpov 
of  the  whole  body. 

But  even  if  the  redemption  in  Scripture  related 
■wholly  to  captivity,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  price 
miist  be  paid  to  him  who  detains  the  captive.  Our  cap- 
tivity to  Satan  is  not  parallel  to  the  case  of  a  captive 
taken  in  war,  and  in  whom,  by  the  laws  of  war,  the 
captor  has  obtained  a  right,  and  demands  an  equivalent 
for  liberation  and  the  renunciation  of  that  right.  Our 
captivity  to  Satan  is  judicial.  Manli.stens  to  temptation, 
violates  the  laws  of  God,  joins  in  a  rebellion  against  his 
authority,  and  his  being  left  under  the  power  of  Satan 
is  a  part  of  liis  punishment.  The  satisfaction  is,  there- 
fore, to  be  made  to  the  law  under  which  this  captivity 
is  made  a  part  of  the  penalty ;  not  to  him  who  detains 
the  captive,  and  who  is  but  a  permitted  instrument  in 
the  execution  of  the  law,  but  to  him  whose  law  has 
been  violated.  He  who  pays  the  price  of  redemption 
has  to  do  withthe  judicial  authority  only,  and  hisAiirpoj/ 
being  accepted,  he  proceeds  to  rescue  the  object  of  his 
compassion,  and  becomes  the  actual  redeemer. 

The  Xvrpov  in  the  case  of  man  is  the  blood  of  Christ ; 
and  our  redemption  is  not  a  commutation  of  a  pecuniary 
price  for  a  person,  but  a  commutation  of  the  sufferings 
of  one  person  in  the  stead  of  another,  which  sufferings, 
being  a  punishment,  in  order  to  satisfaction,  is  a  valuable 
consideration,  and,  therefore,  a  price  for  the  redemption 
of  man  out  of  the  hands  of  Satan,  and  from  all  the  con- 
sequences of  that  captivity.(3) 

Under  this  head,  now  that  we  are  showing  that  the 
death  of  Christ  is  e.\hibited  in  Scripture  as  the  price 
of  our  redemption,  it  may  also  be  necessary  to  meet 
another  objection,  that  this  doctrine  of  purchase  and 
commutation  is  inconsistent  with  that  freeness  of  the 
grace  of  God  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  on  which  so 
great  a  stress  is  laid  in  the  Scriptures.  This  objection 
has  been  urged  from  Socinus  to  Dr.  Priestley,  and  is 
thus  stated  by  the  Iatter;(4)  "  The  Scriptures  uniformly 
represent  God  as  our  universal  parent,  pardoning  sin- 
ners/ree/i/,  that  is,  from  his  natural  goodness  and 
mercy,  whenever  they  repent  and  reform  their  lives. 
All  the  declarations  of  Divine  mercy  are  made,  without 
reserve  and  limitation,  to  the  truly  penitent,  through  all 
the  books  of  Scripture,  without  the  most  distant  hint  of 
any  regard  being  had  to  the  sufferings  or  merit  of  any 
being  whatever."  The  proofs  which  he  gives  for  this 
bold  and,  indeed,  impudent  po.sition,  are  cliiefiy  the 
declaration  of  the  apostle,  that  we  are  justified /yfe/;/ 
by  the  grace  of  God,  and  he  contends  that  the  word 
freely  "  implies  that  forgiveness  is  the/ree  gift  of  God, 
and  proceeds  from  his  essential  goodness  and  mercy, 
withiwt  regard  to  any  foreign  consideration  whatever." 
It  is  singular,  however,  that  the  position,  as  Dr.  Priestley 


Josue,  et  alii  liberarunt,  non  aliquid  faciendo  circa  liber- 
andos(quod  Christo  Socinus  tribuit),  sed  amovendoeos 
qui  libetati  obstabant,  hostes  scilicet."— Gkotius,  De 
Satisfactione,  cap.  viii. 

(3)  Vide  Stilunoh.ekt's  Discourses  on  the  Suf- 
lerings,  ifcc. 
,    (4)  History  of  the  Corruiitions. 


has  put  it  in  the  above  quotations,  refutes  Itself;  for  even 
he  restricts  the  exercise  of  this  mercy  of  God  "  to  the 
truly  penitent,"  "to  them  who  repent  and  reform  their 
lives."  Forgiveness,  therefore,  is  not,  even  according 
to  him  and  liis  foIlowers,/r(;e  in  the  sense  of  uncondi- 
tional, and  at  the  very  time  he  denies  that  pardon  is  be- 
stowed by  God,  "  without  regard  to  any  consideration 
whatever  foreign  to  his  essential  goodness  and  mercy," 
he  acknowledges  that  it  is  regulated,  in  its  exercise,  by 
the  consideration  of  the  penitence  or  non-penitence  of 
the  guilty,  who  are  the  subjects  of  it,  from  which  the 
contradictory  conclusion  follows,  that,  in  bestowing 
mercy,  God  has  respect  to  a  consideration /orcjifw  to  his 
goodness  and  mercy,  even  the  penitence  of  man,  so  that 
there  is,  in  the  mode  of  dispensing  mercy,  a  reserve  and 
limitation  on  the  part  of  God. 

Thus,  then,  unless  they  would  let  in  all  kinds  of  li- 
cense, by  preaching  an  unconditional  pardon,  the  Soci- 
nians  are  obliged  to  acknowledge,  that  a  thing  may  be 
done  freely,  which  is,  nevertheless,  not  done  uncondi- 
tionally. For  as  it  was  replied  of  old  to  Socinus, 
whom  Dr.  Priestley  follows  in  this  objection,  if  tliis  be 
not  acknowledged,  then  the  grossest  Antinomianism  is 
the  true  doctrine.  For,  if  forgiveness  of  sin  can  only 
be  accounted  a  free  gift  by  being  dependent  upon  no 
condition,  and  subject  to  no  restrictions,  it  follows,  that 
the  repentance  and  amendment  of  the  offender  himself 
are  no  more  to  be  regarded  than  tlie  sull'erings  and  merit 
of  any  other  being ;  and  consequently,  that  all  sinners, 
without  reserve  or  limitation,  have  an  equal  claim  of 
pardon,  whether  they  repent  or  not.  If,  to  avoid  this 
consequence,  it  be  said  that  God  is  free  to  choose  the 
objects  to  whom  he  will  show  mercy,  and  to  impose 
upon  them  such  restrictions,  and  to  require  of  them 
such  qualifications  as  he  tliinks  fit ;  it  may  then,  with 
equal  reason,  be  asserted,  that  he  is  also  free  to  dispense 
his  mercy  for  such  reasons  and  by  such  methods  as  he, 
in  his  wisdom,  shall  determine  to  be  most  conducive  to 
his  own  glory  and  the  good  of  his  creatures,  and  there 
is  no  reason  whatever  to  be  given  why  a  regard  to  the 
sufferings  or  merit  of  another  person  should  more  de- 
stroy the  freeness  of  the  gift,  than  the  requisition  of 
certain  qualifications  in  the  object  himseU'.(5)  Thus 
the  argument  urged  in  the  objection  proves  as  much 
against  the  objectors  as  it  does  against  us,  or  rather  it 
proves  nothing  against  either :  for  the  showing  mercy  to 
the  guilty,  by  any  method,  was  a  matter  in  which  Al- 
mighty God  was  perfectly  free.  He  might  have  exacted 
the  penalty  of  his  violated  law  upon  the  sinning  indi- 
vidual ;  and  to  forgive  sin,  in  any  manner,  was,  in  him, 
therefore,  an  act  of  unspeakable  grace  and  favour. 
Again,  from  the  mode  and  limitation  of  dispensing  this 
grace  and  favour,  he  derives  no  advantage  (tor  the  grati- 
fication of  his  own  benevolence  is  not  a  question  of 
interest)  in  the  whole  transaction ;  both  in  the  mercy 
dispensed  and  in  the  mode  the  benefit  of  the  creature  is 
kept  in  view  ;  nor  could  the  persons  pardoned  them- 
selves furnish  any  part  of  the  consideration  on  which 
they  are  pardoned,  or  of  themselves  perform  the  con- 
ditions required  of  them ;  so  that,  for  all  these  reasons, 
the  pardon  of  man  is  a  free  gift,  and  its  mode  of  being 
dispensed  is  the  proof  that  it  is  so,  and  not  a  proof  to 
the  contrary. 

But  the  very  passage  of  St.  Paul,  to  which  Dr. 
Priestley  refers,  when  he  contends  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  New  Testament  is,  "  that  forgiveness  is  the  free 
gift  of  God,  and  proceeds  from  his  essential  goodness 
and  mercy,  without  regard  to  any  foreign  consideration 
whatever,"  refutes  his  inference.  The  passage  is, 
"being  justified /rcf/;/  by  his  grace,  through  the  re- 
demption which  is  in  Christ  Jesus."  The  same  doctrine 
is  taught  in  other  passages  ;  and  so  far  is  it  from  being 
true,  that  no  reference  is  made  to  any  consideration 
beyond  the  mere  goodness  and  mercy  of  God, — that  con- 
sideration is  stated  in  so  many  express  words, "  through 
the  redemption  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus ;"  of  which 
redemption  the  blood  of  Christ  is  the  price,  as  taught  in 
the  texts  above  commented  on.  But  though  it  was  con- 
venient, in  order  to  render  a  bold  assertion  more  plau- 
sible, to  keep  this  out  of  sight,  a  little  reflection  might 
have  shown,  that  the  argument  built  upon  the  word 
freely,  the  term  used  by  the  apostle,  proceeds  upon  an 
entire  mistake.  The  expression  has  reference  to  our- 
selves and  to  our  own  exertions  in  the  work  of  justifi- 
cation, not  to  any  tiling  which  has  been  done  by  another 

(5)  Vide  VfivsiE'dCampton  Lectures. 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


tPAHT  11. 


In  our  behalf;  and  It  is  here  used  to  denote  the  manner 
in  which  the  blessing  is  hestuwed,  not  the  means  by 
which  it  was  procured.  "  Ueing  jnsiilled  freely  by  his 
grace"'— /rec/i/,  in  the  original  Mopcav,  in  the  way  of  a 
gift  unmerited  by  us,  an(l  not  in  the  way  of  a  reward 
for  our  worthiness  or  desert,  agreeably  to  the  asser- 
tion of  the  apostle  in  another  place,  "  not  by  works  of 
riffhteousness  which  %ve  have  done,  but  aceonhnj;  to  his 
mercy  he  saved  us."  To  be  justified,  is  to  be  pardoned, 
and  treated  as  rif;hteous  in  the  slight  of  Cod,  and  to  be 
admitted  thus  into  his  favour  and  acce])tancc.  But 
man,  in  his  fallen  state,  had  nothiiiK  in  himself,  and 
could  do  nothing  of  himself,  by  which  he  might  merit, 
or  claim  as  his  due  so  great  a  benefit.  Haviiiji,  there- 
fore, no  pretensions  to  real  righteousness,  our  absolution 
from  the  guilt  of  sin,  and  our  admission  to  the  character 
and  privileges  of  righteous  persons,  must  bo  imputed, 
not  to  our  merit,  but  to  (he  grace  of  God;  it  is  an  act 
of  mercy  whii-h  we  must  acknowledge  and  receive  as 
a  free  gift,  and  not  demand  as  a  just  reward.  Nor  do 
the  means  by  which  our  justification  was  effected  in 
any  respect  alter  its  nature  as  a  gift,  or  in  the  least  di- 
minish its  freedom.  "  We  are  justified  freely  by  his 
grace,  through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Jesus  Christ ;" 
but  this  redemjition  was  not  procured  by  us,  nor  pro- 
vided at  our  expense.  It  was  the  result  of  the  pure 
love  of  God,  who,  compassionating  our  misery,  Idmself 
provided  the  means  of  our  deliverance,  by  sending  his 
only-begotten  Son  into  the  world,  who  voluntarily  sub- 
mitted to  die  upon  the  cross,  that  he  might  become  the 
propitiation  for  our  sins,  and  reconcile  us  to  Gon.  Thus 
is  the  whole  an  entire  act  of  mercy  on  the  part  of  God 
and  Christ ;  begun  and  completed  for  our  benefit,  but 
without  our  intervention  ;  and,  therefore,  with  respect 
tn  U.I,  the  pardon  of  sin  must  still  be  accounted  a  gift, 
though  it  comes  to  us  through  the  redemption  that  is  in 
Jesus  Christ. 

Equally  unfounded  is  the  argument  built  upon  the 
passages  in  which  the  forgiveness  of  sin  is  repre- 
sented under  the  notion  of  the  free  remission  of  a  debt ; 
in  which  act,  it  is  said,  there  is  no  consideration  of 
atonement  and  satisfaction.  When  sin  is  si)oken  of  as 
9  debt,  a  metaphor  is  plainly  ctnployed,  and  it  would  be 
a  novel  rule  to  interpret  what  is  plainly  literal  by  what 
is  metajihorical.  There  is,  undoubtedly,  something  in 
the  act  of  forgiving  sin  which  is  common  with  the  act 
/of  remitting  a  debt  by  a  creditor,  or  there  would  bo  no 
foundation  for  the  metaphor ;  but  it  can  by  no  means 
legitimately  follow,  that  the  remission  of  sins  is,  in  all 
its  circumstances,  to  be  interpreted  by  all  the  circum- 
stances which  accompany  tlie  free  remission  of  a  debt. 
We  know,  on  the  contrary,  that  remission  of  sins  is  not 
unconditional ;  repentance  and  faith  are  required  in  order 
to  it,  which  is  acknowledged  by  the  Socinians  them- 
selves. But  this  acknowledgment  is  fatal  to  the  argu- 
ment they  would  draw  from  the  instances  in  the  New 
Testament,  in  which  Almighty  God  is  represented  as  a 
merciful  creditor,  (reely  forgiving  his  insolvent  debtors ; 
for  if  the  act  of  remitting  sins  be  in  all  respects  like 
the  act  of  forgiving  debts,  then  indeed  can  neither  re- 
pentance, nor  faith,  nor  comlition  of  any  kind,  be  in- 
(jisted  upon  in  order  to  forgiveness;  since,  in  the 
instancies  referred  to,  the  debtors  were  discharged  with- 
out any  expressed  condition  at  all.  But  something, 
abso,  previous  to  our  repentance  and  failh,  is  constantly 
connectedin  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  iheNcw  Testament 
■with  the  very  offer  of  forgiveness.  "  It  behooved  Christ 
to  suffer,  and  to  rise  from  the  dead  on  the  third  day," 
that  "  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should  be 
preached  in  his  name  among  all  nations."  It  was  ne- 
cessary, as  we  have  already  seen,  tliat  the  one  should 
lake  place  before  the  other  could  bo  announced;  and 
some  degree  of  ncc;es8ity  is  allowed  in  the  case,  even 
on  the  Sociiiian  hypothesis,  ahliough  a  very  subordinate 
one.  But  if  by  an  act  of  prcrogalive  alone,  unfettered 
by  any  consiilerations  of  justice  and  right,  as  is  a  creditor 
When  he  freely  forgives  a  debt,  God  forgives  sins,  then 
there  could  be  no  necessity  of  any  conceivable  kind  for 
"  Christ  to  suffer ;"  and  the  offer  of  remission  of  sins 
would,  in  that  case,  have  been  wholly  indepcn(!<'nt  of 
his  siitTerings,  which  is  contrary  to  the  text.  In  perfect 
accordance  v/ithihe  above  passage  is  that  in  Arts  xiii. 
38,  where  it  is  said,  '•  Be  it  known  unto  you,  therefore, 
men  and  bretlirmi,  that  through  this  man  ((5(u  rHr«, 
throiti^h  the  meaiiK  of  Ihii  man),  is  preached  unto  you 
the  forgiveness  of  sins."  Here  the  same  means  as 
those  before  metitioiiud  by  St.  Luke,  arc  obviously  te- 


ferred  to,  "  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ."  Still 
more  expressly.  Matt.  xxvi.  28,  our  Lord  declares  that 
his  blood  is  "  tbo  blood  of  the  New  Testament,  wliich 
is  shed  for  many  for  the  remis.sion  of  sins;"  wliere  he 
jilainly  makes  his  blood  the  procuring  cause  of  that  re- 
mission, and  a  necessary  libation  in  order  to  its  being 
attainable.  Our  redemption  is  said,  by  St.  Paul,  Ephes. 
i.  7,  to  be  "  through  his  blood,"  and  this  redemption  he 
explains  to  be  "the  remission  of  our  sins;"  and  in 
writing  to  the  Hebrews,  he  lays  it  down,  as  that  very 
l)rinciple  of  the  Old  Testament  dispensation  which 
made  it  typical  of  the  New,  that  "  without  shedding  of 
blood  there  was  no  remission."  This  remission  is, 
nevertheless,  for  the  reasons  given  above,  always  repre- 
sented as  a  free  act  of  the  Divine  mercy ;  for  the 
apostles  saw  no  inconsistency  in  giving  to  it  this  free 
and  gracious  character  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other 
proclaiming  that  that  free  and  adorable  mercy  was 
called  into  exercise  by  the  "  chasti-sement  of  our  sins 
being  laid  upon  Christ ;"  and  thus  by  uniting  both,  they 
broadly  and  infallibly  distinguish  "  the  act  of  a  law- 
giver, who  in  forgiving  sins  has  respect  to  the  authority 
of  ihv.  law,  and  the  act  of  a  creditor,  wlio  in  remitting  a 
debt  disposes  of  his  property  at  pleasure." 

But  although  no  criticism  can  be  more  fallacious 
than  to  interpret  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  which  is  a 
plain  and  literal  transaction,  by  a  metaphor,  or  a  para- 
ble, which  may  have  eitlier  too  few  or  too  many  cir- 
cumstances interwoven  with  it  for  just  illustration, 
when  applied  beyond,  or  contrary  to,  its  intention,  the 
reason  of  the  metaphor  is  at  once  obvious  and  beau- 
tiful. The  verb  aipirii'i,  is  the  word  commonly  used 
for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  the  remission  of 
debts.  It  signifies  to  send  away,  dismiss ;  and  is 
accommodated  to  both  tliese  acts.  The  ideas  of  abso- 
lute right  in  one  party,  and  of  binding  obligation  on 
the  other,  hold  good  eiiually  as  to  the  lawgiver  and 
the  transgressor,  the  creditor  and  the  debtor.  The  law- 
giver has  a  right  to  demand  obedience,  the  creditor  to 
demand  his  jjroperty  ;  the  transgressor  of  Utw  is  under 
the  bond  of  its  penalty ;  the  debtor  is  tmder  tlie  obli- 
gation of  repayment  or  imprisonment.  This  is  the 
basis  of  tlie  comparison  between  debts  of  money,  and 
obligations  of  obeiUence  to  a  lawgiver  ;  and  the  same 
word  is  e(iually  well  applied  to  exjness  the  cancelling 
of  each,  though,  except  in  the  respect  just  stated,  ttiey 
are  transactions  and  relations  very  difTcrent  to  each 
other.  Every  sin  involves  an  obligation  to  punishment ; 
and  w  hen  sin  is  dt.smi.'iscd,  sent  away,  or,  in  other  words, 
forgiven,  the  liability  to  punishment  is  removed,  just  as 
when  a  debt  is  di.nnissed,  sent  airay,  or  in  other  words 
remitted,  the  obligation  of  repayment,  and,  in  default 
of  that,  the  obligation  of  impritsonmcut,  or,  according  to 
the  ancient  law,  of  being  sold  as  a  slave,  is  removed 
with  it.  So  far  the  resemblance  goes ;  but  the  Scrip- 
tures themselves,  by  connecting  pardon  of  sin  with  a 
previous  atonement,  prevent  it  from  being  carried  far- 
ther. And,  indeed,  tlic  reason  of  the  case  su/Ilciently 
shows  the  diflercnce  between  the  remitting  of  a  debt, 
which  is  the  act  of  a  private  man,  and  the  pardon  of 
transgressions  against  a  jmblic  law,  which  is  the  act 
of  a  magistrate;  between  an  act  which  affects  the  pri- 
vate interests  of  one,  and  an  act,  which,  in  its  bearing 
upon  the  authority  of  the  public  law  and  the  protection 
and  wellare  of  society,  alfects  the  interests  of  many ; 
in  a  word,  between  an  act  which  is  a  matter  of  mere 
feeling,  and  in  which  rcctoral  justice  can  have  no  place, 
and  one  which  must  be  harnioniy.ed  with  rectoral  jus- 
tice ;  for  compassion  to  tlie  guilty  can  never  be  the 
leading  rule  of  government. 

0.  The  nature  of  the  death  of  Christ  is  still  farther 
explained  in  the  New  Testament,  by  the  manner  in 
which  it  connects  our  justification  with  "  faith  in  the 
blooil,"  the  sullcrings  which  Christ  endured  in  our 
stead  ;  and  both  our  justification,  and  tlie  death  of  Christ 
as  its  meritorious  cause,  with  "  the  RionTKiir.iNKss 
OF  God."  According  to  the  testimony  of  the  whole  of 
the  evangelic  writers,  the  jusiificiiiion  of  man  is  an  act 
of  the  highest  grace,  a  manifestation  of  the  sii)ierlative 
and  inelfable  love  of  Gon,  and  is  at  the  same  time  a 
strictly  r.Kiii  rwons  proceeding. 

The.se  views,  scattered  throughout  the  books  of  the 
Now  Testament,  arc  summed  up  in  ihe  following  ex- 
plicit language  of  St.  Paul,  Horn.  iii.  21— 2fi.  "Being 
justified  freely  by  his  grace,  through  the  redemption 
that  is  in  C:hrist  .leans.  Whom  God  h.ath  set  forth  us  u 
liropitiaiion  through  faith  in  luii  blood,  to  declare  his 


Chap.  XX.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


269 


righteousnesa  for  the  remission  of  sins  that  arc  past, 
through  the  forbearance  of  God  ;  to  declare,  I  say,  at 
this  time  his  righteousness,  that  he  might  hvjuat,  and 
the  juslilier  of  him  which  bclievclh  in  Jesus."  The 
argument  of  the  apostle  is  exceedingly  lucid.  He 
treats  of  man's  justilication  before  Guu,  of  which  he 
mentions  two  methods.  The  first  is  by  our  own  obe- 
dience to  the  law  of  God,  on  the  principle  of  all  righteous 
law,  that  obedience  secures  exemption  I'runi  punish- 
ment ;  or,  as  he  expresses  it,  chap.  x.  5,  "  For  JMoses 
describeth  the  righteousness  which  is  of  the  law,  tkat 
the  man.  which  doeth  these  things  shall  live  by  them." 
This  method  of  justification  he  proves  to  be  impossible 
to  rnan  in  his  present  state  of  degeneracy,  and  from  the 
actual  transgressions  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  on  account 
of  which  "  the  whole  world"  is  guilty  before  Goil ;  and 
he  therefore  lays  it  down  as  an  incontrovertible  maxim, 
that "  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  shall  no  tlesh  be  justified," 
since  "  by  the  law  is  the  knowledge  of  sin  ;"  for  which 
it  provides  no  remedy.  The  other  method  is  justifica- 
tion by  the  grace  of  God,  as  a  •'  free  gift;"  but  coming 
to  us  through  the  intervention  of  the  death  of  Christ,  as 
our  redemption  price  ;  and  received  instrumentally  by 
our  faith  in  him.  "  Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace, 
through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Jesus  Christ."  He 
then  immediately  adds,  "  whom  God  hath  set  forth," 
openly  exhibited  and  publicly  announced,  "  to  be  a  pro- 
pitiation ;"  to  be  the  per.son  through  whose  voluntary 
and  vicarious  sufferings  he  is  reconciled  to  sinful  man, 
and  by  whom  he  will  justify  all  who  "  through  faith" 
confide  "  in"  the  virtue  of  "his  blood,"  shed  for  the 
remission  of  sins.  But  this  public  announcement  and 
Betting  forth  of  Christ  as  a  propitiation  was  not  only 
for  a  declaration  of  the  Divine  mercy ;  but  pardon  was 
oflfered  to  men  in  this  method,  to  declare  the  "  right- 
enusncss"  of  God  (ecg  Evictl^iv  SiKaioavvrjs  avra),  for  a 
demonstration  of  his  righteousness  or  justice,  in  the 
remission  of  past  sins  ;  "  that  he  might  be  just  and  yet 
the  justifier  of  him  that  believeth  in  Jesus"— that  he 
might  show  himself  to  be  strictly  and  inviolably 
righteous  in  the  administration  of  his  government, 
even  while  he  justifies  the  offender  that  believes  in 
Jesus.  The  Socinian  version  renders  the  clause,  "  to 
declare  his  righteousness  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  to 
show  his  method  of  justification  concerning  the  remis- 
sion of  past  |sins.  Even  then  the  strict  rectoral  jus- 
tice of  the  act  of  justifying  sinners  through  faith  in  the 
blood  of  Christ  is  expressed  by  the  following  clause, 
"  that  he  might  be  jrsT ;"  but  the  sense  of  the  whole 
passage  requires  the  literal  rendering,  "  to  declare  his 
justice,  that  he  might  he  just,  and  the  justifier  of  him 
that  believeth  in  Jesus.  Some  have  indeed  taken  the 
word  "JM.<tr'  ((5(xa(of)  in  the  sense  of  merciful ;  but 
this  is  wholly  arbitrary.  It  occurs,  says  Whitby,  above 
eighty  times  in  the  New  Testament,  and  not  once  in  that 
sense.(7)  The  sense  just  given  is  confirmed  by  all  the 
ancient  versions,  and  it  is  indeed  put  beyond  the  reach 
of  verbal  criticism  by  the  clause,  "  for  the  remission 
of  sins  that  are  past,  through  the  forbearance  of  God." 
For,  whatever  view  we  take  of  this  clause,  whether  we 
refer  it  to  the  sins  of  men  before  the  coming  of  Christ, 
or  to  the  past  sins  of  one  who  is  at  any  time  justified, 
the  TraptCTij,  or  "  passing  over"  of  sins,  or,  if  the  common 
rendering  please  better,  "  the  remission  of  sins,"  and 
the  "  forbearance  of  God,"  are  acts  of  obvious  mercy  ; 
and  to  say  that  thus  the  mercy  of  God  is  manifested,  is 
tautological  and  identical ;  whereas  past  sins  not 
punished  through  the  forbearance  of  God,  without  a 
public  atonement,  might  have  brought  the  justice  of 
God  into  question,  but  certainly  not  his  mercy.  It  was 
the  justice  of  the  proceeding,  therefore,  that  needed  a 
demonstration,  and  not  the  mercy  of  it.  This,  too,  is 
the  obvious  reason  for  the  repetition  so  emphatically 
used  by  the  apostle,  and  which  is  no  otherwise  to 
accounted  for ;  "  to  declare  his  righteousness  for  the 
remission  of  sins  that  are  past,  through  the  forbearance 
of  God,  to  declare,  I  say,  at  this  time  his  righteous- 
ness ;"  "  at  this  time,"  now  that  Christ  has  actually 
appeared  to  pay  the  ransom,  and  to  become  tlie  pub- 
licly armounced  propitiation  for  sin  ;  God  cannot  now 


(7)  See  Nare's  Remarks  on  the  New  Version, 
M.IGKE  on  the  Atonement,  Whitby  and  Doddridge  in 
loe.  Righteousness  is  indeed  sometimes  used  lor  vera- 
city;  but  only  when  some  principle  of  equity,  or  some 
obligation  arising  from  engagement,  promise,  or  threat, 
la  implied. 


appear  otherwise  than  just,  although  he  justifies  him 
that  believeth  in  Jesu.s.  tSiniilar  language  is  also  used 
by  8t.  John,  1  Epistle,  1.  9,  "  lie  is  faithful  and  just  to 
forgive  us  our  sins." — So  that  the  grand  doctrine  of 
Christianity  is  unequivocally  stated  by  both  apostles  to 
be,  that,  according  to  its  constiimion,  the  forgiveness 
of  sin  iij  at  once  an  act  of  in  trey  and  an  act  of  justice, 
or  of  strictly  righteous  government.  Neither  the  So- 
cinian nor  the  Arian  hypothesis  at  all  harmoni/.es 
with  this  principle  ;  on  the  contrary,  they  both  directly 
contradict  it,  and  cannot,  therefore,  be  true.  They 
make  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  indeed,  an  act  of  mercy  : 
hut  with  them  it  is  impossible  that  it  should  be  an  act 
of  justice,  because  sin  receives  not  its  threatened  pu- 
nishment; the  penalty  of  the  law  is  not  exacted  ;  the 
offender  meets  with  entire  impunity ;  and  the  Divine 
administration  so  far  from  being  a  righteous  one,  has, 
according  to  their  system,  no  respect  to  either  truth  or 
righteousness ;  and,  so  far  as  offences  against  the  Divine 
law  are  concerned,  that  law  is  reduced  to  a  dead  letter. 
But  in  Scripture  the  doctrine  of  forgi'ifeness  of  sina 
through  the  propitiatory  sacrifice  of  Christ  is  not  only 
asserted  to  be  a  demonstration  of  the  righteousness  of 
God  in  a  case  which  might  seem  to  bring  it  into  ques- 
tion, but  the  particular  steps  and  parts  of  this  "  de- 
monstration" are,  by  its  light,  easy  to  be  traced.    For, 

1.  The  law,  the  rule  of  the  Divine  government,  is 
by  this  means  established  in  its  authority  and  perpe- 
tuity. The  hypothesis  wliich  rejects  the  doctrine  of 
the  atonement,  repeals  the  law  by  giving  impunity  to 
transgression ;  for,  if  punishment  does  not  follow  of- 
fence, or  no  other  term  of  pardon  be  required  than  one 
which  the  culprit  has  it  always  in  his  own  power,  at 
once,  to  offer  (which  we  have  seen  is  the'  case  with 
the  repentance  staled  by  Socinians  as  the  only  condi- 
tion of  tbrgiveness),  then  is  the  law,  as  to  its  authority, 
virtually  repealed,  and  the  Divine  government,  over 
rebellious  creatures,  annihilated.  The  Christian  doc- 
trine of  atonement,  on  the  contrary',  is,  that  sin  cannot 
go  unpunished  in  the  Divine  administration,  and,  there- 
fore, the  authority  of  the  law  is  estabUshed  by  this 
absolute  and  everlasting  exclusion  of  impunity  from 
transgression. 

2.  Whether  we  take  the  righteousness  or  justice  of 
God  for  that  holiness  and  rectitude  of  his  nature  from 
which  his  punitive  justice  flows,  or  for  the  latter, 
which  consists  in  exacting  the  penalty  righteously  and 
wisely  attached  to  offences  against  the  Divine  law,  or 
for  both  united  as  the  stream  and  the  Ibuntaiii ;  it  is 
demonstrated,  by  the  refusal  of  impimity  to  sin,  that 
God  is  this  holy  and  righteous  Being,  this  strict  and 
exact  Governor.  On  any  other  theory,  there  is  no 
manifestation  of  God's  hatred  of  sin,  answering  at  all 
to  that  intense  holiness  of  his  nature  which  must  lead 
him  to  abhor  it ;  and  no  proof  of  his  rectoral  justice  as 
Governor  of  the  world.  Mercy  is,  accorchng  to  them 
all,  administered  on  a  mere  principle  of  feeling,  withoat 
any  regard  to  holiness  or  justice  whatever. 

3.  The  doctrine  which  connects  the  pardon  of  the 
guilty  with  the  meritorious  death  of  Christ,  illustrates 
the  attribute  of  Divine  justice,  by  the  very  act  of  con- 
necting and  blending  it  with  the  attribute  of  love,  and 
the  exercise  of  an  effectual  compassion.  At  the  time 
that  it  guards,  with  so  muoli  care,  the  doctrine  of  non- 
impunity  to  sin,  it  offers  impunity  to  the  sinner :  but 
then  the  medium  through  which  this  offer  is  made 
serves  to  heighten  the  impression  of  God's  hatred  to 
sin,  and  the  inflexible  character  of  his  justice.  The  per- 
son aiipointed  to  suffer  the  punishment  of  sin  and  the 
penalty  of  the  law  for  us,  was  not  a  mere  human  being, 
not  a  creature  of  any  kind,  however  exalted,  but  the 
Son  of  God  ;  and  in  him  Divinity  and  humanity  were 
united  in  one  person,  so  that  he  was  "  God  manifested 
in  the  flesh,"  assuming  our  nature,  in  order  that  he 
might  offer  it  in  death  a  sacrifice  to  God.  If  this  was 
necessary,  and  we  have  already  proved  it  to  have  been 
so  in  the  strictest  sense,  then  is  sin  declared,  by  the 
strongest  demonstration  we  can  conceive,  to  be  an  evil 
of  immeasurable  extent :  and  the  justice  of  God  is,  by 
a  demonstration  of  equal  force,  declared  to  be  inflexible 
and  inviolable.     God  "spared  not  his  own  Son." 

Here,  indeed,  it  has  been  objected  by  Socinus  and  his 
followers,  that  the  dignity  of  a  person  adds  nothing  to 
the  estimation  of  his  sufferings.  The  common  opinion 
of  mankind,  in  all  ages,  is,  however,  a  sufficient  refuta- 
tion of  this  objection  ;  for  in  proportion  to  the  excellence 
of  the  creatures  iiiuiiulatud  in  sacrifice  have  the  value 


270 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


(Part  If. 


and  efficacy  of  oWations  been  estimated  by  all  pcorle; 
which  notion,  when  perverted,  made  them  resort,  in 
some  instances,  to  human  sacrilices,  in  eases  ol'  Kr('at_ 
extremity;  and,  surely,  if  the  principle  of  substitution' 
existed  in  the  penal  law  of  any  human  government,  it 
would  be  universally  felt  to  make  a  f,'real  diirureiirc  in 
the  character  of  the  law,  whether  an  honourable  or  a 
mean  substitute  were  exacted  in  place  of  tlic  guilty  ; 
and  that  it  would  have  greatly  changed  the  character  of 
the  act  of  Zaleucus,  the  Locrian  lawgiver,  before  men- 
tioned, and  placed  the  estimation  in  which  he  held  his 
own  laws,  and  the  degree  of  strictness  with  which  he 
was  determined  to  uphold  them,  in  a  very  diflercnt 
light,  if,  instead  of  parting  with  one  of  his  own  eyes,  in 
place  of  the  remaining  eye  of  his  son,  he  hud  ordered  the 
eye  of  some  base  slave  or  of  a  malefactor  to  be  plucked 
out.  But  without  entering  into  this,  the  notion  will  be 
explicitly  relitted,  if  we  turn  to  the  testimony  of  Holy 
Writ  itself,  in  which  the  dignity  and  Divinity  of  our 
Lord  are  so  often  einjiiiatically  referred  to  as  stamping 
that  fu^tttupon  his  sa(-ritice,  as  giving  that  consuUra- 
tinii  to  his  voluntary  sulferings  on  our  account,  which 
we  usually  exjiress  by  the  term  of"  his  merits.''''  Acts 
XX.  28,  as  (Joo,  ho  is  said  to  have  "  purchased  the 
church  with  ms  own  Br.ooD."  InColossians  i.  14,  15, 
we  are  said  to  have  "  redemption  through  ins  blood 

who    is   THE    IMAOE    OF    THE    INVISinLE    GOD."      In    1 

Corinthians  ii.  8,  "  the  Lord  of  ft  lory  is  said  to  have 
been  cRtciFiED."  St.  Peter  emphatically  calls  the 
blood  of  <  ;hrist "  precious  blood  ;"  and  St.  Paul  dwells 
particularly  upon  this  peculiarity,  when  he  contrasts 
the  sacrifice  of  Christ  with  those  of  the  law,  and  when 
he  ascribes  that  purifying  efficacy,  which  he  denies  to 
the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  to  the  blood  of  Christ. 
"How  MUCH  MORE  shall  the  blood  of  Christ,  who 
through  the  eternal  Siiirit  offered  himself  without  spot 
to  God,  purge  your  conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve 
the  living  God."  By  the  argument  of  Socinus  there  could 
be  no  difference  between  the  blood  of  animals,  shed 
under  the  law,  as  to  value  and  efficacy,  and  the  blood 
of  (;hrist,  which  is  directly  in  the  teeth  of  the  declara- 
tion and  argument  of  the  apostle,  who  also  asserts,  that 
the  patterns  of  things  in  the  heavens  were  jmrified  by 
animal  sacrifices  ;  "  but  the  heavenly  things  themselves 
with  BETTER  SACRIFICES  than  these,"  namely,  the 
oblation  of  Christ. 

To  jyiother  objection  of  Socinus,  that  because  the 
J)ivinity  itself  suffers  not,  therefore  it  does  not  enter 
into  this  consiileration  of  punishment,  Grotius  well  re- 
plies, this  is  as  much  as  to  say  that  it  is  an  offence  of  the 
same  kind  whether  you  strike  a  private  person  or  a 
king,  a  stranger  or  a  father,  because  blows  are  directed 
against  the  body,  not  agauist  dignity  or  relationship. (H) 
4.  In  farther  considering  this  subject,  as  illustrating 
the  inherent  and  the  rectoral  righteousness  of  God,  we 
are  to  recollect  that,  although  by  the  atonement  made 
for  the  sins  of  mankind  by  the  death  of  (Christ,  all  men, 
antecedently  to  their  rcjientance  and  faith,  are,  to  use 
the  language  of  divines,  put  into  "  a  salvable  state," 
yet  none  of  them  are,  by  this  act  of  Christ,  brought  from 
under  the  authority  of  the  moral  law.  This  remains  in 
its  full  and  original  force,  and  as  they  all  continue 
under  the  original  obligation  of  obedience,  so  in  case  of 
those  conditions  not  being  complied  with  on  which  the 
actual  communication  of  the  benefit  of  rcilcmiition  has 
been  made  to  depend,  those  who  nei'lccl  tlic  trcal  .sal- 
vation offered  to  thiiii  by  Christ  fall  uiidi  r  the  full  ori- 
ginal penalty  of  the  law,  and  are  lell  to  its  malediction, 
without  obstruction  to  the  exercise  and  infliction  of 
Divine  justice.  Nor,  with  respect  to  those  wiio  per- 
form the  conditions  re(|uired  of  them,  and  who,  by 
faith  in  Christ,  are  justified,  and  thus  escape  punish- 
ment, is  there  any  repeal,  or  even  relaxation,  of  the 
authority  of  the  law  of  God.  The  end  ofjuslificalion 
is  not  to  set  men  ft-ec  from  law,  but  from  |iniiisliineiit ; 
for,  concomitant  with  justification,  though  disiiuct  from 
it,  is  the  communication  of  the  regcneraliiig  grace  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  by  which  the  corrupt  and  invalid  na- 
ture of  man  is  restored  to  the  love  of  holiness  and  the 
power  to  jiractisc  it,  and  thus  the  law  of  (lod  becomes 


(8)  "Quod  autem  Socinus  argumentalur,  ([uia  divi- 
nitas  ipsa  iioii  patiatur,  idco  banc  in  p.x-na;  considera- 
tionem  non  venire ;  jierinde  est  ac  si  dicas,  nihil  rclcrre 
privatum  anHegem,  item  ignotuin,an  palrem  verbires, 
quia  vcrbera  in  corpus  dirigantur,  non  in  dignitatum, 
uut  cognationeni."— i»e  Satis/acttoiie. 


his  constant  rule,  and  the  mcaBUre  of  that  holiness  (o 
which,  when  this  new  creation  has  taken  place,  he 
vigorously  aspires :  "  For  what  the  law  could  not  do, 
in  that  it  was  weak  through  the  flesh,  God  sending  his 
own  Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  and  for  sin  con- 
demned sin  in  the  flesh,  that  the  righteousness  of  the 
law  might  be  fill  Idled  in  us,  who  walk  not  after  the 
tlesh,  but  alter  the  Spirit."  Not,  indeed,  that  this  obe- 
dic'iice,  whicli  in  the  present  life  is,  in  some  respects, 
imperfect,  and  in  every  degree  the  result  of  the  ope- 
ration of  God  within  us,  can,  alter  this  change,  be  the 
rule  of  our  continued  justification  and  acceptance ;  that 
will  rest,  from  first  to  last,  ui)on  the  atonement  of 
Christ,  pleaded  in  our  behalf;  so  that  if  any  man  ag;iin 
sin,  "  he  has  an  advocate  with  the  Father,  Jesus 
Christ  the  righteous;"  but  true  faith  leads,  by  an  inse- 
liarable  connexion,  both  tojustilicationandio  regenera- 
tion ;  and  they  who,  as  the  a|jostlo  argues,  Romans  vi. 
2,  are  thus  "  dead  to  sin,  cannot  continue  any  longer 
therein,"  but  yield  willing  obedience  to  the  law  of 
(ioD.  The  rule  of  God,  the  authority  of  his  law,  is 
thus  re-established  over  his  creatures,  and  the  strict- 
ness of  a  righteous  government  is  united  with  the  exer- 
cise of  a  tender  mercy. 

Thus,  then,  in  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  nf  Christ, 
we  see  how  the  righteousness,  the  essential  and  Ihc  rec- 
toral justice  of  God  is  manifested.  There  IS  no  iiM|iurnty 
to  sin ;  and  yet  the  impunity  to  the  sinner,  through  faith 
in  the  blood  of  Christ,  does  not  lower,  but  establish 
the  law  of  God.  These  views  will  also  enable  us  to 
attach  an  explicit  meaning  to  the  theological  phrase, 
"  the  satisfaction  made  to  Divine  justice,"  by  which 
the  nature  of  Christ's  atonement  is  often  expressed. 
This  is  not  a  phrase  of  Holy  Writ;  but  it  is  not,  on 
that  account,  to  be  disregarded,  since,  like  many  others, 
it  has  been  found  useful  as  a  guard  against  subtle  eva- 
sions of  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  and  in  giving  expli- 
citness,  not,  indeed,  to  the  language  of  in.spiralion,  but 
to  the  saise  in  which  that  language  is  interpreted. 

The  two  following  views  of  satisfaction  may  be  given 
as  those  which  are  most  prevalent  among  those  divines 
who  hold  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  of  Christ. 

The  first  may  be  thus  epitomised. 

The  justice  of  God  being  concerned  to  vindicate  his 
laws,  and  to  indict  upon  oirenders  the  due  reward 
of  their  evil  deeds,  it  is  agreed,  that,  without  proper 
satisfaction,  sin  could  not  be  forgiven.  For,  as  sin  is 
ojijiosite  to  the  purity  and  holiness  of  God,  and  conse- 
quently cannot  but  provoke  his  displeasure,  and  as 
justice  is  essential  to  the  Divine  nature,  and  exists 
there  in  a  supreme  degree,  it  must  inflexibly  re(iuire 
the  ])unishment  of  those  who  are  thus  objects  of  his 
wrath.  The  satisfaction,  therefore,  made  by  the  death 
of  Christ  consisted  in  his  taking  the  place  of  the  guilty, 
and  in  his  suflerings  and  death  being,  from  the  dignity 
of  his  nature,  regarded  by  the  offended  lawgiver  as  a 
full  equivalent  and  adequate  compensation  for  the  pvi- 
nishmcnt,  by  death,  of  the  personally  guilty. 

The  second  opinion  does  not  assume  the  absolute  ne- 
cessity of  a  satisfaction  to  Divine  justice,  but  chiefly 
insists  upon  the  wtsdoina.ndJitness  of  the  measure,  ar- 
guing, that  it  became  the  Almighty  Governor  of  the 
universe  to  consult  the  honour  of  his  law,  and  not  to 
suffer  it  to  be  violated  with  impunity,  lest  his  subjects 
should  call  in  question  his  justice.  Acconhngly,  ho 
scut  his  own  Son  into  the  world,  who,  by  dying  for  our 
sins,  obtained  our  release  from  punishment ;  and,  at 
the  same  time,  made  an  honourable  display  of  the  right- 
eousness of  God.  In  a  word,  Christ  is  supposed,  in 
this  opinion,  to  have  made  satisfaction  for  our  sms,  not 
because  his  death  is  to  be  accounted  an  adequate  com- 
pensation, or  a  full  eiiuivalcnt  for  the  remission  of  pu- 
nishment ;  but  because  his  sullering  in  our  stead  main- 
tained the  honour  of  the  Divine  law,  and  yet  gave  IVee 
s<'ope  to  the  mercy  of  the  Lawgiver. 

'Both  these  opinions  have  great  names  for  their  advo- 
cates; but  the  reader  will  feel,  that  there  is  loo  much 
indistinctness  in  the  terms  and  phrases  in  which  they 
are  expressed  for  either  of  them  to  be  received, as  a  sa- 
tisfactory eiiuiicialion  of  this  important  doctrine.  The 
first  opinion,  lliongh  greatly  to  be  preferred,  and,  with 
proper  expUiii.ilinns.  just,  is  defective  in  not  explaining 
what  is  iiieant  by  the  terms"  a  full  equivalent"  and 
"  an  iiilequate  compensation."  The  second  is  objection- 
able, as  appearing  to  refer  the  atonement  more  to  wis- 
dom and  fitness  as  an  expedient,  than  to  wisdom  and 
fitness  in  close  and  inseparable  connexion  with  justice ; 


Chap.  XX.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


271 


and  is  defective  in  not  pointing  out  what  that  ronncxion 
between  the  death  of  Christ  ami  that  honouriiif;  ol  t  he  la  w 
of  God  is,  whicli  allowH  of  the  remission  of  iiuiiishimnt 
to  oireniiers,  of  wliicli  they  spe;ilv.  Kac'li  iiiiliodies 
niufli  truth  and  yet  both  are  capable  of  originating 
great  and  fatal  errors,  unless  their  terms  be  definitely 
and  script  urally  understood. 

To  clear  this  subject  some  farther  observations  will, 
then,  be  necessary. 

The  term  salisf action  is  taken  from  the  Roman  law, 
and  signifies  to  coiUent  a  person  aggrieved,  by  doing  or 
by  offering  something  which  procures  liberation  from 
the  obligation  of  debts  or  the  penalties  of  offences;  not 
ipso  facto,  but  by  the  will  of  the  aggrieved  party  ad- 
mitting this  substitution.  "  Ea  dictio  {satisfaciendi 
vocabulum)  in  jure  et  usu  communi  significat  facti  ali- 
cujus  aut  rei  exhibitionem,  ex  qua  non  quideni  ipso 
facto,  scd  accedente  voluntatis  &ciVL  liberatio  sequatur; 
soletque  nontanlum  in  pecuniaris  debitis,  scd  et  in  de- 
lictis  hoc  sensu  usurpari,  quod  linquce  ex  Komana  de- 
pravatae  appellant,  aliiiuem  contentare."{9)  So  the  Ro- 
man lawyer  Cains,  "  satisfacere  diciinur  ei  cujus  desi- 
deriuin  implemus,"  we  are  said  to  satisfy  him  whose 
desires  we  fulfil.  Ulpian  opposes  satisfaction  to  pay- 
ment, "  satisfactio  pro  solutione ;"  and,  in  criminal 
cases,  Asconius  lays  it  down  as  a  rule,  "  satisfacere, 
est  tantuin  facere,  quantum  satis  sit  irato  ad  vindic- 
tam,"  to  satisfy  is  to  do  as  much  as,  to  the  party  offended, 
may  be  enough  in  the  way  of  vengeance.(l)  It  is  from 
this  use  of  the  term  that  it  has  been  adopted  into  theo- 
logy, and  however  its  meaning  may  have  been  height- 
ened or  lowered  by  the  advocates  of  different  systems, 
it  is  plain  that,  by  the  term  itself,  nothing  is  indicated, 
but  the  contentment  of  the  injured  party  by  any  tiling 
which  he  may  choose  to  accept  in  the  place  of  the  en- 
forcement of  his  obligation  upon  the  party  indebted 
or  offending.  The  sense  in  which  it  must  be  applied 
to  designate  the  nature  and  effect  of  the  death  of  Christ 
in  consistency  with  the  views  we  have  already  taken  is 
obvious.  We  call  the  death  of  Christ  a  satisfaction 
offered  to  Divine  justice  lor  the  transgressions  of  men, 
with  reference  to  its  effect  upon  the  mind  of  the  su- 
preme Lawgiver.  As  a  jiist  Governor,  he  is  satisfied, 
contented  with  the  atonement  offered  by  the  vicarious 
death  of  his  Son,  and  the  conditions  on  which  it  is  to  be- 
come available  to  the  offenders ;  and  their  punishment, 
those  conditions  beuig  accomplished,  is  no  longer  ex- 
acted. 

This  effect  upon  the  mind  of  the  Lawgiver  is  not,  as 
the  Socinians  would  pervert  the  doctrine,  the  satis- 
faction of  an  angry  vengeful  affection,  as  we  have  be- 
fore shown ;  but,  acconUng  to  the  very  phrase  em- 
ployed in  all  cases,  and  which  is  sufficient  to  show 
that  their  perversion  of  our  meaning  is  wilful,  "  a  sa- 
tisfaction," or  "  contentment"  of  his  jtistice,  which 
means,  and  can  only  rationally  mean,  the  satisfaction 
of  the  mind  of  a  just  or  righteous  governor,  disposed, 
from  the  goodness  of  liis  nature,  to  show  mercy  to  the 
guilty,  and  who  can  now  do  it  consistently  with  the  recti- 
tude of  his  character  and  the  authority  of  his  laws, 
wliicli  it  is  the  office  of  punitive  justice  to  proclaim  and 
to  uphold.  The  satisfaction  of  Divine  justice  by  the 
death  of  Christ  consists,  therefore,  in  this,  that  this 
wise  and  gracious  provision  on  the  part  of  the  Father 
having  been  voluntarily  carried  into  effect  by  the  Son, 
the  just  God  has  determined  it  to  be  as  consistent 
with  Ills  own  holy  and  righteous  character,  and  the 
ends  of  law  and  government,  to  forgive  all  who  have 
true  "  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ"  the  appointed  propi- 
tiation for  sin,  as  though  they  had  all  been  personally 
punished  for  their  transgressions. 

The  deathofClirist,  then,isthe  satisfaction  accepted; 
and  this  being  a  satisfaction  to  justice,  that  is,  a  consi- 
deration which  satisfied  God,  as  a  being  essentially 
righteous,  and  as  having  strict  and  inllexible  respect 
to  the  justice  of  his  government;  pardon  through,  or 
for  the  sake  of,  that  death,  became,  in  consequence,  "  a 
declaration  of  the  righteousness  of  God,"  as  the  only 
appointed  method  of  remitting  the  punishment  of  the 
guilty ;  and  if  so,  satisfaction  respects  not,  in  the  fir.st 
instance,  according  to  the  second  ojiinion  we  have 
stated  above,  the  honour  of  the  law  of  God,  but  its  nu- 
thonly,  and  the  upholding  of  .that  righteous  and  holy 
character  of  the  Lawgiver,  and  of  his  administration, 

(y)  Grotius  Dc  Sati.sfactinne. 
(1)  Vide  CiiAfMAN's  Ensebjus. 


of  which  that  law  is  the  visible  and  public  expression. 
Nor  is  this  to  be  regarded  as  a  merely  iiise  ;uicl^7  ex- 
;ir(/i(7tf  of  government,  a  point  to  which  even  Grotius 
leans  too  much,  as  well  as  many  other  divuies  who 
have  adopted  the  second  opinion  ;  (or  this  may  imply, 
that  it  was  one  of  many  other  possible  expedients, 
though  the  best;  whereas  we  have  seen,  that  it  is 
every  where  in  Scripture  represented  as  necessary  to 
hniiian  salvation;  and  that  it  is  to  be  concluded,  that 
no  alternative  existed  but  that  of  exchanging  a  right- 
eous government  for  one  cari'less  and  relaxed,  to  the 
dishonour  of  the  Divine  attributes,  and  the  sanctioning 
of  moral  disorder  ;  or  the  upholding  of  such  a  govern- 
ment by  the  personal  and  extreme  punishment  ol'  every 
oll'ender  ;  or  else  the  acceptance  of  the  vicarious  death 
of  an  infinitely  dignified  and  glorious  being,  through 
whom  pardon  should  be  oflered,  and  in  whose  hands  a 
process  for  the  moral  restoration  of  the  lapsed  should 
be  placed.  The  humiliation,  suffenngs,  and  death  of 
such  a  being  did  most  obviously  demonstrate  the  right- 
eous character  and  administration  of  God  ;  and  if  the 
greatest  means  we  can  conceive  was  emjiloyed  for  this 
end,  then  we  may  safely  conclude,  that  the  righteous- 
ness of  God,  in  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  could  not  have 
been  demonstrated  by  inferior  means  ;  and  as  (;od  can- 
not cease  to  be  a  righteous  governor,  man,  in  that  case, 
could  have  had  no  hope. 

The  advocates  of  the  second  opinion  not  only  speak 
of  the  honour  of  the  Divine  law  being  concerned  in 
this  transaction;  but  of  the  maintainance  of  the  justice 
of  God,  in  which  they  come  substantially  to  an  agree- 
ment with  those  who  hold  the  first  opinion  ;  and  if  so, 
there  appears  no  reason  to  except  such  phrases  as  a 
"  full  equivalent"  and  "  an  adequate  compensation," 
when  soberly  interpreted.  An  equivalent  is  some- 
thing of  equal  value,  or  of  equal  force  and  power  to 
something  else  ;  but  here  the  value  spoken  of  injudicial 
value,  that  which  is  to  weigli  equally  in  the  mind  of  a 
wise,  benevolent,  and  yet  strictly  righteous  Governor ; 
and  if  the  death  of  Christ  for  sinners  was  determined, 
in  his  infallible  judgment,  to  be  as  equal  a  "  demon- 
stration" of  liis  justice  as  the  personal  and  extreme 
punishment  of  offenders  themselves,  it  was,  in  this  ju- 
dicial consideration  of  the  matter,  of  equal  weight,  and 
therefore  of  equal  value,  as  a  means  of  righteous  go- 
vernment ;  for  which  reason,  also,  it  was  of  equal 
force,  or  power,  or  cogency, — another  leading  sense  of 
the  term  eciuivalent.  So  also,  as  to  the  term  "  com- 
pensation," which  signifies  the  weighing  of  one  thing 
against  another,  the  making  amends.  If  this  be  inter- 
preted, as  the  I'onner,  judicially,  the  death  of  Christ  for 
sinners  is  an  adequate  compensation  for  their  personal 
punishment,  in  the  estimation  of  Divine  justice;  be- 
cause it  is,  at  least,  an  eciually  powerful  demonstration 
of  the  righteousness  of  God,  who  only  in  consideration 
of  that  atonement  forgives  the  sins  of  offending  men. 

Just,  however,  and  significant  as  these  phrases  arc 
when  thus  interpreted,  one  reason  why  they  have  been 
objected  to  by  some  orthodo.v  divines  is,  that  they  have 
been  used  in  support  of  the  .Antinomian  doi^rine.  On 
this  account  they  have  been  by  some  wholly  rejected, 
and  a  loose  and  dangerous  phraseology  introduced,  when 
the  rea.son  of  the  case  only  required  that  they  should 
be  explained.  The  Antinomian  perversion  of  them 
may  here  be  briefly  refuted,  though  that  doctrine  will 
afterward  come  under  our  more  direct  consideration. 

In  the  first  place,  the  Antinomians  connect  the  satis- 
faction of  Christ  with  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation 
of  his  active  righteousness  to  believers.  With  them, 
therefore,  the  satisfaction  of  Clirist  means  his  perform- 
ing for  us  that  obedience  which  we  were  bound  to  per- 
form. They  consider  otu:  Lord  as  a  proxy  for  men ;  so 
that  his  perfect  obedience  to  the  law  should  be  esteemed 
by  God  as  done  by  them ;  as  theirs  in  legal  construc- 
tion, and  that  his  perfect  righteousness  being  imputed 
to  them,  renders  them  legally  righteous  and  sinless.— 
The  plain  answer  to  this  is,  1.  That  we  have  no  such 
office  ascribed  in  Scripture  to  the  active  righteousness 
of  Christ,  which  is  only  spoken  of  there  in  connexion 
with  his  atonement,  as  rendering  him  a  fit  victim  or  sa- 
crifice for  sin—"  he  died  the  just  for  the  unjust."  2. 
That  (his  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  obedi- 
ence makes  his  sufferings  superfluous.  For  if  he  has 
done  all  that  the  law  required  of  us,  and  if  this  is  le- 
gally accounted  our  doing,  then  are  we  under  no  pe- 
nalty of  suffering,  and  his  suffering  in  our  stead  was 
more  than  the  law  and  the  case  required.    3.  That  ttus 


972 


THEOLOGICAL  LXSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


involves  a  fiction  oppoaej  to  tlic  ends  of  moral  govern- 
ment, and  shuts  out  the  obligation  of  personal  obedi- 
ence to  the  law  of  CJoo ;  so  far,  Iherelbre,  is  it  from  bo- 
in^  a  demonstration  of  God's  rif;hleousness,  his  recto- 
ral  justice,  that  it  transfers  the  olilijiation  of  obedience 
from  the  subjects  of  the  Divine  Government  to  Christ, 
and  leaves  man  without  law,  and  (Jon  without  domi- 
nion, which  is  obviously  contrary  to  the  Siripiurcs,  and 
favourable  to  license  of  every  kind.  4.  'I'liis  is  not  sa- 
tisfdction,  in  any  good  sense  ;  it  is  merely  the  perform- 
ance of  all  that  the  law  reiiuires  by  one  person  substi- 
tuted for  another. 

Again,  the  terms  full  satis/artion  and  full  equiva- 
lent are  taken  by  the  Antinomiaiis  in  the  sense  of  the 
payment  of  debts  by  a  .surety  lor  him  who  has  not  the 
means  of  payment;  as  though  sins  were  analogous  to 
civil  debts.  This  proceeds  upon  the  mistake  of  con- 
founding the  cancelling  of  a  debt  of  judicial  obligation, 
with  the  payment  of  a  debt  of  money.  We  have  al- 
ready seen  the  chtTerence  between  the  relation  of  a  sin- 
ner to  his  offended  .ludge  and  Sovereign,  and  that  of  a 
pecuniary  debtor  to  a  creditor,  and  have  jiointed  out  the 
basis  of  the  metaphor,  when  it  occurs  as  a  figurative  re- 
presentation in  Scrijiture.  Such  payment  would  not 
be  satisfaction  in  the  proper  sense,  which  stands  op- 
posed to  payment,  and  means  the  acceptance  of  some- 
thing in  the  place  of  what  is  due,  with  which  the  Law- 
giver is  content.  Nor  can  any  such  sense  be  forced 
upon  the  term  satisfaction,  for  we  have  no  such  repre- 
sentation in  Scripture  of  the  death  of  Christ,  as  that  it 
is,  in  principle,  like  the  payment  of  so  many  talents  or 
pounds  by  one  person,  for  so  many  talents  or  pounds 
owing  by  another,  and  which  thereby  cancels  all  tuture 
obligation.  His  atoning  act  consisted  in  sulfering, 
"  the  just  for  the  unjust ;"  neither  in  doing  just  so  many 
holy  acts  as  we  were  bound  to  do,  nor  in  sulfering  the 
precise  quantum  of  pain  which  we  deserved  to  sufler, 
neither  of  wliicU  appears  in  the  nature  of  things  to  be 
even  possible ;  but  doing  and  suffering  that  which  by 
reason  of  the  peculiar  glory  and  dignity  of  the  jierson 
thus  coming  under  the  bond  of  the  law,  both  as  to  obe- 
dience and  suffering,  was  accounted  by  Gon  to  be  a 
sufficient  "  demonstration  of  his  righteousness,"  in 
showing  mercy  to  all  who  truly  believe  in  him.  And 
as  this  notion  of  payment  in  full  and  kind  by  a  surety 
Is  contrary  to  the  import  of  satisfaction,  so  also  is  it 
inconsistent  with  the  import  of  the  phrase,  a  full  eiiui- 
valent.  He  who  pays  a  civil  debt  in  full  for  another, 
does  not  render  an  eijuivalent ;  but  gives  precisely 
■what  the  original  obligation  required.  So,  if  the  obe- 
dience of  Christ  were  equal  in  quantity  and  degree  to 
all  the  acts  of  obedience  due  by  men,  and  is  to  be  ac- 
counted theirs,  there  is  no  equivalent  offered  ;  but  the 
same  thing  is  done,  only  it  is  done  by  another;  and  if 
the  penal  sufferings  of  Christ  were  in  nature,  quantity, 
and  intenscness  equal  to  the  puiiishmont  of  all  sinners, 
in  time  and  eternity,  taken  together,  and  arc  to  be  ac- 
counted their  sufferings,  no  proper  equivalent  is  oiTered 
in  the  case.  The  only  true  sense  of  the  sufferings  of 
Christ  being  a  full  e(iuivalent  for  the  remission  of  the 
punishment  due  to  the  guilty,  is,  that  tliey  equally 
availed  to  the  satisfying  of  iJivine  justice,  and  vindi- 
cating the  authority  of  his  laws,  that  they  were  equiva- 
lent, in  the  estimation  of  a  ju.st  (lovernor,  in  the  ail- 
ministration  of  his  laws,  to  tlio  punishment  of  the 
guilty ;  equivalent,  in  effect,  to  a  legal  natisfnctioii, 
which  would  consist  in  the  enforcement  upon  the  per- 
sons of  the  ofl'euders  of  the  penalty  of  the  violated  coin- 
iTiandment. 

Another  consequence  to  which  the  Antinomian  view 
leads  is,  that  it  makes  the  justification  of  men  a  mat- 
ter of  right,  not  of  grace. 

We  can  easily,  when  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  is 
properly  slated,  answer  the  iiifi<lcl  and  Socmian  olqec- 
tion,  that  it  destroys  the  free  and  gracious  nauire  of  an 
act  of  forgiveness.  For,  not  to  urge  again  what  has  be- 
fore been  advanced,  that  the  Tather  was  the  fountain 
of  this  mercy,  and  "  A'ant"  the  Son ;  the  satisfaction  was 
quid  recusabile,  or  such  as  God  might  have  refused.— 
for  if  the  laws  under  which  God  had  jilacid  us  were 
"holy,  just,  and  good,"  which  is  their  real  .liaracter, 
and  if  the  piMialties  attached  to  their  viulalion  were 
righteous,  which  must  also  be  conceded,  then  it  would 
have  been  righteous,  every  way  consistent  with  the 
glory  of  God,  anil  with  every  jierlection  of  his  nature, 
to  have  enforced  the  jienalty.  The  satisfaction  offered 
inigUt  not  be  unjust  in  tiiui  to  accept,  tuid  yet  lie  was 


clearly  under  no  obligation  to  accopt  It  could  it  have 
been  offered  independent  of  himself,  much  les.s  could 
he  be  under  any  obligation  to  jiruvide  it,  which  he  did. 
The  offender  could  have  no  right  to  claim  such  a  provi 
sion,  and  it  deiieiided,  therelbre,  solely  on  the  will  of 
God,  and  as  such  was  an  act  of  the  highest  grace. 

Again,  the  forgiveness  of  sinners,  through  an 
atonement,  is  not  rfe  jure,  that  which  can  be  claimed 
as  a  matter  of  right.  It  is  made  to  consist  with  law, 
but  it  is  not  in  any  sense  by  the  law.  However  valu- 
ble  the  atonement,  yet,  independent  of  the  favour  and 
grace  of  the  Lawgiver,  it  could  not  have  obtained  our 
pardon.  Hoih  mu.st  com-ur  in  order  to  this,  the  kind- 
ness and  compassion  of  the  Jieing  ollt:nded  mducing 
him  to  accept  .satisfaction,  and  such  a  satisfaction  as 
would  render  it  morally  fit  and  honourable  in  liim  to 
ofl'er  forgiveness.  "  By  grace,"  therelbre,  we  "  aro 
saved ;"  and  nothing  that  Christ  has  done  renders  us 
not  deserving  of  punishment,  or  cancels  our  obligations 
as  creatures  and  subjects,  as  a  surety  cancels  the  obli- 
gations of  a  debtor,  whose  debt  he  pays  tor  hiin.  For- 
giveness in  God  can,  therefore,  be  no  other  than  an  act 
of  high  and  distinguished  mercy. 

We  are  also  to  consider,  even  now  that  the  atone- 
ment has  been  accepted,  and  the  promise  of  forgive- 
ness proclaimed,  upon  the  conditions  of  repentanco 
and  faith,  that  we  claim  forgiveness,  not  on  the  ground 
of  justice,  but  on  that  of  the  faithfulness  of  God,  who 
has  been  pleased  to  bind  himself  by  promises  ;  and  also 
that  the  mercy  and  grace  of  God  are  farther  illustrated 
by  his  not  proceeding  to  extremities  against  us  upon 
our  first  refusals  of  his  overtures,  of  which  all  are  in 
some  degree  guilty.  He  e.xercises  towards  us,  in  all 
cases,  "  all  long-sufTering,"  and  calls  us  not  hastUy  to 
account  for  our  neglect  of  the  Gospel,  any  more  than 
for  the  infractions  of  his  law,  both  which  he  might  do, 
were  his  government  severe  and  his  mercy  reluctant. 

But  abundantly  as  the  objection  may  thus  be  an- 
swered, it  is  not  to  be  satisfactorily  refuted,  on  the 
Antinomian  principle,  that  Christ  paid  our  debt,  in  the 
sense  of  yielding  to  the  law,  in  Avnrf  and  in  qnarUity, 
those  acts  of  obedience,  or  that  penalty  of  sullering,  or 
both,  which  the  law  required.  The  matter  in  that  case, 
on  the  part  of  the  Father,  loses  its  character  of  grace, 
and  is  reduced  to  a  strictly  equitable  jiroceeding ;  or  at 
least  the  mercy  is  of  no  higher  a  kind  than  is  the 
mercy  of  a  creditor  who  accepts  the  full  amount  of  his 
debt  from  the  surety  instead  of  the  debtor,  which  is  as- 
sureiUy  much  below  that  love  of  the  Father  to  which 
allusions  so  admiring  and  so  grateful  are  oflen  made  in 
the  New  Testament.  The  consequences,  also,  become 
absurd  and  wholly  contradictory  to  the  Scriptures  ;  and 
such  a  view  of  the  satislaction  of  Christ  is  inconsis- 
tent with  the  conditions  of  pardon  and  acceptance;  for 
if  the  debt  is  in  this  sense  actually  tendered  and  ac- 
cepted, on  what  ground  can  conditions  of  release  stand  ? 
It  is,  therefore,  con.sistcnt,  in  the  Antinomian  scheme, 
to  deny  all  conditions  of  pardon  and  acceptance,  and  to 
make  repentance  and  faith  merely  the  hk  aris  tlirough 
which  men  come  to  the  knowledge  of  lluir  previous 
and  eternal  election.  By  them,  as  fuUilled  coiuhiions, 
their  relation  to  God  is  not  changed,  so  ihat  from  guilty 
and  condemned  criminals  they  become  sons  of  God. — 
Such  they  were  i)revious  to  faith,  aud  previous  even  to 
birth;  and  thus  the  Scripture  is  contradicted,  winch  re- 
presents believers,  belbre  repentance  and  faith,  to  be 
"  the  children  of  wrath,  even  as  others."  That  passage 
also  in  (ialatiaiis  loses  its  meaning,  "  we  have  believed 
in  .l(!sus  Christ,  that  wo  might  be  justified  by  the  faith 
of  C;hrisl." 

With  such  explanations  of  the  tenns  of  the  first  of 
the  two  o]i;nions  on  the  satisfaction  of  (Christ  above 
given,  it  may  be  taken  as  fully  accordant  with  the  doc- 
trine of  the  New  Testament  on  tliis  important  subject. 

Another  remark  may  here  be  in  its  j>n)per  jilace.  It 
has  been  sometimes  said  by  theologians,  sulhciently 
sound  in  I  heir  general  views  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
atonement,  that  we  know  not  the  vinculum,  or  bond 
of  connexion  between  the  sufferings  of  Christ  and  the 
pardon  of  sin,  and  this,  thcrefori',  iliey  iilace  among  the 
mysteries  of  religion.  To  me  this  appears  rather  to 
arise  from  obscure  views  of  the  atom  nunt,  than  from 
the  absence  of  information  on  this  point  in  the  Scrip- 
tures themselves.  Mysteries  of  love  and  incomprehen- 
sible facts  arc  found,  it  is  true,  in  the  incarnation,  hu- 
miliation, and  sulfijrings  of  our  Lord  ;  but  the  vmcu- 
lum,  or  coiiucxion  of  those  euflenngs,  appears  to  bt 


Chap.  XX.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


273 


matter  of  express  revolution,  when  it  is  decIureJ,  tliat 
llie  death  of  Christ  was  "aileuioustration  of  the  right- 
eousness of  GoJ,"  of  his  rigliteoua  character  and  liis 
just  administration,  and  thercfhre  allowed  the  honour- 
able exercise  of  mercy  without  impeachment  of  justice, 
or  any  appeal  or  relaxation  of  his  laws.  If  it  be  meant 
in  tills  allegation  of  mystery,  that  it  is  not  discoverable 
liow  the  death  of  Christ  is  as  adequate  a  display  of  the 
j  ustice  of  God,  as  thougii  olleiulers  had  been  personally 
punished,  this  also  is  clearly  in  opposition  to  what  the 
apostle  has  said,  in  the  passage  which  has  been  so  often 
referred  to,  "  Whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propi- 
tiation, through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  declare  his  right- 
eousness," CIS  eviu^tv  T>ii  SiKatoavvrig  aura,  for  a  de- 
mo)i!ilrali<jii,ot  manifestation  nfhis  righteous^icss  ; 
nor  surely  can  the  particulars  before  stated,  in  explana- 
tion of  this  point,  be  well  weighed,  without  our  per- 
ceiving how  gloriously  the  holiness  and  essential  recti- 
tude of  God,  as  well  as  his  reetoral  justice,  were  illus- 
trated by  this  proceeding ;  this,  surely,  is  manifestation, 
not  mystei-y. 

For,  generally  speaking,  it  cannot  be  a  matter  of 
dilhculty  to  conceive  how  the  autliority  of  a  law  may 
be  upheld,  and  the  justice  of  its  administration  made 
manifest,  even  when  its  penalty  is  exacted  in  some 
other  way  than  the  punishment  of  the  party  offending. 
When  the  Locrian  legislator  voluntarily  suffered  the 
loss  of  one  of  his  eyes,  to  save  that  of  his  son,  con- 
demned by  his  own  statutes  to  lose  both,  and  did  this 
that  the  law  might  neither  be  repealed  nor  exist 
without  efficacy ;  who  does  not  see  that  the  authority 
of  his  laws  was  as  much,  nay  more,  impressively  sanc- 
tioned than  if  his  son  had  endured  the  full  penalty  1 
The  case,  it  is  true,  has  in  it  nothing  parallel  to  the 
work  of  Christ,  except  in  that  particular  which  it  ia 
here  adduced  to  illustrate;  but  it  shows  that  it  is  not, 
in  all  cases,  necessary  for  the  upholding  of  a  firm  go- 
vernment, that  the  oflender  liimself  should  be  pu- 
nished. This  is  the  natural  mode  of  maintaining  au- 
thority ;  but  not,  in  all  cases,  the  only  one ;  and,  in 
that  of  the  redemption  of  man,  we  see  the  wisdom  of 
God  in  its  brightest  manifestation  securing  this  end, 
and  yet  opening  to  man  the  door  of  hope.  The  strict 
justice  of  the  case  required  that  the  righteous  charac- 
ter of  the  Divine  administration  should  be  upheld;  but, 
in  fact,  by  the  sufl'crings  of  our  Lord  being  made  the 
only  means  of  pardon,  it  has  received  a  stamp  more 
legible  and  impressive  than  the  extreme  punishment 
of  offenders,  however  awful,  while  it  connects  love 
with  justice,  and  presents  God  to  us  at  once  exact  in 
righteousness  and  affectingly  gracious  and  merciful. 
"  The  judge  himself  bore  the  punishment  of  transgres- 
.sion,  while  he  published  an  amnesty  to  the  guilty,  and 
thus  asserted  the  authority,  and  importance,  and  worth 
of  the  law  by  that  very  act  which  beamed  forth  love 
unspeakable,  and  displayed  a  compassion  which  knew 
no  obstacle  but  the  unwillingness  of  the  criminals  to 
accept  it.  The  eternal  Word  became  flesh  :  and  ex- 
hibited, in  sufferings  and  in  death,  that  combination  of 
holiness  and  rnercy  which,  believed,  must  excite  love, 
and,  if  loved,  must  produce  resemblance."(9)  "  Mercy 
and  truth  meet  together,  righteousness  and  peace  kiss 
each  other."  Thus  the  vinculum,  that  which  connects 
the  death  of  Christ  with  our  salvation,  is  simply  the 
security  which  it  gives  to  the  righteous  administration 
of  the  Divine  government. 

An  objection  is  made  by  the  opponents  of  the  doc- 
trine of  atonement  to  the  justice  of  laying  the  punish- 
ment of  the  guilty  upon  the  irmocent,  which  it  will  be 
necessary  briefly  to  consider.  The  objection  resolves 
itself  into  an  inquiry  how  far  such  benevolent  interpo- 
sitions of  one  person  for  another,  as  involve  sacrifice 
and  suffering,  may  go  without  violating  justice ;  and 
when  the  subject  is  followed  in  this  direction,  the  ob- 
jection will  be  found  to  be  of  no  weight. 

That  it  has  always  been  held  a  virtue  to  endure  in- 
conveniences, to  encounter  danger,  and  even  to  suffer 
for  the  sake  of  others,  in  certain  circumstances,  can- 
not be  denied,  and  no  one  has  ever  thought  of  control- 
ling such  acts  by  raising  any  questions  as  to  their  jus- 
tice. Parents  and  friends  not  only  endure  labour  and 
make  sacrifices  for  their  children  and  connexions,  but 
often  submit  to  positive  pain  in  accomplishing  that  to 
which  their  affection  prompts  them.  To  save  a  fellow- 
creature  perishing  by  water  or  fire,  generous  minds 


(9)  Erskink  on  Revealed  Religion. 


often  expose  theinsclvee  to  great  personal  risk  of  life, 
and  even  SDmetimes  perish  in  the  attempt;  yet  the 
claims  of  humanity  are  considered  sullicieiit  to  justify 
such  deeds,  which  are  never  blamed,  but  always  ap- 
plauded. No  man's  life,  wo  grant,  is  at  his  own  dis- 
posal ;  but  in  all  cases  where  it  is  agreed  that  God,  the 
only  being  who  has  a  right  to  dispose  of  life,  has  lell 
men  at  liberty  to  oiler  their  lives  for  the  benefit  of 
others,  no  one  questions  the  justice  of  tlieir  doing  it. 
Thus,  when  a  patriot  army  marches  to  almost  certain 
destruction  to  defend  its  coasts  from  foreign  invasion 
and  violence,  the  established  notion  that  the  life  of 
every  man  is  placed  by  God  at  the  disposal  of  his 
country,  justifies  the  hazard.  It  is  still  a  clearer  in- 
stance, because  matter  of  revelation,  that  there  are 
cases  ill  which  we  ought  "  to  lay  down  our  lives  for 
the  brethren,"  that  is,  for  the  church  and  the  interests 
of  religion  in  the  world.  Christians  are  called  to  pur- 
sue theirduty  of  instructing,  and  reforming,  and  saving 
others,  though,  in  some  cases,  the  active  services  into 
which  they  may  be  led  will  sliorten  life  ;  and  in  times 
of  persecution  it  is  obligatory  upon  them  not  only  to 
be  ready  to  suffer  but  to  die,  ratlicr  than  deny  Christ. 
No  one  questions  the  justice  of  this,  because  all  see 
that  the  Author  and  Lord  of  tlie  lives  of  men  has  given 
to  them  the  right  of  thus  disposing  of  life ;  nor  do  we 
ever  hear  it  urged,  that  it  was  unjust  in  him  to  require 
them  to  submit  to  the  pain  of  racks,  and  fires,  and 
other  modes  of  violent  death,  which  they  certainly  did 
not  deserve,  and  when,  as  to  any  crime  meriting  public 
and  ignominious  death,  they  were,  doubtless,  innocent. 
These  cases  are  not  adduced  as  parallel  to  the  death  of 
Christ  for  sinners ;  but  so  fat  lliey  agree  with  it  that, 
in  the  ordinary  course  of  Providence,  and  by  express 
ajipointinent  of  God,  men  suffer  and  even  die  for  tho 
benefit  of  others,  and  in  some  cases  the  morally  worthy, 
the  comparatively  innocent,  die  for  the  instruction,  and, 
instrumentally,  for  the  salvation  of  the  unworthy  and 
vicious.  There  is  a  similarity  in  the  two  cases  also  in 
other  particulars,  as  that  the  suffering  danger  or  death 
is  in  both  matter  of  choice,  not  of  compulsion  or  neces- 
sity ;  and  that  there  is  a  right  in  the  parties  to  choose 
suffering  and  death,  though,  as  we  shall  see,  this  right 
in  benevolent  men  is  of  a  different  kind  to  that  with 
which  Christ  was  invested. 

Some  writers  of  great  eminence  on  the  doctrine  of 
atonement  have  urged  also,  in  answer  to  the  objection 
before  us,  the  suffering  of  persons  in  consequence  of 
the  sins  of  others,  as  children  on  account  of  the  crimes 
of  their  parents,  both  by  the  natural  constitution  of 
things  and  by  the  laws  of  many  states ;  but  the  subject 
does  not  appear  to  derive  any  real  illustration  from 
these  examples  ;  for,  as  a  modern  writer  well  observes, 
"  the  principles  upon  which  the  Catholic  opinion  is  de- 
fended destroy  every  kind  of  similarity  between  these 
cases  and  the  sufferings  of  Christ.  In  all  such  inslances 
of  the  extension  of  punishment,  persons  suffer  for  sins 
of  which  they  are  innocent,  but  without  their  consent, 
in  consequence  of  a  constitution  under  which  they  are 
born,  and  by  a  disposition  of  events  which  they  pro- 
bably lament ;  and  their  suflering  is  not  supposed  to 
have  any  effect  in  alleviating  the  evils  incurred  by  those 
whose  pimishment  they  bear."(l) 

In  all  the  cases  mentioned  above,  as  most  in  point  in 
this  argument,  we  grant  that  there  is  no  instance  of 
satisfaction  by  vicarious  punishment ;  no  legal  substi- 
tution of  one  person  for  another.  With  respect  to  hu- 
man governments,  they  could  not  justly  adopt  this 
principle  in  any  case.  They  could  not  oblige  an  inno- 
cent person  to  suffer  for  the  guilty,  because  that  would 
be  unjust  to  liim;  thoy  could  not  accept  his  ofler,  were 
he  ever  so  anxious  to  becomt^  the  substitute  of  another, 
fi)r  that  would  be  unjust  to  God,  since  they  liave  no 
authority  I'rom  liim  so  to  take  away  the  lite  of  one  of 
his  creatures,  and  the  person  himself  has  no  authority 
to  offer  it.  With  respect  to  the  Divine  government,  a 
parallel  ease  is  also  impossible,  because  no  guilty  man 
could  be  the  substitute  for  his  fellows,  his  own  life  be- 
ing forfeited  ;  and  no  higher  creature  could  be  that  sub- 
stitute, of  which  we  are  fully  assured  by  this,  that  if  it 
was  necessary  that  Christ,  who  is  infinitely  above  all 
creatures,  should  suffer  for  us,  in  order  that  God  might 
be  just  in  justifying  the  guilty,  then  his  justice  could 
not  have  been  manifested  liy  the  interposition  of  any 
creature  whatever  in  our  behalf,  and,  tlierefore,  the  legal 

(1)  Hill's  Lecturea. 


274 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


obstacle  to  our  pardon  must  liavo  remained  in  full 
force.  Tliere  can  be  no  full  parallel  to  this  singular  and 
only  case:  but  yet,  as  to  the  question  of  justice,  which 
is  here  the  only  jumit  under  consideration,  it  rests  on 
the  same  principles  as  those  belbre  mentioned.  In  the 
case  of  St.  Paul  we  see  a  willing  sulferer;  he  choo.ses 
to  suffer  and  to  die  "  for  the  elect's  sake,"  and  that  he 
might  publish  the  t!osi)el  to  the  world.  lie  knew  that 
this  would  be  liis  lot,  and  he  gloriis  in  tlie  prospect. 
He  gave  up  clieerfuUy  what  might  have  remained  to 
him  of  life  by  the  constiiution  of  nature.  Was  it, 
then,  unjust  in  God  to  accej)!  this  oirering  of  generous 
devotedness  for  the  good  of  mankind,  wlicn  the  olfer- 
ing  was  in  obedience  to  his  own  will .'  Certainly  not. 
Was  it  an  unjust  act  towards  t;od,  that  is,  did  it  violate 
the  right  of  tied  over  his  lile,  lor  St.  I'aul  to  choose  to 
die  for  the  Gospel  7  Certainly  not.  For  God  had  given 
to  him  the  right  of  thus  disposing  of  Ins  life,  by  making 
it  his  duty  to  die  for  the  truth.  The  same  considera- 
tions of  choice  and  right  unite  in  the  sufTerings  of  our 
Lord,  though  the  case  itself  was  one  of  an  infinitely 
liigher  nature,  a  circumstance  winch  strengthens  but 
does  not  cliange  the  jirinciple.  He  was  a  wtUiag  sub- 
stitute, and  choice  was  in  him  abundantly  more  free 
and  unbiassed  than  it  could  be  in  a  creature,  and  for 
this  reason,  that  he  was  not  a  creature.  His  incarna- 
tion was  voluntary ;  and,  when  incarnate,  his  sulferings 
^vere  still  a  matter  of  choice ;  nor  was  he,  in  the  same 
sense  as  his  disciples,  under  the  power  of  men.  "No 
man  taketh  my  life  from  me  ;  but  I  lay  it  down  of  my- 
self" He  had  the  right  of  doing  so  in  a  sense  that  no 
creature  could  have.  He  died  not  only  because  the 
Father  willed  it ;  not  because  ttie  right  of  living  or 
dying  had  been  conceded  to  liim  as  a  moral  trust,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  apostles;  but  because,  having  himself 
the  supreme  power  of  life  and  death,  from  his  bound- 
less benevolence  to  man,  he  willed  to  die ;  and  thus 
was  there,  in  this  substitution,  a  concurrence  of  the 
Lawgiver,  and  the  consent  ol'  the  substitute.  To  say 
that  any  tiling  is  iinjust,  is  to  say  that  the  rights  of 
some  one  are  invaded ;  but  if,  in  this  case,  no  right  was 
invaded,  than  which  nothing  can  be  more  clear,  then 
■was  there  in  the  case  nothing  of  injustice  as  assumed 
in  the  objection.  The  whole  resolves  itself,  therelbre, 
into  a  question,  not  o(  justice,  but  of  the  wisdom  of  ad- 
milting  a  substitute  to'take  the  place  of  the  guilty.  In 
the  circumstances,  first  of  the  willingness  of  tlie  sub- 
stitute to  submit  to  the  penalty,  and  secondly  of  his 
right  thus  to  dispose  of  himself,  the  justice  of  the  pro- 
ceeding is  fully  cleared  ;  and  the  question  of  wisdom  is 
to  be  determined  by  this  consideration,  whether  the  end 
of  punishment  could  be  as  well  answered  by  this 
translation  of  the  penalty  to  a  substitute  as  if  the  jirin- 
cipals  themselves  had  personally  been  held  to  undergo 
it.  This,  when  the  whole  evangelical  scheme  is  taken 
into  account,  embracing  the  means  and  conditions  by 
which  that  substitution  is  made  available,  and  the  con- 
comitants by  which  it  is  attended,  as  belbre  explained, 
is  also  obvious— the  law  of  God  is  not  repealed  nor  re- 
laxed, bnt  established  ;  those  who  continue  disobedient 
fall  into  aggravated  condemnation,  and  those  who  avail 
themselves  of  the  mercy  of  God  thus  conceded,  are 
restored  to  the  capacity  and  disjiosition  of  obedience, 
and  that  perfectly  and  eternally  in  a  future  stale  of 
existence ;  so  that,  as  the  end  of  punishment  is  the 
maintenance  of  the  authority  of  law  and  the  character 
of  the  Lawgiver,  this  end  is  even  more  aliundantly  ac- 
complished by  this  glorious  interposition  of  the  com- 
passion and  adorable  wisiioin  of  (ion  our  Saviour. 

So  nnl'nuiiiliil  is  this  olijeciion  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
vicarious  siillrrings  (if  Clirisi  ;  to  which  we  may  add, 
that  the  (lillicnlty  of  reecuiriliinx  lliose  sufferings  to  the 
Divine  justice  docs  not,  in  truth,  lie  with  us,  but  with 
the  Socinians.  UifTerent  opinions,  as  to  the  nature  and 
end  of  those  sufTerings,  neither  Uissen  nor  heighten 
them.  The  extreme  and  emphatic  sull'eiings  of  our 
Lord  is  a  fact  which  stands  unaller.dily  U|iiin  llie  record 
of  the  inspired  history.  We  who  r<gard  ( 'linst  as  sulTer- 
ing  by  virtue  of  a  voluntary  subsiilution  of  himself  in 
our  room  and  su^ad,  can  accomil  for  such  agonies,  and, 
by  the  foregoing  arguments,  can  reconcile  them  to  ju.s- 
ticc ;  but,  as  our  Lord  was  perfectly  and  absolutely  in- 
nocent, an  "  he  did  no  sin,"  and  was,  in  this  resjiect, 
distinguished  from  all  men  who  ever  lived,  and  who 
have  all  sinned,  by  being  entirely  "  holy  and  harmless," 
"  sifiimihd  from  sinners,"  how  will  they  recomile  it  to 
liivme  justice  iliut  lie  should  betliua  aa  pre-eiimienl  iji 


sufTcring  as  he  was  in  virtue,  and  when,  according  to 
them,  he  sustained  a  personal  character  only,  and  not 
a  vicarious  one  ?  For  this  difficulty  they  have,  and  can 
have,  no  rational  solution. 

As  to  the  jiassage  in  Kzekiel  xviii.  20,  which  Soci- 
nians sometimes  urge  against  the  doctrine  of  Christ's 
vicarious  pa.ssion,  it  is  brielly  but  satisfactorily  an- 
swered by  Grotius.  "  Socinus  objects  from  Kzekiel, 
'  The  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die ;  the  son  shall  not 
bear  the  iniquity  of  the  iiither,  neitlicr  shall  the  father 
bear  the  iniquity  of  the  son.'  Uut  in  these  words  God 
does  not  teach  us  what  he  must  necessarUy  do ;  but 
what  [in  a  particular  case]  he  had  freely  decreed  to  do. 
It  no  more,  therelbre,  follows  from  hence,  that  it  is  un- 
just allogellier  tor  a  son  to  bear  any  part  of  the  punish- 
ment of  his  father's  crime,  than  that  it  is  unjust  for  a 
sinner  not  to  ihe.  The  jilace  itself  evinces,  that  God 
does  not  here  treat  of  periietual  and  immutable  right ; 
but  of  that  ordinary  course  of  liis  providence  which 
he  was  determined  hereafter  to  jiursue  with  respect  to 
the  .lews,  that  he  might  cut  oil'  all  occasion  of  com- 
plaint."(2) 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

Redemption. — Sacp.ipicks  of  the  Law. 

It  has,  then,  been  established,  upon  the  testimony 
of  various  texts,  in  which  the  doctrine  is  laid  down, 
not  in  the  language  of  metajihor  and  allusion,  but 
clearly  and  expressly,  that  the  death  of  Christ  was 
vicarious  and  propitiatory  ;  and  that  by  it  a  satisfaction 
was  ofiered  to  the  Divine  justice  lor  the  transgressions 
of  men ;  in  consideration  of  which  pardon  and  salva- 
tion are  oilered  to  them  in  the  tJospel  through  faith ; 
and  I  have  preferred  to  adduce  these  clear  and  cogent 
proofs  of  lliis  great  principle  of  our  religion,  in  the 
first  place  i'wtn  those  passages  in  the  New  Testament 
in  winch  there  are  no  sacrificial  terms,  no  direct  allu- 
sions to  the  atonements  of  the  law,  and  other  parts  of 
the  I.evitical  piacular  system,  to  sliow,  that  independ- 
ent of  the  latter  class  of  te.xts,  the  doctrine  may  bo 
established  against  the  Socinians ;  and,  also,  that  by 
having  first  settled  the  meaning  of  the  leading  i)assages, 
we  may  more  satisfactorily  determine  the  sense  in 
which  the  evangelists  and  si)ostlcs  use  the  sacrificial 
terms  of  the  Old  'i'estameiit,  with  reference  to  the 
death  of  Christ,  a  subject  in  which,  from  its  nature, 
the  opponents  of  the  atonement  find  a  freedom  of  re- 
mark and  license  of  criticism,  by  which  they  are  apt  to 
mislead  and  perplex  the  unwary.  This  second  class 
of  texts,  however,  when  apjiroaihed  by  the  light  of  the 
argument  already  made  good,  and  exhibited  also  in  tliat 
of  their  own  evidence,  will  aliord  the  most  trium|iliant 
refutation  of  the  notions  of  those,  who,  to  the  denial 
of  the  (iodhead  of  our  Lord,  add  a  proud  and  Pharisaic 
rejection  of  the  sacrificial  efficacy  of  his  death. 

We  shall  not,  in  the  first  instance,  advert  to  the  sacri- 
fices under  the  patriarchal  dispensation,  as  to  the  origin 
of  which  a  difference  of  opinion  exists,  a  subject  ou 
which  some  remarks  will  be  offered  in  the  sequel. 
Among  the  Jews,  sacrifices  were  unquestionably  of 
Divine  original ;  and  as  terms  taken  from  them  are 
Ibund  aiiplied  so  frequently  to  Christ  and  to  his  suffer- 
ings ill  tiie  New  Testament,  they  serve  farther  to  ex- 
plain that  peculiarity  under  winch,  as  we  have  seen, 
the  apostles  regarded  tlic  death  of  <  hrist,  and  aliord 
additional  proof  that  it  was  considered  by  them  as  a 
sacrifice  of  expiation,  as  the  grand  universal  sin-ofler- 
ing  tor  the  whole  world. 

He  is  announced  by  John,  his  forerunner,  as  "  the 
Lamu  of  God;"  and  that  not  with  reference  to  meek- 
ness or  any  other  moral  virtue ;  but  with  an  accom- 
jiaiiying  phrase,  which  would  communicate  to  a  Jew, 
the  lull  sacrificial  sense  of  the  term  employed — "  the 
Lamb  of  (Jon  which  takkth  away  the  sin  of  the 
world."  He  is  called  "  our  fassovkr,  sacrificed  for 
us."  He  is  said  to  have  given  "  himself  for  us,  an  of- 
FKRiNo  and  A  sACRiFicB  to  Goi>,  liir  a  sweet  smelling 
savour."  As  a  Priest,  it  was  neeessary  ho  should 
have  somewhat  to  ofl'er ;  and  he  ollired  himself,  "his 
own  blood,"  to  which  is  ascribed  the  wasliing  away 


(2)  Ue  Saltsfaclioiic. 


Chap.  XXL] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


275 


of  sin,  and  our  eternal  redemption.  He  is  declared  to 
have  "  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifki!:  of  himsklf," 
to  have  "  by  himsklf  purj^ed  our  sins,"  to  have 
"  SANCTIFIED  tile  pcoplo  by  his  own  blood,"  to  have 
"  offered  to  God  one  sackxfiie  for  sins."  Add  to 
these,  and  innumerable  other  similar  expressions  and 
allusions,  the  arf,'unient  of  the  apostle  in  the  Epislle  to 
the  Hebrews,  in  which,  by  proving  at  length,  that  tlie 
sacrilicc  of  Clirist  was  superior  in  eilicacy  to  the  sacri- 
fices of  the  law,  he  most  unequivocally  assumes,  that 
the  death  of  Christ  was  a  sacrilice  and  siii-olllTing,  for 
without  that  it  would  no  more  have  been  capable  of 
comparison  wiih  the  sacrifices  of  the  law,  than  the 
death  of  John  the  Baptist,  St.  Stephen,  or  St.  James, 
all  martyrs  and  suflerers  fur  the  trulh,  who  had  re- 
cently sealed  their  testimony  with  their  blood.  This 
very  comparison,  we  may  boldly  affirm,  is  utterly  un- 
accountable and  absurd  on  any  hypothesis,  which  de- 
nies tlie  sacrifice  of  Christ ;  for  what  relation  could  his 
death  have  to  the  Levitical  immolations  and  ollerings, 
if  it  had  no  sacrificial  character  !  Nothing  could,  in 
fact,  be  more  misleading,  and  even  absurd,  than  to 
a|)ply  those  terms,  wliicli,  bolh  among  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles, were  in  use  to  e.xpress  the  various  processes  and 
means  of  atonement  and  piacular  propitiation,  if  the 
apostles  and  Christ  himself  did  not  intend  to  represent 
his  death  strictly  as  an  e.vpiatioii  for  sin : — vdskading, 
because  such  would  be  the  natural  and  necessary  in- 
ference from  the  terms  themselves,  which  had  acquired 
this  as  their  established  meaning ;  and  absurd,  because 
if,  as  Socinians  say,  they  used  them  meiapliorically, 
there  was  not  even  an  ideal  resemblance  between  the 
figure,  and  that  which  it  was  intended  to  illustrate. 
So  totally  irrelevant,  indeed,  will  those  terms  appear  to 
any  notion  entertained  of  the  death  of  Christ  which 
e.vcludes  its  expiatory  character,  that  to  assume  that 
our  Lord  and  his  apostles  used  them  as  metaphors  is 
profanely  to  assume  them  to  be  such  writers  as  would 
not  in  any  other  case  be  tolerated ;  writers  wholly  un- 
acciuaintod  with  the  commonest  rules  of  elocution,  and 
therefore  wholly  unfit  to  be  teachers  of  otliers,  not  only 
in  religion,  but  in  things  of  inferior  importance. 

The  use  of  such  terms,  we  have  said,  would  not 
only  be  wholly  absurd,  but  criminally  misleading  to 
the  Gentiles,  as  well  as  to  the  Jews,  who  were  first 
converted  to  Christianity.  To  them  the  notion  of  jiro- 
pitiatory  offerings,  offerings  to  avert  the  displeasure  of 
the  gods,  and  which  expiated  the  crimes  of  offenders, 
was  most  familiar,  and  the  corresponding  terms  in 
constant  use.  The  bold  denial  of  this  by  Dr.  Priestley 
might  well  bring  upon  him  the  reproof  of  Archbishop 
Magec,  who,  after  establishing  this  point  from  the 
Greek  and  Latin  writers,  observes,  "  so  clearly  does 
their  language  announce  the  notion  of  a  propitiatory 
atonement,  that  if  we  would  avoid  an  imputation  on 
Dr.  Priestley's  fairness,  we  are  driven,  of  necessity,  to 
question  the  extent  of  his  acquaintance  with  those 
writers."  The  reader  may  consult  the  instances  given 
by  this  writer,  in  No.  5  of  his  Illustrations  appended  to 
his  Discourses  on  the  Atonement ;  and  particularly  the 
tenth  chapter  of  Grotius's  De  Satisfactione,  whose  learn- 
ing has  most  amply  illustrated  and  firmly  settled  this 
view  of  the  heathen  sacrifices.  The  use  to  be  made  of 
this  in  the  argtmnent  is,  that  as  the  apostles  found  the  very 
terms  they  used  witli  reference  to  the  nature  and  efficacy 
of  the  death  of  Christ,  fixed  m  an  expiatory  signification 
among  the  Greeks,  they  could  not  in  honesty  use  them 
in  a  distant  figurative  sense,  much  less  in  a  contrary  one, 
without  due  notice  of  their  having  invested  them  with 
a  new  import  being  uiven  to  their  readers.  From  ayo^, 
a  pollution,  an  impurity,  which  was  to  be  expiated  by 
sacrifice,  are  derived  ayviyo  and  uyiaifi),  which  denote 
the  act  of  expiation  ;  KaOaioM,  too,  to  purify,  clean.se, 
is  applied  to  the  effect  of  exjiiation ;  and  tXu^w  denotes 
the  method  of  propitiating  the  gods  by  sacrifice. 
These  and  other  words  of  similar  import  are  used  by 
the  authors  of  the  Septuagint,  and  by  the  evangelists 
and  apostles ;  but  they  give  no  notice  of  using  them  in 
any  strange  and  altered  sense ;  and  when  they  apjily 
them  to  the  death  of  Christ,  they  must,  therefore,  be 
understood  to  use  them  in  their  received  meaning. 

In  like  manner  the  Jews  had  their  expiatory  sacri- 
fices, and  the  terms  and  phrases  used  in  them  are,  in 
like  manner,  employed  by  the  ai)ostles  to  characterize 
the  death  of  their  Lord  ;  and  they  woiUd  have  been  as 
guilty  of  misleading  their  Jewish  as  their  GeiUile 
readers,  had  ihcy  employed  them  in  a  uew  seiiae,  and 
S2 


without  warning,  which  unquestionably  they  never 
gave. 

The  force  of  this  has  been  felt,  and  as,  in  order  to 
avoid  it,  the  two  points,  the  expiatory  nature  of  the 
Jewish  sacrifices  and  their  typical  signature,  have  been 
questioned,  it  will  be  necessary  to  establish  each. 

As  to  the  expiatory  nature  of  the  sacrifices  of  tho 
law,  it  is  not  necessary  to  show  that  all  tho  Levitical 
ofierings  were  of  this  character.  There  were  also 
offerings  for  persons  and  for  things  prescribed  for  puri- 
fication, which  were  incidental ;  but  even  they  grew 
out  of  the  leading  notion  of  expiatory  sacrifice,  and 
that  legal  purification  which  resulted  from  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins.  It  is  enough  to  show,  that  the  grand  and 
eminent  sacrifices  of  the  Jews  were  strictly  exjHatory, 
and  that  by  them  the  offerers  were  released  Ifoni 
punishment  and  death,  for  which  ends  they  were  ap- 
pointed by  the  lawgiver. 

When  we  speak,  too,  of  vicarious  sacrifice,  we  do 
not  mean,  either,  on  the  one  hand,  such  a  substitution 
as  that  the  victim  should  bear  the  same  quantum  of 
pain  and  suffering  as  the  offender  himself;  or,  on  the 
other,  that  it  was  put  in  the  place  of  the  offender  as  a 
mere  symbolical  act,  by  which  he  confessed  his  desert 
of  punishment ;  but  a  substitution  made  by  Divine 
appointment,  by  which  the  victim  was  exposed  to  suf- 
ferings and  death  instead  of  the  offender,  in  virtue  of 
which  the  offender  himself  should  be  released.  In  this 
view,  one  can  scarcely  conceive  why  so  able  a  writer 
as  Archbishop  JMagee  should  prefer  to  use  the  term 
"vicarious  import,"  rather  than  the  simple  and  esta- 
blished term  "  vicarious ;"  since  the  Antinoinian  no- 
tion of  substitution  may  lie  otherwise  sufficiently 
guarded  against,  and  the  phrase  "  vicarious  import"  is 
certainly  capable  of  being  r;solved  uito  that  figurative 
notion  of  mere  symbolical  action,  which,  however 
plausible,  does  in  fact  deprive  the  ancient  sacrifices  of 
their  typical,  and  the  oblation  of  Christ  of  its  real  effi- 
cacy. Vicarious  acting  is  acting  for  another ;  vicarious 
suffering  is  sufl'ering  for  another;  but  the  nature  and 
circumstances  of  that  suffering  in  the  case  of  Clirist 
is  to  be  determined  by  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  at 
large,  and  not  wholly  by  the  term  itself;  which  is, 
however,  useful  for  this  purjiose  (and  therefore  to  be 
preserved),  that  it  indicates  the  sense  in  which  those 
who  use  it  understand  the  declaration  of  Scripture,  that 
Christ  "  died  for  us,"  to  be  that  he  died  not  merely/or 
our  benejit,  but  in  our  stead ;  in  other  words,  that  but 
Xor  his  having  died,  those  who  believe  in  him  would 
personally  have  suffered  that  death  which  is  the  penalty 
of  every  violation  of  the  law  of  God. 

That  sacrifices  under  the  law  were  expiatory  and 
vicarious,  admits  of  abundant  proof. 

The  chief  objections  made  to  this  doctrine  are,  first, 
that  under  the  law,  in  all  capital  cases,  the  offender, 
upon  legal  jiroof  or  conviction,  was  doomed  to  die,  and 
that  no  sacrifice  could  exempt  him  from  the  penalty. 
Secondly,  that  in  all  lower  cases  to  which  the  law  had 
not  attached  capital  puni.shment,  but  pecuniary  mulcts, 
or  personal  labour  or  servitude,  upon  their  non-pay- 
ment, this  penalty  was  to  be  strictly  executed,  and 
cone  could  plead  any  privilege  or  exemption  on  account 
of  sacrifice;  and  that  when  sacrifices  were  ordained 
with  a  pecuniary  mulct,  they  are  to  be  regarded  in  the 
light  oi'Jine,  one  part  of  which  was  paid  to  the  state, 
the  other  to  the  church.  This  was  the  mode  of  argu- 
ment adopted  by  the  author  of  "The  Moral  Philoso- 
pher," and  nothing  of  weight  has  been  added  to  these 
objections  since. 

Now  much  of  this  may  be  granted,  without  any  pre- 
judice to  the  argument ;  and  indeed,  is  no  more  than 
the  most  orthodox  writers  on  this  subject  have  often 
adverted  to.  The  law  under  which  the  Jews  were 
placed  was  at  once,  as  to  them,  both  a  moral  and  a 
political  law ;  and  the  Lawgiver  excepted  certain  of- 
fences from  the  benefit  of  a  jiardon,  which  implied  ex- 
emjjtion  from  temporal  death,  which  was  the  state_ 
penalty,  and  therefore  would  accept  no  atonement  for 
such  transgressions.  IJIasphemy,  idolatry,  murder, 
and  adultery  were  those  "  presumptuous  sins"  which 
were  thus  exempted,  and  the  reason  will  be  seen  in  the 
political  relation  of  :lic  people  to  God.  In  refusing 
this  exemption  from  punishment  in  this  world,  in  cer- 
tain cases,  respect  was  had  to  the  order  and  benefit  of 
society,  llumiing  parallel,  however,  with  this  poli- 
tical applicalion  of  the  law  to  the  Jews  as  subjects  of 
the  theocracy,  we  see  tlie  authority  of  tlie  moral  law 


27G 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


kept  over  them  as  men  and  creatures ;  and  if  these 
"presumptuous  sins"  of  blaspliomy  and  idolatry,  of 
murder  and  adultery,  and  a  tew  others,  were  the  only 
capital  crimes,  considered  poli/icalli/,  they  were  not 
the  only  capital  crimes  considcri'd  morally;  that  is, 
there  were  other  crimes  which  would  have  subjected 
the  ofl'enderto  death,  but  fortius  provision  of  expiiuory 
oblations.  The  true  (jneslion  then  is,  wholher  such 
sacrifices  were  appointed  by  God,  and  accciiled  instead 
of  the  pcmonal.  punishment  or  i.uk  of  the  olfcnder, 
which  otherwise  would  have  been  forfeited,  as  in  the 
other  cases ;  and  if  so,  if  the  life  of  animal  sacrifices 
was  accepted  instead  of  the  life  of  man,  then  the  no- 
tion that  they  were  mere  mulcts  and  pecuniary  penalties 
falls  to  the  ground,  and  the  vicarious  nature  of  most  of 
the  Levitical  oblations  is  established. 

Thai  oilier  oliences,  besides  those  above  mentioned, 
were  capiuil,  that  is,  exposed  the  offender  to  death,  is 
clear  from  this,  that  all  offences  against  the  law  had 
this  capital  character.  As  death  was  the  sanction  of 
the  conmiandment  piven  to  Adam,  so  every  one  who 
transgressed  any  jiart  of  the  law  of  Moses  became 
fcuilty  of  death  ;  every  irian  was  accursed,  that  is,  de- 
voteil  to  die,  who  "  continued  not  in  all  things  written 
in  the  book  of  the  law ;"  "  the  man  only  that  docih 
these  things  shall  live  by  them,"  was  the  rule;  and  it 
was,  therefore,  to  redeem  the  offenders  from  this  pe- 
nalty thai  sacrifices  were  appointed.  So,  with  refer- 
ence to  the  great  day  of  exiiialion,  we  read,  "  For  on 
that  day  shall  the  priest  make  an  atonement  for  you, 
to  cleanse  you,  that  you  may  be  clean  from  all  your 
A-ms;  and  this  shall  be  an  everlasting  statute  unto  you, 
to  make  an  atonement  lor  the  children  of  Israel  for  all 
their  sins,  once  a  year."  Levit.  xvi.  30 — 34. 

To  pn)ve  that  this  was  the  intention  and  eiTeet  of  the 
annual  sacrifices  of  the  Jews,  we  need  do  little  more 
than  refer  to  Lev.  xvii.  10,  11,  "I  will  set  my  face 
against  that  soul  that  eateth  blood,  and  will  cut  him 
oft' from  among  his  people.  For  the  life  of  the  flesh  is 
in  the  blood ;  and  I  have  given  it  to  you  upon  the  altar 
to  make  an  atonement  for  your  soul:  for  it  is  the 
blood  that  makelh  an  atonement  for  the  son,."  Here 
the  blood,  which  is  said  to  make  atonement  for  the 
soul,  is  the  blood  of  the  victims,  and  to  make  an  atone- 
ment for  the  soul  is  the  same  as  to  bo  a  ransom  for  the 
soul,  as  will  ajipear  by  referring  to  Exodus  xxx.  12 — 
16,  and  to  be  a  ransom  for  the  soul  is  to  avert  death. 
"  They  shall  give  every  man  a  ransom  for  his  soul  unto 
the  Lord,  that  there  be  no  plague  among  them,"  by 
which  their  lives  might  be  suddenly  taken  away.  The 
"soul"  is  also  hero  used  obviously  for  the  life;  the 
blood,  or  the  life,  of  the  victims  in  all  the  sacrifices, 
was  substituted  for  the  life  of  man,  to  ]ireserve  him 
from  death,  and  the  victims  were  therefore  vicarious.(3) 

The  Hebrew  word,  rendered  atonement,  *l3Di  signi- 
fying primarily  in  cover,  oversprentl,  has  been  the  sub- 
ject of  some  evasive  criticisms.  It  cornos,  however,  in 
the  secondary  sense,  to  signify  atonement,  or  propitia- 
tion, because  the  effect  of  that  is  to  cover,  or,  in  Scrip- 
ture meaning,  to  obtain  the  forgiveness  of  offences. 
The  Sejituagint  also  renders  it  by  eltXaaKoiiai,  to  ap- 
pease, to  make  propitious.  It  is  used,  indeed,  where 
the  means  of  atonement  are  not  of  the  sacrificial  kind, 
but  these  "instances  eijually  serve  to  evince  the  Scrip- 
ture sense  of  the  term,  in  rases  of  transgression,  to  be 
that  of  reconciling  the  oficndcd  Ueity,  by  averting  his 
displeasure;  so  that  when  the  atonement  for  sin  is 
said  to  be  made  by  sacrifice,  no  doubt  can  remain  that 
the  sacrifice  was  strictly  a  sacrifice  of  propitiation. 
Agreeably  to  this  conclusion,  we  llnd  it  expressly  de- 
clared in  the  several  c-ises  of  jiiarular  oblations  for 
transgression  of  the  Divine  commands,  that  the  sin 
for  wliirh  atonement  was  made  by  those  oblations 
should  \<r  fi)r:;ivc>i."{'i) 

As  the-  notion  that  the  sacrifices  of  the  law  were  not 
vicarious,  but  mere  mulcts  and  lines,  is  overturned  by 
the  general  appointment  of  the  lilmid  to  hr  an  (itonemrii.t 
fur  the  soi/h,  the  forfeited  lives  of  men,  so  also  is  it 
contradicted  by  particular  instances.  Let  us  refer  to 
Levit.  V.  15,  10,  "  If  a  soul  commit  a  tres))ass,  and  sin 
through  ignorance,  in  the  holy  things  of  the  Lord,  he 
shall  make  amends  for  the  harm  that  he  hath  done  in 
the  holy  thing,  and  shall  add  a  fillh  part  thereio,  and 
shall  give  it  to  the  priest."     Here,  indeed,  is  tin;  jiroper 


(3)  Vido  OuTRAM  de  8acrif.  lib.  i.  c.  xxii. 

(4)  AUubis's  Discourses,  vol.  i.  p.  332. 


"  fine"  for  the  trespass ;  but  it  is  added,  "  he  shall  bring 
for  his  tresjiass  unto  the  Lord  a  ram  without  blemish, 
and  the  priest  shall  make  atonement  for  hmi,  with  the 
ram  of  the  tre-spass-oflering,  and  it  shall  he  fi/rgiverit 
him."  Thus,  then,  so  far  from  the  sacrifice  being  the 
Jine,  the  fine  is  distinguished  from  it,  and  with  the  ram 
only  was  the  atonement  made  to  the  hinl  for  bis  tres- 
pass. ISor  can  the  ceremonies  with  wliic  h  the  trespass 
and  sin-nfi'erings  were  accompanied  agree  wiih  any 
notion  but  that  of  their  vicarious  character.  The  wor- 
shijiper,  conscious  of  his  trespass,  brought  an  animal, 
his  own  property,  to  the  door  of  the  tabernacle.  This 
was  not  an  eucharistical  act,  not  a  memorial  of  mer- 
cies received,  but  of  sins  committed.  He  laid  his  hands 
upon  the  head  of  the  animal,  the  symbolical  act  of 
transfer  of  punishment,  then  slew  it  with  his  own 
hand,  and  delivered  it  to  the  priest,  who  bunit  the  fat 
and  part  of  the  animal  upon  the  altar;  and  having 
sjirinkled  part  of  the  blood  upon  the  altar,  and  in  some 
cases  njinn  the  olfercr  himself,  poured  the  rest  at  the 
bottom  of  the  altar.  And  thus,  we  arc  told,  "  the  jiricst 
shall  make  an  atonement  for  him  as  conceniing  his 
sin,  and  it  shall  be  forgiven  him."  So  clearly  is  it 
made  manifest  by  these  actions,  and  by  the  description 
of  their  nature  and  end,  that  the  animal  bore  the  pu- 
nishment of  the  ofiender,  and  that  by  this  apjiointment 
he  was  reconciled  to  God,  and  obtained  the  forgiveness 
of  his  offences. 

An  equally  strong  proof  that  the  life  of  the  animal 
sacrifice  was  accejited  in  place  of  the  life  of  man,  is 
afiiirded  by  the  fact,  that  atonement  was  required  by 
the  law  to  be  made,  by  sin-offerings  and  bunit-offerings, 
for  even  bodily  distempers  and  disorders.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  the  argument  to  explain  the  distinctions 
between  these  various  oblations  ;(5)  nor  yet  to  inquire 
into  the  reason  which  required  propitiation  to  be  made 
for  corporal  infirmities,  which,  in  many  cases,  could 
not  be  avoided.  They  were,  however,  thus  connected 
with  sill  as  the  cause  of  all  these  disorders,  and  God, 
who  had  placed  his  residence  among  the  Israelites,  in- 
sisted upon  a  perfect  ceremonial  pnrity,  to  impress 
upon  them  a  sense  of  his  moral  purity,  and  the  neces- 
sity of  purification  of  mind.  Whether  these  were  the 
reasons,  or  whatever  other  reason  there  might  be  in 
the  case,  and  whether  it  is  at  all  discoverable  by 
us,  all  such  unclean  persons  were  liable  to  death, 
and  were  exempted  from  it  only  by  animal  sacri- 
fices. This  appears  from  the  conclusion  to  all  the 
Levitical  directions  concerning  the  ceremonial  to  bo 
followed  in  all  such  cases.  Lev.  xv.  31,  "  Thus  shall  ye 
separate  the  children  of- Israel  from  their  uncleanncss, 
TII.VTTHKY  DIE  NOT  in  (or  bv)  their unelcanness,  when 
t/icy  defile  my  tahtrnncle  rfhich  is  among  them."  So 
that  by  virtue  of  the  sin-ollerings,  the  cliililren  of  Israel 
were  saved  from  a  death,  which  otherwise  they  would 
have  suffered  lor  their  unelcanness,  and  that  by  substi- 
tuting the  life  of  the  animal  for  the  life  of  the  otTerer. 
i\or  can  it  be  urged  that  death  is,  in  these  instances, 
threatened  only  as  a  ]iunisliment  of  not  oliserving  these 
laws  of  purification,  for  the  reason  civeii  in  the  jiassage 
just  (juoted  ;  for  the  threatening  of  death  is  not  hypo- 
thetical upon  their  not  bringing  the  prescribed  atone- 
m('nt,  but  is  grounded  upon  the  fact  of  "defiling  the 
tabernacle  of  the  Lord  which  was  among  them," 
which  is  supposed  to  be  done  by  all  uncleanncss  as 
such,  in  the  first  instance. 

As  a  farther  proof  of  the  vicarious  character  of  the 
priiiei|ial  saeriliees  of  the  Mosaic  economy,  we  may  in- 
stance llidse  statedly  olfered  lor  the  whole  congregation. 
Every  day  were  ollereil  two  lambs,  one  in  the  morning 
and  the  other  in  the  evening,  "  for  a  continual  burnt- 
offering."  To  these  daily  victims  were  to  be  added, 
weekly,  two  other  lambs  tor  the  burnt-olfering  of  every 
Sabbath.  None  of  tlie.se  could  be  considered  in  tho 
light  of  fines  for  offences,  since  they  were  offered  for 
no  particular  persons,  and  must  be  considered,  there- 
fore, unless  resolved  into  an  unmeaning  ceremony,  pia- 
cular  and  vicarious.  To  pass  over,  however,  the 
monthly  sacrifices,  and  those  olfered  at  the  great  feasts, 
it  is  snflicient  to  fix  upon  those  which  are  so  often 
alluded  to  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  offered  on  the 
.solemn  anniversary  of  expiation.  On  that  day,  !• 
other  prescribed  sacrifices  were  to  be  added  another 
ram  for  a  burnt-oflering,  and  another  goat,  the  most 
eminent  of  all  the  sacrifices,  lor  a  sin-offering,  whoso 


(5)  On  this  subject,  ttcc  Outram  Dc  Sacriliciis. 


Chap.  XXL] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


277 


blood  waa  to  be  carried  by  the  high  i)riest  into  the  inmi 
sanctuary,  which  was  not  done  by  ttie  blood  of  any 
otlier  victim  cxceju  the  bullock,  which  was  ollered  the 
same  day  as  a  sin-oiTering  for  the  family  of  Aaron. 
"The  circumstances  of  this  ceremony,  whereby  atone- 
ment was  to  be  made  'for  all  the  s^ins'  of  the  whole 
Jewish  people,  are  so  strikingly  significant,  that  they 
deserve  a  particular  detail.  On  the  day  appointed  for 
this  general  expiation,  the  priest  is  commanded  to  otlbr 
a  bullock  and  a  goat  as  sin-offerings,  the  one  for  him- 
self and  the  other  lor  the  people ;  and  having  sprudded 
the  blood  of  these  in  due  form  before  the  mercy-seat, 
to  lead  forth  a  second  goat,  denominated  the  scape- 
goat ;  and  after  laying  botli  his  hands  upon  the  head  of 
the  scajje-goat,  and  confessing  over  him  all  the  iniqui- 
ties of  the  people  to  put  thnn  upon  the  kewl  of  the 
goat,  and  to  send  the  animal,  thus  bearing  the  sins  of 
the  iieople,  away  into  the  wilderness ;  in  this  manner 
expressing,  by  an  action  which  cannot  be  misunder- 
stood, that  the  atonement,  which  it  is  affirmed  was  to 
be  elfectad  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  sin-offering,  consisted 
in  removing  from  the  people  their  iniquities  by  this 
translation  of  them  to  the  animal.  For  it  is  to  be  re- 
marked, that  the  ceremony  of  the  scape-goat  is  not  a 
distinct  one ;  it  is  a  continuation  of  the  process,  and  is 
evidently  the  concluding  part  and  symbolical  consum- 
mation of  the  sin-otrering.  So  that  the  transfer  of  the 
iniquities  of  the  people  upon  the  head  of  the  scape-goaf, 
and  the  bearing  them  away  into  the  wilderness,  mani- 
festly imply,  that  the  atonement  effected  by  the  sacrifice 
of  the  sin-offering  consisted  in  the  transfer,  and  conse- 
quent removal,  of  those  iniquities."(()) 

How,  then,  is  this  impressive  and  singular  ceremo- 
nial to  be  explained  1  Shall  we  resort  to  the  notion  of 
mulcts  and  tines  ?  but  if  so,  then  this  and  other  stated 
sacrifices  must  be  considered  in  the  light  of  penal 
enactments.  But  this  cannot  agree  with  the  appoint- 
ment of  such  sacrifices  annually  in  succeeding  genera- 
tions— "  this  shall  be  a  statute  for  ever  unto  you."  The 
law  appoints  a  certain  day  in  the  year  for  e.xpiating  the 
sins  both  of  the  high  priest  himself  and  of  the  whole 
congregation,  and  that  for  all  high  priests,  and  all  ge- 
nerations of  the  congregation.  Now,  could  a  law  be 
enacted,  inflicting  a  certain  penalty  at  a  certain  time, 
apon  a  whole  people,  as  well  as  upon  their  high  priest, 
thus presi(?«i)f5^  upon  their  actual  trangression  of  it? 
The  sacrifice  was  also  for  sins  in  general,  and  yet  the 
penalty,  if  it  were  one,  is  not  greater  than  individual 
persons  were  often  obliged  to  undergo  for  single  tres- 
passes. Nothing,  certainly,  can  be  more  absiu-d  than 
this  hypothesis.(7) 

Shall  we  account  for  it  by  saying  that  sacrifices  were 
ofTered/or  the  benefit  of  the  worshipper,  but  exclude 
the  notion  of  expiation?  But  here  we  are  obliged  to 
confine  the  benefit  to  reconciliation  and  the  taking 
away  of  sins,  and  that  by  the  appointed  means  of  the 
shedding  of  Mood,  and  the  presentation  of  blood  in  the 
holy  place,  accompanied  by  the  expressive  ceremony 
of  imposition  of  hands  upon  the  head  of  the  victim, 
the  import  of  which  act  is  fixed  beyond  all  controversy, 
by  the  priest's  confessing,  at  the  same  time,  over  that 
victim,  the  sins  of  all  the  people,  and  imprecating  upon 
its  head  the  vengeance  due  to  them.(8) 

Shall  we  content  ourselves  with  merely  saying  that 
this  was  a  symbol ;  but  the  question  remains,  of  what 
was  it  a  symbol  ?  To  determine  that,  let  the  several 
parts  of  the  symbolic  action  be  enumerated.  Here  is  con- 
fession of  sin — confession  before  God,  at  the  door  of  his 
tabernacle— the  substitution  of  a  victim— the  figurative 
transfer  of  sins  to  that  victim — the  shedding  of'  blood, 
which  God  appointed  to  make  atonement  for  the  soul — 
the  carrying  the  blood  into  the  holiest  place,  the  very 
permission  of  which  clearly  marked  the  Divine  accept- 
ance—the bearing  away  of  iniquity— and  the  actual 
reconciliation  of  the  people  to  God.  If,  then,  this  is 
symbolical,  it; has  nothing  correspondent  with  it;  it 
never  had  or  can  have  any  thing  correspondent  to  it  but 
the  sacrificial  death  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  communi- 
cation of  the  benefits  of  his  passion  in  the  forgiveness 
of  sins  to  those  that  believe  in  him,  and  their  reconci- 
liation with  God. 

Shall  we,  finally,  say  that  those  sacrifices  had  respect, 
not  to  God  to  obtain  pardon  by  expiation,  but  to  the 


(6)  Magee's  Discourses. 

(7^  Vide  Chapm.4.n's  Eusebltis. 

(8)  Leviticus  ivi.  21. 


offerer,  teaching  him  moral  lessons,  and  caHing  forth 
moral  disjiositions  ?  we  answer,  that  this  hyiiothesis 
leaves  many  of  the  essential  circuinslaiiccs  of  the  c- 
remomal  wholly  unaccounted  lor.  The  tabernacle  and 
temple  were  ereeted  lor  the  residence  of  God  by  his 
own  command.  There  it  was  his  will  to  be  approached 
and  to  these  sacred  places  the  victims  wire  recjuired  to 
be  brought.  Any  where  else  they  ininlit  as  well  have 
been  offered,  if  they  had  had  respect  <ii]ly  lo  the  offerer  • 
but  they  were  required  to  be  brought  lo  Cod,  to  be  offered 
according  to  a  prescribed  ritual,  and  by  an  order  of  men 
appouited  for  that  purpose.  "  But  there  is  no  other 
reason  why  they  should  be  offered  in  thesanctuarv 
than  this,  that  they  were  offered  to  the  inhabitant  of 
the  sanctuary ;  nor  could  they  be  offered  to  him  with- 
out having  respect  to  him,  or  without  his  being  the  ob- 
ject of  their  efficacy,  as  in  the  case  of  solemn  prayers 
addressed  to  him.  There  were  some  victims  whose 
blood,  on  the  day  of  atonement,  was  to  be  carried  into 
the  inner  sanctuary;  but  for  what  purjiose  can  we 
suppose  the  blood  to  have  been  carried  into  the  most 
sacred  part  of  the  Divine  residence,  and  that  on  the 
day  of  atonement,  except  to  obtain  the  favour  of  li'm 
in  whose  presence  it  was  sprinkled  r'(9)  To  this  we 
may  add,  that  the  reason  given  for  these  sacred  ser- 
vices is  not  in  any  case  a  mere  moral  effect  to  be  pro- 
duced upon  the  minds  of  the  worshippers  ;  they  were 
to  make  atonement,  that  is,  to  avert  God's  displeasure, 
that  the  people  might  not  "  die." 

We  may  find  also  another  most  explicit  illustration 
in  the  sacrifice  of  the  Passover.  The  sacrificial  cha- 
racter of  this  offering  is  strongly  marked  ;  for  it  was, 
CoRBAN,  an  •ffering  brought  to  the  tabernacle  ;  it  was 
slain  in  the  sanctuary,  and  the  blood  sprinkled  upon 
the  altar  by  the  priests.  It  derives  its  name  from  the 
passing  over,  and  sparing  the  houses  of  the  Israelites, 
on  the  door-posts  of  which  the  blood  of  the  immolated 
lamb  was  sprinkled,  when  the  firsl-born  in  the  houses 
of  the  Egyptians  were  slain  ;  and  thus  we  have  another 
instance  of  life  being  spared  by  the  instituted  means  of 
animal  sacrifice.  Nor  need  we  confine  ourselves  to 
particular  instances—"  almost  all  things,"  says  an  au- 
thority who  surely  knew  his  subject,  "are  by  the  law 
purged  wiih  blood,  and  without  shedding  of  blood  there 
is  no  remission." 

By  their  very  law  and  by  constant  usage,  then,  were 
the  Jews  familiarized  to  the  notion  of  expiatory  sacri- 
fice, as  well  as  by  the  history  contained  in  their  sacred 
books,  especially  in  Genesis,  which  speaks  of  the  vi- 
carious sacrifices  offered  by  the  patriarchs,  and  the 
book  of' .lob,  in  which  that  patriarch  is  recorded  to  have 
offered  sacrifices  for  the  supjioscd  sins  of  his  sons,  and 
Eliphaz  is  commanded  by  a  Divine  oracle  to  offer  a  burnt- 
offering  for  himself  and  his  friends,  "  lest  God  should 
deal  with  them  after  their  folly." 

On  the  sentiments  of  the  uninspired  Jewi.sh  writers 
on  this  point,  the  substitution  of  the  life  of  the  animal 
for  that  of  the  offerer,  and,  consequently,  the  e.\pialory 
nature  of  their  sacrifices,  Outram  has  given  many 
quotations  from  their  writings,  which  the  reader  may 
consult  in  his  work  on  Sacrifices.  Two  or  three  only 
need  be  adduced  by  way  of  specimen.  R.  Levi  Ben 
Gerson  says,  "the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the  offer- 
ers was  designed  to  indicate,  that  their  sins  were  re- 
moved from  themselves,  and  transferred  to  the  animal." 
Isaac  Ben  Arama— "  he  transfers  his  sins  fromliimselt; 
and  lays  them  upon  the  head  of  his  victun."  R.  Moses 
Ben  Nachman  says,  with  respect  to  a  sinner  offering  a 
victim,  "  It  was  just  that  his  blood  should  be  shed,  and 
that  his  body  should  be  burned  ;  but  the  Creator,  of  his 
mercy,  accepted  this  victim  from  him  as  his  substitute 
and  ransom ;  that  the  blood  of  the  animal  might  be  shed 
instead  of  his  blood ;  that  is,  that  the  blood  of  the  ani- 
mal might  be  given  for  his  life." 

Full  of  these  ideas  of  vicarious  expiation,  then,  the 
apostles  wrote  and  spoke,  and  the  Jews  of  their  time 
and  in  subsequent  ages  heard  and  read  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament.  The  Socinian  pretence  is,  that 
the  inspired  penmen  used  the  sacrificial  terms  which 
occur  in  their  writings  figuratively;  but  we  not  only 
reply,  as  before,  that  they  could  not  do  this  honestly, 
unless  they  had  given  notice  of  this  new  application  of 
the  established  terms  of  the  Jewish  theology  ;  but  that 
if  this  be  assumed,  their  writings  leave  us  wholly  at  a 
loss  to  discover  what  it  really  was  which  they  intended 


(9)  OuTKAU  De  Sacrificiie. 


278 


THEOLOGICAL  LVSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


to  teach  by  tliesc  sacriliclal  terms  ami  allusions.  Tlicy 
arc,  IhwrusolvoH,  utterly  silent  an  to  tliis,  ami  Uic  vary- 
ing theories  of  those  who  reject  the  doi  tniii'  ot  iitoiie- 
mciit,  in  fact,  confess  that  their  \vnliii;;s  allonl  no  solu- 
tion of  the  difficulty.  If,  therefore,  ii  is  bhispheiiious 
to  suppose,  on  the  one  hand,  that  inspired  men  should 
"write  on  purjiose  to  mislead;  so,  on  the  other,  is  it  ut- 
terly inconceivable  that,  had  they  only  been  ordinary 
writers,  they  should  construct  a  lifiiiralivi;  lauL'uago 
out  of  terms  which  had  a  detinue  an.l  istablislied  sense, 
without  giving  any  intimation  at  all  th:it  they  employed 
them  otherwise  than  in  their  receivi  il  meaiiinf;,  or  tell- 
ing us  why  they  adopted  them  at  all,  and  more  espe- 
cially when  they  knew  that  they  must  be  intir]iieted, 
both  by  Jews  and  (ireeks,  in  a  sense  which,  if  the  So- 
cinians  are  right,  was  in  direct  opposition  to  that  which 
they  intended  to  convey. 

This  will,  however,  aiipear  with  additional  evidence, 
when  the  typical,  as  well  as  the  expiatory  character  of 
the  legal  sacrifices  is  considered.  In  strict  argument, 
the  latter  does  not  depend  ujion  tlie  former,  and  if  the 
oblations  of  the  Mosaic  institute  had  not  been  inten- 
tionally adumbrative  of  the  one  oblation  of  Christ,  the 
argument,  from  their  vicarious  and  ixpiatory  rhiiruc- 
ter,  would  still  have  been  valid.  For  il"  the  legal  sai-ri- 
flces  were  olfered  in  place  of  the  offender,  blood  lor 
blood,  life  for  life,  and  if  the  death  of  (Jhrist  is  rei)re- 
sented  to  be,  in  as  true  a  sense,  a  sacrifice  and  expiation, 
then  is  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament  writers,  as 
to  the  exi)iatory  character  of  the  death  of  our  Lord,  ex- 
plicitly established. 

That  the  Levitical  sacrifices  were  also  types  is  an- 
other argument,  and  accumulates  the  ^eady  prepon- 
derating evidence. 

A  type,  in  the  theological  sense,  is  defined  by  system- 
atic writers  to  be  a  sign  or  example,  [irepared  and  de- 
signed by  God  to  prefigure  some;  future  thing.  It  is 
required  that  it  should  represent  (though  the  degree  of 
clearness  may  be  very  different  in  difierent  instances) 
this  future  object,  either  by  something  which  it  has  in 
common  with  it,  or  in  beuig  the  syinbol  of  some  pro- 
perty which  it  [lossesses  ; — that  it  should  be  jiTepared 
and  desii^-iii'd  by  God  thus  to  represent  its  antitype, 
which  circumstance  distinguishes  it  from  a  simile,  and 
from  hieroglyphic : — that  it  should  give  place  to  the  an- 
titype so  soon  as  the  latter  appears ;— and  that  the  effi- 
cacy of  the  antitype  should  exist  in  the  type  in  appear- 
ance only,  or  in  a  lower  degree. (1)  These  may  be  con- 
sidered as  the  general  properties  of  a  type. 

Of  this  kind  are  the  views  given  us,  in  the  sacred 
Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament,  of  the  Levitical  dis- 
pensation, and  of  many  events  and  examples  of  the 
Mosaic  history.  Thus  St.  Paul  calls  the  meats  and 
drinks,  the  holy  days,  new  moons,  and  Sabbaths  of  the 
Jews,  including  in  them  the  services  performed  in  the 
celebration  of  tliese  festivals  "  a  shadow  of  things  to 
come ;"  "  the  hodif  of  which  shadow,  whose  form  the 
shadow  generally  and  faintly  exhibited,  "  is  Christ." 
Again,  when  speaking  of  the  things  which  happened 
to  the  Lsraelites,  in  the  wilderness,  he  calls  them  "  en- 
samples"  (tdttoi) 'yp^s,  "written  lor  our  adnioiiition, 
upon  whom  the  ends  of  the  world  are  cuine."  In  He- 
brews x.  1,  the  same  apostle,  when  he  discourses  ex- 
pressly on  the  "sacrifices"  of  the  tabernacle,  calls 
them  "  the  shadim  of  good  things  to  come,"  and  places 
them  i  l  contrast  with  "  the  jvri/  iinai;e  of  the  things," 
that  Is,  the  "good  things"  just  belc)re  menlicjiied  ;  and, 
in  the  preceding  chapter,  he  tells  us  that  the  services 
performed  in  the  tabernacle  prefigured  what  was  after- 
ward to  be  transacted  in  the  heavenly  sanctuary. 
These  instances  arc  sufficient  for  tlie  argument,  and,  in 
examining  them,  wo  may  observe,  that  if  the  things 
here  alluded  to  are  not  allowed  to  be  types,  the  n  they 
are  used  as  mere  illustrative  rhetorical  illustrations, 
and  in  their  original  institution  had  no  more  reliirence 
to  the  facts  and  doctrines  of  the  Christian  system  than 
the  sacrificial  si-rvices  of  I'agan  temples,  which  might, 
in  some  particulars,  upon  this  hypolliesis,  just  as  well 
have  served  the  apostle's  purpose.  Hut  if,  upon  exa- 
mination, this  notion  of  their  being  used  merely  as 
rhetorical  illustrations  be  contradicted  by  the  jiassages 
themselves,  then  the  true  typical  character  of  these 
events  and  ceremonies  may  be  considered  as  fairly  es- 
tablished. 
With  respect  to  the  declaration  of  St.  Paul,  that  the 

(1)  Vide  OUTUAM  Dc  Sacriflciis. 


piinishmmit.s  inilicted  ujwn  the  disotwdient  and  unfaitlH 
ful  Israelites  in  tlie  wilderness  were  "  types  written 
for  our  admonition,"  it  is  only  to  be  explained  by  consi- 
dering the  history  of  that  people  as  designedly  and  by 
appointment  typical.  These  things  happened  for  tyjies ; 
and  that,  by  types,  the  apostle  means  much  more  than 
a  general  admonitory  correspondence  between  disobe- 
dience and  punishment,  which  many  other  circum- 
stances might  just  as  well  have  afforded,  he  adds,  that 
"  they  were  written  for  our  admonition,  upon  whom  the 
ends  of  the  world  are  come,"  that  is,  for  the  admoni- 
tion ot  Cliristians  who  had  entered  into  the  obligations 
of  the  new  disjiensation.  For  this  purpose  they  were 
recorded ;  by  this  act  of  God  they  were  made  types  in 
the  highest  sense ;  and  could  not  become  types  in  the 
.sense  of  mere  figurative  illustration,  which  would 
have  been  contingent  upon  this  rhetorical  use  being 
made  of  them  by  some  subseciuent  writer.  This  is 
farther  confirmed  also  by  the  preceding  verses,  in 
which  the  apostle  calls  the  manna  "  spiritual  meat," 
which  can  only  be  understood  of  it  as  being  a  tjpe  of 
the  bread  which  came  down  from  lieavcn,  even  Christ, 
who,  in  allusion  to  the  same  fad,  so  designates  him- 
self. The  "  rock,"  too,  is  called  the  sjuritrial  rock, 
and  that  rock,  adds  the  apostle,  "  was  Christ ;"  but  in 
what  conceivable  meaning,  except  as  it  was  an  ap- 
pointed type  of  liim  1 

This  is  St.  Paul's  general  description  of  the  tJTiical 
character  of  "  the  church  in  the  wilderness."  In  the 
other  passages  quoted,  he  adduces,  in  particular,  the 
Leviticid  services.  He  calls  the  ceremonial  of  the  law 
"  a  shadow"  (aKia) ;  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians, 
he  opposes  this  shadow  to  "  the  body,"  in  that  to  the 
Hebrews,  to  "  the  very  image ;"  by  which  he  obviously 
means  the  reality  of  "  the  good  things"  adumbrated,  or 
their  essential  form  or  substance.  Now,  whether  we 
take  the  word  cKia  for  tlie  shadow  of  the  body  of  man, 
or  for  a  faint  delineation,  or  sketch,  to  be  succeeded  by 
a  finished  picture,  it  is  clear,  that  whatever  the  law 
was,  it  was  by  Divine  appointment ;  and  as  there  is  a 
relation  between  the  shadow  and  the  body  which  pro- 
duces it,  and  the  sketch  or  outline  and  the  finished 
picture,  so  if,  by  Divine  appointment,  the  law  was  this 
shadow  ol  good  things  to  come,  which  is  what  the  apos- 
tle asserts,  then  there  was  an  intended  relation  of  one  to 
tlie  other,  fjuite  independent  of  the  figurative  and  rhe- 
torical use  which  might  be  made  of  a  mere  accidental 
comparison.  If  the  apostle  speaks  figuratively  only, 
then  the  law  is  to  be  supposed  to  have  no  appointed 
relation  to  the  Gosjiel,  as  a  shadow  or  sketch  of  good 
things  to  come,  and  this  relation  is  one  of  imagination 
only;  if  the  relation  Vi'as  a  designed  and  an  apjiointed 
one,  then  the  resolution  of  the  apostle's  words  into  figu- 
rative allusion  cannot  be  maintained.  Rut,  farther,  the 
apostle  grounds  an  argument  upon  these  types ;  an  ar- 
gument, too,  of  the  most  serious  kind  ;  an  argument 
lor  renouncing  the  law  and  embracing  the  Gospel,  upon 
the  penalty  of  eternal  danger  to  the  soul :  no  absurd- 
ity can,  therefore,  be  greater  than  to  suppose  him  to 
argue  so  weighty  and  iinportant  a  iiuestion  ujioii  a  re- 
lation of  one  thing  to  another  existing  only  in  the  ima- 
gination, and  not  appointed  by  God  ;  and  if  the  rela- 
tion was  so  appointed,  it  is  of  that  instituted  and  adtnn- 
brative  kind  which  constitutes  a  type  in  its  special 
and  theological  sense. 

Of  this  appoiiUmtmt  and  designation  of  the  taber- 
nacle service  to  be  a  shadow  of  good  things  to  come, 
the  ninth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  af- 
fords several  direct  and  uneciuivocal  declarations.  So 
verses  7  and  8,  "  Hut  into  the  second  went  the  high 
priest  alone,  once  every  year,  not  without  blood,  which 
he  offered  lor  himself,  and  for  the  errors  of  the  peo- 
ple ;  the  Holy  Ghost  sionifvino  this  (s/iowing,  de- 
claring by  this  type),  that  the  way  into  the  holiest  of 
all  was  not  vkt  made  manifest."  Here  we  have  the 
declaration  of  a  doctrine  by  tyi)e,  which  is  surely  very 
different  to  the  figurative  use  of  a  fact  employed  to 
embellish  and  enforce  an  argument  by  a  subseijuent 
writer,  and  this  is  also  referrcil  to  the  design  and  in- 
tention of  the  "  Holy  (;host"  himself,  at  the  time  when 
the  Levitical  ritual  was  prescribiMl,  and  this  typical  de- 
claration was  to  continue  until  the  new  dispensation 
should  be  introduced.  In  ver.se  U,  the  tabernacle  itself 
is  called  a  figure,  or  parable;  "Which  was  a  figure 
(j:ap(i/JoX(/)  lor  the  time  then  iircscnt."  It  was  a  para- 
ble by  which  the  evangelical  and  spiritual  doctrines 
1  wore  taught;  it  was  un  appmnlul  parable,  hecousu 


Chap.  XXI.] 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


279 


Kmited  to  a  certain  time,  "/;>r  the  time  then  prexmt," 
that  is,  until  the  briiigiii^  in  of  the  things  signified,  to 
which  it  had  this  ilcsi^ixd  relation.  Again,  verse  23, 
"  the  things  tinder  the  law''  are  called  '■^patterns"  (re- 
presentations) of  things  in  the  heavens ;"  and  in  verse 
24,  the  holy  places  made  with  hands  are  denominated 
"  the  tigures"  (aiUiti/pcs)  "  of  the  true."  Were  they 
then  representations  and  antitypes  only  in  St.  Paul's 
imagination,  or  in  reality  and  by  appointment  ?  Read 
his  argument ;  "  it  was  iiecessary  that  the  patterns  of 
things  in  the  heavens  should  be  purified  with  these ; 
but  the  heavenly  things  themselves  with  better  sacri- 
fices than  these."  On  tlie  hypothesis  that  sacrificial 
terms  and  allusions  are  emplojed  figuratively  only  by 
the  apostle,  what  kind  of  argument,  we  may  ask,  is  this  .' 
On  what  does  the  common  necessity  of  purification, 
both  of  the  earthly  and  the  heavenly  tabernacle,  by  sa- 
crifices, though  different  in  their  degree  of  value  and 
efficacy,  rest .'  Could  the  apostle  say  that  this  was  ne- 
cessary to  afford  him  a  figurative  embellishment  in 
%vnting  his  epistle  ?  The  necessity  is  clearly  grounded 
upon  the  relation  instituted  by  the  Author  of  the  Levi- 
tical  economy  liiinself ;  the  heavenly  places  were  not 
to  be  entered  by  shiners,  but  through  the  blood  of  "bet- 
ter sacrifices ;"  and  to  teach  this  doctrine  early  to  man- 
kind, it  was  "  necessary"  to  purify  the  earthly  taberna- 
cle, and  thus  give  the  people  access  to  it  only  by  the 
blood  of  the  inferior  sacrifices,  that  both  they  and  the 
tabernacle  might  be  the  types  of  evangelical  and  hea- 
venly things,  and  that  they  might  be  taught  the  only 
means  of  oblaining  access  to  the  tabernacle  in  heaven. 
There  was,  therelbre,  in  setting  up  these  "  patterns,'''' 
an  intentioned  adumbration  of  these  future  things,  and 
hence  the  word  used  is  vTroiuyixa,  the  import  of  which 
is  shown  in  chap.  viii.  5,  where  it  is  associated  with 
the  term,  the  shadow  of  heavenly  things, — "  who  serve 
unto  the  example  and  shadow  of  heavenly  tilings,"  or 
"  these"  priests  "  perform  the  service  with  a  representa- 
tion, and  shadow  of  the  heavenly  things." 

The  sacrificial  ceremonies,  then,  of  the  Levitical  in- 
Btitute  are  clearly  cstabUshed  to  be  typical,  and  have 
all  the  characters  which  constitute  a  type  in  the  re- 
ceived theological  sense.  They  are  represented  by  St. 
Paul,  in  the  passages  which  have  been  under  consider- 
ation, as  adumbrative;  as  designed  and  appointed  to 
be  so  by  God :  as  having  respect  to  things  future,  to 
Christ  and  to  his  sacerdotal  ministry ;  as  being  infe- 
rior in  elficacy  to  the  antitypes  which  correspond  to 
them,  the  "  better  sacrifices"  of  which  he  speaks  ;  and 
they  were  all  displaced  by  the  antitype,  the  Levitical 
ceremony  being  repealed  by  the  death  and  ascension  of 
our  Lord. 

Since,  then,  both  the  expiatory  and  typical  charac- 
ters of  the  Jewish  sacrifices  were  so  clearly  held  by 
the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  there  can  be  no 
rational  doubt  as  to  the  sense  in  which  they  ajiply  sa- 
crificial terms  and  allusions,  to  describe  the  nature  and 
effect  of  the  death  of  Christ.  As  the  offering  of  the 
aniinal  sacrifice  took  away  sin,  that  is,  obtained  remis- 
sion for  offences  against  the  law,  we  can  be  at  no  loss 
to  know  what  the  Baptist  means,  when,  pointing  to 
Christ,  he  exclaims,  "  Heboid  the  Lamb  of  God,  which 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world."  As  there  was  a 
transfer  of  suffering  and  death,  from  the  offender  to 
the  legally  clean  and  sound  victim,  so  Christ  died, "  the 
just  for  the  unjust ;"  as  the  animal  sacrifice  was  ex- 
P|iating,  so  Christ  is  our  iXaajiog,  propitiation,  or  expia- 
tion ;  as  by  the  Levitical  oblations  men  were  reconciled 
to  Gon,  so  "  we,  when  enemies,  were  reconciled  to 
God  by  the  death  of  his  Son ;"  as,  under  the  law, 
'•without  sheddnig  of  blood  there  was  no  remission," 
so,  as  to  Clirist,  we  are  "justified  by.his  blood,"  and 
have  "redemption  through  his  blood,  the  remission  of 
sins ;"  as  by  the  blood  of  the  appointed  sacrifices  the 
holy  places  made  with  hands  were  made  accessible  to 
the  Jewish  worshippers,  that  blood  being  carried  into 
them,  and  sprinkled  by  the  high  priest,  so  "  Christ  en- 
tered once,  ivitk  his  own  blood  into  the  holy  place,  hav- 
ing obtained  eternal  redenijition  for  us,"  and  has  thus 
opened  for  us  a  "  new  and  living  way"  into  the  celes- 
tial sanctuary ;  as  the  blood  of  the  Mosaic  oblations 
was  the  blood  of  the  Old  Testament,  so  he  himself 
says,  "  this  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Testament,  shed 
lor  the  remission  of  sins ;"  as  it  was  a  part  of  the  sa- 
crificial solemnity,  in  some  instances,  to  feast  upon  the 
victim,  so,  with  direct  reference  to  this,  our  Lord  also 
declares  that  he  would  give  his  own  "Jiesh  for  tlie  life 


of  the  world;"  and  that  "  whoso  cateth  my  flesh  and 
drinkith  my  blooil  hath  et(;rnal  life ;  for  my  tlesh  is 
meat  inprkd,  and  my  blood  is  drink  iNDEEn ;'''  that  is, 
it  is  in  truth  and  reality  what  the  llesh  and  blood  of  the 
Jewish  victims  were  in  type. 

The  instances  of  this  use  of  sacrificial  terms  arc, 
indeed,  almost  innumerable,  and  enough,  T  trust,  has 
been  said  to  show  that  they  could  not  be  employed  in  a 
merely  figurative  sense ;  nevertheless  there  are  two  or 
three  passages  in  which  they  occur  as  the  basis  of  an 
argument  which  depends  upon  taking  them  in  the  re- 
ceived sense,  with  a  brief  consideration  of  wliich  we 
may  conclude  this  part  of  the  subject. 

When  St.  I'aul,  in  writing  to  the  Corinthians,  says, 
"for  he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us,  who  knew  no 
sin,"  or  "  him  who  knew  no  sin,  he  hath  made  to  be 
sin  for  us,  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of 
God  in  him ;"  he  concludes  a  discourse  upon  our  recon- 
ciliation to  Gon,  and  lays  this  down  as  the  general 
principle  upon  which  that  reconciliation  of  which  he 
has  been  speaking  is  to  be  explained  and  enforced. 
Here,  then,  the  question  is,  in  what  sense  Christ  was 
Mwa  SIN  for  us.  Not,  certainly,  as  to  the  guilt  of  it ; 
for  it  is  expressly  said,  that  "  he  knew  no  sin  ;"  but  as 
to  the  expiation  of  it,  by  his  personal  sufferings,  by 
which  he  delivers  the  guilty  from  punishment.  For 
the  phrase  is  manifestly  taken  from  Ihe  sin-offerings 
of  the  Old  Testament,  which  are  there  sometimes 
called  "  sins,"  as  being  offerings  for  sin,  and  because 
the  animals  sacrificed  represented  the  sinners  them- 
selves. Thus,  Lev.  iv.  21,  the  heifer  to  be  offered  is 
called,  in  our  translation,  more  agreeable  to  our  idiom, 
"  a  sin-offering  for  the  congregation;"  biy  hi  the  LXX. 
it  is  denominated  "  the  sin  of  the  congregation."  So, 
also,  in  verse  29,  as  to  the  red  heifer  which  ijas  to  be 
offered  lor  the  sin  of  private  perSons,  the  person  of- 
fending was  "  to  lay  his  hand  upon  the  head  of  the  si7i- 
qff'ering,"  as  we  rightly  interpret  it ;  but  in  the  LXX. 
"upon  the  head  of  his  sin,"  agreeably  to  the  Hebrew 
word,  which  signifies  indifferently  either  sin  or  the  of- 
fering for  it.  Thus,  again,  in  Lev.  vi.  25,  "  This  is  the 
law  of  the  sin-offering,"  in  the  Greek,  "  Tills  is  the 
lav/  of  sin ;"  which  also  has,  "  they  shall  slay  the 
SINS  before  the  Lord,"  for  the  sin-offerings.  The 
Greek  of  the  apostle  Paul  is  thus  easily  explained  by 
that  of  the  LXX.,  and  affords  a  natural  exposition  of 
the  passage — "  Him  who  knew  no  sin,  God  hath  made 
sin  for  us,"  as  the  sin-ofleriiigs  of  the  law  were  made 
sins  for  oll'enders,  the  death  of  innocent  creatures  ex- 
empting from  death  those  who  were  really  criininal.(2) 
This  allusion  to  the  Levitical  sin-offerings  is  also  es- 
tablished by  the  connexion  of  Christ's  sin-offering  with 
our  reconciliation.  Such  was  the  efiect  of  the  sin- 
offerings  among  the  Jews,  and  such,  St.  Paul  tells  us, 
is  the  effect  of  Christ  being  made  a  sin-offering  for  us ; 
a  suUJcient  proof  that  he  does  not  use  the  term  figura- 
tively, nor  speak  of  the  indirect  but  of  the  direct  effect 
of  the  death  of  Christ  in  reconciling  us  to  God. 

Again,  in  Ephes.  v.  2,  "  Christ  loved  us,  and  gave 
himself  for  us,  an  offering  ami  sacrifice  to  God,  lor  a 
sweet-smelling  savom-."  Here,  also,  he  uses  the  very 
terms  applied  to  the  Jewish  sacrifices.  How,  then, 
could  a  Jew,  or  even  a  Gentile,  understand  him? 
Would  an  inspired  man  use  sacrificial  language  with- 
out a  sacrificial  sense,  and  merely  amuse  his  readers 
with  the  sound  of  words  without  meaning,  or  employ 
them  without  notice  being  given,  in  a  meaning  wliich 
the  readers  were  not  accustomed  to  aflix  to  them  ? 
The  argument  forbids  tliis,  as  well  as  the  reason  and 
honesty  of  the  case.  His  object  was  to  imjiress  the 
Ephesians  with  the  deepest  sense  of  the  love  of  Christ ; 
and  he  says,  "  Christ  loved  us  ;  and  gave  up  himself 
for  us ;"  and  then  explains  the  mode  in  which  he  thus 
gave  himself  up  for  us,  that  is,  in  our  room  and  stead, 
"  an  OFFERING  and  sacrifick  to  God,  for  a  sweet- 
smelling  savour  ;"  by  wliich  his  readers  could  only  un- 
derstand, that  Christ  gave  himself  up  a  sacrifice  for 
them,  as  other  sacrifices  had  been  given  up  for  them, 
"  in  the  way  of  expiation,  to  obtain  for  them  the  mercy 
and  favour  of  God."  The  cavil  of  Crellius  and  his 
followers  on  this  passage  is  easily  answered.  He 
says,  that  the  phrase  "  a  sweet-smelling  savour,"  is 
scarcely  ever  used  of  sin-offerings  or  expiatory  sacri- 
fices ;  but  of  burnt-offerings,  and  peace-offerings,  by 
wliich  expiation  was  not  made.    But  here  are  two  mis- 


(2)  Vide  Chapman's  Eustbius,  chap.  iv. 


280 


THEOLOGICAL   LNSTITUTES. 


Part IL 


takes.  The  first  Ut-s  In  assuming  that  burnt-otrerin),'s 
were  not  expiatory,  whereas  they  are  eaid  "  to  make 
atonement,"  and  were  so  considered  by  the  Jews, 
though  sometimes  also  they  were  eucharistic.  The  se- 
cond mistake  is,  that  the  phrase,  "  a  sweet-smelling 
savour,"  is  by  some  reculiar  fitness  applied  to  one  class 
of  offerings  alone.  It  is  a  gross  conception,  that  it  re- 
lates principally  to  the  odour  of  sacrifues  liuriitd  with 
fire ;  whereas  it  signifies  the  acciiitdhlituss  of  .sacri- 
fices to  God;  and  is  so  explained  in  Phil.  iv.  18,  where 
the  apostle  calls  the  bounty  of  the  I'liilippians,  "  an 
odour  of  sweet  smell,"  and  adds,  cvegclically,  "  a  sacri- 
fice acceptable  and  well  pleasing  to  doo".  The  phrase 
is,  probably,  taken  from  the  incensing  which  accompa- 
nied the  sacrificial  services. 

To  these  instances  must  be  added  the  ivhule  argu- 
ment of  St.  Paul,  in  the  Kinstle  to  the  Hebrews.  To 
what  purpose  does  he  prove  that  Christ  had  a  superior 
priesthood  to  Aaron,  if  Christ  were  only  metaphori- 
cally a  priest  ?  what  end  is  answered  by  proving  that 
his  offering  of  himself  had  greater  efficacy  than  the 
oblations  of  the  tabernacle,  in  taking  away  sin,  if  sin 
was  not  taken  away  in  the  same  sense,  that  is,  by  ex- 
piation ?  Why  does  he  lay  so  mighty  a  stress  upon  the 
death  of  our  Lord,  as  being  "  a  better  sacrifice,"  if,  ac- 
cording to  the  received  sense,  it  was  no  sacrifice  at  all  ? 
His  argument,  it  is  manifest,  would  go  lor  nothing,  and 
be  no  better  than  an  unworthy  trilling  with  his  readers, 
and  especially  with  the  Hebrews  to  whom  he  writes 
the  epistle,  beneath  ii.it  only  an  inspired  but  an  ordi- 
nary writer.  Fully  to  unfold  the  argument,  wc  might 
travel  through  the  greater  part  of  the  ejiistlc ;  but  one 
or  two  passages  may  suflice.  In  chap.  vii.  27,  speak- 
ing of  Christ  as  our  high  priest,  he  say^>,  "  Who 
needeth  i»t  daily,  as  those  lugh  priests,  to  offer  up  sa- 
crifices, first  for  his  own  sins,  and  then  for  the  people's, 
for  this  (latter)  he  did  once,  when  he  ofiered  up  liim- 
eelf "  The  circumstance  of  his  offering  sacrifice  not 
daily,  but  "  once  lor  all,"  marks  the  superior  value  and 
efficacy  of  his  sacrifice ;  his  offering  up  this  sacrifice 
"  of  himself  for  the  sins  of  the  people,  as  the  Jewish 
high  priest  offered  his  animal  sacrifices  for  the  sins  of 
the  people,  marks  the  similarity  of  the  act;  in  both 
cxses  atonement  was  made,  but  with  different  degrees 
of  efficacy;  but  unless  atonement  for  sin  was  in  real- 
ity made  by  his  thus  oflering  up  "himself,"  the  vir- 
tue and  eflicacy  of  Christ's  sacrifice  would  be  inferior 
to  that  of  the  Aaronical  iincsihdod,  contrary  to  the  de- 
clared design  and  argument  of  the  epistle.  Let  us, 
also,  refer  to  chap.  ix.  13,  14,  "  I'or  if  the  blood  of  bulls 
and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  a  heifer,  sprinkling  the 
unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the  llesh,"  so  as 
to  fit  the  offender  for  joining  in  the  service  of  the  taber- 
nacle, "  how  nn»ch  more  shall  thi^  blood  of  Christ,  who 
through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered  himself  without  spot 
to  (iod,  purge  your  consciences  from  dead  works,  to 
serve  the  living  God."  The  comparison  here  lies  in 
this,  that  the  Levitical  sacrifices  expiated  legal  punish- 
ments; but  did  not  in  themselves  aiijiiit  the  people 
absolutely  in  respect  to  (Jod,  as  llieGovrrnorand  .Iudi;e 
of  mankind ;  but  that  the  blood  of  Christ  extends  its 
virtue  to  the  conscience,  and  eases  it  of  all  guilty  ter- 
ror of  the  wrath  to  corne  on  account  of  "  dead  works," 
or  works  which  deserve  death  under  the  universal 
moral  law.  The  ground  of  this  comparison,  however, 
lies  in  the  real  efiicacy  of  each  of  these  expiations. 
Each  "  purifies,"  each  delivers  from  guilt,  but  tlie  latter 
only  as  "  pertaining  to  the  conscience,"  and  the  mode 
in  each  case  is  by  expiation,  liut  to  interpret  the  purg- 
ing of  tlie  conscience,  as  the  Sociiiians,  of  mere  dis- 
suasion from  dead  works  to  conic,  or  as  descriptive  of 
the  power  of  Christ  to  acquit  nun,  ii|)iiii  llirlr  repent- 
ance, declaralively  destroys  all  just  sinalltude  between 
the  blood  of  Christ  and  that  of  the  animal  sacrifices, 
and  the  argument  amounts  to  nothing. 

Wo  conclude  with  a  passage  to  which  wo  have  be- 
fore adverted,  which  institutes  a  coniparison  between 
the  Levitical  purification  of  the  linly  iilai-es  made  with 
hands,  and  the  purification  of  the  heavenly  jilaces  by 
the  blood  of  Christ.  "  And  almost  all  things  are  by 
the  law  purged  with  blood,  and  without  shedding  of 
blood  is  no  remission.  It  was  thcrelbro  neco.s.sary 
that  the  patterns  of  things  in  the  heavens  should  be 
purifirii  with  these;  but  the  heavenly  things  them- 
selves with  better  sacrifices  t.han  these.  I'or  Christ  is 
not  entered  into  the  holy  places  made  with  hands, 
wluch  arc  figured  of  tlie  true,  btit  Into  hcavcu  itseli, 


now  to  ajipear  in  the  presence  of  God  for  us."  To 
enter  into  the  meaning  of  this  passage,  we  are  to  con- 
sider that  God  dwelt  personally  among  the  Israelites ; 
that  the  sanctuary  and  tabernacle  are  represented  as 
polluted  by  their  sins,  and  even  corporal  impurities, 
the  penally  of  which  was  death,  unless  atoned  lor,  or 
e.xpialcd  according  to  law,  and  that  all  unclean  persona 
were  debarred  access  to  the  tabernacle  and  the  service 
of  God,  until  exjiialion  was  made,  and  purification 
thereby  ellc'cted.  It  was  under  these  views  that  the 
sin-offerings  were  made  on  the  day  of  expiation,  to 
which  the  apostle  alludes  in  the  above  passage.  Then 
the  high-priest  entered  into  the  holy  of  holies,  with 
the  blood  of  sacrifices,  to  make  atonement  both  for 
himself  and  the  whole  people.  He  first  offered  for  him- 
self and  for  liis  house  a  bullock,  and  sprinkled  the 
blood  of  it  upon  and  before  the  mercy-seat  within  the 
veil.  Afterward  he  killed  a  goat  for  a  sin-ofic-ring  for 
the  people,  and  sprinkled  the  blood  in  like  manner. 
Tliis  was  called  atoning  for,  or  hallowing  and  recon- 
ciling the  holy  place,  and  the  tabernacle  of  the  con- 
gregation, "  because  of  the  uncleanness  of  the  children 
of  Israel,  and  because  of  their  transgressions  in  all 
their  sins."  The  effect  of  all  this  was  the  remission 
of  sins,  which  is  represented  by  the  scape-goat,  who 
carried  away  the  sins  which  had  been  confessed  over 
him,  with  imposition  of  hands;  and  the  purification 
of  the  priests  and  peo|)le,  .so  that  their  holy  jilaces  were 
made  accessible  to  them,  and  they  were  allowed,  with- 
out fear  of  the  death  wliich  had  been  threatened,  to 
"  draw  near"  to  God. 

We  have  already  shown  that  here  the  holy  places 
made  with  hniids,  and  the  "true  holy  places,"  of  which 
they  were  the  figures,  were  purified  and  opened,  each 
in  the  same  way,  by  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  the 
victims — the  patterns  or  emblems  of  things  in  the 
heavens,  by  the  blood  of  animals,  the  heavenly  jilaces 
themselves  by  "  better  sacrifices,"  and  that  the  ar;;u- 
mcnt  of  the  apostle  forbids  us  to  suppose  that  he  is 
speaking  figuratively.  Let  us,  then,  merely  mark  the 
correspondence  of  the  type  ami  antitype  in  this  case, 
as  exhibited  by  the  apostle.  He  compares  the  legal  sa- 
crifices and  that  of  Christ  in  a  similar  purification  of 
the  respective  Xyia  or  sanctuaries  to  which  each  bad 
relation.  The  Jewish  sanctuary  on  earth  was  pniilicd, 
that  is,  opened  and  made  accessible  by  the  one  ;  the  ce- 
lestial sanctuary,  the  true  and  everlasting  seat  of  God's 
presence,  by  the  other.  Accordingly,  in  other  pa.s.sages, 
he  pursues  the  parallel  still  farther,  representing  Christ 
as  procuring  for  men,  by  his  death,  a  liapjiy  admission 
into  lieavcn,  as  the  sin-offerings  of  the  law  obtained 
for  the  Jews  a  safe  entrance  into  the  tabernacle  on 
earth.  "  Having,  therefore,  brethren,  boldness  to  enter 
into  the  holiest  by  the  blood  of  Jesus,  by  a  new  and 
living  way,  which  he  hath  consecrated  for  us  through 
the  veil,  that  is  to  say,  his  flesh ;  and  liaving  a  high 
priest  over  the  house  of  God,  let  us  draw  near  with  a 
tru(!  heart,  in  flill  assurance  of  faith,  having  our  hearts 
sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,  and  our  biiilies 
washed  with  pure  water."  Thus,  also,  he  lells  us  that 
"  we  arc  sanctified  by  the  offering  of  the  body  of  Christ 
Jesus,"  and  that  as  the  bodies  of  those  animals  whose 
blood  was  carried  into  the  holy  of  holies  by  the  higli 
priest,  to  make  an  atonement  for  sin,  were  burnt 
"without  the  camp,"  so  also  .lesus  suffered  without 
the  gate,  "  that  lie  might  sanctify  the  people  with  his 
own  blood." 

The  notion  that  sacrificial  terms  are  aiiplied  to  the 
dcathof  Christ  by  rhetorical  figure  is,  then,  sufficiently 
refuted  by  the  foregoing  considerations.  Hut  it  has 
been  argued,  that  as  there  is,  in  many  respects,  a  want 
of  literal  conlbrmily  between  the  death  df  Christ  and 
the  sacrifices  of  the  law,  a  considerable  license  of  figu- 
rative interpretation  must  be  allowed.  Great  confusion 
of  ideas,  on  this  subject,  has  resulted  fl-om  not  obser\'- 
ing  a  very  obvious  distinction  which  exists  between 
/ii'urativc  and  analogical  language.  It  by  no  means 
li)llows,  that  when  language  cannot  be  interpreted  lite- 
rally it  must  be  taken  figuratively,  or  by  way  of  rheto- 
rical allusion.  This  distinction  is  well  made  by  a  late 
writer.(3) 

"  Figurative  language,"  he  observes,  "  does  not  arise 
from  the  real  nature  of  the  thing  to  which  it  is  trane- 
lerre.l,  but  only  from  the  imagination  of  him  who 
transfers  it.    So,  a  man  of  courage  is  tiguratively 

(3)  VjiYiiiK»'s  Hampton  Lectures. 


Chap.  XXL] 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


called  a  lion,  not  bncauso  llic  real  nature  of  a  lion  be- 
longs to  him,  but  because  one  quality  wliich  cliarac- 
terizes  this  animal  belongs  to  him  in  an  eminent  de- 
gree, and  the  imagination  conceives  of  them  as  par- 
takers of  a  common  nature,  and  applies  to  them  one 
common  name.  lUit  there  is  a  species  of  language, 
usually  called  analogical,  which,  though  not  strictly 
proper,  is  far  from  being  merely  figurative,  tlie  terms 
being  transferred  from  one  thing  to  another,  not  be- 
cause the  things  are  .limiUir,  but  because  they  are  in 
similar  relations.  The  term  thus  transferred  is  as 
truly  significant  of  the  real  nature  of  the  thing,  in  the 
relation  in  wliich  it  stands,  as  it  could  be,  were  it  the 
primitive  and  proper  word.  Thus  tlio  term  fhot  pro- 
perly signilies  the  lower  extremity  of  an  animal,  or 
that  on  which  it  stands  ;  but,  because  the  lower  extre- 
mity or  base  of  a  mountain  is  to  the  mountain  what 
the  toot  is  to  the  animal,  it  is  therelbre  called  the  same 
name,  and  the  term  thus  applied  is  significant  of  some- 
thing real,  something  which,  if  not  a  foot  in  strict 
propriety  of  speech,  is,  nevertheless,  truly  so,  con- 
sidered with  respect  to  the  circumstance  upon  wliich 
the  analogy  is  (bunded.  But  this  mode  of  expression 
is  more  common  with  respect  to  our  mental  and  intel- 
lectual faculties  and  operations,  which  we  are  wont  to 
denominate  by  words  borrowed  from  similar  functions 
of  the  bodily  organs  and  corresponding  attributes  of 
material  things.  Thus  to  see,  is  properly  to  acquire 
impressions  of  sensible  objects  by  tlie  organs  of  sight ; 
but  to  the  mind  is  also  attributed  aw  eye,  with  which 
we  are,  analogically,  said  to  see  objects  intellectual. 
In  like  manner,  great  and  little,  eijual  and  unequal, 
smooth  and  rough,  .sweet  and  sour,  are  properly  attri- 
butes of  material  substances ;  but  tliey  are  analogically 
ascribed  to  such  as  are  immaterial ;  for  without  intend- 
ing a  figure,  we  speak  of  a  great  mind  and  a  little 
mind ;  and  the  natural  temper  of  one  man  is  said  to  be 
equal,  smooth,  and  sweet,  while  that  of  another  is 
called  unequal,  rovgli,  and  sojtr.  And  if  we  thus  ex- 
press such  intellectual  things  as  fall  more  immediately 
under  our  ot)servation,  we  cannot  wonder  that  tilings 
spiritual  and  divine,  which  are  more  removed  from  our 
direct  inspection,  should  be  exhibited  to  our  apprehen- 
sion in  the  same  manner.  Tlie  conceptions  wliich  we 
thus  form  may  be  imperfect  and  inadequate ;  but  they 
are,  nevertheless,  just  and  true  ;  consequently  the  lan- 
guage ill  which  they  are  expressed,  although  borrowed, 
is  not  merely  figurative,  but  is  significant  of  something 
real  in  the  things  concerned." 

To  apply  this  to  the  case  before  us,  the  blood  or  life 
of  Christ  is  called  our  ransom  and  the  j^rice  of  our  re- 
demption. Now,  admitting  that  these  expressions  are 
not  to  be  understood  literally,  does  it  follow  that  they 
contain  mere  figure  and  allusion?  By  no  means. 
They  contain  truth  and  reality.  Christ  came  to  re- 
deem us  from  the  power  of  sin  and  Satan,  by  paying 
/or  our  deliverance  no  less  a  price  than  his  own  blood. 
"  In  him  we  have  redemption,  through  his  blood." 
"  The  Son  of  Man  came  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for 
many ;"  and  we  are  taught,  by  this  representation,  that 
the  blood  of  Christ,  in  the  deliverance  of  .sinful  man, 
corresponds  to  a  price  or  ransom  in  the  deliverance  of 
a  captive,  and  consequently  is  a  price  or  ransom,  if  not 
literally,  at  least  really  and  truly. 

When  Christ  is  called  "  our  passover,"  the  same  ana- 
logical use  of  terms  is  manifest,  and  in  several  other 
passages  which  will  be  familiar  to  the  reader ;  but  we 
hesitate  to  apply  the  same  rule  of  interpretation  through- 
out, and  to  say  with  the  author  just  quoted,  and  Arch- 
bishop Magee,  who  refers  to  him  on  thLs  point  with  ap- 
probation, that  Chri.st  is  called  a  "  sin-offering"  and  a 
"  sacrifice"  analogically.  These  terms,  on  the  con- 
trary, are  used  properly,  and  must  be  understood  lite- 
rally. For  what  was  an  expiatory  sacrifice  under  the 
law,  but  the  offering  of  the  life  of  an  innocent  creature 
in  the  place  of  the  guilty,  and  that,  in  order  to  obtain 
li is  exemption  from  death?  The  death  of  Christ  is  as 
hterally  an  offering  of  himself,  "the  just  for  the  un- 
just," to  exempt  the  latter  from  death.  The  legal  sin- 
oflTerings  cleansed  the  body  and  qualified  for  the  cere- 
monial worship  prescribed  by  the  law  :  and  the  blood 
of  Christ  as  truly  purifies  the  conscience  and  conse- 
crates to  the  spiritual  service  reijuired  by  the  Gospel. 
Tlie  circumstances  differ,  but  the  things  themselves 
arc  not  so  much  analogical  as  identical  in  their  nature, 
tiiousU  differing  ia  circumstances,  that  is,  so  far  as  the 


legal  sacrifices  had  any  efficacy,  perse;  but.  In  another 
and  a  higher  view,  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  was  the  only 
true  sacrifice,  and  the  Lcvitical  ones  were  but  the  ap- 
pointed types  of  that.  II',  therefore,  in  this  argument, 
we  may  refer  to  the  Mosaic  sacrifices,  to  fix  the  sense 
in  which  the  New  Testament  uses  the  sacrificial  terms 
in  which  it  speaks  of  the  death  of  Christ,  against  an 
objector ;  yet,  in  fact,  the  sacrifices  of  tlic  law  are  to 
be  interpreted  by  the  sacrifice  of  Clirist,  and  not  the 
latter  by  Ihein.  They  are  rather  analogical  with  it. 
than  it  with  them.  There  was  a  previous  ordination 
of  pardon  through  the  appointed  sacrifice  of  the  Lamb 
of  God,  "slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world,"  to 
wliich  they  all,  in  diflerent  degrees,  referred,  and 
of  which  they  were  but  the  visible  and  sensible  moni- 
tors "  for  the  time  present." 

As  to  the  objection,  that  the  Jewish  sacrifices  had  no 
reference  to  the  expiation  of  moral  transgressions,  we 
observe, 

1.  That  a  distinction  is  to  be  made  between  sacrifice 
as  a  part  of  the  theo-political  law  of  the  Jews,  and  sa- 
crifice as  a  consuetudinary  rite,  practised  by  their 
fathers,  and  by  them  also  previous  to  the  giving  of  the 
law  from  Mount  Sinai,  and  taken  up  into  the  Mosaic 
institute.  This  was  continued  partly  on  its  original 
ground,  anil  partly,  and  with  additions,  as  a  branch  of 
the  jiolity  un<ler  which  the  Jews  were  placed.  With 
this  rite  they  were  familiar  before  the  law,  and  even 
before  the  exodus  from  Egypt.  "  Let  us  go,"  says 
Moses  to  Pharaoh,  "  we  pray  thee,  three  days'  journey 
into  the  desert,  and  sacrifice  to  the  Lord  our  God,  lest 
he  fall  upon  us  with  pestilence  or  with  the  sword." 
Here  sacrifice  is  spoken  of,  and  that  with  reference  to 
expiation,  or  the  averting  of  the  Divine  displeasure. 
There  is  in  this,  too,  an  acknowledgment  of  offences, 
as  the  reason  of  sacrificing ;  but  these  oflences  could 
not  be  against  the  forms  and  ceremonies  of  an  institute 
wliich  did  not  then  exist,  and  must,  therefore,  have 
been  moral  offences.  We  may  add  to  this,  that  iu  the 
books  of  Leviticus  and  Exodus,  Moses  speaks  of  sacri- 
fices as  a  previous  practice,  and,  in  some  cases,  so  far 
from  prescribing  the  act,  does  no  more  than  regulate 
the  mode.  "  If  liis  oflering  be  a  burnt  sacrifice  of  the 
herd,  let  him  offer  a  male."  Had  their  sacrifices,  there- 
fore, reference  only  to  cases  of  ceremonial  offence, 
then  it  would  follow  that  they  had  been  deprived  of  the 
worship  of  their  ancestors,  which  respected  the  obtain- 
ing of  the  Divine  favour  in  the  forgiveness  of  moral 
offences,  and  that  they  obtained,  as  a  substitute,  a  kind 
of  worship  which  respected  only  ceremonial  cleans- 
ings  and  a  ceremonial  reconciliation.  They  had  this, 
manifestly,  as  the  type  of  something  higher;  and  they 
had  also  the  patriarchal  rites  with  renewed  sanctions 
and  under  new  regulations  ;  and  thus  there  was  a  real 
advance  in  the  spirituality  of  their  worship,  while 
it  became,  at  the  same  time,  more  ceremonial  and 
exact. 

2.  That  the  offerings  which  were  formerly  prescribed 
under  the  law  had  reference  to  moral  transgressions, 
as  well  as  to  external  aberrations  from  the  purity  and 
exactness  of  the  Levitical  ritual. 

"  Atonement"  is  said  to  be  made  "  for  sins  committed 
against  a7iy  of  the  commandments  of  the  Lord."  It 
appears,  also,  that  sins  of  "ignorance"  included  all  sins 
which  were  not  ranked  in  the  class  of"  presumptuous 
sins,"  or  those  to  which  death  was  inevitably  annexed 
by  the  civil  law,  and,  therefore,  must  have  included 
many  cases  of  moral  transgression.  For  some  specific 
instances  of  this  kind  sin-offerings  were  enjoined,  such 
as  lying,  theft,  fraud,extortion,  and  perjury .(4) 

3.  That  if  all  the  sin-offerings  of  the  Levitical  insti- 
tute had  respected  legal  atonement  and  ceremonial  pu- 
rification, nothing  could  have  been  collected  from  that 
circumstance  to  invalidate  the  true  sacrifice  of  Christ. 
It  is  of  the  nature  of  a  type  to  be  inferior  in  etficacy  to 
the  antitype ;  and  the  apostle  Paul  himself  argues, 
from  the  invalidity  of  Levitical  sacrifices  to  take  away 
guilt  from  the  conscience,  the  superior  efficacy  of  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ.  It  follows,  then,  that  as  truly  as 
they  were  legal  atonements,  so  truly  was  Christ's 
death  a  moral  atonement ;  as  truly  as  they  purified  the 
flesh,  so  truly  did  this  sacrifice  purify  the  conscience. 


(4)  Vide  OuTRAM  DeSac. ;  Ballet's  Notes  and  Dis- 
courses; Hammond  and  BosENMULLBR  ia  Heb.  ix.; 
Richie's  Pec.  Doctrine. 


282 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


CHAPTER  XXTI. 

REnKMPTioN. — Primitive  Sacrificks. 
To  the  rile  of  saiTifice  betbre  the  law,  practised  in 
thc^  (latriaalial  agts,  up  to  the  first  family,  it  may  be 
jiruper  to  give  some  conwideration,  boili  for  the  farther 
elucidation  cf  some  of  the  topics  above  stated,  and  for 
Ihe  purpose  of  exliibitin?  the  liariiionj'  of  those  disi)oii- 
sutioMs  of  religion  which  were  made  to  fallen  man  in 
diflereiit  ages  of  the  world.  That  t  he  ante-Wosaic  sa- 
crifices were  expiatory,  is  the  fir.st  point  which  it  is  ne- 
cessary to  establish.  It  is  not,  indeed,  at  all  essential 
to  the  argument,  to  ascend  hitjherthan  the  sacrifices  of 
«lle  law,  which  we  have  already  proved  to  be  of  that 
character,  and  by  which  the  expiatory  efficacy  of  the 
death  of  Christ  is  represented  in  the  New  Testament. 
This,  however,  was  also  the  cliarai-ter  of  tlie  more  an- 
cient rites  of  the  patriarchal  church  ;  and  thus  we  see 
the  same  principles  ol'  moral  government,  wliich  dis- 
tinguish tlie  Christian  ;iiiil  Mii.saic  dispensations,  car- 
ried still  higher  as  lo  anticpiily,  even  to  the  family  of 
the  first  man,  the  fir.st  transgressor;  "without  shed- 
ding of  blood  there  was  no  remission." 

'I'he  proofs  that  sacrifices  of  atonement  made  a  part 
of  the  religious  system  of  the  patriarchs  who  lived  be- 
fore the  law,  are,  first,  the  distribution  of  beasts  into 
clemi  and  unclean,  which  we  find  prior  to  the  flood  of 
Noah.  This  is  a  singular  distinction,  and  one  which 
could  not  then  have  reference  lo  food,  since  animal 
food  was  not  allowed  to  man  prior  tr)  the  deluge;  and 
as  we  know  of  no  other  ground  lor  the  distinction,  ex- 
cept that  of  sacrifice,  it  nmst,  therefore,  have  had  re- 
ference to  the  selection  olvictims  to  be  solemnly  offered 
to  God,  as  a  part  of  worshiji,  and  as  the  means  of  draw- 
ing near  to  him  by  expiatory  rites  for  the  forgiveness 
of  sins.  Some,  it  is  true,  have  regarded  this  distinc- 
tion of  clean  and  unclean  bea.sts  as  used  by  Moses  by 
Mvay  o(  prolepsis,  or  anticipation,  a  notion  which,  if  it 
could  not  be  refuted  by  the  context,  would  be  perfectly 
arbitrary.  But  not  only  are  the  beasts  which  Noah 
was  to  receive  into  the  ark  sijoken  of  as  clean  and  un- 
clean ;  but  in  the  command  to  take  them  into  the  ark, 
a  difference  is  made  in  the  number  to  be  preserved, 
the  former  being  to  be  received  by  sevens,  and  the  lat- 
ter by  two  of  a  kind.  This  shows  that  this  distinction 
among  beasts  had  been  established  in  the  time  of  Noah, 
and  thus  the  assumption  of  a  prolepsis  is  refuted.  In 
the  law  of  Moses  a  similar  distmction  is  made :  but  the 
only  reasons  given  for  it  are  two :  in  this  manner,  those 
victims  which  fiod  would  allow  to  be  used  for  piacn- 
lar  purposes,  were  marked  out ;  and  by  this  distinction 
those  animals  were  designated  which  were  permitted 
for  food.  The  former  oiii\  can,  tli(Teli)re,  be  con.sidered 
as  the  ground  of  this  disiuiciioii  among  the  antedilu- 
vians ;  for  the  critical  attempts  which  have  been  rnade 
to  show  that  animals  were  allowed  to  man  for  food, 
previous  to  the  fiood,  have  wholly  failed. 

A  second  argument  is  furnished  by  the  prohibition  of 
blood  for  food,  alter  animals  had  been  granted  to  man 
for  his  siLStenance  along  with  the  "  lierb  of  the  field." 
This  prohibition  is  repealed  by  Moses  to  the  Israelites, 
with  this  explanation,  "  1  have  given  it  upon  the  altar, 
to  make  an  atonement  for  your  souls."  From  this 
"  additional  reason,"  a.s  it  has  been  called,  it  has  been 
argued  that  tlie  doctrine  of  the  atoning  imwer  ol  blood 
was  new,  and  was  then,  for  the  first  lime,  announced 
by  Moses,  or  the  .same  rea-son  for  the  jirohibilion  would 
have  been  given  to  Noah.  To  this  we  may  rejily, 
1.  That  unless  the  same  reason  be  supposed  as  the 
ground  for  the  prohibition  of  blood  to  Noah,  as  that 
given  by  Moses  lo  I  lie  .lews,  no  reason  at  all  can  be 
conceived  lor  this  restraint  being  put  Upon  the  appetite 
of  mankind  from  Noah  to  Moses;  and  yet  we  have  a 
prohibition  of  a  most  solemn  kinil,  which  in  itself 
could  have  no  reason  enjoined,  willioul  any  external 
reason  being  either  given  or  conceivable.  2.  That  it  is 
a  mistake  to  suppose,  that  the  declaration  of  Moses  lo 
the  Jews,  that  (Jod  had  "  given  llicm  ihc  bloml  lor  an 
atonement,"  is  an  additional  reaxmi.  for  Ww  interdict, 
not  to  be  found  in  the  original  prohibition  lo  Noah. 
The  whole  pas.sage  in  Lev.  xvii.  is,  "And  thou  shall 
nay  to  them.  Whatsoever  man  there  be  of  Ihe  house  of 
Israrl.  or  of  I Iw  strangers  that  sojourn  among  you,  that 
call  th  aiiv  manner  of  biooil,  1  will  even  set  my  face 
against  tliat  soul  that  eatetli  blood,  find  I  will  cut  him 
olflroin  among  Ins  jieople,  for  tiik  likk  of  th(Mlesh 
is  in  the  blood,  and  1  Imve  given  it  ujion  Iho  allar,  to 


make  atonement  for  your  souls ;  for  it  is  the  blooi> 
(or  MPii)  that  inaketh  atonement  for  the  soul."  The 
great  reason,  then,  of  the  prohibition  of  blood  is,  that  it 
is  the  MKK  :  and  what  follows  rcsjiecting  atonement  is 
exegitical  of  this  reason  ;  the  life  is  in  the  blood,  and 
the  blood  or  lile  is  given  as  an  atonement.  Now,  by 
turning  to  the  original  prohibition  in  Genesis,  we  find 
that  i)reci.sely  the  same  reason  is  given.  "  But  the 
flesh  with  Ihe  blood,  which  is  the  life  lliereof,  shall  ye 
not  eat."  The  reason,  then,  being  the  same,  the  ques- 
tion is,  whether  the  exegesis  added  by  Moses  must  not 
necessarily  be  understood  in  the  general  reason  given 
for  the  restraint  to  Noah.  Blood  is  prohibited  for  this 
reason,  that  it  is  the  life;  and  Moses  adds,  that  it  is 
"  the  blood,"  or  life,  "  which  makes  atonement."  Lei 
any  one  attempt  lb  discover  any  reason  for  the  prohibi- 
tion of  blood  to  Noah,  in  the  mere  circumstance  that  it 
is  "  the  life,"  and  he  will  find  it  impossible.  It  is  no 
reason  at  all,  moral  or  instituted,  e,\cei)t  that  as  it  was 
life  substituted  for  life,  the  life  of  the  animal  in  sacri- 
fice for  the  life  of  man,  and  that  it  had  a  sacred  ap- 
projiriation.  The  manner,  too,  in  which  Moses  intro- 
duces the  subject  is  indicative,  that,  though  he  was  re- 
newing a  prohibition,  he  was  not  publishing  a  "  new 
doctrine;"  he  does  not  teach  his  people  that  God  had 
then  given,  or  appointed,  blood  to  make  atonement ;  but 
he  prohibits  them  from  eating  it,  because  he  had  made 
Ibis  appointment,  without  reference  to  time,  and  as  a 
subject  with  which  they  were  familiar.  Because  the 
blood  was  the  life,  it  was  sprinkled  upon,  and  poured 
out  at  the  altar :  and  we  have  in  the  sacrifice  of  the 
paschal  lamb,  and  the  sprinkling  of  its  blood,  a  suffi- 
cient proof,  that  before  the  giving  of  the  law,  not  only 
was  blood  not  eaten,  but  was  ai)[iroiiriated  to  a  sacred 
sacrificial  purpose.  Nor  was  this  coiiliiicd  to  the  Jews ; 
it  was  customary  with  the  Komaiis  and  (ireeks,  who, 
in  like  manner,  poured  out  and  spriukkd  the  IiUmmI  of 
vicliins  at  their  altars;  a  rite  derived,  probiilily,  from 
the  Egyptians,  as  they  derived  it,  not  Iruin  Moses,  but 
from  the  sons  of  Noah.  The  notion,  iiulced,  that  the 
blood  of  the  victims  was  peculiarly  sacred  to  the  gods, 
is  impressed  upon  all  ancient  pagan  mythology. 

Tlurdly,  Ihe  sacrifices  of  thejiatriarchs  were  those  of 
animal  victims,  and  their  use  was  to  avert  the  displea- 
sure of  (Jod  from  sinning  men.  'J'hus  in  the  case  of 
Joli,  who,  if  It  could  be  proved  that  he  did  not  live  be- 
fore the  law,  was,  at  least,  not  under  the  law,  and  in 
whose  <!Ounlry  the  true  patriarchal  theology  was  in 
force,  the  jirescribed  burnt-otfering  was  for  the  averting 
of  the"  wrath"  of  God,  which  was  kindled  against  lili- 
phaz  and  his  two  friends,  •■  lest,"  it  is  added,  "  I  deal 
with  you  after  your  folly."  The  doctrine  of  expiation 
could  not,  therefore,  be  more  exjdicitly  declared.  The 
burnt-oU'eriiigs  of  Noah,  also,  after  he  left  Ihe  ark, 
served  to  avert  the  "  cursing  of  the  ground  any  more 
t<>r  man's  sake,"  that  is,  for  man's  sin,  and  the  "  smiling 
any  more  every  tiling  living."  In  like  manner,  the  end 
of  Abel's  ollVniig  was  pardon  and  acceptance  ofGon,' 
and  by  it  these  were  attained,  for  "  he  obtiuned  witness 
that  he  was  righteous."  But  as  this  is  the  first  sacrifice 
which  we  have  on  record,  and  has  given  risr  to  some  con- 
troversy, it  may  be  considered  more  largely  :  at  present, 
however  the  only  question  is  its  expiatory  character. 

As  to  the  rnatli'r  of  the  sacrifice,  it  was  an  animal 
oIlL-ring.  "Cain  brought  of  the  fruit  of  the  ground," 
"  and  Abel,  he  also  brought  ofihefirsflings  ofhisjlock, 
and  of  Iho  fat  thereof;"  or,  more' literally,  "  the  fat  of 
I  hem,"  that  is,  acconhng  to  the  llelircw  idiom,  the  fat- 
test or  best  of  his  Hock.  LeClercaiid(;r(jtius  would  un- 
derstand Abel  to  have  oflfered  llie  wool  and  milk  of  his 
Hock,  which  inleriiretalion,  if  no  crilical  dillicully  op- 
posed it,  would  be  rendcn^d  violently  improbable  by 
the  circumstance  that  neither  wool  nor  milk  is  ever 
mentioned  in  Scripture  as  fit  oblations  lo  (;od.  But  lo 
translate  the  word  rendered  firstlings,  by  best  and 
finest,  and  Ihen  to  suppose  an  ellipsis  and  sujiply  it 
with  wool,  is  wholly  arbitrary,  and  contradicted  by  the 
import  of  the  word  itself  But,  as  Ur.  Kennicott  re- 
marks, the  matter  is  set  at  rest  by  the  context ;  "  for, 
li'it  be  allowed  by  all,  that  Cain's  bringing  ok  the  fruit 
ofihe  ground  means  his  bringing  Ihc  Iriiil  (ilscif)  of  Ihe 
ground,  then  Abel's  bringing  ur  the  firstlings  of  hin 
dock  must,  likewise,  mean  his  bringing  the  firstlings 
of  his  flock"  (lhem.selvcs).(5) 
This  is  further  supported  by  the  import  of  the  phrase 


(0)  Two  DisBcrtaiJoos.  See  also  aUaEs's  Discourses. 


Chap.  XXII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


283 


vXetova  Suatav,  usod  by  the  apostle  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  when  spcakini;  of  the  siicrifice  of  Abel. 
Our  translators  have  rendered  it  "  a  more  excellent  sa- 
crifice." Wicklifle  translates  it,  as  Archbishop  Magec 
observes,  untouthly,  but  in  the  full  sense  of  the  origi- 
nal, "  a  much  more  sacrillcc ;"  and  the  controversy 
which  has  been  had  on  this  point  is,  whether  this  epi- 
thet of"  much  more,"  or  "  fuller"  refers  to  (luantity  or 
quality ;  whether  it  is  to  be  understood  in  the  sense  of  a 
more  abundant,  or  of  a  better,  a  more  exccUt-iU,  sacrifice. 
Dr.  Kennicott  lakes  it  in  the  sense  of  measure  and  quan- 
tity as  well  as  quality,  and  supposes  that  Abel  broui^ht 
a  double  oU'erinj;  of  the  firstlings  of  his  Jlock  and  of  the 
fruit  of  the  ground  also.  His  criticism  has  been  very 
satisfactorily  refuted  by  Archbishop  Magee  ;(0)  and  Mr. 
Davison,  who  has  written  an  acute  work  in  reply  to 
those  parts  of  that  learned  prelate's  work  on  the  atone- 
ment, which  relate  to  the  Divine  origin  of  the  primi- 
tive sacrifices,  has  attempted  no  answer  to  this  criti- 
cism, and  only  observes  that  "  the  more  abundant  sa- 
crifice is  the  more  probable  signification  of  the  pa-s- 
sage,  because  it  is  the  more  natural  force  of  the  term 
TrXeiova  when  applied  to  a  subject,  as  5vaiav,  capable 
of  measure  and  quantity."  This  is  but  assumption ; 
and  we  read  tiie  term  in  other  passages  of  Scripture,(7) 
where  the  idea  of  quantity  is  necessarily  excluded, 
and  that  of  superiority  and  excellence  of  quality  is  as 
necessarily  intended.  But  why  is  this  stress  laid  on 
quantity  ?  Are  we  to  admit  the  strange  principle  that 
an  offering  is  acceptable  to  God,  because  of  its  quantity 
alone,  and  that  tlie  quantity  of  sacrifice,  when  even  no 
measure  has  been  prescribed  by  any  law  of  God,  has 
an  absolute  connexion  with  the  state  of  the  heart  of  an 
offerer?  Frequency  or  non-frequency  of  oflfering  might 
have  some  claim  to  be  considered  as  this  indication  ; 
but,  certainly,  the  quantity  of  gifls,  where,  according  to 
the  opinion  of  those  generally  who  adopt  this  view, 
sacrifices  had  not  yet  been  subjected  to  express  regu- 
lation, would  be  a  very  imperfect  indication.  If  the 
quantity  of  a  sacrifice  could  at  all  indicate,  under  such 
circumstances,  any  moral  quality,  that  quality  would 
be  gratitude ;  but  then  we  must  suppose  Abel's  offer- 
ing to  have  been  eucharistic.  Here,  however,  the  sa- 
crifice of  Abel  was  that  of  animal  victims,  and  it  was 
indicative  oi faith,  a  quality  not  to  be  made  manifest 
by  the  quantity  of  an  offering  made,  for  the  one  has 
no  relation  to  the  other ;  and  the  sacrifice  itself  was, 
as  we  shall  see,  of  a  strictly  expiatory  character. 

This  will  more  fully  appear,  if  we  look  at  the  im- 
port of  the  words  of  the  apostle  in  some  views  which 
have  not  always  been  brought  fully  out  in  what  has 
been  more  recently  written  on  the  subject.  "  By  faitu 
Abel  offered  unto  God  a  more  excellent  sacrifice  than 
Cain,  by  which  he  obtained  vvitne;^s,  that  he  was 
RIGHTEOUS,  God  testifying  of  his  gifts ;  and  by  it,  he 
being  dead  yet  speaketh." 

What  is  the  meaning  of  the  apostle,  when  he  says 
that  it  was  witnessed  or  testified  to  Abel  that  he  was 
righteous?  His  doctrine  is,  that  men  are  sinners, 
that  all,  conseiiuently,  need  pardon ;  and  to  be  declared, 
witnessed,  or  accounted  righteous  are,  according  to  his 
style  of  writing,  the  same  as  to  be  justified,  pardoned, 
and  dealt  with  as  righteous.  Thus,  he  argues  that 
"  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was  accounted  to  hirn  for 
righteousness" — "  that  IHith  was  reckoned  to  Abraham 
for  righteousness" — "  that  he  received  the  sign  of  cir- 
cumcision, a  seal,"  a  visible,  confirmatory,  declaratory, 
and  witnessing  mark  "  of  the  righteousness  which  he 
had  by  faith."  In  these  cases  we  have  a  similarity  so 
striking,  that  they  can  scarcely  fail  to  explain  each 
other.  In  both,  sinf'iH  men  are  placed  in  the  condition 
of  righteous  men— the  instrument,  in  both  cases,  is 
faith;  and  the  transaction  is,  in  both  cases  also,  pub- 
licly and  sensibly  witnessed;  as  to  Abraham,  by  the 
sign  of  circumcision ;  as  to  Abel,  by  a  visible  acceptance 
of  his  sacrifice,  and  the  rejection  of  that  of.  Cain. 

But  it  is  said  "  St.  Paul  affirms  that  Abel,  by  the  ac- 
ceptance of  the  sacrifice,  gained  the  testimony  of  God, 
that  he  was  a  righteous  man.  He  affirms,  therefore, 
that  it  was  his  personal  habit  of  righteousness  to  which 
God  vouchsafed  the  testimony  of  his  apjirohation,  by 
that  acceptance  of  his  offering.  The  antecedent  faith 
in  GoD,  which  produced  that  habit  of  a  religious  life, 


(6)  Discourses  on  Atonement. 

(7)  As  in  Matt.  vi.  25, "  Is  not  the  life  more  than  meat, 
and  the  body  than  raiment." 


commended  his  sat^rifice,  and  the  Divine  testimony  was 
not  to  tile  specific  for-m  of  his  oblations  ;  but  to  his  ac- 
tual riglitcous-ness.''(8) 
The  objections  to  this  view  of  the  matter  are  many. 

1.  It  leaves  out  entirely  all  consideration  of  the  dif- 
ference between  the  sacrifice  of  Abel  and  that  of  Cain, 
and  places  the  reason  of  the  acceptance  of  one  and  the 
rejection  of  the  other  wholly  in  the  moral  character  of 
the  offerers;  whereas  St.  Paul  most  unequivocally 
places  tlie  acceptance  of  Abel's  offering  upon  its  na- 
ture and  the  principle  of  faith  which  originated  it. 
For,  whether  we  translate  the  phrase  above  referred 
to  "  a  more  excellent  sacrifice," or  "a  more  abundant 
sacrifice,"  it  is  put  in  contrast  with  the  offering  of 
Gain,  and  its  peculiar  nature  cannot  be  left  out  of  the 
account.  By  Mr.  Davison's  hiterpretation,  the  desig- 
nation given  to  Abel's  offering  by  the  apostle  is  entirely 
overlooked. 

2.  The"  faith"of  Abel,  in  this  transaction,  Is  also  passed 
over  as  a  consideration  in  the  acceptance  of  his  sacrifice. 
It  is,  indeed,  brought  in  as  "  an  antecedent  faith,  which 
produced  the  habit  of  a  religious  life,"  and  thus  7Hedi- 
ately  "  commended  the  sacrifice;"  hut,  in  fact,  on  this 
ground  any  other  influential  grace  or  principle  might 
be  said  to  have  commended  his  sacrifice,  as  well  as 
faith ;  any  thing  which  tended  to  produce  "  the  habit 
of  a  religious  life ;"  his  fear  of  God,  his  love  of  God,  as 
efFectually  as  his  faith  in  God.  There  is,  then,  this 
maixifest  difference  between  this  representation  of  the 
case  and  that  which  is  given  by  St.  Paul,  that  the  one 
makes  "  the  habit  of  a  religious  life"  the  immediate, 
and  faith  but  the  remote  reason  of  the  acceptablenesa 
of  Abel's  gifts;  wliile  the  other  assigns  a  direct  efficacy 
to  the  faith  of  Abel,  and  the  kind  of  sacrifice  by  which 
that  faith  was  expressed,  and  of  which  it  was  the  im- 
mediate result. 

3.  In  this  chapter  the  apostle  is  not  speaking  of  faith 
under  the  view  of  its  tendency  to  induce  a  holy  life  ;  but 
of  faith  as  producing  certain  acts  of  very  various  kinds, 
which, being  followed  by  manifest  tokens  of  the  Divine 
favour,  showed  how  acceptable  faith  is  to  God,  or  how 
it  "  pleases  him,"  according  to  his  own  position  laid 
down  in  the  commencement  of  the  chapter — "  without 
faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God."  Abel  had  faith,  and 
he  expressed  that  faith  by  the  kind  of  sacrifice  he  of- 
fered ;  it  was  in  tliis  way  that  his  faith  "  pleased  God ;" 
it  pleased  him  as  a  principle,  and  by  the  act  to  which 
it  led,  and  that  act  was  the  offeringof  a  sacrifice  to  God 
diflfferent  from  that  of  Cain.  Cain  had  not  this  faith, 
whatever  might  be  its  object ;  and  Cain  accordingly  did 
not  bring  an  offering  to  which  God  had  "respect." 
That  which  vitiated  the  offering  of  Cain  was  the  want 
of  this  faith,  forhisoffering  was  not  significant  of  faith; 
that  which  "  pleased  God,"  in  the  case  of  Abel,  was 
his  faith,  and  he  had  "  respect"  to  his  offering,  because 
it  was  the  expression  of  that  faith,  and  upon  liis  faith 
so  expressing  itself,  God  witnessed  to  him  "  that  he 
was  righteous." 

So,  certainly,  do  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  when  com- 
menting upon  tills  transaction,  establish  it  against  the 
author  above  quoted,  that  Abel's  sacrifice  was  accepted, 
because  of  its  immediate  connexion  with  his  faith,  for, 
by  faith,  he  is  said  to  have  offered  it ;  and  all  that, 
whatever  it  might  be,  which  made  Abel's  offering  differ 
from  that  of  Cain,  whether  abundance,  or  kind,  or  both, 
was  the  result  of  this  faith.  So  clearly,  also,  is  it  laid 
down  by  the  apostle  that  Abel  was  witnessed  to  be 
"  righteous,"  not  with  reference  to  any  previous  "  habit 
of  a  religious  life,"  but  with  reference  to  his  fait  k ;  and 
not  to  his  faith  as  leading  to  personal  righteousness, 
but  to  his  faith  as  expressmg  itself  by  his  offering  "a 
more  excellent  sacrifice." 

Mr.  Davison,  in  support  of  his  opinion,  adopts  the 
argument  of  many  before  him,  that  "  the  rest  of  Scrip- 
ture speaks  to  Abel's  personal  righteousness.  Thus, 
in  St.  .John's  distinction  between  Cain  and  Abel, '  where- 
fore slew  he  hun  ?  because  his  own  works  were  evil, 
and  his  brother's  righteous.'  Thus,  in  the  remonstrance 
of  God  with  Cain,  that  remonstrance  with  Cain's  envy 
for  the  acceptance  of  Abel's  offering  is  directed,  not  to 
the  mode  of  their  sacrifice,  but  to  the  good  and  evil 
doings  of  their  respective  lives— '  If  thou  do  well, 
Shalt  thou  not  be  accepted  ?  and  if  thou  doest  not  well, 
sin  lietli  at  the  door.'  "(9) 


(8)  Davison's  Inquiry  into  the  Origin  and  Intent  of 
Primitive  Sacrifice.  (!■>)  Inqunry,&c. 


IQ4 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


With  respect  to  the  worda  In  St.  John,  they  may  be 
allowed  to  refer  to  Abel's  "  personal  righteousness," 
•wiihout  iitrectinf;  the  statenieiil  of  St.  I'aul  in  the  li^ast. 
It  would  be  a  had  rule  of  cniK-isni  /'«//(/  to  i'\]ilaiii  the 
conimenis  of  one  sacred  writer  upon  a  iraiisacuun,  the 
jirinciple  and  nature  of  which  he  c.xplahis  professedly 
by  the  remark  of  another,  when  the  subject  is  intro- 
duced only  allusively  and  incidentally.  St.  .lohn's 
words  must  not  here  be  brought  in  to  qualify  St.  Paul's 
exposition ;  but  St.  Paul's  e.\posilion  to  complete  the 
incidental  allusion  of  St.  John.  ISoth  apostles  agreed 
that  no  man  was  righteous  personally,  till  he  was  made 
righteous  by  forgiveness;  accounted  and  witnessed 
righteous  by  faith;  and  both  agree  that  from  that  fol- 
lows a  personal  righteousness.  If  St.  John,  then,  re- 
fers to  Abel's  personal  righteousness,  he  refers  to  ii  as 
flowing  from  his  justification  and  acceptance  with  God, 
and  by  that  personal  righteousness  the  "  wrath"  of 
Cain,  which  was  first  e.xcited  by  the  rejection  of  his 
sacrifice,  was,  probably,  ripened  into  the  "  hatred"' 
which  led  on  his  fratricide;  for  it  does  not  appear  that 
he  committed  that  act  immediately  upon  the  place  of 
sacrifice,  but  at  some  subsequent  period ;  and,  cer- 
tainly, it  was  not  the  antecedent  holy  life  of  Abel  which 
first  produced  Cain's  displeasure  agahist  his  brother, 
for  that  is  expressly  attributed  to  the  transactions  on 
the  day  in  which  each  brought  his  offering  to  the  Lord. 
St.  John's  reference  to  Abel's  personal  righteousness 
does  not,  therefore,  exclude  a  reference  also,  and  even 
primarily,  to  his  faith  as  its  instrumental  cause,  and  the 
source  of  its  support  and  nourishment ;  and,  we  may 
add,  that  it  is  St.  John's  rule,  and  must  be  the  rule  of 
every  New  Testament  writer,  to  regard  a  man's  sub- 
mission to,  or  rejection  of,  God's  method  of  saving  men 
by  faith,  as  the  best  evidence  of  personal  righteousness, 
or  the  contrary. 

As  to  Genesis  iv.  7,  "If  thou  do  well,  shall  thou 
not  be  accepted  ;  and  if  thou  doest  not  well,  sin  lieth  at 
the  door,"  in  order  to  show  that  it  cannot  be  proved 
from  this  passage  that  AbePs  ofFering  was  accepted, 
because  of  his  personal  righteousness,  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  avail  ourselves  of  Lightfool's  view  of  it,  who 
takes  '■  niii"  to  be  the  ellipsis  of  siri-qlfering,  as  in  many 
places  of  Scripture.  For  and  against  this  rendering 
much  ingenious  criticism  has  been  employed,  for  which 
the  critics  must  be  con.sulted.(l)  The  interpretation 
which  supposes  Cain  to  be  referred  to  a  sin-offering,  an 
animal  victim  "  lying  at  the  door,"  is,  at  best,  doubtful ; 
but  if  this  be  conceded,  the  argument  framed  upon  the 
declaration  to  Cain,  "if  thou  do  vvki.l  shalt  thou  not 
be  accepted  ?"  as  though  the  reason  of  the  acceptance 
of  Abel's  sacrifice  was  in  "  well  doing"  in  the  moral 
sense  only,  is  wholly  groundless,  since  the  apostle  so 
explicitly  refers  the  reason  of  the'  acceptance  of  his 
sacrifice  to  his  faith,  as  before  established.  It  is  enough 
to  show  that  there  is  nothing  in  these  words  to  contra- 
dict this,  even  if  we  take  them  in  the  most  obvious 
sense,  and  omit  the  consideration  that  the  Hebrew  text 
has  in  this  ji'iace  been  disturbed,  of  which  there  are 
strong  indications.  The  jias.sage  may  be  taken  in  two 
views.  Either  to  "  do  melt"  may  mean  to  do  as  Abel 
had  done,  viz.  to  repent  and  bring  those  sacrifices  which 
should  express  his  faith  in  Gotl's  appointed  method  of 
pardoning  and  accepting  men,  thus  submitting  himself 
wholly  to  (;oi) ;  and  then  it  is  a  men-iful  intimation 
that  Cain's  rejection  was  not  final ;  but  that  it  dei)ended 
upon  himself,  whether  he  would  seek  God  in  sincerity 
and  truth.  Or  the  words  may  bit  considtred  as  a  decla- 
ration of  the  princiiilcs  of  God's  righteous  government 
over  men.  "  If  thou  do  well,"  if  thou  art  righteous 
and  unsinning,  thou  shalt  be  accepted  as  such,  without 
sacrifice ;  but  if  thou  doest  not  well,  sin  lieth  at  the 
door ;"  and  is  chargeable  upon  thee  with  its  conse- 
quence ;  thus,  aller  declaring  his  tnoral  condition,  leav- 
ing it  to  himself  to  seek  for  jiardon  in  the  method  esta- 
blished in  the  first  family,  and  which  Cain  must  be 
supposed  to  have  known  as  well  as  Abel,  or,  otherwise, 
we  must  sujiposc  that  they  had  received  no  r(;ligious 
instruction  at  all  from  Adam  their  father.  To  the 
former  view  of  the  sense  of  the  passage  it  cannot  be 
objected  that  to  olRr  proper  sacrifices  from  a  right  jirin- 
ciple cannot  be  called  in  the  common  and  large  sense 


(1)  Nearly  all  that  can  be  saiil  on  this  interjiretation 
will  be  found  in  Maokk's  IMscourscs  on  the  Atonement, 
and  DwisoN's  Reply  to  his  critii  ism,  in  his  llKpiiry 
into  tlio  Origin  of  tUc  rriiiiitivu  Sucrifico. 


"  to  do  well,"  for  even  "  to  believe"  Is  called  "  a  work" 
by  our  Saviour;  and  the  sacrifice  of  Abel  was,  more- 
over, an  act,  or  a  serifs  of  acts,  which  were  the  expres- 
sions of  his  faith,  and,  therefore,  might  be  called  a 
doing  ircll,  without  any  violence.  Agreeably  to  this, 
the  whole  course  of  the  submission  of  the  Jews  to  the 
laws  concerning  their  sacrifices,  is  often,  in  Scripture, 
designated  by  the  WnuHob(dtr>ict:,  and  ways,  and  doings. 
The  second  iiiterjiielation  corresponds  to  the  great 
axiom  of  moral  goveriiiiient  alluded  to  by  St.  Paul, 
"This  do  and  thou  shalt  live,"  which  is  so  far  froni 
excluding  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  that  it 
is  the  ground  on  which  he  argues  it,  inasmuch  as  it 
shuts  out  the  justification  of  tnen  by  law  when  it  lias 
once  been  violated. 

If,  then,  it  has  been  established  that  the  fahhof  Abel 
had  an  immediate  connexion  with  his  sacrifice ;  and 
both  with  his  being  accepted  as  righteous,  that  is,  jiisti- 
Jicd,  in  St.  Paul's  use  of  the  term,  to  what  had  his  faith 
respect  ?  The  particular  object  of  the  taiili  ol  the  elders, 
celebrated  in  Hebrews  xi.,  is  to  be  diduced  from  the 
circumstances  adduced  as  illustrative  of  the  existence 
and  operation  of  this  great  principle,  and  by  which  it 
manifested  itself.  Let  us  illusirate  this,  and  then  ascer- 
tain tile  objects  of  Abel's  faith  also  from  the  manner  of 
its  manifestation,  from  the  acts  in  which  it  inibodied 
and  rendered  itself  conspicuous. 

Paith  is,  in  this  chajiter,  taken  in  the  sense  of  ajiance 
in  (JoD,  and,  as  such,  it  can  only  be  exercised  towards 
God  as  to  all  particular  acts,  in  those  respects,  in  wliich 
we  have  some  authority  to  confide  in  him.  This  sup- 
poses revelation,  and,  in  particular,  some  promise  or 
declaration  on  his  jiart,  as  the  warrant  for  every  act  of 
affiance.  When,  therefore,  it  is  said  that  "  by  faith 
Enoch  was  translated,  that  he  should  not  see  death," 
it  must  be  supposed,  that  he  had  some  jiromise  or  inti- 
mation to  this  effect,  on  which,  improbable  as  the  event 
was,  he  nobly  relied,  and  in  the  result  God  honoured 
his  faith  before  all  men.  The  faith  of  Noah  had  imme- 
diate respect  to  the  threatened  flood,  and  the  promise 
of  God  to  preserve  him  in  the  ark  which  he  was  com- 
manded to  prepare.  The  faith  of  Abraham  had  different 
objects.  In  one  of  the  instances  which  this  chapter 
records,  it  respected  the  promise  of  the  land  of  Canaan 
to  his  posterity,  and  also  the  promise  of  the  heavenly 
inheritance,  of  winch  that  was  the  t)i)C ;  wliich  faith 
he  publicly  manifested  by  "  sojourning  in  the  land  of 
promise,  as  in  a  strange  country,"  and  "dwelling  in 
tabernacles,"  rather  than  taking  up  a  permanent  resi- 
dence in  any  of  its  cities,  because  "  he  looked  for  a  city 
which  hath  foundations."  In  the  case  of  the  ofiering 
of  Isaac,  he  believed  that  God  would  raise  his  immo- 
lated son  from  the  dead,  and  the  ground  of  his  faith  is 
stated,  in  verse  18,  to  be  the  promise,  "  in  Isaac  shall 
tliy  seed  be  called."  The  faith  of  Sarah  resjiccted  tlie 
promise  of  issue, — "  she  judged  him  faithful  who  had 
promised."  "IJy  faith  Isaac  bles.sed  Jacob  and  Esau 
concerning  things  to  come,"  which  laiih  had  for  its  ob- 
ject the  revelation  made  to  him  by  God  as  to  the  future 
lot  of  the  posterity  of  his  two  sons.  The  chapter  is 
filled  with  other  instances,  expressed  or  implied;  and 
from  the  whole,  as  well  as  from  the  nature  of  the  thing, 
it  will  aiipear,  that  when  the  apostle  speaks  of  the 
faith  of  the  elders  in  its  particular  acts,  he  represents 
it  as  having  respect  to  some  promise,  declaration,  or 
revelation  of  Goo. 

This  revelation  was  necessarily  antecedent  to  the 
failh;  but  it  is  also  to  be  observed,  that  the  acts  hy 
which  the  faith  was  represented,  whenever  it  was  re- 
liresented  by  parlicniar  act.<;,  and  when  the  case  admitted 
it,  had  a  iia'unal  and  slrdviiig  coiilurmity  and  corres- 
poiuleiice  to  liie  iirevious  revelalicin.  So  iNoah  built  the 
ark,  which  indualtd  that  he  had  heard  the  lliivat  of  the 
world's  destruction  by  water,  aiul  had  received  the  pro- 
mise of  his  own  and  families'  preservation,  as  well  as 
that  of  a  selection  of  the  beasts  of  the  earth  ;  to  all 
which  the  means  of  preservation,  by  which  his  faith 
was  represented,  and  which  it  led  him  to  adopt,  corres- 
ponded. When  Abraham  went  into  Canaan,  at  the 
command  of  (iod,  and  upon  the  iiromise  that  that 
country  should  become  the  inheritance  of  his  descend- 
ants, he  showed  his  faith  by  taking  possession  of  it  for 
them  in  anticipation,  and  his  re.-^idenee  there  indicated 
tlie  kind  of  promise  which  he  had  n ceiveil.  When  lie 
lived  in  that  promised  land  in  tents,  though  opulent 
enough  to  have  established  himself  in  a  more  settled 
slate"  the  very  niuiuicr  m  wlucU  his  faith  cxpresbixl 


Chap.  XXIL] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUf  ES. 


285 


itself,  showed  that  he  had  received  the  promise  of  a 
"  belter  country,"  which  made  hiin  willing  to  be  a 
"  stranger  and  wanderer  on  earth ;"  for  "  they  that  say 
such  things,"  says  the  apostle,  namely,  that  they  are 
strangers  and  pilsrims,  "  confessing"  it  by  these  signifi- 
cant acts,  "  declare  plainly  that  they  seek  a  country," 
'•  that  is,  a  heavenly."  Thus,  also,  when  Moses's  foitli 
expressed  itself  in  his  refusing  to  be  called  the  son  of 
Pharaoh's  daughter,  this  also  clearly  inilicated  that  he 
had  received  the  promise  of  something  higher  and 
more  excellent  than  "  the  riches  of  Egypt,"  which  he 
renounced,  even  "  the  recompense  of  the  reward,"  to 
which,  we  are  told,  "  he  had  respect."  When  his  litith 
manifested  itself  by  his  forsaking  Egypt  at  the  head  of 
his  people,  "  not  fearing  the  wrath  of  the  king,"  this 
indicated  that  he  had  received  a  promise  of  protection 
and  success,  and  he  therefore  "  endured  as  seeing  liim 
who  is  invisible." 

If,  then,  all  these  instances  show,  that  when  thofoith 
which  the  apostle  commends  exliibits  itself  in  some 
particular  act,  that  act  has  a  correspondence  to  the 
l)revious  promise  or  revelation,  which  faith  must  have 
Jbr  its  ground  and  reason,  then  are  we  constrained  to 
interpret  the  acts  of  Abel's  faith  so  as  to  make  them 
also  correspond  with  some  antecedent  revelation ;  or 
rather,  we  must  suppose,  that  the  antecedent  revelation, 
though  not  expressly  stated  (which  is  also  llie  case  in 
several  other  of  the  instances  which  arc  given  in  the 
chapter),  must  have  corresponded  with  them.  His  faith 
had  respect  to  some  previous  revelation,  and  the  nature 
of  the  revelation  is  to  be  collected  from  the  significant 
maimer  in  which  he  declared  his  faith  in  it. 

Now  that  which  Abel  did  "  by  faith"  was,  if  consi- 
dered generally,  to  perform  an  act  of  solemn  worship, 
in  the  confidence  that  it  would  be  acceptable  to  God. 
This  supposes  a  revelation,  immediate  or  by  tradition, 
that  such  acts  of  worship  were  acceptable  to  God,  or 
his  faith  could  have  had  no  warrant,  and  would  not 
have  been  faith,  but  fancy.  But  the  case  must  be  con- 
sidered more  particularly.  His  faith  led  him  to  offer 
"  a  more  excellent  sacrifice"  than  that  of  Cain ;  but 
this  as  necessarily  implies  that  there  was  some  antece- 
dent revelation  to  which  his  faith,  as  thus  expressed, 
liad  respect,  and  on  which  that  peculiarity  of  his  offer- 
ing, which  distinguished  it  from  the  offering  of  Cain, 
was  founded  ;  a  revelation  which  indicated  that  the 
way  in  which  God  would  be  approached  acceptably,  in 
solemn  worship,  was  by  animal  sacrifices.  Witliout 
this,  too,  the  faith  to  which  his  offering  (which  was  an 
cftering  of  the  firstlings  of  his  flock)  had  a  special  fit- 
ness and  adaptation,  could  have  had  no  warrant  in 
Divine  authority.  But  this  revelation  mnst  have  in- 
cluded, in  order  to  its  being  the  ground  of  faith,  as  "  the 
substance  of  things  hoped  for,"  a  promise  of  a  benefit 
to  be  conferred,  in  wliich  promise  Abel  might  confide. 
But  if  so,  then  this  promise  must  have  been  connected, 
not  with  the  worship  of  God  in  general,  or  performed 
ill  any  way  whatever  indifferently,  but  with  his  wor- 
ship by  animal  oblations ;  for  it  was  in  this  way  that 
the  faith  of  Abel  indicated  itself,  specially  and  distinct- 
ively. The  antecedent  revelation  was,  therelbre,  a 
promise  of  a  benefit  to  be  conferred,  by  means  of  animal 
sacrifice ;  and  we  are  taught  what  this  benefit  was,  by 
that  which  was  actually  received  by  the  offerer — "  he 
obtained  witness  that  he  was  righteous;^'  which,  if 
the  notion  of  his  antecedent  righteousness  has  been 
refuted,  must  be  interpreted  in  the  sense  of  a  declara- 
tion of  his  personal  justification,  and  acceptance  as 
righteous,  upon  forgiveness  of  his  sins.  The  reason 
of  Abel's  acceptance  and  of  Cain's  rejection  is  hereby 
made  manifest ;  the  one,  in  seeking  the  Divine  favour, 
conformed  to  his  established  and  appointed  method  of 
being  approached  by  guilty  men,  arrd  the  other  not  only 
neglected  this,  but  profanely  and  presumptuously  sub- 
stituted his  own  inventions. 

It  is  impossible,  then,  to  allow  the  act  of  Abel,  in 
this  instance,  to  have  been  an  act  nf  faith,  without  al- 
lowing that  it  had  respect  to  a  previous  and  appropriate 
revelation  ;  a  revelation  which  agreed  to  all  the  parts 
of  that  sacrificial  action,  by  which  he  expressed  his 
faith  in  it.  Had  Abel's  sacrifice  been  encharistic 
merely,  it  would  have  expressed  gratitude,  but  not 
faith ;  or  if  faith  in  the  general  sense  of  confidence  in 
God  that  he  would  receive  an  act  of  grateful  worship, 
and  reward  the  worshijiper,  it  did  not  more  express 
faith  than  the  offering  of  Cain,  who  surely  believed 
these  two  points,  or  he  would  not  have  brought  an 


offering  of  any  kind.  The  offering  of  Abel  expressed 
a  fiiith  which  Cain  had  not ;  and  the  doctrinal  jirinci- 
ples,  which  Abel's  faith  respected,  were  such  as  his 
sacrifice  visibly  imbodied.  If  it  was  not,  then,  an  eu- 
charistic  sacrifice,  it  was  an  expiatory  one ;  and,  in 
fact,  it  is  only  in  a  sacrifice  of  this  kind,  that  it  is  pos- 
sible to  see  that  faith  exhibited,  which  Abel  had  and 
Cain  had  not.  By  subsequent  sacrifices  of  expiation, 
then,  is  this  early  expiatory  offering  to  be  explained, 
and  from  these  it  will  be  obvious  to  what  doctrines  and 
principles  of  an  antecedent  revelation  thelUilh  of  Abel 
liad  respect,  and  which  his  sacrifice,  the  exhibition  of 
his  faith,  proclaimed.  Confession  of  the  fact  of  being 
a  sinner— acknowledgment  of  the  demerit  and  penalty 
of  sin  and  death — submission  to  an  appointed  mode  of 
expiation — animal  sacrifice  offered  vicariously,  but  in 
itself  a  mere  type  of  a  better  sacrifice,  "  the  seed  of 
the  woman,"  appointed  to  be  offered  at  some  future 
period— the  eflicacy  of  this  appointed  method  of  expia- 
tion to  obtain  forgiveness,  and  to  admit  the  guilty  into 
the  Divine  favour. 

For  these  reasons,  we  think  that  the  conclusion  of 
many  of  our  ancient  divines,  so  admirably  imbodied  in 
the  following  words  of  Archbishop  Magee,  is  not  too 
strong,  but  is  fully  supported  by  the  argument  of  the 
case,  as  founded  upon  the  brief  but  very  explicit  decla- 
rations of  the  history  of  the  transaction  in  Genesis, 
and  by  the  comment  upon  it  in  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews. 

"Abel,  in  firm  reliance  on  the  promise  of  God,  and 
in  obedience  to  his  command,  offered  that  sacrifice 
which  had  been  enjoined  as  the  religious  expression  of 
his  faith ;  while  Cain,  disregarding  the  gracious  assu- 
rances that  had  been  vouchsafed,  or  at  least  disdaining 
to  adopt  the  prescribed  mode  of  manifesting  his  belief, 
possibly  as  not  appearing  to  his  reason  to  possess  any 
efiicacy  or  natural  fitness,  thought  he  had  sulficiently 
acquitted  himself  of  his  duty  in  acknowledging  the 
general  superintendence  of  God,  and  expressing  his 
gratitude  to  the  Supreme  Benefactor,  by  presenting 
some  of  those  good  things,  which  he  thereby  confessed 
to  have  been  derived  from  his  bounty.  In  short,  Cain, 
the  first-born  of  the  fall,  exhibits  the  first  fruits  of  his 
parents'  disobedience,  in  the  arrogance  and  self-sutti- 
ciency  of  reason  rejecting  the  aids  of  revelation,  be- 
cause they  fell  not  within  its  apprehension  of  right- 
He  takes  the  first  place  in  the  annals  of  Deism,  and 
displays,  in  his  proud  rejection  of  the  ordinance  of  sa- 
crifice, the  same  spirit  which  in  latter  days  has  actu- 
ated his  enlightenid  followers,  in  rejecting  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ." 

If  it  should  be  asked  what  evidence  we  have  from 
Scripture,  that  such  an  antecedent  revelation  as  that  to 
which  we  have  said  Abel's  faith  must  have  had  respect 
was  made,— the  reply  is,  that  if  this  rested  only  upon 
the  necessary  inferences,  which,  in  all  fairness  and 
consistency  of  interpretation,  we  must  draw  from  the 
circumstances  of  the  transaction,  when  combined  with 
the  apostle's  interpretation  of  it,  the  ground  would  be 
strong  enough  to  enable  us  to  defend  it  against  both 
the  attacks  of  Sociniaiis  and  of  those  orthodox  divines, 
who,  like  Mr.  Davison,  would  wrest  it  from  us,  as  an 
unnecessary  post  to  be  taken  in  the  combat  with  the 
impugners  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  atonement,  or 
one  which  is  rather  injurious  than  otherwise  to  the 
efficiency  of  the  more  direct  argument.  "  Such  expo- 
sitions," says  Mr.  Davison,  "  do  evil  and  disservice  to 
truth  ;  they  bring  in  a  wrong  principle  ;  they  enforce 
a  comment  without  a  text.  Such  a  principle  is  un- 
doubtedly wrong,  and  has  been  the  source  of  much  re- 
ligious speculation."  This  we  grant,  and  feel  how  im- 
portant the  caution  is.  But  it  does  not  here  apply.  It 
is  not  enough  to  say  that  "the  text"  is  not  in  the 
"  Mosaic  history,"  we  must  prove  that  it  is  not  in  the 
New  Testament,  or  necessarily  implied  in  its  comments 
upon  and  inferences  from  the  Old  Testament  facts  and 
relations.  The  '■  text"  itself,  supposed  to  be  wanting, 
may  be  there,  and  even  "  the  comment"  of  an  inspired 
writer  often  supplies  the  text,  and  his  reasoning  the 
premises  wanting,  in  so  many  words,  in  the  brief  and 
veiled  narrative  of  Moses.  An  uninspired  comment, 
we  grant,  has  not  this  prerogative  ;  but  an  inspired 
one  has,  which  is  an  important  consideration,  not  to 
be  overlooked.  When  we  say  that  the  manna,  which 
fell  in  the  wilderness,  represcnied  the  supply  of  the 
spiritual  Israel  wilh  the  true  bread  whicti  comes  down 
Itoin  heaven,  Mr.  Davison  might  reply.  This  it>  "the 


286 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  IL 


comment ;"  but  where  is  "  the  text  ?"  We  acknowledge 
that  the  text  upon  which  this  comment  is  liung  is  not 
in  the  history  of  Moses;  but  the  authority  of  this  com- 
ment, and,  if  we  may  so  speak,  an  implied  "  text" 
itself,  is  to  be  found  in  the  words  of  our  Lord,  who  calls 
himself  "  that  bread ;"  and  in  the  words  of  St.  I'aul, 
who  terms  the  manna  the  "  spiritual"  or  typical  bread. 
If  we  allege  that  the  "rouk,"  whicli  wluii  smitten 
poured  forth  its  stream  to  refresh  the  fuiiili/is  Israel- 
ites, was  a  figure  of  Christ,  it  might  in  like  inaiincr  Ije 
urged,  that  the  "text"  is  wanting,  and  certainly,  we 
should  not  gather  that  view  from  the  history  of  Moses ; 
yet  "  the  comment"  is  not  ours,  hut  that  of  the  apostle, 
who  says,  "  that  rock  was  Christ,"  which  can  only  be 
understood  as  asserting  that  it  was  an  instituted  and 
appointed  type  of  Christ.  Wlicre  we  have  no  intima- 
tions of  such  adumbrations  in  the  per.sons  and  trans- 
actions of  the  Old  Testament,  we  are  not  at  liberty  to 
invent  them,  nor  can  we  .justly  carry  them  beyond 
wliat  is  expressed  by  our  inspired  authority,  or  natu- 
rally and  fairly  inferred  to  be  from  it.  Oii  the  other 
hand,  we  are  bound  not  to  interpret  the  Old  Testament 
without  reference  to  the  Now ;  and  not  to  disregard 
that  light  which  the  perfect  revelation  affords,  not  only 
by  its  direct  effulgence,  but  by  its  reliections  upon 
the  history  of  our  redemption,  up  to  the  earliest  ages. 

If  it  be  argued,  from  the  silence  of  the  Mosaic  his- 
tory, that  such  types  and  allusions  were  not  understood 
as  such  by  the  persons  among  whom  they  were  first 
instituted,  the  answer  is,  1.  That  though  they  should 
not  be  supposed  capable  of  understancUng  them  as 
clearly  as  we  do,  yet  it  must  be  supi)osed,  that  the  s]ii- 
ritual  among  them  had  their  knowledge  and  faith  greatly 
assisted  by  them,  and  that  they  were  among  those 
"  wondrous  things  of  the  law,"  which  were,  in  some 
measure,  revealed  to  those  who  prayed  with  David,  that 
their  eyes  might  be  opened  "  to  behold  them,"  or  other- 
wise they  were  totally  without  religious  use  during  all 
the  ages  previous  to  (Christianity,  and  we  must  come 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  whole  system  of  types  was 
without  cdilicalion  to  the  Jews,  and  are  instructive  only 
to  us.  If  we  conclude  thus  as  to  types,  we  may  come 
to  the  same  conclusion  as  to  the  jirojihecies  of  Messiah, 
to  the  spiritual  meaning  and  real  application  of  many 
of  which  there  appears  to  be  as  little  indication  of  a  key 
as  to  the  types.  But  this  cannot  be  aflirmed,  for  St. 
Peter  tells  us,  that  of  this  "salvation  the  prophets 
searched  diligently  who  proi)hcsied  of  the  grace  tliat 
should  come  unto  you;  searching  what  or  what  man- 
ner of  time  the  spirit  which  was  in  them  did  signify, 
wlien  it  testified  beforehand  the  sufferings  of  Christ 
and  the  glory  that  should  follow."  The  prophecies 
could,  [irobably,  be  but  dimly  interpreted ;  but  some- 
thing was  known  of  their  general  meaning,  something 
important  was  obtained  by  "  searching"  to  reward  the 
search  into  their  import.  The  same  discovery  of  the 
general  import  and  bearing  of  the  types  must  also  have 
rewarded  a  search  eijually  eager  and  pious.  If  this  is 
not  allowed,  then  they  were  not  tyj)es  to  the  ancient 
church,  a  position  which  is  contradicted  by  St.  I'aul, 
who  declares  as  to  one  instance,  which  may  serve  for 
the  rest,  namely,  the  entering  of  '"the  priest  alone  once 
every  year  into  the  inner  tabernacle,"  that  by  this  "the 
Iloly  Ghost  sk;nified  that  the  way  to  the  holiest  was 
not  VKT  made  manifest,"  and  that  the  tabernach;  itself, 
including,  of  course,  its  services,  "  was  a  Jigii.re  for 
TUB  Ti.ME  THKN  I'KKSttNT,  in  OT during  ivki'c/i  giils  and 
sacrifices  were  offered." 

But,  2.  We  have,  in  one  of  the  instances  before  ad- 
verted to  in  Hebrews  xi.,  a  direct  proof  of  a  distinct  re- 
velation, which  is  nowhere  recorded  in  the  Mosaic  liis- 
tory  separate  from  the  temporal  promise  in  which  it 
appears  to  have  been  involved.  By  faith  Abraham, 
having  received  the  promi.se  of  Canaan  as  "  a  place 
which  he  should  afterward  receive  for  an  inheritance," 
went  to  sojourn  there;  but  by  faith  also  he  sojourned 
in  tills  land  of  promise  as  a  stranger,  dwelling  in  tents, 
"for  he  looked  for  a  city  which  had  foumlal Ions,"  for 
the  "  heavenly  slate,"  and  by  that  act  he,  and  Isaac,  and 
Jacob,  "  the  heirs  with  him  of  the  same  i'Uo.misk,"  de- 
clared plainly  that  they  "desired  a  better  country,  even 
a  heavenly."  Of  this  better  country  they  then  received 
a  PROMisK,  which  promise  is  not  distinctly  recorded  in 
the  history  of  Moses ;  and  it  must,  therefore,  have  been 
cither  included  in  the  promise  of  Caninin,  which  was 
made  to  them  and  their  dcscendantB,  aa  a  tyjic,  an  nn- 
Ucntoud  type,  of  the  eternal  and  heavenly  rest,  whicli 


Is  agreeable  to  the  allusions  of  St.  Paul  In  other  parts 
of  the  ejiistle ;  or  else  it  was  matter  of  separate  and 
unrecorded  revelation.  In  either  view,  the  history  of 
Moses  is  silent,  and  yet  we  are  compelled,  by  the  com- 
ment of  the  apostle,  and  in  opposition  to  the  argument 
which  Mr.  Davison  and  others  found  upon  that  silence, 
to  allow  either  a  collateral  revelation  separate  from  the 
promise  of  Canaan,  or  tliat  that  promise  itself  had  a 
mystic  sense  which  became  the  object  of  their  faith  ; 
and  thus  the  insjiired  comment  of  the  apostle  supplies 
a  text  wanting  in  the  history,  or  an  enlarged  interpre- 
tation of  that  which  is  found  in  it. 

With  tins  case  of  Abraham,  Mr.  Davison  is  evidently 
perplexed,  and  feels  how  forcibly  it  bears  against  his 
own  rules  of  interpreting  the  Mosaic  history  of  the  re- 
ligion of  those  earlier  ages.  He  justly  contends, 
against  Grotius  and  l,e  Clerc,  that  the  object  of  the  faith 
recorded  in  Hebrews  xi.  was  not  always  a  temporal 
one.  But,  then,  he  proposes  to  show  "how  God,  with- 
out having  granted  to  those  patriarchs  the  cxidicit  reve- 
lation of  ml  eternal  heavenly  state,  a  revelation  which 
is  no  where  exhibited  in  the  Pentateuch,  trained  them 
to  the  aim  and  iniplicit  persuasion  of  that  eternal  state 
by  large  and  iadifmite  promises  of  being  '  their  God' 
and  '  their  great  reward,'  promises  to  which  the  present 
life,  as  to  them,  furnished  no  adequate  completion." 
Thus,  then,  we  are  to  conclude,  that  the  heavenly  state 
to  which  these  patriarchs  looked,  was  a  matter  of  en- 
tire inference  Ironi  the  jiromise  that  God  would  be 
"  their  God  and  their  reward,"  and  from  the  considera- 
tion that  nothing  had  occurred  to  them,  in  this  ]iresent 
life,  to  be  adequate  to  these  promises.  To  the  latter  we 
may  reply  that,  if  this  were  the  only  ground  of  their 
faith,  they  could  not  have  made  the  inference  till  the 
close  of  life ;  for  how  could  they  know  tluit  something 
adequate  to  these  promises,  if  not  previously  explained 
to  refer  chiefly  lotlio  future  state,  might  not  yet,  thougb 
atler  much  delay,  occur  to  them  ?  But  they  had  this 
faith  from  the  very  giving  of  the  promises,  and,  there- 
fore, it  was  not  lell  to  future  inference  from  circum- 
stances. With  res])ect  to  the  former,  that  they  inferrBd 
that  there  was  a  heavenly  state,  from  the  promise  t(i 
Abraham,  "  I  will  be  thy  God,"  when  no  previous  "  ex- 
plicit revelation"  of  a  future  state  was  made ;  it  not  only 
supposes  that  the  patriarchs  had  no  revelation  at  all  of 
a  future  life,  no  knowledge  of  the  soul's  immortality,  or 
of  a  general  judgment ;  of  which,  indeed,  "  Enoch  pro- 
phesied ;"  but  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  public  and  ex 
pressive  action  (an  action,  probably,  intended  to  be 
instructive  as  a  symbolical  one  to  all  with  whom  Abra 
ham  was  connected  in  Canaan),  that  he  "dwelt  m 
tents,"  in  order  "  to  declare  jilainlij  that  he  sought  a 
better  country."  This,  surely,  was  not  an  action  to  be 
founded  upon  a  probable,  but  still  uncertain,  inference 
from  the  unexplained  general  promise,  "  I  will  be  thy 
(JoD ;"  but  one  which  was  suited  only  to  express  a 
firm  faith  in  an  explicit  revelation  and  a  particular 
promise. 

But  the  whole  of  this  theory  is  swept  away  entirely 
by  the  declaration  of  the  apostle,  "These  all  died  in 
faith,  not  having  received  hie  vromises,"  that  is,  the 
things  promised  ;  "  but  having  seen  them  afar  off,  and 
were  persuaded  of  them,  and  embraced  them,  and  con- 
fessed that  they  were  strangers  and  pilgrims  on  the 
earth  ;"  strangers,  not  at  home,  pilgrims  journeying  to 
it.  Now  this  home,  this  better  country  wluch  they 
sought,  the  apostle  here  expressly  says  was  not  to  them 
matter  of  inference,  hut  the  subject  of  "  promises,"  in 
the  faith  of  which  llicy  boili  lived  and  died. 

In  the  case  of  Abel's  oirering,  as  in  those  just  given, 
tlU!  insjiired  comment  of  the  apostle  supplies  "the  text" 
to  the  liistory  ;  or,  in  other  words,  it  so  illustrates  and 
enlarges  our  knowledge  of  the  Iransacition,  in  its  prin- 
cii)lesand  aiilecedent  circumslanccs,  that  we  are  bound 
to  uihlrrslaiiil  11  not  as  jicrsoiis  who  have  iioi  iliis  addi- 
tional iiilurijiatioM,  or  those  wlio  choose  to  ihsrcgard  it, 
but  as  It  is  explained  upon  autlionly  not  to  be  ques- 
tioned. Abel,  says  the  apostle,  offered  his  more  excel- 
lent sacrifice  "  by  faith"  and  faith  must  have  respect 
to  a  preceiUng  revelation. 

We  have  just  seen  what  doctrinal  principles  wero 
implied  in  the  practice  of  expiatory  sacrifices,  and  if 
Abel's  sacrifice  was  of  this  kind,  which  is  the  only  sa- 
tislin^tory  account  which  can  he  given  of  it,  we  have  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  it  iiichidcd  any  thing  less  or 
lower  than  those  appointed  uiuler  the  law,  and  which 
are  expressly  stated  to  be  types  and  figures,  aad  sha- 


Ciup.  XXIL] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


287 


dows  of  the  evangelical  expiation  of  sin.  An  antece- 
dent revelation  to  this  elTect  must  be  supposed  as  the 
ground  of  his  faith  ;  but  we  are  not  left  wholly  to  this : 
wc  have  an  account,  though  brief,  of  such  a  revelation. 

That  the  account  is  brief  is  no  objection.  What  is 
written  is  not,  for  that  reason,  to  be  disregarded.  There 
were,  doubtless,  reasons  sufiiciently  wise  why  the  his- 
tory of  the  patriarchal  ages  was  not  more  largely  given. 
If  It  were  only  to  exercise  our  diligence,  and  to  lead  us 
to  resort  to  what  has  been  called  "  the  analogy  of  faith," 
and  to  interpret  Scripture  by  Scripture,  the  reason 
would  be  irnjiortant.  In  arguing  from  this  brevity  or 
silence,  however,  both  against  the  Divine  institution  of 
primitive  sacrifice,  and  the  evangelical  interpretation  of 
the  sacrilice  of  Abel,  some  writers  are  apt  to  overlook 
the  fact,  that  the  Book  of  Genesis  is  but  a  sketch  of  this 
period  of  ancient  history ;  that  it  is  so  throughout,  and 
tliat  it  nowhere  professes  to  be  more.  Arguments  of 
this  kind,  as  that  of  Bishop  Warburton,  who  thinks  it 
strange  that  if  sacritice  were  of  Divine  institution,  not 
more  is  said  on  so  important  a  subject,  seem,  insensibly, 
to  proceed  upon  the  supposition  that  the  Book  of  Ge- 
nesis was  the  ritual  and  directory  of  the  patriarchal 
church,  as  that  of  Leviticus  was  the  ritual  of  the  .Jew- 
ish. The  absence  of  any  account  of  the  institution  and 
prescribed  mode  of  sacrifice  might,  in  that  case,  have 
been  thought  strange ;  but  it  is  a  brief  history,  evi- 
dently intended  only  to  be  introductory  to  that  of  God's 
chosen  people,  the  .lews,  whose  proper  historiographer 
Moses,  by  Divine  suggestion,  became.  Moses  grounds 
no  argument  upon  any  part  of  it  in  favour  of  his  own 
institutions,  except  it  may  be  an  implied  one  in  favour 
of  the  peculiar  relation  of  the  Jews  to  God,  as  the  seed 
of  Abraham,  to  whom  the  land  ofeCanaan  was  pro- 
mised, and  with  whom  a  special  covenant  was  made. 
The  liistory  of  Abraham  he  was,  therelbre,  bound  to 
relate  more  at  length,  and  he  has  done  so ;  but  where 
110  immediate  application  of  former  events  was  to  be 
made  in  this  way,  and  the  object  was  merely  that  of 
brief  general  instruction,  we  can  see  no  particular  rules 
binding  upon  him  to  omit  or  to  insert  any  thing,  to  dilate, 
or  to  contract  his  narrative.  If  we  are  to  argue  from  the 
brevity  or  the  omissions  of  the  narrative  of  the  Book  of 
Genesis,  we  may  often  fall  into  great  absurdities,  as 
many  have  done;  and  it  might,  indeed,  be  almost  as 
fairly  argued  from  the  silence  of  this  rapid  history  of 
the  antediluvian  world,  that  no  code  of  morals  was 
Divinely  enjoined  before  the  giving  of  the  ten  com- 
jnandments,  as  that  sacrifices  were  not  Divinely  insti- 
tuted belbre  the  mandates  issued  from  Sinai ;  for  the 
silence  of  the  Book  of  Genesis  equally  respects  both. 
We  rather  choose  to  argue,  that  as  moral  obedience 
must  respect  a  law,  and  authoritative  law  must  be  a 
revelation  from  God  ;  so  as  faith  respects  doctrine  and 
promise,  that  doctrine  and  those  promises,  if  (aith  be 
obligatory,  must  also  be  a  revelation  from  God ;  and, 
again,  as  we  collect  from  God's  displeasure  against,  or 
favour  to,  certai-n  kinds  and  courses  of  moral  conduct, 
that  man  was  under  a  law  which  respected  morals  ;  so 
also,  from  his  acceptance  of  one  kind  of  sacrifice,  aud 
his  rejection  of  another,  in  the  case  of  Cain  and  Abel, 
it  will,  for  the  same  reason,  follow,  that  man  was  under 
a  law  of  sacrifice,  and  more  especially  since  the  sacri- 
fices to  which  God,  in  al1;er  ages,  hadunilbrm  and  spe- 
cial respect,  were  of  the  same  kind  as  tliat  of  Abel, — 
animal,  vicarious,  and  expiatory.  In  morals,  we  must 
suppose  either  traditional  or  personal  revelation,  or  else 
give  to  them  a  human  origin  or  invention,  and  in  wor- 
ship we  have  only  the  same  alternative  ;  but  to  give  to 
primitive  morality  one  origui  and  to  primitive  worship 
another  ;  to  ascribe  one  to  God  and  another  to  man,  is 
to  (brm  a  very  incongruous  system,  and  to  involve  our- 
selves in  great  difficulties.  We  must  suppose  Adam  to 
have  been  an  insiiired  teacher  of  murals,  but  to  have 
left  worship  indifferent ;  or,  if  we  exclude  traditional 
revelation,  and  assume  that  every  man  was  taught  per- 
sonally by  God  in  those  times,  that  God  made  revelations 
of  his  law,  but  none  of  his  grace ;  that  he  revealed  the 
standard  by  which  every  man  might  discover  his  sin 
and  danger,  but  that  he  made  no  discovery  of  the  means 
by  which  a  man,  painfully  sensible  of  his  guilt  and 
liableness  to  the  punishment,  might  approach  him  so  as 
to  obtain  his  forgiveness  and  blessing. 

But  besides  tins,  it  is  easy  to  collect,  from  the  sacred 
record  in  the  early  part  of  Genesis,  brief  as  it  is,  no 
unimportant  information  of  the  theology  which  c.v- 
jsteil  ill  tlie  first  famiiy  even  prior  to  the  aacritice  of 


Abel.  That  ihan  was  under  law  is  certain ;  that  death 
was  the  penalty  of  sin  is  eiiually  certain.  That  the  first 
pair  sinned,  and  that  they  did  not  die,  notwithstanding 
the  law,  were  obvious  lacts.  That  the  terms  of  their 
probation  were  changed,  and  that  they  were  not  shut 
out  for  ever  from  the  Divine  regard  were  circumstances 
equally  clear ;  and  al.so  tli.at  they  had  means  of  ap- 
proach to  God,  means  of  oblaining  his  favour,  means 
of  sanctirication,  means  of  obtaining  eternal  lite,  must 
also  be  necessarily  inferred.  Claims  of  justice  and 
yearnings  of  mercy  in  God  were  seen  at  natural  and 
legal  variance  and  opposition;  and  if  these  were  liur- 
monizcd,  and  harmonized  they  were,  or  "  the  Lamb" 
could  not  be  said  to  have  been  slain  "  from  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world,"  then  must  we  suppose  that  there 
was  some  indication  of  this  "  wisdom  of  God"  revealed 
for  a  practical  end,  the  necessity  of  which  must  always 
have  existed,  to  prevent  despair  on  the  one  hand,  and  a 
presumptuous  disregard  of  the  Divine  laws  on  the 
other.  Though  in  figurative  language,  or  symbolical 
action,  the  manifestation  of  this  truth  might  be  made, 
yet  it  must  have  been  substantially  made,  or  it  could 
not  have  been  practical  and  influential.  A  veiled  truth 
is  yet  a  truth,  though  veiled.  A  shadow  indicates  the 
outline  of  the  substance,  though  a  shadow ;  and  the 
sun,  though  shrouded  with  clouds,  fills  the  hemisphere 
with  light,  though  not  with  brightness,  for  day,  how- 
ever clouded,  is  far  different  from  night.  We  cannot 
conceive  of  a  theology  at  all  suited,  in  any  practical 
degree,  to  man's  fallen  stale,  unless  it  comprehend  the 
particulars  we  have  given,  as  well  as  the  knowledge  of 
the  existence  and  perfections  of  God  ;  and  if  we  find 
an  express  indication  of  the  evangelical  method  of  sav- 
ing man  by  the  interposition  of  the  incarnate  Son  of 
God,  we  may  be  sure  that,  at  least,  all  that  this  indica- 
tion, when  fairly  interpreted,  contains,  was  known  to 
Abel  before  he  offered  his  sacrifice  ;  and,  both  from  the 
brevity  of  the  narrative  and  the  oflice  of  Adam  as  the 
teacher  of  religion  to  his  children,  vve  might  also  infer 
that  this  indication  was  matter  of  converse  and  expla- 
nation, though  tliis  latter  consideration  we  shall  not 
insist  upon. 

It  is  in  the  first  promise  that  this  indication  is  to  be 
found,  and  here  we  shall  join  issue  with  Mr.  Davison 
as  to  its  import,  and  the  extent  in  which  its  meaning 
must  have  been  understood  in  the  first  family. 

In  another  ])art  of  this  work  it  has  been  established, 
that  this  prophetic  promise  must  be  understood  sym- 
bolically, and  that  it  contained  the  first  manifestation 
of  Messiah.  This,  indeed,  Mr.  Davison  acknowledges, 
but  denies  that  his  Divhie  nature,  incarnation,  the 
vicarious  nature  of  his  sufferings,  and  their  atoning  efli- 
cacy  could  be  inferred  from  it.  As  his  remarks  contain 
all  that  can  be  said  against  the  commonly  received 
opinion  that  it  contained  an  intiinatio'iL  of  all  these,  we 
may  quote  them.  They  contain  some  truth  and  much 
error.  "  One  object  of  faith  has  been  always  the  same ; 
that  object  the  Redeemer.  The  original  promise  in  Para- 
dise created  tliis  prospect  of  faith  to  be  the  light  and 
hojie  of  the  world  for  ever.  But  that  original  promise 
could  not  be  hiterpreted  by  itself  into  the  several  parts 
of  its  appointed  completion.  The  general  prediction  of 
the  redeeming  seed,  '  it  shall  bruise  thy  head  and  thou 
Shalt  bruise  his  heel,'  though  adequate  in  the  mind  of 
God,  to  the  determinate  form  of  the  Christian  redemp- 
tion, could  not  be  so  deduced  into  its  final  sense  by  the 
mind  of  man.  And  since  there  is  no  other  promise  or 
prediction  extant,  applicable  to  the  faith  of  the  first 
ages,  and  explanatory  of  the  mode  of  the  Christian 
redemption,  we  can  justly  ascribe  no  other  knowledge 
of  that  redemption  to  those  ages  than  such  as  is  com- 
prehended in  the  proper  and  apparent  sense  of  the  first 
evangelical  promise,  in  which  the  particular  notion  of  a 
sacrifice  of  expiation  or  atonement,  or,  indeed,  of  any 
sacrifice,  was  then  impossible  to  be  discovered.  It  was 
the  office  of  later  revelation  to  fill  up  the  design  of  this 
promise,  and  revelation,  alone,  could  do  it.  For  the 
deductions  of  supernatural  truth  are  not  within  the 
sphere  of  human  intellect.  They  are  not  to  be  inferred 
as  discoverable  conclusions  from  one  primary  principle. 
A  Redeemer  being  foretold,  his  Divine  nature,  his  incar- 
nation, the  vicarious  nature  of  his  sufferings,  his  death, 
and  the  atoning  efficacy  of  it,  all  these,  though  real 
connexions  of  truth,  comprehended  with  the  original 
promi.se,  in  the  scheme  of  the  Divine  economy,  came 
down  toman,  like  new  streams  of  light,  by  these  sepa- 
rate channels,  and  when  they  are  comrnuiiicafed  ia 


288 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


their  proper   form,    ihon   we    know  them;    not  bo- 
lbre."(2) 

One  very  misleading  notion,  as  the  reader  will  per- 
ceive from  what  has  been  already  said,  lies  at  the  bot- 
tom of  these  remarks.  It  is  assumed  contrary  to  evi- 
dence, that  the  Hook  of  Genesis  is  a  coiii|ileio  history 
of  the  religious  oiiiuioiis  oCthe  [lalriarchs,  and  that  they 
knew  nothin,!!  on  the  subject  ol  lhuolo;.'y  but  what  ap- 
pears on  the  lace  of  the  account  given  |]y  iNloses,  who 
touches  their  theolo^'ical  system  but  incideiilally.  We 
say  that  this  notion  is  uufouuded,  not  only  because  we 
must  necessarily  infer,  thai  in  order  to  be  religious,  nay, 
even  moral  men,  they  knew  much  more  than  the  rapid 
Mosaic  sketch  includes;  but  we  conclude  this  fact  on 
the  authority  of  the  inspired  writers  ol'  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Thus,  for  instance,  we  have  seen  that  Abraham 
had  a  revelation  of  a  future  stale,  and  ttiat  Enoch  pro- 
phesied of  the  "  corrdny  of  the  Lord  to  judgment,  with 
thousands  of  his  saints,"  though  neither  of  those  reve- 
lations are  recorded  by  Moses,  liut  though  this  is  suf- 
licient  to  show  that  the  view  taken  of  the  primitive 
theology,  by  Mr.  Davison,  and  those  whose  opinions 
he  lias  undenaken  to  advocate,  is  far  too  narrow,  and 
that  his  conclusions,  from  such  premises,  must  be  un- 
satisfactory ;  it  is  not  on  this  ground  that  his  notion 
of  the  general  and  indefinite  nature  of  the  lirst  promise 
shall  be  refuted.  Let  it  be  Ibrgotten,  for  a  moment, 
that  Adam  was  naturally  the  religious  head  and  reli- 
;;ious  teacher  of  his  family;  that  there  was  always  an 
inspiration  in  the  church  of  God ;  that  the  general 
promises  and  prophecies  were  adapted  to  excite  inquiry ; 
and  that  spiritual  men  would  always,  more  or  less,  as 
now,  be  led  into  the  mystery  veiled  under  the  letter  and 
symbol ;  yet,  taking  the  prophecysimply  by  itself,  it  will 
bo  obvious  from  a  careful  consideration  of  it,  that  the 
view  just  given  does  not  do  it  justice,  and  that  it  must 
have  been  more  amply  and  more  particularly  under- 
stood than  Mr.  Davision,  in  support  of  his  hypothesis, 
would  represent.  lie  would  have  it  taken  so  generally 
as  to  be  incapable  of  interpretation  "  into  the  several 
parts  of  its  appointed  completion,"  and  to  be  only  able  to 
convey  some  one  general  notion  of  a  deliverer.  But 
why  are  we  to  confine  it  to  one  general  indistinct 
impression?  Why,  though  the  several  parts  of  this 
prophetic  iiromise  should  be  allowed  to  be  compara- 
tively obscure,  and  their  impression  to  be  general, 
shotUd  it  not  be  considered  in  the  parts  of  which  it  is 
actually  composed '  and  why  should  not  each  part 
have  been  apprehended  se])arately  and  distinctively, 
though  yet  obscurely  !  Of  several  parts  the  prophecy  is, 
in  fact,  composed,  and  to  these  parts,  as  well  as  to  the 
general  impression  made  by  the  whole,  must  the  atten- 
tion of  the  patriarchs  have  been  necessarily  directed. 
The  Divine  nature,  the  incarnation,  the  vicarious  na- 
ture of  Messiah's  sutiiirings,  and  their  atoning  eliicacy, 
we  are  told,  came  to  man  "  by  separate  channels,"  and 
were  not  in  any  way  to  be  apjirehended  in  this  promise. 
In  their  farther  and  full  developement,  we  grant  this  ; 
but  let  us  see  whether  this  promise,  "  interjireted  even 
by  itself,"  must  not  have  led  the  patriarchs  many  steps, 
at  least,  towards  all  these  doctrines. 

The  Divine  nature  of  the  promised  Redeemer,  we 
are  told,  was  a  separate  revelation  ;  but  surely,  this 
promise  clearly  indicated  that  he  was  to  be  of  a  su- 
l)erior  nature,  not  only  to  man,  but  to  that  fell  spirit 
whom  he  wits  to  subdue,  and  whose  subtk^ty,  jiovver, 
and  malice,  our  first  parents  had  so  lamentably  experi- 
enced :  that  he  was  to  deprive  him  of  that  dominion 
which  he  had  acquired  over  man,  and  restore  the  world 
from  the  evil  efl'ects  which  it  had  sustained  from  the 
success  of  his  temptations.  This  was  seen  in  the 
promise  by  an  eaay  and  natural  interpretation,  and  the 
step  from  this  to  the  absolute  Divinity  of  this  Restorer, 
or,  at  least,  to  an  apprehension  of  the  probaliility  of  it, 
was  certainly  not  a  large  and  dilllcnlt  one.  The  bless- 
ings, too,  which  he  was  to  procure  (or  sinful  man  were 
of  such  a  nature  as  to  give  the  moat  exalted  ideas  of  the 
being  who  could  bring  them  back  to  man  when  Ibrfcited 
by  a  most  righteous  sentence.  Thi'y  were  spiritual 
blessings.  Kor,  if  our  first  parents  were  to  derive  any 
con.solation  or  benefit  from  the  promise  in  this  life  ;  if 
it  was  to  turn  their  repentance  to  any  account ;  or  to 
give  them  any  hope  and  confidence  towards  God, 
whom  they  had  offended,  to  be  assured  that  the  head  uf 
the  serpent  should  be  bruised,  then  their  attention  must 


(2)  Imitiiry,  Ate. 


have  been  turned  to  spiritual  blessings  as  the  result  of 
this,  since  in  this  lifi:  they  neither  obtaiuid  exemption 
from  labour,  suliering,  or  der.'h.  Mow  those  who  adopt 
the  principle  of  Mr.  Davison,  and  will  allow  of  no  reve- 
lations in  those  ages  being  assumed  but  those  which 
are  recorded  by  Moses,  are  bound  to  allow  that  there 
was  in  the  promise  something  which  was  intended  to 
give  religious  hoi)e  and  comfort  to  the  first  pair,  and  to 
their  immediate  posterity,  or  they  cannot  account  lor 
the  existence  of  religious  worship  and  the  hope  which 
it  implies,  since  there  is  no  other  recorded  promise  of 
the  same  antiquity,  and  they  will  allow  uotliing  to  be 
assumed  besides  what  is  written.  If,  then,  this  first 
promise  ministered  to  the  religious  hope,  faith,  and  coin- 
tbrt  of  our  first  parents,  it  turned  that  hope  to  tho 
spiritual  blessings  which  they  had  lost,  namely,  the 
favour  of  God  and  eternal  lite,  and  to  these  as  coming 
to  them  through  the  bruisins  nftke  head  of  the  serpent 
hy  the  seed  of  the  woman.  The  same  conclusion  we 
must  come  to,  if  we  adopt  what  we  appear  compelled 
to  do,  on  apostolic  authority,  the  doctrine  of  collateral 
expository  revelations,  for  these  would  throw  light 
upon  the  figurative  and  symbolic  terms  of  the  promise, 
and  show  much  of  its  real  mid  spiritual  import.  In 
eitlier  case  we  must  resort  to  this  promise  as  the  source 
of  that  hope  of  pardon  and  8[)iritual  victory,  wliich, 
from  the  time  it  was  given,  became  an  inmate  in  the 
bosoms  of  faithful  men,  and  animated  them  in  their 
moral  conflicts.  Whoever,  then,  the  seed  of  the  woman 
might  be,  he  was,  in  this  very  promise,  exhibited  as  the 
restorer  of  the  all-important  spiritual  blessings  of  the 
Divine  favour,  power  over  Satan,  and  eternal  life. 
Thus  their  notions  of  his  character,  and,  mdeed,  of 
his  superior  nature,  would  be  still  fartlier  advanced. 

Hut  the  bruising  of  the  head  of  Satan,  which  could 
only  be  understood  of  a  fatal  blow  to  be  inflicted  on  the 
power  which  he  had  aciiuired  over  man,  and  which 
had  displayed  itself  in  the  introduction  of  suffering  and 
death,  in  the  evd  dispositions  of  men  towards  each 
other,  and  all  the  miseries  which  so  soon  sprung  up  in 
society,  directed  their  hope  also  to  future  blessings 
as  to  themselves  and  their  posterity,  which  blessings 
could  be  no  less  than  deliverance  from  the  evils  which 
the  subtlety  of  the  serpent  had  introduced,  namely,  as 
to  them,  deliverance  from  affliction  and  death ;  and,  as 
to  society,  a  return  to  primeval  purity.  Whether  they 
looked  for  this  deliverance  by  a  renovation  of  the  pre- 
sent world,  or  by  the  introduction  of  the  jiious  into 
another,  we  cannot  say.  If  our  first  parents  were,  for 
some  time,  uncertain  as  to  this  point,  the  antediluvian 
family  could  not  long  remain  so,  .since  the  doctrine  of  a 
future  life  was  knowni  to  Enoch,  and,  if  not  bclbre,  was 
revealed  to  others  by  the  faci  of  his  translation,  and  he 
was  but  "  the  seventh  from  Adam."  Hut  whether  by 
the  renovation  of  the  earth,  and  the  restoration  of  the 
body  of  man  to  immortality  in  this  world,  or  by  the 
resurrection  of  the  body  and  the  glorification  of  the 
soul  in  a  future  stale,  still  was  sucli  a  restoration  im- 
plied in  the  jiromise,  and  the  jierson  by  whom  death 
was  to  be  conquered  and  sm  expelled  from  man's  heart, 
and  immortality  and  bliss  restored,  was  still  "  the  seed 
of  the  woman.''  That  the  Divinity  of  a  being  capable 
of  bestowing  such  favours,  was,  at  least,  indicated  in 
the  first  promise,  is  not,  therefore,  too  strong  a  con- 
clusion;  and  though  new  communications  of  this  truth, 
coming  through  "  separate  channels,"  illustrated  the 
text  of  this  revelation,  yet  in  the  channel  of  the 
original  promise,  through  which  came  the  first  hi>pe  of 
'•  a  Keileemer,"  we  see  those  coiiconiiiant  circumstances 
from  which  it  could  not  liul  be  inlerred,  that  he  was, 
at  least,  xvpcr-human  and  suinr-an^'rUc.  He  was  the 
seed  of  the  woman,  and  yet  s'lperior  to  "the  archangel 
fallen" — and  he  was  seen  in  ihai  promise,  as  he  is  seen 
now,  though  with  greater  detail  ol  circumstance,  as  the 
great  medium  of  pardon,  moral  renovation,  imniortaUty, 
and  eternal  life. 

It  is  equally  untenable  to  say,  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
incarnation  was  not  to  be  deduced  IVoin  the  promise 
before  us,  but  that  this  also  came  by  "  a  separate  chan- 
nel." The  farther  revelation  of  this  truth  opened  for 
itself  various  courses,  but  it  is  there  also.  The  being 
there  spoken  of  as  superior  to  the  serpent,  and  ad  so 
superior  to  man,  even  in  his  innocence  and  perfection, 
that  he  should  subdue  the  power  which  had  subdued 
Adam,  and  recover  what  Adam  lost,  was,  nevertheless, 
to  be  "the  skkd  of  the  woman  :"  to  bo  her  offspring 
even  in  her  fallen  stale ;  80  that  in  truth  so  much  of 


Chap.  XXII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  was  to  be  deduced  tVom 
the  promise,  that  this  "  seed  of  the  woman"  was  at 
once  to  be  7nan,  and  mere  than  man.  And  then  for 
the  doctrine  of  his  "  vicarious  sufferings"  and  tlieir 
efficacy,  why  sliould  we  be  compelled  wholly  to  look 
for  the  lirst  indication  of  this  to  revelations  coming  to 
man  through  separate  and  later  channels  !  These,  we 
again  thankfVilly  acknowledge,  have  been  abundantly 
opened  ;  but,  if  we  allow  Adam  and  the  patriarchs  to 
have  been  men  of  but  common  powers  of  reflection 
(though  to  them  a  very  vigorous  and  even  cultivated 
intellect  might  in  justice  be  conceded),  then  the  first  in- 
dication of  this  truth  also  must  have  been  seen  in  the 
first  promise.  It  was  comparatively  dim  and  obscure, 
we  grant ;  but  there  was  a  substantive  manifestation 
of  it ;  and  to  say  nothing  of  collateral  instruction  from 
God  himself,it  was  ap])rehended  in  the  first  promise, 
not  by  difficult  and  distant,  but  by  near  and  natural  in- 
ference, that  the  restoration  of  man  should  be  elTected 
by  the  sufl^erings  of  the  Restorer.  For  what  could  be 
understood  by  the  bruisingof  the  heel  of  tlie  seed  of  the 
woman  in  the  conflict  which  was  to  spring  fruin  tlie  en- 
mity put  between  that  seed,  someone  ilistinguislied  per- 
son so  called,  and  the  serpent  but  a  tenipoi  Mry  injury  and 
suflTcrtng  ?  and  why  should  he  sustain  the  injury  rather 
than  any  other  descendant  of  the  woman,  except  that 
the  conflict  in  which  he  engaged,  was  in  his  character 
of  Redeemer,  coming  forth  to  the  struggle  lor  man's 
sake,  and  for  man's  rescue  ?  As  he  was  a  being  su- 
perior to  man,  and  yet  man,  then  is  there  an  indication 
of  his  incarnation  :  if  of  Ins  incarnation,  then  it  was 
indicated  also  that  his  sufferings  were  voluntary,  lor  to 
suffer  could  not  spring  from  his  weakness  who  was  able 
to  subdue,  but  from  the  will  of  him  who  cliose,  in  this 
way,  to  subdue  the  grand  enemy.  His  suffering,  then, 
was  /or  man,  and  it  was  voluntary  suffering  (or  man  ; 
and  if  voluntary,  then  was  there  a  connexion  between 
ttiis  his  temporary  voluntary  suffering  and  the  bruis- 
ing of  the  serpent's  head,  that  is,  his  conquest  over  Sa- 
tan, and  the  rescue  of  man  from  his  dominion  ;  in  other 
words,  there  was  an  efficacy  in  his  sufferings  which 
connected  themselves,  not  by  accident,  but  by  appoint- 
ment and  uistitution,  with  man's  salvation  from  those 
evils,  spiritual  and  corporal,  wliich  had  been  induced 
by  the  jiower  and  malice  of  the  devil. 

Interpreted,  then,  by  itself,  there  is  much  more  in  this 
promise  than  Mr.  Davison  has  discovered  in  it.  It 
exhibited  to  man  the  means  of  his  salvation  ;  this  was 
to  be  effected  by  the  interposition  of  a  being  of  a  supe- 
rior nature,  made  "  the  seed  of  the  woman  ;"  his  oflice 
was  to  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil ;  he  exposed  him- 
self to  voluntary  sufferings  for  this  end  ;  these  suffer- 
ings had  a  direct  elficacy  and  connexion  with  man's  de- 
liverance from  the  power  of  Satan,  and,  therefore,  we 
may  add,  with  the  justice  of  God,  since  Satan  could 
have  no  power  over  man  but  by  God's  permission, 
which  permission  was  a  part  of  man's  righteous  pu- 
nishment. This  last  consideration  is  of  great  import- 
ance. For  as  the  patriarchs,  with  their  lofty  and  clear 
notions  of  the  majesty  of  the  Divine  Being,  could  not 
suppose  that  Satan  had  obtained  any  victory  over  him, 
or  that  the  conflict  between  the  Redeemer  and  him  was 
to  be  one  ol'  power  merely,  since  they  must  have  known 
that  he  miglit  at  any  time  have  been  expelled  from  his 
usurped  dominion  by  the  fiat  of  the  Almighty ;  so  the 
dominion  of  Satan  must  have  been  regarded  by  them 
in  the  light  of  a  judicial  permission  for  the  punishment 
of  sin,  and  exhibiting  the  awful  justice  and  sanctity  of 
the  law  of  God.  It  would,  therefore,  necessarily  fol- 
low, in  their  reasonings  on  tliis  subject,  that  the  suffer- 
ings of  the  seed  of  the  woman,  expressed  by  the  brui.s- 
ing  of  his  heel,  as  they  were  demonstrated  to  be  volun- 
tary on  his  part  by  the  superior  greatness  of  his  na- 
ture, and  were  expressly  appointed  on  the  part  of  God. 
as  appears  from  the  very  terms  of  the  first  promisej 
were  connected  with  this  exercise  of  punitive  justice, 
and  were  designed  to  remove  it.  Here,  then,  the  no- 
tion of  satisfaction  and  atonement  breaks  in,  and  a 
basis  was  laid  for  the  rite  of  expiatory  sacrifice,  and 
the  conformity  of  that  rite  to  the  doctrine  of  the  first 
promise  is  at  once  .seen  ;  it  thus  became  a  visible  ex- 
pression of  the  faith  of  the  fathers  in  this  appointed 
method  of  man's  deliverance. 

There  is  nothing  in  this  exposition  of  the  import  of 
the  first  promise  which  is  so  suggested  by  what  we 
now  know  on  lliese  important  subjects,  as  to  be  suj)-  I 
posed  out  of  tUc  reach  of  the  f'piritually-mtndod  and  I 
T 


reflecting  part  of  the  first  (hmily ;  and,  If  so,  then  this 
promise  may  be  considered  as  the  basis  of  Abel's  faith, 
and  its  doctrine  as  visibly  imbodied  in  what  was  pecu- 
liar in  Abel's  offering.  Even  if  wo  were  not  able  to 
refer  to  a  promise  sufficiently  definite  to  support  S7tck 
an  expression  of  faitli,  the  former  view  we  have  taken 
would  still  hold  good,  that  all  faith  necessarily  sup- 
poses a  previous  revelation ;  and  if  faith  does,  by  its 
acts,  refer  to  a  particularrevelation,  tlien  an  actual  pre- 
vious revelation  of  some  particular  doctrine,  object,  or 
view,  must  necessarily  be  supposed,  or  it  is  not  liiiih, 
but  fancy  and  presumplion.  , 

It  is  vainly  urged  against  this,  by  Mr.  Davison,  that 
the  faith  spoken  of  by  St.  Paul  in  Hebrews  xi.  had  for 
its  simple  and  general  object,  that  "  God  is  the  re- 
warder  of  such  as  diligently  seek  him."  For,  though 
this  is  supposed  as  the  ground  of  every  act  of  faith,  yet 
the  special  acts  recorded  have  each  their  special  object. 
Even  if  it  were  not  so,  this  general  principle  itself  is 
not  to  be  so  generally  and  indefinitely  interpreted  as 
Mr.  Davison  would  have  it,  who  tells  us  that  the  first 
creed  was  "  that  God  is  a  rewarder,"  and  that  the  other 
articles  were  given  by  successive  and  distant  revela- 
tions. This  is  a  partial  and  delusive  statement ;  for, 
from  this  very  text,  which  surely  Mr.  Davison  had  no 
right  to  curtail,  another  article  is  to  be  assigned  to  the 
first  creed,  namely,  that  God  is  not  merely  a  rewarder, 
but  a  rewarder  of  those  "  that  diligentlt/  seek  him." 
Even  with  respect  to  the  first,  as  Mr.  Law  justly  ob- 
serves, "  God  cannot  be  considered  as  a  rewarder  of 
mankind  in  any  other  sense  than  as  he  is  a./u (filler  of 
his  promises  made  to  mankind  in  the  covenant  of  Mes- 
siah. For  God  could  not  give,  nor  man  receive,  any 
rewards  or  blessings  but  in  and  through  one  Mediator, 
Christ  Jesus."(3)  But  we  may  add,  that  the  rewarding 
mentioned  by  the  apostle  is  connected  with  "■seeking" 
him.  Only  to  such  he  was  or  is  a  reward  "  who  dili- 
gently seek  him,"  and  this  seeking  or  worshipping  God 
supposes  some  appointed  instituted  method  of  approach- 
ing him,  and  wliich,  therefore,  must  be  regarded  by  an 
acceptable  faith,  and  recognised  by  its  external  acts. 
This  is  not  mere  inference,  for  both  Cain  and  Abel  be- 
lieved that  "  God  is,  and  that  he  is  a  rewarder,"  and 
they  both  sought  him ;  but  they  sought  him  differently, 
and  to  Abel  only  and  to  his  oflering,  that  is,  to  his  mode 
of  "  seeking-'  God,  his  INIaker  had  respect.  But  far- 
tlier,  the  whole  chapter  shows  that,  besides  this  gene- 
ral principle,  the  acts  of  faith  there  recorded  reposed  on 
antecedent  revelations,  either  general  or  specific,  which 
accorded  with  them.  Noah's  faith  respected  the  pro- 
mise of  his  preservation  in  the  ark  ;  Abraham's,  that 
he  should  have  a  son,  that  his  seed  should  possess  the 
earthly  Canaan,  and  he  lumself  the  heavenly  Canaan ; 
Moses's  faith,  in  the  first  instance  recorded  of  it,  re- 
spected the  promises  of  spiritual  and  eternal  blessings 
to  those  who  should  renounce  the  "  pleasures  of  sin  for 
a  season,"  and  in  the  second,  the  promise  of  God  to  de- 
liver Israel,  and  to  fiUfil  the  promise  made  to  Abraham  ; 
and  so  also  in  the  other  instances  given,  the  faith  con- 
stantly respected  some  particular  revelation  from  God. 
From  all  this,  it  will  follow,  that  the  apostle,  in  this 
chapter,  did  not  intend  to  say  that  the  object  of  fiiith  in 
any  age  whatever,  was  exclusively,  that  God  is  a  re- 
warder of  them  who  seek  him,  but  that  the  elders  who 
obtained  the  "  good  report"  had  faith  in  the  word  and 
promises  of  God,  and  for  that  had  been  honoured  and  re- 
warded. He  lays  down  two  principles,  it  is  true,  which 
must  be  assumed  before  any  special  act  of  faith  can  be 
exercised — "  That  God  is,"  or  there  could  be  no  object 
of  trust;  and  that  he  rewards  them  that  "diligently 
seek  him,"  or  there  could  be  no  motive  to  prayer,  or  to 
ask  his  interposition  in  any  case  ;  but  these  principles 
being  admitted,  then  every  word  and  jiromise  of  God 
becomes  an  object  of  faith  to  good  men,  who  derive 
from  this  habit  of  trusting  in  God  on  the  authority  of 
his  own  engagements,  that  courage  and  constancy  by 
which  they  are  distinguished,  and  are  crowned  with 
those  rewards  which  he  has  always  attached  to  faith. 

And  here,  also,  we  may  observe,  that  the  notion 
stated  above,  that  the  mere  belief  by  these  ancient  pa- 
triarchs that  God  is,  and  "that  he  is  a  rewarder,"  could 
not  be  at  all  api)osite  to  the  purjiose  lor  which  this  re- 
cital of  the  faith  of  the  elders  was  addressed  to  the 
Hebrews.  The  object  of  it  was  clearly  to  induce  the 
Jews,  who  believed,  not  "  to  cast  away  their  confidence.," 


(3)  Conl\iiaiiou  of  Wauburton. 


230 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Pabt  II, 


their  faith  in  Christ.  But  what  adaptation  to  tliis  etui 
can  we  discern  in  the  dry  statement  that  Abel  mid 
Enoch  believed  that  Ciod  is,  and  that  lie  is  a  "  rewarder  .'" 
JIad  the  Hebrews  renounced  Clirist,  and  turneil  Jews 
again,  they  would  still  have  believed  these  two  i)oints 
of  doctrine.  There  are  but  two  views  of  this  recital 
of  the  instances  of  ancient  faith  which  can  harmonize 
it  with  the  apostle's  argument  and  design.  The  first  is 
to  consider  hnn  as  adducing  this  list  of  worthies  as 
c.\ami)les  of  a  steady  faith  in  all  that  <;o<l  had  then  re- 
vealed to  man,  and  of  the  liappy  elU'cts  wbu  li  Ibllowed. 
The  connexion  of  this  with  his  argtimeiil  will  then  be 
obvious  ;  for.hy  these  examines  he  urges  the  Hebrews 
to  persevere  in  believing  all  tli.it  (ioil  had,  "  in  these  last 
days,"  revealed  of  hi.i  .'^iiii  .li  sns  Clirist,  in  disregard 
of  "the  dangers  and  persecutions  to  which  they  were 
exposed  on  that  aexount ;  because  thus  they  would 
share  in  the  "good  report"  and  in  the  rewards  of  the 
"  elders"  of  their  own  church,  and  imitate  the  honour- 
able piety  of  their  ancestry.  This  is  enough  for  our  ar- 
gvuiient.  But  there  is  a  second  view,  not  to  be  .slightly 
passed  over,  which  is,  tlwt  these  instances  of  ancient 
faith  are  adduced  by  the  apostle  to  prove  that  all  the 
"  elders"  of  the  patriarchal  and  Jewisll  churches  had 
faith  in  the  Christ  to  comk,  and  that,  therefore,  the 
Hebrews  would  be  the  imitators  of  their  faith  and  the 
jjartakers  of  its  rewards  in  "  holding  fast  their  con- 
fidence," their  faith  in  the  same  Christ  who  had  al- 
ready come,  and  whom  they  had  received  as  such.  Nor 
is  even  tlii-s  stronger  view  difhcult  to  be  made  out ;  for, 
though  the  fhflcrent  acts  and  exercises  of  faith  ascribed 
to  them  have  respect  to  dift'erent  promises  and  reve- 
lations, some  spiritual,  some  temporal,  and  some  mixed, 
yet  may  we  trace  in  all  of  them  a  respect,  more  or  less 
immediate  to  the  leading  object  of  all  faith,  the  Mes- 
siah himself.  We  have  seen  that  Abel's  faith  had  re- 
spect to  the  method  of  man's  justification,  through  the 
sufferings  of  the  seed  of  the  woman.  As  that  seed 
was  appointed  to  remedy  the  evils  brought  into  the 
world  by  the  serpent,  it  is  clear  that  eternal  life  could 
only  be  expected  with  reference  to  him,  and  Enoch's 
lofty  faith  in  a  future  heavenly  stale  consequently 
looked  to  hira  then,  like  ours  now,  as  "the  author  of 
eternal  salvation  to  them  that  obey  iiim," — a  conclusion 
as  to  this  patriarch  which  is  rendered  stronger  by  his 
prophecy  of  Christ's  coming  to  judgment  "  with  ten 
thousand  of  his  saints."  Noah's  faith  had  immediate 
respect  to  the  promise  of  God  to  preserve  him  in  the 
ark  ;  but  it  cannot  be  disconnected  from  his  faith  in 
the  first  promise,  and  other  revelations  of  the  bruising 
of  the  head  of  the  serpent  by  Messiah,  a  promise  which 
bad  not  been  accomplished,  and  which,  if  he  believed 
God  to  be  faithful,  he  must  have  concluded  could  not 
fall  to  the  ground,  and  that  his  preservation,  in  order 
to  prevent  the  hiMnan  race  from  extinction,  and  to  bring 
in  the  seed  of  the  woman,  in  tin;  fulness  of  time,  was 
connected  with  it.  His  faith  inGod,ashisde)iverer,was 
bound  up,  therefore,  we  may  almost  say  necessarily, 
with  his  faith  in  the  Redeemer,  and  the  one  was  the 
evidence  of  the  other ;  for  which  reason,  principally,  it 
probably  was,  that  the  apostle  says  "  that  he  became 
heir  of  the  righteousness  which  is  by  faith."  All  the 
acts  of  Abraham's  faith  had  respect,  iuniiediately  or 
ultimately,  to  the  promised  seed.  The  possession  of 
Canaan  by  his  posterity,  fi'om  whom  the  Messiah  was 
to  8))ring, — the  enjoyment  of  eternal  lite  liir  liiinself, 
which  was  the  final  effect  of  his  justiliiatidii  by  faith 
in  the  seed  in  whom  all  nations  were  to  be  blessed, — 
the  transaction  as  to  Isaac,  when  he  believed  that  God 
would  raise  him  from  the  dead,  because  he  believed 
that  the  promise  could  not  fail  which  had  declared  that 
the  Messiah  should  spring  from  Isaac, — "  In  Isaac  shall 
thy  seed  be  called."  The  liiitli  of  Isaac  in  blessing,  or 
prophesying  of  the  condition  of  .lacob  and  Esau,  had 
still  reference  to  the  Messiah,  who  was  to  descend  from 
Jacob,  not  Esau,  and  the  lot  of  whose  posterity  was 
regulated  accordingly.  The  same  observation  may  be 
made  as  to  .lacob  blessing  the  sons  ol  .losrpli,  and  Jo- 
seph's making  mention  of  the  departure  <it  the  children 
of  Israel,  and  giving  commaiidiiieni  (iiiiierMing  his 
bones;  both  relat(ul  to  the  siiiliiin  in  iii  ilie  tribes  in 
Canaan,  ari<l  both  were  rnmplicalid  wiili  ilic;  rel.-ition 
of  that  event  to,  and  the  peculiarity  stamped  upon  Is- 
rael, by  the  expected  coming  of  Messlas.  When 
Moses,  by  faith,  full  of  the  hopes  of  immorialiry,  re- 
nounced the  temptations  of  the  Egyptian  court,  the 
rcproacli  he  ciidurud  is  culled  "  the  reproach  of  Christ," 


the  apostle  thus  plainly  Intimating,  that  it  was  through 
the  expected  Messiah  that  he  looked  for  the  hope  of 
eternal  lite,  "  the  recompense  of  the  reward."  His 
faith,  as  leader  of  the  hosts  of  Israel,  was  connected 
with  the  jiromises  of  God  to  give  them  possession  of 
the  land  of  (Canaan  as  their  iiatrimony,  as  that  was 
with  the  advent  of  the  Messiah  among  them  "  in  the 
fulness  of  time."  The  faith  of  Rahab  may  ajipear 
more  remotely  connected  with  the  promise  of  Messiah  ; 
but  the  connexion  may  still  be  traced.  She  believed 
in  the  God  of  Israel  as  the  true  God ;  but  by  enter- 
taining and  preserving  the  spies,  she  also  intimated  her 
faith  in  the  promise  of  God  to  give  the  descendants  of 
Abraham  the  land  of  Canaan  for  their  inheritance, 
which  design  she  could  only  know  from  the  promises 
made  to  Abraham,  either  traditionally  from  him,  who 
had  himself  long  resided  in  Canaan,  or  by  information 
from  iIk;  sjiies ;  and  if  she  had  this  knowledge  in  either 
way,  it  is  not  dilficiUt  to  supjiose  her  informed,  also,  as 
to  the  .seed  promised  to  Abraham,  in  which  all  the  na- 
tions of  the  earth  were  to  be  blessed.  I  incline  to  think, 
that  the  faith  of  Rahab  had  respect  not  so  much  to  any 
information  she  received  from  the  spies,  as  to  traditions 
derived  from  Abraham.  Whether  she  stood,  by  her  de- 
scent, in  any  near  relation  to  those  with  whom  Abra- 
ham bad  more  immediately  conversed,  or  whether  Abra- 
ham had  very  pubUcIy  testified  in  Canaan  God's  design 
to  establish  his  posterity  there,  and  to  raise  up  from 
among  them  the  holy  seed,  the  Messiah,  I  will  not  pre- 
tend to  determine ;  but  there  are  two  reasons  which  at 
least  make  it  j)robable  that  Abraham  gave  a  public  tes- 
timony to  religious  truth  during  his  residence  in  Ca- 
naan. The  first  is,  his  residence  in  tents ;  thereby 
"  declaring  plainli/,"  says  the  Apostle  Paul,  "  that  he 
sought  a  better  country,  even  a  heavenly  ;"  that  is,  de- 
claring it  to  the  Canaanites,  or  the  action  would  have 
had  no  meaning,  declaring  this  doctrine  to  the  people 
of  his  own  age.  The  second  is,  that  the  same  apostle 
gives  it  as  a  reason  for  the  preservation  of  Rahab,  that 
she  believed,  while  tho.se  "  that  beheved  not,"  perished, 
meaning  jilainly  the  rest  of  the  Canaanites.  Now, 
what  were  they  to  believe,  and  why  were  they  guilty 
for  not  believing  ?  The  only  rational  answer  to  be 
given  is,  that  they  had  had  the  means  of  knowing 
the  designs  of  God  as  to  Abraham  and  his  posterity, 
from  whom  the  jironiised  Messiah  was  to  spring,  and 
that,  not  crediting  the  testimony  given  first  by  Abra- 
ham, and  which  was  afterward  confirmed  by  the  won- 
ders of  Egyjit,  but  setting  themselves  against  the  de- 
signs of  (;od,  they  "  perished"  judicially,  while  Rahab, 
on  accoimt  of  her  faith  in  these  revelations,  was  pre- 
served. 

With  respect  to  "Gideon,  and  Barak,  and  Samson, 
xnd  Jephthah,  and  Daniel,  and  Samuel,"  they  were 
judges,  kings,  and  conijuerors.  They  had  a  lolly  faith 
in  the  special  promises  of  success,  which  God  was 
pleased  to  make  to  them ;  but  that  faith  also  sprung 
from,  and  was  supiiorted  by,  the  special  relation  in 
wliiih  their  nation  stood  to  .lehovah ;  they  were  the 
seed  ul  Abraham  ;  they  held  their  land  by  the  grant  of 
the  I'Must  lli;;li;  they  were  all  taught  to  look  for  the 
rising  ol  the  niiglity  prince  Messiah  among  them  ;  and 
their  lUitli  In  speiial  jironiises  of  success  could  not  but 
have  respect  to  all  llii'se  covenant  engagements  of  God 
with  their  people,  anil  may  be  considered  as  in  no  small 
degree  grounded  upon  them,  and,  in  its  special  acts,  as 
an  evidence  that  they  had  this  faith  in  the  deeper  and 
more  comprehensive  promises.  Certain  it  is,  that  one 
of  them  nienlioned  in  this  list  of  warriors,  Uavid,  does 
in  the  very  songs  in  which  he  celebrates  his  victories, 
almost  constantly  blend  llicm  with  the  coiKjuests  of 
Messiah  ;  which  is  il.si;lf  a  marked  and  iiiiinent  proof 
of  thccoiiiiexion  wliicli  was  constantly  k<pt  up  in  the 
minds  of  the  pious  goveriKirs  of  Israel,  belwecn  the 
political  fortunes  of  their  iialioii  and  the  pronhses  wluch 
respected  the  seed  of  Abraham.  As  to  the  jirophets, 
also  mentioned  by  the  apostle,  they  were  constantly 
made  the  channels  of  new  revelalions  as  to  the  Mes- 
siah, and  their  faith,  thereliire,  bad  an  immediate  refer- 
ence 10  liim  ;  and  for  the  suH'erers  in  the  cause  of  reli- 
gions tnilh,  .so  hdiiourably  recorded,  the  niiirtyrs  of  the 
Old  Testament,  wbo  had  "trial  of  cruel  niockings  and 
scourgings,  wer(^  stoned,  sawn  asunder,"  &c.,  they  are 
all  rei)resented  as  supported  by  their  hope  of  immor- 
tality and  a  resurrection ;  blessings  which,  from  the- 
first,  were  acknowledged  to  come  to  man  only  throiy;h 
Iho  appointed  Uudeuiiicr.     Thus  Wic/aith  </  all  ha<i 


Chap.  XXII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


291 


respect  to  Christ,  either  more  directly  or  remotely ;  and 
if  farther  proof  were  necessary,  all  that  has  been  said 
is  crowned  by  theconi'luding  sentence  of  the  apostle — 
"  And  these  all  having  obtained  a  good  report,  through 
faith,  received  not  the  promise,  God  having  provided 
some  better  thing  for  us,  that  they  without  us  should 
not  be  made  perfect ;"  which  "  better  thing,"  whether 
it  mean  the  personal  appearance  of  the  Messiah,  or  their 
rcceinion  into  heaven  by  a  resurrection,  which  God  de- 
termined should  not  take  place  as  to  the  church  sepa- 
rately, but  in  a  body,  proves  that  not  only  did  their 
liiilh  look  liacic  to  special  promises  of  succour,  deliver- 
ance, and  other  blessings;  but  was  constantly  looking 
forward  to  Christ,  and  to  the  blessings  of  a  resurrec- 
tion and  eternal  life  which  he  was  to  bestow.  This, 
he  allirnis  too,  was  the  case  with  all  whom  ho  had 
mentioned — "  these  all  died  in  the  faith ;"  but  in  what 
faith  did  they  die  ?  Not  the  faith  they  had  in  the  pro- 
mises of  the  various  deliverances  mentioned  in  the 
chapter ;  those  special  acts  of  faith  were  past,  and  the 
special  promises  to  which  they  were  directed  were  ob- 
tained long  before  death  :  they  died  in  the  faith  of  unac- 
complished promises^the  appearance  of  Messiah,  and 
the  obtaining  of  eternal  life  through  him. 

Enough  has  been  said  to  prove  that  the  sacrifice  of 
Abel  was  expiatory,  and  that  it  conformed,  as  an  act 
of  faith,  to  some  anterior  revelation.  If  that  revelation 
were  only  that  which  is  recorded  in  the  first  promise, 
on  which  some  remarks  have  been  offered,  Abel's  faith 
accorded  with  its  general  indication  of  the  doctrine  of 
vicarious  suffering ;  but  his  visibly  representing  his 
faith  in  these  doctrines,  by  an  animal  sacrifice,  is  not 
to  be  resolved  into  the  invention  and  device  of  Abel, 
though  he  himself  should  be  assumed  to  have  been  the 
first  to  adopt  this  rite,  unless  we  suppose  him  to  have 
been  under  special  direction.  It  is  very  true,  and  a 
point  not  to  be  at  any  time  lost  sight  of,  that  the  open 
and  marked  acceptance  of  Abel's  .sacrifice  was  a  Di- 
vine confirmation  of  the  mode  of  approaching  him  by 
animal  sacrifice ;  and  .seems  to  have  been  intended  as 
instructive  and  admonitory  to  the  world,  and  to  have 
invested  this  mode  of  worship  with  a  renewed  and 
more  signal  stamp  of  the  Divine  appointment  than 
heretofore.  That  in  this  light  it  was  considered  by  the 
apostle,  appears  plainly  deducible  from  his  words, 
"and  by  it  (his  sacrifice),  he  being  dead,  j'et  speaketh." 
By  words  more  emphatic  he  could  not  have  marked  the 
importance  of  that  act  as  an  act  of  public  and  sanc- 
tioned instruction.  Abel  "spoke"  to  all  succeeding 
ages,  and  continues  to  speak,  not  by  his  personal  right- 
eousness, not  by  any  other  circumstance  whatever,  but 
by  his  sacrifice  (for  with  fiuo-ias  understood,  must  uvrris 
agree) ;  and  in  no  way  could  he,  except  by  his  sacrifice 
as  distinct  from  that  of  Cain,  speak  to  future  ages,  and 
as  that  sacrifice  taught  how  sinful  guilty  men  were  to 
approach  God,  and  was  a  declaration  of  the  necessity 
of  atonement  for  their  sins.  We  should  think  this  a 
sufficient  answer  to  all  who  complain  of  the  want  of  an 
express  indication  of  the  Divine  ajipointment  of  animal 
expiatory  sacrifice  in  the  first  family.  The  indication 
called  for  is  here  express,  since  this  kind  of  sacrifice 
was  accepted,  and  an  offering,  not  animal  and  not  ex- 
piatory, was  as  publicly  rejected;  and  since,  also, 
Abel,  as  we  may  conclude  from  the  apostle's  emphatic 
words,  (hd  not  act  in  this  affair  merely  as  a  private 
man ;  but  as  one  who  was  by  his  acts  to  instruct  and 
influence  others — "by  it,  he  being  dead,  yet,"  even  to 
this  day,  "speaketh." 

Decidedly,  however,  as  this  circumstance  marked 
out  a  sanctioned  method  of  approaching  God,  we  think 
that  Abel  rather  conformed  to  a  previously  appointed 
sacrificial  institution,  than  then,  for  the  first  time,  of- 
fered an  animal  and  expiatory  sacrifice,  though  it 
should  be  supposed  to  be  under  a  Divine  direction.  For 
Cain  could  not  have  been  so  blameable,  had  he  not  vio- 
lated some  rule,  some  instituted  practice,  as  to  the 
mode  of  worship ;  and  after  all  that  has  been  said,  the 
clothing  of  our  first  parents  with  the  skins  of  beasts 
cannot  so  well  be  accounted  for  as  by  supposing  those 
skins  to  have  been  taken  from  animals  offered  in  sa- 
crifice. 

But  whether  this  typical  method  of  representing  the 
future  atonement  first  took  place  with  Abel,  or  previ- 
ously with  Adam,  a  Divine  origin  must  be  assigned  to 
it.  The  proof  of  this  has  been  greatly  anticipated  in 
the  above  observations,  which  have  been  designed  to 
establish  the  expiatory  character  of  Abel's  oflering ; 
T2 


but  a  few  additional  remarks  on  this  subject  may  not 
be  useless. 

The  human  invention  of  primitive  animal  sacrifice  is 
a  point  given  up  by  Mr.  Davison,  and  other  writt^rs  on 
the  same  side,  if  such  sacrifices  can  be  proved  expia- 
tory. The  human  invention  of  eucharistic  offerings 
they  can  conceive ;  and  Mr.  Davison  thinks  he  can  find 
a  natural  explanation  of  the  jiractice  of  offering  animrtZ 
sacrifice,  if  considered  as  a  confession  of  giult ;  but  for 
"  that  condition  of  animal  sacrifice,  its  expiatory  aton- 
ing power,"  he  observes,  "  I  confess  myself  unable  to 
comprehend  how  it  can  ever  be  grounded  on  the  prin- 
ciples of  reason,  or  deduced  from  the  light  of  nature. 
There  exists  no  discernible  connexion  between  the  one 
and  the  other.  On  the  contrary,  nature  has  nothing  to 
say  for  such  an  exjiiatory  power,  and  reason  every 
thing  against  it.  For  that  the  life  of  a  brute  creature 
should  ransom  the  life  of  a  man ;  that  its  blood  ^•;lOlUd 
have  any  virtue  to  wash  away  his  sin  or  purify  his 
conscience,  or  redeem  his  penalty;  or  that  the  involun- 
tary sufferings  of  a  being,  itself  unconscious  and  irra- 
tional, should  have  a  moral  efficacy  to  his  benefit  or 
pardon,  or  be  able  to  restore  him  with  Gon, — these  are 
things  repugnant  to  the  sense  of  reason,  incapable  of 
being  brought  into  the  scale  of  the  first  ideas  of  nature, 
and  contradictory  to  all  genuine  religion,  natural  and 
revealed.  For  as  to  the  remission  of  sin,  it  is  plainly 
altogether  within  the  prerogative  of  God,  an  act  of  his 
mere  mercy  ;  and  since  it  is  so,  every  thing  relating  to 
the  conveyance  and  the  sanction,  the  profession  and 
the  security  of  it,  can  spring  only  from  his  appoint- 
ment." 

But,  this  being  allowed,  and  nothing  can  be  more  ob- 
vious, then  it  follows,  that  the  patriarchal  sacrifices, 
if  proved  to  be  expiatory,  as  the  means  of  removing 
wrath  from  offenders,  and  of  conveying  and  sanction- 
ing pardon,  must  be  allowed  to  have  had  Divine  insti- 
tution ;  and  the  notion  of  their  being  of  human  device 
must,  in  consequence,  be  given  up.  In  proof  of  this, 
we  have  seen  that  Abel's  justification  was  the  result 
oi\i\s  faith,  and  that  this  faith  was  connected  with  that 
in  his  sacrifice,  which  distinguished  it  from  the  offering 
of  Cain  ;  and  thus  its  expiatory  character  is  estabhshed 
by  its  having  been  the  means  to  him  of  the  remission 
of  sin  ;  and  the  appointed  medium  of  the  "  convey- 
ance" and  "  secnrity"  of  the  benefit.  We  have  also 
seen,  Uiat  Noah's  burnt  offering  was  connected  with 
the  averting  of  the  wrath  of  God  from  the  future  world, 
so  that  not  even  its  wickedness  should  lead  him  again 
"  to  destroy  all  flesh"  by  a  universal  flood  ;  that  the 
sacrifices  of  the  friends  of  Job(4)  were  of  the  same  ex- 
piatory character;  and  that  the  reason  for  the  prohibi- 
tion of  blood  was,  under  both  dispensations,  the  patri- 
archal and  the  Mosaic,  the  same.  To  these  may  be 
added  two  passages  in  Exodus,  which  show  that  ani- 
mal sacrifices  among  the  patriarchs  were  offered  for 
averting  the  Divine  displeasure,  and  that  this  notion 
of  sacrifice  was  entertained  by  the  Israelites  previous 
to  the  giving  of  the  law.  "  Let  us  go,  I  pray  thee, 
three  days'  journey  into  the  desert,  and  sacrifice  unto 
the  Lord  our  God,  lest  he  fall  upon  us  with  pestilence, 
or  with  the  sword,"  Exodus  v.  3.  "Thou  must  give  us 
also  sacrifices  and  burnt-ofTerings,  that  we  may  sacri- 
fice unto  the  Lord  our  God,"  Exodus  x.  25,  26.  The 
remark  of  Dr.  Richie(5)  is  here  pertinent.  "  In  these 
two  passages,  Moses  and  Aaron  speak  of  sacrificing, 
not  as  a  new  and  uncommon  thing,  but  as  a  usual 
mode  of  worship,  with  which  Pharaoh  was  as  well 
acquainted  as  themselves,  consequently  a  thing  that 
was  not  a  late  or  new  invention."    And  in  pursuance 


(4)  Mr.  Davison,  in  pursuance  of  his  theory,  that  the 
patriarchal  sacrifices  were  not  expiatory,  has  strangely 
averred,  that  this  transaction  is  "  a  proof  of  the  effi- 
cacy of  Job's  prayer,  not  of  the  expiatory  power  of  the 
sacrifice  of  his  friends."  Why,  then,  was  not  the 
prayer  eflicacious,  without  the  sacrifice  ?  And  how 
could  the  "  burnt-offering"  of  his  friends  give  efficacy 
to  his  prayer,  unless  by  way  of  expiation  ?  What  is 
the  office  of  expiatory  sacrifice,  but  to  avert  the  anger 
of  God  from  the  offerer  ?  This  was  jfrecisely  the  effect 
of  the  burnt-offering  of  Eliphaz  and  his  friends  :  that 
it  was  connected  with  the  prayer  of  Job,  no  more  alters 
the  expiatory  character  of  that  offering,  than  the 
prayers  which  accompanied  such  offerings  under  the 
law. 

(5)  Pec.  Doc. 


292 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part IL 


of  the  same  argument,  It  may  be  noted,  that  Moses, 
even  in  the  law,  nowhere  speaks  of  expiatory  sacrilicc 
as  a  new  institution,  a  rite  which  was  litncclorwanl 
to  be  considered  as  bearing  a  higher  character  than  Ibr- 
merly,  but  as  a  thing  familiar  to  the  people.  iVow 
such  an  intimation  would  donbtless  have  been  neces- 
sary, on  the  very  ground  just  slated,  the  repugnancy 
of  animal  sacrifices,  considered  as  t.rpiatory,  to  nature 
and  reason  ;  but  to  prepare  them  for  such  a  change,  for 
an  institution  so  repugnant  to  the  former  class  and  or- 
der of  their  notions  on  this  subject,  there  is  nothing 
said  by  Moses,  no  intimation  of  an  alteration  in  the 
character  of  sacrifice  is  given  ;  but  a  practice  mani- 
festly familiar  is  brought  under  new  and  special  rules, 
assigned  to  certain  jiersons  as  the  sacrificers,  and  to 
certain  places,  and  appropriated  to  the  national  religion, 
and  the  system  of  a  theocratn-al  government.  Whence, 
then,  did  this  familiarity  with  the  notion  of  expiatory 
sacrifice  arise  among  the  Israelites  ?  If  the  book  of 
Genesis  were  written  previously  to  the  law,  and  they 
collected  the  notion  from  that,  then  this  is  proof  that 
they  understood  the  patriarchal  sacrilices  to  be  expia- 
tory ;  and  if,  as  others  think,  that  book  was  not  written 
the  first  in  the  series  of  the  Pentateuch,  but  the  last, 
they  had  the  notion  from  tradition  and  custom. 

Though  we  think  that  the  evidence  of  Scripture  is 
of  sufficient  clearness  to  establish  the  Divine  origin 
of  the  antediluvian  sacrifices ;  and,  with  IIallet,((i)  I 
regard  the  public  Divine  accejitance  of  Abel's  sacrifice 
as  amounting  to  a  demonstration  of  their  institution 
by  the  authority  of  God,  the  argument  drawn  from  the 
natural  incongruity  of  .sacrificial  rites,  on  which  so 
many  writers  have  forcibly  dwelt, ought  not  to  be  over- 
looked. It  conies  in  to  confirm  the  above  deductions 
from  Scripture,  and  though  it  has  been  sometimes  at- 
tacked with  great  ingenuity,  it  has  never  been  solidly 
refuted.  "  It  is  evident,"  says  Uelany,(7)  "  that  unpre- 
judiced reason  never  could  antecedently  dictate,  that 
destroying  the  best  of  our  fruits  and  creatures  could  be 
an  office  acceptable  to  God,  but  quite  the  contrary. 
Also,  that  it  did  not  prevail  from  any  demand  of  nature 
is  undeniable,  for  I  believe  that  no  man  will  say  that 
we  have  any  natural  instinct  or  appetite  to  gratify  in 
spilling  the  blood  of  an  innocent,  inoffijnsive  creature 
upon  tile  earth,  or  burning  his  body  upon  an  altar.  Nor 
could  there  be  any  temptation  from  appetite  to  do  this 
in  those  ages,  when  the  whole  sacrifice  was  consumed 
by  fire,  or  when,  if  it  were  not,  yet  men  wholly  ab- 
stained from  flesh." 

The  practice  cannot  be  resolved  into  priestcraft,  for 
no  order  of  priests  was  then  instituted  ;  and  if  men 
resolve  it  into  !<upcrstition,they  must  not  only  suppose 
that  the  first  family  were  superstitious,  but,  also,  that 
God,  by  his  acceptance  of  Abel's  sacrifice,  gave  his 
sanction  to  a  superstitious  and  irrational  practice ;  and 
if  none  will  be  so  bold  as  this,  there  remains  no  other 
resource  than  to  contend  lor  its  retisonal/lenrss,  in  opjio- 
sition  to  the  argument  just  quoted  from  Delany ;  and 
to  aid  the  case  by  assuming,  al.so,  that  it  was  the  dic- 
tate of  a  delicate  and  enlightened  scntimentalism. 
This  is  the  course  taken  by  Mr.  Davison,  who  has 
placed  what  others  have  urged  with  the  same  intent,  in 
the  mo.st  forcible  light,  so  that,  in  refuting  him,  we  re- 
fute all.  To  begin  with  "  the  more  simple  tbrins  of 
oblation,"  those  ofTeriiigs  of  the  fruits  ofthe  earth,  which 
have  been  termed  eiieharistical,  "  reason,"  says  Mr. 
Davison,  "  seems  to  recognise  tliem  at  once ;  they  are 
the  tokens  of  a  commemorative  piety,  rendering  to  the 
Creator  and  Supreme  Giver  a  portion  of  his  gifts,  in 
confession  of  his  original  douiinion  in  them,  and  of  his 
continued  favour  and  beneliceiice."  But  this  is  very 
far  from  being  a  rational  aeiunnt  of  even  simple  thank- 
offerings  of  fruits;  suppo.siiig  such  oflTerings  to  have 
been  really  made  in  those  primitive  times.  Of  this,  in 
fact,  we  have  no  evidence,  tor  we  read  only  of  one  obla- 
tion of  this  kind,  that  of  Vmu,  and  it  was  not  accepted 
by  Gon.  But,  waiving  that  objection,  and  supjiosmg  such 
offerings  to  have  formed  a  part  of  the  primitive  worship, 
from  whence,  we  may  ask,  diil  m(^ii  oijt:iiii  i!ie  notion, 
that  in  such  acts  they  gave  bark  to  the  Supreme  (;ivcr 
some  portion  of  his  gifts  !  It  is  not,  sun  l> ,  assuineil  liy 
the  advocates  of  this  theory,  that  the  first  men  were  like 
those  stupid  idolaters  of  tollowing  ages,  who  llionght 
that  the  deities  themselves  feasted  upon  the  ohi.iijons 
brought  to  their  temples.    On  the  contrary,  tlieir  views 

CO)  III  Hebrews  \i.  4.        (7)  Revelation  ExaiimiCtl. 


of  God  were  elevated  and  spiritual ;  and  whenever 
such  a  Being  is  acknowledged,  it  is  clear  that  the  no- 
tion of  givni^r  hack  any  thing  to  him,  can  only  be  b 
rational  one,  when  he  has  appointed  something  to  be 
done  in  return  for  his  gifts,  or  to  be  appropriated  to  hi."* 
service ;  which  leads  us  at  once  to  the  doctrine  of  a 
Divine  institution.  The  only  rational  notion  of  a  re- 
turn  to  God  as  an  acknowledgment  for  his  favours, 
when  notions  of  his  siiirituality  and  independence  arc 
entertained,  is  that  of  gratitude,  and  thanksgiving,  and 
obedience.  These  Ibrni  a  "  reasonable  service ;"  but 
when  we  go  beyond  these,  we  may  well  be  at  a  loss  to 
know,  "  what  we  can  give  unto  hirn."  If  he  requires 
more  than  these,  as  acknowledgments  of  our  depend- 
ence and  his  goodness,  how  should  we  know  that  he 
requires  more,  unless  we  had  some  revelation  on  the 
subject .'  And  if  we  had  a  general  revelation,  import- 
ing that  something  more  would  be  acccjitable,  how 
should  we  be  able  to  li.\  upon  one  pariieiilar  thing  as 
the  subject  of  such  an  oblation,  more  than  anotlier?  A 
divine  institution  would  invest  such  ollerings  with  a 
symbolical  or  a  tyjiical  character,  or  both  ;  and  then 
they  would  have  a  manifest  reason;  but,  assuredly, 
independent  of  that,  they  would  rest  ujion  no  rational 
ground  whatever ;  there  could  be  no  discernible  con- 
nexion between  the  act  and  the  end,  in  any  ease  where 
the  majesty  and  sjiirituality  of  CJod  were  recognised. 
Mr.  Davison  assumes  that  though  "the  prayer  or  the 
oblation  cannot  purchase  the  favour  of  God,  it  may  make 
us  fitter  objects  of  his  favour."  But,  we  ask,  even  if 
we  should  allow  that  prayer  makes  us  fitter  objects  of 
his  favour,  how  we  could  know  even  this  without  reve- 
lation ;  or,  if  we  could  place  this  effect  to  the  account 
of  prayer  by  something  like  a  rational  deduction,  ho^v 
we  could  get  the  idea,  that  to  approach  a  spiritval  being, 
with  a  few  handsful  of  (Vuit  gathered  from  the  earth, 
and  to  present  them  in  addition  to  our  prayers,  should 
render  us  the  "  litter  objects"  of  the  Divine  beneficence  ? 
There  is  no  rational  connexion  between  the  act  and  the 
end,  on  which  to  establish  the  conclusion. 

Reason  tailing  here,  recourse  is  had  to  sentiment. 

"  In  the  first  dawn  of  the  world,  and  the  beginnings 
of  religion,  it  is  reasonable  to  think  that  the  direction 
of  feeling  and  duty  was  more  exclusively  towards  God. 
The  recent  creation  of  the  world,  the  revelations  in 
I'aradise,  and  the  great  transactions  of  his  providence, 
may  well  be  thought  to  have  wrought  a  powerful  ini- 
jiression  on  the  Jirst  race,  and  to  have  given  them, 
though  not  a  purer  knowledge,  yet  a  more  intimate  and 
a  more  intense  jicrception,  of  his  being  and  presence. 
The  continued  miracle  of  the  actual  manifestations  of 
God  would  enforce  the  same  impressions  upon  them. 
These  having  less  scope  of  action  in  communion  with 
their  fellow -creatures,  in  the  solitude  of  life  around 
them,  in  the  great  simplicity  of  the  social  state,  and 
the  consequent  (lesiitution  of  the  objects  of  the  social 
duties;  their  religion  would  make  the  acts  of  devotion 
its  chief  monuments  ol'  moral  obligation.  Works  of 
justice  and  charity  could  have  little  place.  Works  of 
adoration  must  fill  the  void.  And  it  is  real  action,  not 
unimbodied  sentiment,  which  the  Creator  has  made 
to  be  the  master  princijile  of  our  moral  constitution. 
From  these  causes  some  boldness  in  the  fonn  of  a  re- 
presentative character,  some  ritual  clothed  with  the 
imagery  of  a  symbolical  expression,  would  more  readily 
pass  into  the  first  liturgy  of  nature.  Not  simple  ado- 
ration, not  the  naked  and  unadorned  oblations  of  the 
tongue,  but  adoration  invested  in  some  striking  and 
significative  form,  and  coiiTcyed  by  the  instrumentality 
of  material  tokens,  would  be  most  in  accordance  with 
the  strong  energies  of  feeling,  and  the  insulated  condi- 
tion ofthe  primitive  race."(8) 

Two  or  three  observations  will  be  sufllclent  to  dissi- 
pate all  these  fancy  pictures.  1.  It  is  not  true,  that  the 
"recent  creation  of  the  world,  the  revelations  in  I'ara- 
dise," &c.,  made  that  great  moral  impression  ui>on  the 
first  men  which  is  here  described.  That  impression 
did  not  keep  our  first  parents  from  sin  ;  mucli  less  did 
it  produce  this  effect  ujion  Caiii  and  his  descendants; 
nor  iqion  "  thesonsof  <;oil,"tlie  r.ice  ol  .Siid,  who  soon 
became  corrujit  ;  and  so  wickedness  rapidly  increased, 
until  the  measure  of  the  sin  of  the  world  was  filled  up 
2.  It  is  ecpiiilly  iiiifcimided,  that  in  that  state  of  society 
"works  01  justice  and  chanty  could  have  little  place, 
and  that  works  of  adoration  must  till  the  void ;"  for 

(tf)  Priuiitive  Sac. 


Chap.  XXII.] 

the  crimes  laid  to  iho  charge  of  ttie  autcililuvians  aro 
wickedness,  and  especially  violmicc,  which  is  opposed 
botli  to  jrixttce  ami  to  c/iarity ;  and  it  is  impossible  to 
suppose  any  state  of  society  existing,  since  the  fall,  in 
which  both  justice  and  charity  were  not  virtues  of 
daily  requirement,  and  that  in  their  constant  and  vigor- 
ous exercise.  Cain,  for  instance,  needed  both,  for  he 
grossly  violated  both  in  hating  and  murdering  his 
brother.  3.  That  strongly  active  devotional  sentiment 
whicti  Mr.  Davison  supposes  to  exist  in  tliose  ages, 
which  reijuired  something  more  to  imbody  and  repre- 
sent it  than  prayer  and  praise,  and  which  with  so  much 
plastic  energy  is  assumed  to  have  clothed  itself"  with 
the  imagery  of  a  symbolical  expression,"  is  equally 
contradicted  by  the  facts  of  the  case.  There  was  no  such 
excess  of  the  devotional  principle.  On  Mr.  Uavison'.s 
own  interpretation  of  the  "more  abundant  sacrifice," 
more  in  quantity,  one  of  the  two  brothers,  first  de- 
scending from  the  first  pair,  was  deficient  in  it ;  the 
rapidly-spreading  wickedness  of  man  shows  that  the 
religious  sentiment  was  weak  and  not  powerful ;  it  is 
not  seen  even  in  the  perverted  forms  of  idolatry  and 
superstition,  for  neither  is  charged  upon  the  antedilu- 
vians, but  moral  wickedness  only ;  and  instead  of 
their  having  "  a  more  intense  perception  of  the  being 
and  presence  of  God,"  as  Mr.  Davison  imagines  for 
them,  Moses  declares  "  the  imagination  of  the  thoughts 
of  the  heart  of  man  to  be  only  evil  continually,"  and 
that  even  long  before  the  flood,  and  while  men  were 
alive  who  had  conversed  with  Adam.  Thus  pass  away 
the  fancies  on  which  this  theory  is  built ;  nor  is  that 
of  Bishop  Warburton  better  supported,  who  resolves 
these  early  oblations  into  a  representation  by  action, 
arising  out  of  the  "  defects  and  imperfections  of  the 
primitive  language ;"  for  of  these  defects  and  imperfec- 
tions there  is  not  only  not  the  least  evidence,  but  the 
irresistible  inference  from  the  narrative  of  Moses,  is,  that 
a  language  was  in  use  in  the  first  family  sufficiently 
copious  for  all  subjects  of  religion,  as  well  as  for  the  com- 
mon intercourse  of  life.  This  notion  also  farther  involves 
the  absurdity  and  contradiction,  that  when  man  was 
created  in  perfection,  he  should  not  be  endowed  with 
the  power  of  nnbodying  his  thoughts  in  language. 

If,  then,  the  presentation  of  the  mere  fruits  of  the 
earth  to  God  as  thank-offerings  and  acknowledgments 
of  dependence,  cannot  be  reasonably  accounted  for 
without  supposing  a  Divine  institution,  the  difficulty  is 
increased  when  animal  oblations  are  added  to  these 
offerings,  and  considered  also  as  merely  eucharistical. 
All  the  diliiculties  just  mentioned  lie  with  equal  force 
against  such  a  designation  of  them,  with  these  addi- 
tional considerations, — 1.  That  the  putting  beasts  to 
death  is  an  act  farther  removed  from  the  idea  of  a  mere 
oblation,  since  nothing  would,  without  a  revelation,  ap- 
pear less  acceptable  to  a  merciful  and  benevolent  being. 
2.  A  moral  objection  would  also  inter|iose.  Man's  do- 
minion of  the  creatures  was  from  God ;  but  it  was  to 
be  .exercised,  like  his  power  of  every  other  kind,  upon 
his  responsibility.  Wanton  cruelty  to  animals  must,  of 
necessity,  have  been  considered  a  moral  evil.  To  inflict 
pain  and  death  upon  even  the  noxious  animals,  without 
so  clear  a  necessity  as  should  warrant  it,  and  without 
its  being  necessary  to  the  "  subduing"  of  the  earth,  could 
not  be  thought  blameless,  much  less  upon  those  innox- 
ious animals  which,  from  the  beginning,  were  the  only 
subjects  of  sacrifice.  This  would  be  felt  the  more 
strongly  before  flesh  had  been  permitted  to  man  for  food, 
and  when.,  so  to  speak,  a  greater  sacredness  was  thrown 
around  the  life  of  the  domestic  animals  than  afterward ; 
nor  can  it  appear  reasonable,  even  if  we  were  to  allow 
that  a  sort  of  sentimentality  might  lead  man  to  fix  upon 
the  oblation  of  slain  beasts  as  an  expressive  ritual  to 
be  added  to  the  "Liturgy  of  Nature ;"  that,  without 
any  authority,  any  intimation  from  Heaven  that  such 
sacrifices  would  be  well  pleasing  to  God,  men  could 
conclude  that  a  mere  sentimental  notion  of  ceremonial 
fitness,  and  giving  "  boldness  to  the  representative 
character"  of  worship,  would  be  a  sufficient  moral 
rea.son  to  take  of  their  tlocks  and  herds,  and  shed  their 
blood  and  bum  their  flesh  upon  altars.  Mr.  Davison 
endeavours  to  meet  the  objection  to  the  natural  mfon- 
gniity  of  animal  sacrifices  as  acts  of  worship,  bjr dis- 
tinguishing between  the  two  conditions  of  animal  sacri- 
fice, "  the  guilt  of  the  worshipper,  and  the  expiation 
of  his  sin."  Expiatory  sacrifice,  we  have  seen,  he  gives 
up,  as  not  for  a  moment  to  be  referred  to  human  inven- 
tion, but  thinks  that  there  was  no  natural  incongruity 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


In  the  offering  of  animals  as  a  mere  acknowlc<]gment 
of  guilt,  and  as  a  coii/csssion  of  sin  and  the  desert  of 
death.  But  still,  if  we  could  trace  any  connexion  be- 
tween this  symbolical  confession  and  the  real  ca.se  of 
man,  which  is  difficult,  if  not  iinjiossible,  wliat  could 
lead  him  to  the  idea,  that  more  than  simple  confession 
of  sin  by  the  lips,  and  the  penitent  feelings  of  the  heart, 
would  be  acceptable  to  God,  il  he  had  received  no  reve- 
lation on  the  subject?  and  if  this,  like  the  former,  were 
a  device  of  mere  ceremonial  sentimenlalism,  it  was  still 
too  frail  a  groimd  to  justify  his  putting  the  inferior  crea- 
tures to  death,  without  warrant  from  their  Creator  and 
Preserver.  It  is  also  equally  unfortunate  for  this  theory, 
and,  indeed,  wholly  fatal  to  it,  that  the  distinction  of 
clean  and  unclean  hearts  existed,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  before  the  flood.  Upon  what,  then,  was  this  dis- 
tinction founded  ?  Not  upon  their  qualities  as  good  for 
food  or  otherwise,  for  animals  were  not  yet  granted  for 
food ;  and  the  death  of  one  animal  woidd  therefore 
have  been  just  as  appropriate  as  a  symbol  of  gratitude, 
or  as  an  acknowledgment  of  the  desert  of  death,  as 
another,— a  horse  as  a  heifer,  a  dog  as  a  lamb.  Nay,  if 
animals  were  intended  to  represent  the  sinner  himself, 
unclean  and  ferocious  animals  would  have  been  fitter 
types  of  his  fallen  and  sinful  state;  and  that  they  were 
to  be  clean,  harmless,  and  without  spot,  shows  that  they 
represented  some  other.  The  distinction  of  clean  and 
unclean,  however,  did  exist  in  that  early  period,  and  it 
is  only  to  be  accounted  for  by  referring  it  to  a  sacrificial 
selection,  and  that  uiwn  Divine  authority. 

To  the  human  invention  of  sacrifice,  the  objection  of 
"  tt'ill  worship'''  has  also  been  forcibly  and  triumphantly 
urged.  "  Who  hath  required  this  at  your  hands  7"  "  In 
vain  do  they  worship  me,  teaching  lor  doctrines  the 
commandments  of  men."  This  has  the  force  of  an 
axiom,  which,  if  it  ought  not  to  be  applied  too  rigidly  to 
the  minutiae  of  forms  of  worship  when  they  connect 
themselves  with  authorized  leading  acts,  yet  must  have 
a  direct  application  to  a  worship  which,  in  its  substance 
and  leading  circumstance,  was  eminently  sacrificial,  if 
it  be  regarded  as  wholly  of  human  device.  "  Thus," 
says  Hallet,  "Abel  must  have  worshipped  God  in  vain, 
if  his  sacrificing  had  been  merely  a  commandment  of 
his  father  Adam,  or  an  invention  of  hLs  own ;"  and  he 
justly  asks,  "why  we  do  not  now  oflTer  up  a  bullock,  a 
sheep,  or  a  pigeon,  as  a  thank-offering  after  any  re- 
markable deliverance,  or  as  an  evidence  of  our  appre- 
hensions of  the  demerit  of  sin  !"  The  sure  reason  is, 
because  we  cannot  know  that  God  will  accept  such 
"  will  worship,"  and  so  conclude  that  we  should  herein 
worship  God  "  in  vain." 

The  Divine  institution  of  expiatory  sacrifice  being 
thus  carried  up  to  the  first  ages,  and  to  the  family  of  the 
first  sinning  man,  we  perceive  the  unity  of  the  three 
great  dispensations  of  religion  to  man,  the  Patriar- 
chal, the  Levitical,  and  the  Christian,  in  the  great 
principle,  "  and  without  the  shedding  of  blood  there  is 
no  remission."  But  one  religion  has  been  given  to  man 
since  his  fall,  though  gradually  communicated.  "  This 
may  be  best  denominated  the  ministry  of  recon- 
ciliation, for  its  exclusive  object,  however  modified 
externally,  is  to  satisfy  God's  justice,  through  the  in- 
strumentality of  the  woman's  predicted  seed ;  to  restore 
fallen  man  to  the  Divine  image  of  holiness,  by  the 
agency  of  the  gracious  Spirit ;  and  thus,  without  com- 
promising any  one  of  God's  attributes,  to  reconcile  an 
apostate  race  to  their  offended  Creator."(9) 

We  have  now  adduced  the  scriptural  evidence  of  the 
atonement  made  by  the  death  of  Christ  for  the  sins  of 
the  world  ;  a  doctrine  not  speculative  and  indifferent, 
but  vital  to  the  whole  scheme  of  Christianity ;  a  doc- 
trine which  tends  to  produce  the  most  awful  sense  of 
sin,  and  to  afford  the  most  solemn  motive  to  repentance  ; 
which  at  once  excites  the  most  sublime  views  of  the 
justice  and  mercy  of  God,  and  gives  the  most  affecting 
exhibition  of  the  compassion  and  love  of  Christ ;  which 
is  the  only  ground  of  faith  in  the  pardoning  love  of  God, 
and  the  surest  guard  against  presumption  ;  and  which, 
by  opening  access  to  God  in  prayer,  keeps  before  man  a 
safe  and  secure  refuge  amid  the  troubles  of  life,  and  in 
the  prospect  of  eternity.  It  is  the  only  view,  too,  of  the 
death  of  Christ  which  interprets  the  Holy  Scriptures 
into  a  consistent  and  unequivocal  meaning.  Their  lan- 
guage is  whollv  constructed  upon  it,  and,  therefore,  can 
only  be  interpreted  by  it ;  it  is  the  key  to  their  style, 

(9)  Fabbr's  Horce  Mos. 


294 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  U. 


their  allusions,  tlioir  doctrines,  their  prophecies,  their 
types.  All  is  c-olil\ise(l  and  delusive  witho'it  It ;  all 
clear,  composed,  and  ordered,  when  placed  under  its 
illumination.  To  (  linst.  inider  his  sacrificial  ciiaraiiir, 
as  well  as  in  his  re^jiil  clamis,  "  ^ive  all  the  pn)|ihcls 
witness;"  and  in  this  testunoriy  all  the  services  of  the 
tabernacle,  and  the  rights  of  the  patriarchal  aje,  concur. 
Christ,  as  "the  Lamb  of  (Jon,  was  slain  I'rom  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world;"  and  when  the  world  shall  be  no 
more,  he  will  appear  before  his  glorified  .saints,  as  "  the? 
Lamb  newly  slain,"  shedding  ujion  them  the  unabated 
efficacy  of  his  death  for  ever.  ISor  is  it  a  dootrine  to  be 
rejected  without  imminent  peril — "  Verily,  verily,  X  say 
unto  you,  except  you  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man, 
and  drink  his  blood,  you  have  no  life  in  yon  ;"  words 
which,  as  Whitby  justly  observes,  "  clearly  declare  the 
necessity  of  faith  in  his  body  given,  and  his  blood  shed 
for  the  remission  of  sins,  in  order  to  juslificatiou  and 
salvation." 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

Benefits  derived  to  Man  from  the  Atonement. — 
Justification. 

When  we  speak  of  benefits  received  by  the  human 
race,  in  consequence  of  the  atonement  of  (Jhrist,  the 
truth  is,  that  man,  having  forfeited  good  of  every  kind, 
and  even  life  itself,  by  his  tran.sgression,  all  that  remains 
to  him  more  than  evil  in  the  natural  world,  and  in  the 
dispensations  of  general  and  particular  providence,  as 
well  as  all  spiritual  blessings  put  within  his  reach  by 
the  Gospel,  are  to  be  considered  as  the  fruits  of  the 
death  and  intercession  of  Christ,  and  ought  to  be  grate- 
fully acknowledged  as  such.  We  enjoy  nothing  in  our 
own  right,  and  receive  all  from  the  hands  of  the  Divine 
mercy.  We  now,  however,  speak  in  jiarticular  of  those 
benefits  which  immediately  relate  to,  or  which  constitute 
what  in  Scripture  is  called  our  salvation  ;  by  which 
term  is  meant  the  deliverance  of  man  from  the  penalty, 
dominion,  and  pollution  of  his  sins ;  his  introduction 
into  the  Divine  favour  in  this  life ;  and  his  future  and 
eternal  felicity  in  another. 

The  grand  object  of  our  redemption  was  to  accom- 
plish this  salvation ;  and  the  first  effect  of  Christ's 
atonement,  whether  anticipated  before  his  coming,  as 
"  the  Lamb  slain  from  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world,"  or  when  effected  by  his  passion,  was  to  place 
God  and  man  in  that  new  relation,  from  whii-h  salva- 
tion might  be  derived  to  the  offender. 

The  only  relation  in  which  an  offended  sovereign  and 
a  guilty  subject  could  stand,  in  mere  justice,  was  the 
relation  of  a  judge  and  a  criminal  capitally  convicted. 
The  new  relation  effected  by  the  death  of  Christ  is,  as 
to  God,  that  of  an  offended  sovereign  having  devised 
honourable  means  to  suspend  the  execution  of  the  sen- 
tence of  death,  and  to  offer  terms  of  |)ar<lon  to  the  (con- 
demned ;  and,  as  to  man,  that  as  the  object  of  this  com- 
passion, he  receives  assurance  of  the  placablcness  of 
God,  and  his  readiness  to  forgive  all  his  offences,  and 
may,  by  the  use  of  the  prescribed  means,  actually  ob- 
tain this  favour. 

To  this  is  to  be  added  another  consideration.  God  is 
not  merely  disposed  to  forgive  the  offences  of  men 
upon  their  suit  and  application  ;  but  an  afifecling  ac- 
tivity is  ascribed,  in  Scripture,  to  the  coiripaysion  of 
God.  The  atonement  of  Christ  having  made  it  mo- 
rally practicable  to  e.xercise  mercy,  and  having  removed 
all  legal  obstructions  out  of  the  way  of  reconciliation, 
that  mercy  pours  itself  forth  in  ardent  ami  cea.seless 
efforts  to  accomplish  its  own  purposes,  and,  not  content 
with  waiting  the  return  of  man  in  penitence  and 
prayer,  "(Jod  is  in  Christ,  reconciling  the  world  unto 
himself;"  that  is  to  say,  he  employs  various  means  to 
awaken  men  to  a  due  sense  of  I  heir  fallen  and  endan- 
gered condition,  and  to  prom|)l  and  influence  them 
(.sometimes  with  mighty  eflicacy)  to  seek  his  favour 
and  grace,  in  the  way  which  he  jias  himself  ordained 
in  his  revealed  word. 

The  mixed  and  checkered  external  circumstances  of 
men  in  this  present  Hie  is  a  providential  arrangemcnl 
which  is  to  be  altiilniiecl  Id  ibis  di  si^n  ;  and,  viewed 
under  this  a.spect,  it  tliniws  an  inlercsiuig  lii;lil  upon 
the  condition  of  mankind,  nnknown  lo  llie  wisest 
among  tho.se  nations  wliicliliav(^  mil  h.id  tlie  binelits  of 
revealed  religion,  except  (hat  some  glnnpseH,  in  a  li'W 
I'ases,  may  have  been  ulfurded  of  this  doctrine  by  the 


scattered  and  broken  rays  of  early  tradition.  Nor  has 
this  been  always  adverted  to  by  those  writers  who  have 
enjoyed  the  full  inanifestaiions  of  Divine  truth  in  the 
Scriiniires.  By  many,  the  infliction  of  labour,  and  sor- 
row, and  disajipointment  upon  fallen  man,  and  the 
shortening  of  the  term  of  hunian  life,  are  considered 
chiefly,  if  not  exclusively,  as  measures  adopted  to  pre- 
vent evil,  or  of  restraining  its  overflow  in  society. 
Such  ends  are,  doubtless,  by  the  wisdom  of  God,  thus 
elfi.iled  to  a  great  and  beneficial  exteni ;  but  there  is  a 
still  lusher  design.  These  dispensations  are  not  only 
iiistniments  of  prevention,  but  designed  means  of  sal- 
vation, preparatory  to,  and  co-operative  with  those  a- 
gencies,  by  which  that  result  can  only  be  directly  pro- 
duced. The  state  of  man  shows,  that  he  is  under  a 
checkered  dispensation,  in  which  justice  and  forbear- 
ance, mercy  and  correction  have  all  their  place,  and  in 
which  there  is  a  marked  adaptation  to  his  state  as  a 
reprieved  criminal ;  a  being  still  guilty,  but  within  the 
reach  of  hope.  The  earth  is  cursed ;  but  it  yields  its 
produce  to  man's  toil ;  life  is  prolonged  in  some  in- 
stances, and  curtailed  in  others,  and  is  uncertain  to  all ; 
we  have  health  and  sickness  ;  pleasures  and  pains ; 
gratifications  and  disapiiointment ;  but  as  to  all,  in  cir- 
cumstances however  favoured,  dissatisfaction  and  rest- 
lessness of  spirit  are  still  felt ;  a  thirst  which  nothing 
earthly  can  allay,  a  vacuity  which  nothing  in  our  out- 
ward condition  can  supply.  There  is  a  manifestation 
of  mercy  to  save,  as  well  as  of  wisdom  to  jirevent,  and 
the  great  end  of  the  whole  is  explained  by  the  inspired 
record.  "  Lo,  all  these  things  worketh  God  otlentimeu 
with  man,  to  keep  back  his  soul  from  the  pit."  His 
"  goodness"  is  designed  to  lead  us  "  to  repentance,"  his 
rod  to  teach  us  wisdom.  "  In  the  day  of  adversity,  con- 
sider." 

Another  benefit  granted  for  the  same  end,  is  the  re- 
velation of  the  will  of  God,  and  the  declaration  of  his 
purposes  of  grace  as  to  man's  actual  redemption. 
These  purposes  have  been  declared  to  man,  with  great 
inequality  we  grant,  a  mystery  which  we  are  not  able 
to  explain  ;  but  we  have  the  testimony  of  God  in  his 
own  word,  though  we  cannot  in  many  cases,  trace  the 
jirocess  of  the  revelation,  that  in  no  case,  that  in  no 
nation,  "  has  he  lefX  himself  without  witness."  Oral 
revelations  were  made  to  the  first  men  ;  these  became 
the  subject  of  tradition,  and  were  carried  into  all  na- 
tions, though  the  mercy  of  God,  in  this  respect,  was 
abused  by  that  wilful  corruption  of  his  truth  of  which 
all  have  been  guilty.  To  the  .lews  he  was  pleased  to 
give  a  written  record  of  his  will  ;  and  the  possession 
of  this,  in  its  perfect  evangelical  Hirm,  has  become  the 
distinguished  privilege  of  all  Chri.stian  nations,  wfio 
are  now  exerting  themselves  to  make  the  blessing  uni- 
versal, a  result  which  jirobably  is  not  far  distant.  By 
this  direct  benefit  of  the  atonement  of  (Christ,  the  law 
under  which  we  are  all  placed  is  exhibited  in  its  full, 
though  reproving,  perfection  ;  the  character  of  "  Him 
with  whom  we  have  to  do"  is  unveiled  ;  the  history  of 
the  redeeming  acts  of  our  Saviour  is  recorded  ;  his  ex- 
ample, liis  sufl'erings,  his  resurrection,  and  interces- 
sion, the  terms  of  our  pardon,  the  process  of  our  re- 
generation, the  bright  and  attractive  path  of  obedience, 
are  all  presented  to  our  meditations,  and,  surmounting 
the  whole,  is  that  "  immortality  which  has  been  brought 
to  light  by  the  Gospel."  Having  the  revelation,  also, 
in  this  written  form,  it  is  guarded  against  corniption, 
and,  by  the  multiplication  of  copies  in  the  present  day, 
it  has  become  a  book  for  family  reading,  and  |)rivale 
perusal  and  study ;  so  that  neither  can  we,  except  wil- 
fully, remain  ignorant  of  the  important  truths  it  con- 
tains, nor  can  they  he  long  absent  from  the  attention  of 
the  most  careless ;  from  eo  many  quarters  arc  Ihey  ob- 
truded upon  them. 

To  this  great  religious  advantage  we  are  to  add  the 
institution  of  the  Christian  ministry,  or  the  appoint- 
ment of  men,  who  have  been  themselves  reconciled  to 
(Jod,  to  preach  the  word  of  reconciliation  to  others;  to 
do  this  publiily,  in  opposiiKin  lo  all  eontemiit  and  per- 
secution, III  every  place  wlieri'  tliey  may  be  placed,  and 
to  which  Ihey  can  have  access :  to  study  the  word  of 
(Jod  themselves;  faithfully  and  afi'ecllonalely  to  admi- 
nister it  lo  per.sons  of  all  conditions;  and  thus,  by  a 
constant  activity,  to  keep  the  light  of  truth  before 
the  (^yes  of  men,  and  to  impress  it  upon  their  con- 
sciences. 

Tlie.s<>  means  are  all  accompanied  with  the  influence 
ot  the  Holy  Siiirit ;  lor  it  is  the  constant  doi-trinc  of  i hu 


Ghap.  XXIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


295 


Scriptures,  that  men  arc  not  left  to  the  mere  intluence 
■of  a  revelation  of  truth,  and  the  means  of  salvation ; 
but  arc  graciously  excited  and  effectually  aided  in  all 
Their  endeavours  to  avail  themselves  of  both.  Refore 
the  flood,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  represented  as  "  striving" 
with  men,  to  restrain  them  from  their  wickedness,  and 
to  lead  them  to  repenlance.  This  especially  was  his 
benevolent  employ,  as  we  learn  front  St.  Peter,  during 
the  whole  time  thai "  the  ark  was  preparing,"  the  period 
in  which  Noah  fuUilled  his  ministry  as  "preacher  of 
righteousness''  to  the  disobedient  world.  Under  the 
law,  the  wicked  are  said  to  "  grieve"  and  "  resist"  the 
Holy  Spirit ;  and  good  men  are  seen  earnestly  suppli- 
catmg  his  help,  not  only  in  extraordinary  cases,  and 
for  some  miraculous  purpose,  but  in  the  ordinary 
course  of  religious  e.xperience  and  conflict.  The  final 
establishment  and  the  moral  effects  flowing  from  Mes- 
siah's dominion,  are  ascribed,  by  the  pro])hets,  to  the 
jiouring  out  of  the  Spirit,  as  rain  upon  the  parched 
ground,  and  as  the  opening  of  rivers  in  the  desert ;  and 
That  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  is  not  confined,  in  the 
JVew  Testament,  to  gifts  and  miraculous  powers,  and 
their  effects  in  producing  mere  iutellectual  conviction 
of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  but  is  directed  to  the  reno- 
vation of  our  nature,  and  the  carrjing  into  full  prac- 
tical etfect  the  redeeming  designs  of  the  (Jospel,  is 
manifest  from  numerous  passages  and  arguments  to  be 
found  in  the  discourses  of  Christ  and  the  writings  of 
his  apostles.  In  our  Lord's  discourse  with  Nicodemus, 
he  declares  that  the  regenerate  man  is  "  born  of  the 
Spirit."  He  promises  to  send  the  Spirit  "  to  convince 
(or  reprove)  the  world  of  sin."  It  is  by  the  Spirit  that 
our  Lord  represents  himself  as  carrying  on  the  work 
of  human  sahation,  after  his  return  to  heaven,  and 
in  this  sense  promises  to  abide  with  his  disciples 
for  ever,  and  to  be  wUh  them  "  to  the  end  of  the  world." 
In  accordance  with  this,  the  apostles  ascribe  the  suc- 
cess of  their  jjreaching,  in  producing  moral  changes  in 
the  hearts  of  men,  to  the  influence  of  the  Spirit.  So 
far  from  attributing  this  to  the  extraordinary  gills  with 
which  the  Spirit  had  furnished  them,  St.  Paul  denies 
that  this  efficacy  was  to  be  ascribed  either  to  himself 
or  ApoUos,  though  both  were  thus  richly  endowed ; 
and  he  expressly  attributes  the  "  increase"  which  fol- 
lowed their  planting  and  watering,  to  God.  The  Spirit 
is,  therefore,  represented  as  giving  life  to  the  dead 
souls  of  men ;  the  moral  virtues  are  called  "  fruits  of 
the  Spirit ;"  and  to  be  "  led  by  the  Spirit,"  is  made  the 
proof  of  our  being  the  sons  of  God. 

Such  is  the  wondrous  and  deeply  affecting  doctrme 
of  Scripture.  The  fruit  of  the  death  and  intercession 
of  Christ  is  not  only  to  render  it  consistent  with  a 
righteous  government  to  forgive  sin,  but  to  call  forth 
the  active  exercise  of  the  love  of  God  to  man.  His 
"  good  Spirit,"  the  expressive  appellation  of  the  third 
person  of  the  blessed  Trinity  in  the  Old  Testament, 
visits  every  heart,  and  connects  his  secret  influences 
with  outward  means,  to  awaken  the  attention  of  man 
to  spiritual  and  eternal  things,  and  win  his  heart  to 
Gon.(9) 

To  this  operation,  this  "  working  of  God  in  man,"  in 
conjunction  with  the  written  and  preached  word,  and 
other  means  of  religious  instruction  and  excitement,  is 
to  be  attributed  that  view  of  the  spiritual  nature  of  the 
law  under  which  we  are  placed,  and  the  extent  of  its 
demands,  which  produces  conviction  of  the  fact  of  sin, 
and  at  once  annihilates  all  self-righteousness,  and  all 
palliations  of  offence ;  which  withers  the  goodly  show 
of  supjiosititious  virtues,  and  brings  the  convicted 
transgressor,  whatever  his  character  may  be  before 
men,  and  though,  in  comparison  of  many  of  his  fellow- 
creatures,  he  may  have  been  much  less  sinful,  to  say 
before  God,  "  Behold,  I  am  vile,  what  shall  I  answer 
thee."  The  penalty  of  the  law,  death,  eternal  death, 
being  at  the  same  time  apprehended  and  meditated 
upon,  the  bondage  of  fear,  and  the  painful  anticipations 
of  the  consequences  of  sin  follow,  and  thus  he  is 
moved  by  a  sense  of  danger,  to  look  out  for  a  remedy ; 
and  this  being  disclosed  in  the  same  revelation,  and  un- 
folded by  the  same  Spirit,  from  whose  secret  influence 


(9)  "lUius  esse  duritiem  humani  cordis  emoUire, 
cLiin  aut  per  salutiferam  pnedicationem  Evangelii,  aut 
alia  quacunque  ratione  in  pectora  liominum  recipitur  : 
ilium  eos  illuminare,  et  in  agnitionem  Dei  atque'  in 
omnem  viam  veritatis  et  in  totius  vK®  novitatem,  et 
perpetuam  salutis  spent  perdueere."— Bishop  Jkwkl. 


he  has  received  this  unwonted  tendernesa  of  heart,  this 
"  broken  and  contrite  spirit,"  he  confesses  his  sins  bo- 
forc  God,  and  appears  like  the  publican  in  the  temple, 
smiting  upon  his  breast,  exclaiming,  "  God  be  mercifui 
to  me  a  sinner :" — thus  at  once  acknowledging  his  own 
offence  and  unworthiness,  and  flying  for  refUge  to  the 
mercy  of  his  offended  God  proclaimed  to  him  in  Christ. 
That  which  every  such  convinced  and  awakened  man 
needs  is  mercy,  the  remission  of  his  sins,  and  conse- 
quent exemption  from  their  penalty.  It  is  only  this 
which  can  take  liim  from  under  the  malediction  of  the 
general  law  which  he  has  violated ;  only  this  which 
can  bring  him  into  a  state  of  reconciliation  and  friend- 
ship with  the  Lawgiver,  whose  righteous  displeasure 
he  has  provoked.  This  act  of  mercy  is,  in  the  New 
Testament,  called  justification,  and  to  the  consider- 
ation of  this  doctrine  we  must  now  direct  our  atten- 
tion. 

On  the  nature  of  justification,  its  extent,  and  the 
mode  in  which  it  is  attained,  it  is  not  necessary  to  say, 
that  various  opinions  have  boon  asserted  and  defended 
by  theologians  :  but  before  We  advert  to  any  of  them, 
our  care  shall  bo  to  adduce  the  natural  and  unper- 
verted  doctrine  of  Scripture  on  a  subject  wliich  it  is  of 
so  much  importance  to  apprehend  clearly,  in  that  light 
in  which  it  is  there  presented. 

The  first  point  which  we  find  established  by  the  lan- 
guage of  the  New  Testament  is,  that  justification,  the 
Ijardon  and  remission  of  sin,  the  non-imputation  ol^sin, 
and  the  imputation  of  righteousness,  are  terms  and 
phrases  of  the  same  import.  The  following  passages 
may  be  given  in  proof: 

Luke  xvjii.  13,  14,  "I  tell  you,  this  man  went  do\vn 
to  his  house  justified,  rather  than  the  other."  Here 
the  term  "justified"  must  mean  pardoned,  since  th« 
publican  confessed  hiiftself  "  a  sinner,"  and  asked 
"  mercy"  in  that  relation. 

Actsxiii.  38,  39,  "Be  it  known  unto  you,  men  and 
brethren,  that  through  this  man  is  preached  unto  you 
the  forgiveness  of'sins  ;  and,  by  him,  all  that  believe 
are  justified  from  all  things,  f^rom  which  ye  could  not 
be  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses."  Here,  also,  it  is 
plain  that  forgiveness  of  sins  and  justification  mean 
the  same  thing,  one  term  being  used  as  explanatory  of 
the  other. 

Rom.  iii.  25,  26,  "  Whom  God  hatli  set  forth  to  be  a 
propitiation,  through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  declare  his 
rightecnisness  for  the  remission  of  siiis  that  are  past, 
through  the  forbearance  of  God  ;  to  declare,  I  say,  at 
this  time  his  rigkteoiisness,  that  he  might  be  just,  and 
the  justfier  of  him  which  believeth  in  Jesus."  To 
remit  sins  and  to  justify  are  here  also  represented  as 
the  same  act ;  consequent  upon  a  declaration  of  the 
righteousness  of  God,  and  upon  our  faith. 

Rom.  iv.  4 — 8,  "  But  to  him  that  worketh  not,  but  be- 
lieveth on  him  that  justfieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is 
counted  for  righteousne.ss ;  even  as  David  describeth 
the  blessedness  of  the  man  unto  whom  Gov  imputeth 
righteousness  without  works,  saying.  Blessed  is  the 
man  whose  iniquities  are  forgiven,  and  whose  sins 
are  covered;  blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  tlie  Lord 
will  not  impute  sin."  The  quotation  from  David,  in- 
troduced by  the  apostle,  by  way  of  illustrating  his 
doctrine  of  the  justification  of  the  ungodly,  by  "  count- 
ing his  faith  for  righteousness,"  shows  clearly,  that  he 
considered  "justification,"  "the  imputing  of  righteous- 
ness," "  the  forgiveness  of  iniquities,"  the  "  covering 
of  sin,"  the  "  non-imputation  of  sin,"  as  of  the  same 
import ;  acts  substantially  equivalent  one  to  another, 
though  under  somewhat  diflTerent  views,  and  therefore 
expressed  by  terms  respectively  convertible  : — this  va- 
riety of  phrase  being  adopted,  probably,  to  preserve  the 
idea  which  runs  throughout  tlie  whole  Scripture,  that, 
in  the  remission  or  pardon  of  sin.  Almighty  God  acts 
in  his  character  of  Ruler  and  Judge,  showing  mercy 
upon  terms  satisfactory  to  his  justice,  when  he  might 
in  rigid  justice  have  punished  our  transgressions  to  the 
utmost.  The  term  justification  especially  is  judiciary, 
and  taken  from  courts  of  law  and  the  proceedings  of 
magislrates ;  and  this  judiciary  character  of  the  act 
of  pardon  is  also  confinned  by  the  relation  of  the  par- 
ties to  each  other,  as  it  is  constantly  exhibited  in  Scrip- 
ture. God  is  an  oflfended  Sovereign  ;  man  is  an  oflTend- 
ing  subject.  He  has  offended  against  public  law,  not 
against  private  obligations;  and  the  act  therefore  by 
which  he  is  relieved  from  the  penalty,  must  be  magis- 
terial and  regal.    It  is,  also,  a  farther  confirmation  that 


296 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


in  this  process  Christ  ia  represented  as  a  public  MiJtlia- 
tor  and  Advocate. 

The  importance  of  acqiiirins  and  niaintainlns  this 
simple  and  distinct  view  otjnstilicatioii,  timt  it  is  the  re- 
mission of  sins,  as  stated  in  the  passaijcs  above  qunled, 
will  appear  from  the  following  considerations  : 

1.  We  are  taught  that  pardon  of  sin  is  not  an  act  of 
prerogative,  done  abnve  law ;  but  a  judicial  process, 
done  consiste-iUlij  with  law.  For  in  this  process  there 
are  three  parties.  God,  as  Sovereign  ;  "  Who  shall  lay 
any  thnig  to  the  charge  of  God's  elect !  it  is  God  that 
justilieth,  who  is  he  that  condcmneth  ?"  Christ,  as  Ad- 
vocate ;  not  defending  the  guilty,  hut  interceding  for 
them  ;  "  It  is  Christ  that  died,  yea,  rather,  that  is  risen 
again,  who  is  even  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  wlio  also 
inaketh  intercession  for  us."  Rotn.  viii.  33,  34.  "  And 
if  any  man  sin,  we  have  an  Advocate  with  the  Fathi'r." 
1  John  ii.  1.  The  third  party  is  man,  who  is,  by  his 
own  confes.sion,  "  guilty,"  "  a  sinner,"  "  ungodly ;"  for 
repentance  in  all  cases  precedes  this  remission  of  sins, 
and  it  both  supposes  and  confesses  offence  and  desert 
of  punishment.  God  is  Judge  in  this  process,  not,  how- 
ever, as  it  has  been  well  expressed,  "  by  the  law  of 
creation  and  of  works,  but  by  the  law  of  redemption 
and  grace.  Not  as  merely  just,  though  just;  but  as 
merciful.  Not  as  merciful  in  general,  and  ex  nuda  t'o- 
luntate,  without  any  respect  had  to  satisfaction ;  but  as 
propitiated  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  having  ac<;epted 
the  propitiation  made  by  his  blood.  Not  merely  propi- 
tiated by  his  blood,  but  moved  by  his  intercession, 
which  he  makes  as  our  Advocate  in  heaven  ;  not  only 
pleading  the  propitiation  made  and  accepted,  but  the  re- 
pentance and  faith  of  the  sinner,  and  the  promise  of  the 
Judge  before  whom  he  pleads."(l)  Thus, as  pardon  or 
justification  does  not  take  place  but  upon  propitiation, 
the  mediation  and  intercession  of  a  third  party,  and  on 
the  condition  on  the  part  of  the  guilty,  not  oiily  of  re- 
pentance, but  of  "  faith"  in  Christ's  "  blood,"  which,  as 
before  establislied,  means  faith  in  his  sacrificial  death, 
it  is  not  an  act  of  mere  mercy,  or  of  prerogative  ;  but 
one  which  consists  with  a  righteous  government,  and 
proceeds  on  grounds  wliicU  secure  the  honours  of  the 
Divine  justice. 

2.  We  are  thus  taught  that  justification  has  respect 
to  particular  individuals,  and  is  to  be  distinguished 
from  "that  gracious  constitution  of  Gon,  by  winch,  lor 
the  sake  of  Jesus  Christ,  he  so  far  delivers  all  man- 
kind from  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin,  as  to  place  them, 
notwithstanding  their  natural  connexion  with  the  fallen 
progenitor  of  the  human  race,  in  a  salvable  state.  Jus- 
tification is  a  blessing  of  a  much  higher  and  more  per- 
fect character,  and  is  not  common  to  the  human  race 
at  large,  but  experienced  by  a  certain  description  of 
persons  in  particular."(2)  Thus  some  of  our  older  di- 
vines properly  distinguish  between  sentrntia  leg-is  and 
sententia  jiulicis,  that  is,  between  legislation  and  judg- 
ment ;  between  the  constitution,  wliatever  it  may  be, 
under  which  the  sovereign  decides,  whether  it  be  ri- 
gidly just  or  softened  by  mercy,  and  his  decisions  in  his 
regal  and  judicial  capacity  themselves.  Justification 
is,  therclbre,  a  decision  under  a  gracious  legislation, 
"  the  law  of  feith ;"  but  not  this  legislation  itself.  "  For 
if  it  be  an  act  of  legislation,  it  is  then  only  promise, 
and  that  looks  towards  none  in  particular ;  but  to  all  to 
whom  the  promise  is  made,  in  general,  and  presup- 
po.seth  a  condition  to  be  performed,  lint  justification 
presupposclh  a  particular  person,  a  particular  cause,  a 
condition  |ici-|()riiicd,  and  llie  iirriiirniance,  as  already 
past,  plr;iilr(l ;  and  ilic  decision  proceeds accordingly."(3) 
Justification  liccoincs,  Ihcrchirc,  a  .subject  of  personal 
concern,  personal  [irayer,  and  i>evsonal  seeking,  and  is 
to  be  iier.sonally  experienced  ;  nor  can  any  one  be  sali^ 
in  trusting  to  that  general  gracious  constitution  under 
•which  he  is  placed  by  the  mercy  of  God  in  (Mirist,  since 
that  is  established  in  order  to  the  personal  and  parti- 
cular jnstilicalion  of  those  who  believe,  but  must  not 
be  conroMoiied  with  it. 

3.  .liisniiraiuiii  being  a  sentence  of  pardon,  the  An- 
tinoiman  nolion  of  eternal  justification  becomes  a  mani- 
fest absurdity,  l-'or  if  it  he  a  sentence,  a  decision  on 
the  case  of  the  offender,  it  must  take  place  in  time  ;  for 
that  is  not  a  sentence  which  is  conceived  in  the  breast 
i(f  the  Judge.    A  sentence  is  pronounced,  and  a  sen- 


(I)  I.xvvkon's  Theo-politica. 

(2^  l!ijNTiN(i's  Sermon  on  Justification 

(3)  Lawson's  Tlioo-politica. 


[Part  II. 

tence  pronounced  and  declared  from  eternity,  before 
man  was  created,  when  no  sin  had  been  committed,  no 
law  published,  no  Saviour  promised,  no  Ihith  exercised, 
when,  in  a  word,  no  being  existed  but  God  himself,  is 
not  only  absurd,  hut  impossible,  for  it  would  have  been 
a  decision  declared  to  none,  and  therefore  not  dcclareti 
at  all ;  and  if,  as  they  say,  the  sentence  was  passed  in 
eternity,  but  manifested  in  time,  it  might  from  thence 
be  as  rightly  argued  that  the  world  was  created  from 
eternity,  and  that  the  work  of  creation  in  the  beginning 
of  time,  was  only  a  manifestation  of  that  which  was 
from  everlasting.  It  is  the  guilty  who  are  pardoned — 
"he  justifieth  the  ungodly;"  guilt,  therclbre,  precedes 
pardon  :  while  that  remains,  so  far  are  any  from  being 
justified,  that  they  are  "under  wrath"  in  a  state  of 
"condemnation,"  with  which  a  state  of  justification 
cannot  consist,  for  the  contradiction  is  palpable ;  so  that 
the  advocates  of  this  wild  notion  must  either  give  up 
justification  in  eternity,  or  a  state  of  condemnation  in 
time.  If  they  hold  the  former,  they  contratlict  common 
sense ;  if  they  deny  the  latter,  they  deny  the  Scriptures. 

4.  Justification,  being  the  pardon  of  sin,  this  view  of 
the  doctrine  guards  us  against  tbe  notion,  that  it  is  an 
act  of  God  by  which  we  are  made  actually  just  and 
righteous.  "This  is  sanclification,  which  is,  indeed, 
the  immediate  fruit  of  justification ;  but,  nevertheless, 
is  a  distinct  gift  of  Gun,  and  of  a  totally  different  na- 
ture. The  one  implies  what  God  docs  for  us  through 
his  Son  ;  the  other,  what  God  works  in  us  by  his  Spirit. 
So  that,  although  some  rare  instances  may  be  found 
wherein  the  terms  justified  and  justification  are  used  in 
so  wide  a  sense  as  to  include  sanclification  also,  yet 
in  general  use  they  are  sufliiciently  distinguished  from 
each  other  both  by  St.  Paul  and  the  other  inspired 
writers."(4) 

5.  Justification,  being  the  pardon  of  sin  by  judicial 
sentence  of  the  olTeiided  Majesty  of  Heaven,  under  a 
gracious  constitution,  the  term  affords  no  ground  for 
the  notion,  that  it  imports  the  imputation  or  accounting 
to  us  the  active  and  passive  righteousness  of  Christ, 
so  as  to  make  us  both  relatively  and  positively  righteous. 

t)n  this  subject,  wliich  has  been  fruitful  controversy, 
our  remarks  must  be  somewhat  more  extended.  , 

The  notion,  that  justification  includes  not  only  the 
pardon  of  sin,  but  the  imputation  to  us  of  Christ's  active 
personal  righteousness,  though  usually  held  only  byCal- 
vinists,  has  not  been  received  by  all  divines  of  this  class ; 
hnt,  on  the  contrary,  by  some  of  them,  both  in  ancient 
and  modern  times,  it  has  been  very  strenuously  op- 
posed, as  well  as  by  the  advocates  of  that  more  mode- 
rate scheme  of  election  defended  by  Camero  in  France, 
and  by  Baxter  in  England.  Even  Calvin  himself  has 
said  nothing  on  this  subject,  but  which  Ariuinius,  in  his 
Declaration  before  the  States  of  Holland,  declares  his 
readiness  to  subscribe  to ;  and  Mr.  Wesley,  in  much 
the  same  view  of  the  subject  as  Anninius,  admits  the 
doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  to  us  upon  our  believing,  provided  it  be  soberly 
interpreted. 

TliiTe  are,  in  fact,  three  opinions  on  this  subject, 
which  it  is  necessary  to  distinguish  in  order  to  obtain 
clear  views  of  the  controversy. 

The  first  is  a  part  of  the  high  Calvinistic  scheme,  and 
lays  at  the  foundation  of  Antinoinianism,  and  is,  in 
conseiiuence,  violently  advocated  li\  th<ise  who  adopt 
that  gross  corruption  of  Christian  laith.  It  is,  that 
Christ  so  represented  tlie  elect  that  his  righteousness  is 
imputed  to  us  as  ours ;  as  if  we  ourselves  had  been 
what  he  was,  that  is,  perfectly  obedient  to  the  law  of 
(;oD,  and  had  done  what  he  did  as  perfectly  righteous. 

The  first  ob|ection  to  this  opinion  is,  that  it  is  no 
where  stated  iii  Scrijiturc  that  Christ's  personal  right- 
eousness is  imputed  to  us.  Not  a  text  can  be  found 
which  contains  any  enimciation  of  this  doctrine;  and 
those  which  are  aildtucd,  such  as  "  the  Lord  our  right- 
eousness," and  "Clirisl,  who  is  made  unto  us  right- 
eousness," areoliviiiusly  pressed  into  the  service  of  this 
scheme  by  a  panijihrastic  mierprelntioii.  Ii)r  whichthere 
is  no  authority  in  any  other  passages  which  speak  of 
our  redemption.  Hut  to  these  texts  we  shall  return  in 
till'  seiiuel. 

2.  The  notion  here  attached  to  Christ's  representing 
us  is  wholly  gratuitous.  In  a  limited  sense,  it  is  true 
that  (Jhrist  represented  us;  that  is,  sulfiTed  in  our 
stead,  that  wo  might  not  sutler;  "but  not  absolutely 


(4)  Wesley's  bcrmons. 


Chap.  XXIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


as  our  delegate,"  says  Baxter,  J\istly,  "our  persons  did 
not,  in  a  law  sense,  do  In  and  by  ('hrist  what  he  did,  or 
possess  tlie  habits  which  he  possessed,  or  sulFer  what 
he  suflered."(o)  The  Scriinun;  doctrine  is,  indeed,  just 
the  contrary.  It  is  never  said,  that  we  sudered  in 
Christ,  but  that  he  sutFored  lor  us ;  so  also  it  is  never 
taught  that  we  obeyed  in  Christ,  but  that,  through  Ids 
entire  obedience  to  a  course  of  subjection  and  sufleriug, 
ending  in  his  death,  our  disobedience  is  forgiven. 

3.  Nor  is  there  any  weight  in  the  argument,  that  as 
our  sins  were  accounted  his,  so  his  righteousness  is  ac- 
counted ours.  Our  sins  were  never  so  accounted 
Ctirist's  as  that  he  did  them,  and  so  justly  suflfered  for 
them.  This  is  a  monstrous  notion,  which  has  been 
sometimes  pushed  to  the  verge  of  blasi)tiemy.  Our 
transgressions  are  never  said  to  have  been  imputed  to 
him  in  the  fact,  hut  only  that  they  were  laid  upon  him 
in  the  penalty.  To  be  God's  "  beloved  Son  in  whom 
he  was  always  well  pleased,"  and  to  be  reckoned,  im- 
puted, accounted  a  sinner,  de  facto,  are  manifest  con- 
tradictions. 

4.  This  whole  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  Christ's 
personal  moral  obedience  to  believers,  as  their  own  per- 
sonal moral  obedience,  involves  a  fiction  and  impossi- 
bility incoUvSistent  with  the  Uivme  attributes.  "The 
judgment  of  the  all-wise  God  is  always  according  to 
truth ;  neither  can  it  ever  consist  with  his  unerring 
wisdom  to  think  that  I  am  innocent,  to  judge  that  I  am 
righteous  or  holy,  because  another  is  so.  He  can  no 
more  confound  me  with  Christ  than  with  David  or 
Abraham."(6)  But  a  contradiction  is  involved  in  an- 
other view.  If  what  our  Lord  was  and  did  is  to  be  ac- 
counted to  us  in  the  sense  just  given,  then  we  must  be 
accounted  never  to  have  sinned,  because  Christ  never 
sinned,  and  yet  we  must  ask  lor  pardon,  though  we  are 
accounted,  from  birth  to  death,  to  have  fulfilled  God's 
law  in  Christ;  or  if  they  should  say,  that  when  we 
ask  for  pardon  we  ask  only  for  a  revelation  to  us  of  our 
eternal  justification  or  pardon,  the  matter  is  not  altered, 
for  what  need  is  there  of  pardon,  in  time  or  eternity,  if 
we  are  accounted  to  have  perlectly  obeyed  God's  holy 
law ;  and  why  should  we  be  accounted  also  to  have  suf- 
fered, in  Christ,  the  penalty  of  sins  which  we  are  ac- 
counted never  to  have  committed? 

(  5.  Another  objection  to  the  accounting  of  Christ's 
personal  acts  eus  done  by  us  is,  that  they  were  of  a 
loftier  character  than  can  be  supposed  capable  of  being 
accounted  the  acts  of  mere  creatures  ;  that,  in  one  emi- 
nent instance,  neither  the  act  could  be  required  of  us, 
nor  the  imputation  of  the  act  to  us  ;  and,  in  other  re- 
spects, and  as  to  particular  duties,  Christ's  personal 
obedience  is  deficient,  and  cannot  be  therefore  reckoned 
to  cur  account.  For  the  first,  Christ  was  God  and 
man  united  in  one  person,  a  circumstance  which  gave 
a  peculiar  character  of  fulness  and  perfection  to  his 
obedience,  which  not  even  man,  in  his  state  of  inno- 
cence, can  be  supposed  capable  of  rendering.  "  He, 
then,  that  assumeth  this  righteousness  to  himself,"  says 
Cioodwin,  "  and  apparelleth  himself  with  it,  represents 
himself  before  Goo,  not  in  the  habit  of  a  just  or  right- 
eous man,  but  in  the  glorious  attire  of  the  great  Media- 
tor of  the  world,  whose  righteousness  hath  heights  and 
depths  in  it,  a  length  and  breadth  which  infinitely  ex- 
ceed the  proportions  of  all  men  whatever.  Now,  then, 
for  a  silly  worm  to  take  this  robe  of  immeasurable  ma- 
jesty upon  him,  and  to  conceit  himself  as  great  in  holi- 
ness and  righteousness  as  Jesus  Christ  (for  that  is  the 
spirit  that  rules  in  this  opinion,  to  teach  men  to  as- 
sume all  that  Christ  did  unto  themselves,  and  that  in 
no  other  way,  nor  upon  any  lower  terms,  than  as  if 
themselves  liad  personally  done  it),  whether  this  be 
right,  I  feave  to  sober  men  to  consider."(7)  For  the  se- 
cond, 1  refer  to  our  Lord's  baptism  by  John.  His  sub- 
mission to  this  ordinance  was  a  part  of  his  personal 
righteousness,  and  it  is  strongly  marked  as  such  in  his 
own  words  addressed  to  John,  "  Suffer  it  to  be  so  now, 
for  thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness.'' 
But  no  man  now  is  bound  to  submit  to  the  baptism  of 
.lohn,  and  the  righteousness  of  doing  so,  whether  per- 
sonally or  by  imputation,  is  superfluous.  This  may 
also  be  applied  to  many  other  of  the  acts  of  Christ; 
they  were  never  obligatory  upon  us,  and  their  imputa' 
tiontousis  impossible  or  unnecessary.  For  the  third 
case,  the  personal  obedience  of  Christ  is,  as  to  particu- 


(5)  Gospel  Defended.  (6)  Wkslbv. 

(7)  Treatise  ou  Justification. 


laracis,  deficient,  and  our  condition  could  not,  there- 
fore, be  i)rovided  for  by  this  imputation.  Suppose  us 
guilty  of  violating  the  paternal  or  the  conjugal  duties,  the 
duties  of  servants,  or  of  magistrates,  with  many  others, 
this  theory  is,— that  we  are  justified  by  the  imputation 
of  (;hrist's  personal  acts  of  righteousness  to  us,  and  that 
they  are  reckoned  to  us,  as  though  we  had  ourselves  per- 
foimedthem.  Bat  our  Lord,  never  having  stood  in  any  of 
these  ndations,  never  accpured  a  personal  righteousness 
of  this  kind  to  be  reckoned  us  done  by  us.  That  which 
never  was  done  by  Christ  cannot  be  imputed,  and  so  it 
would  follow  that  we  can  never  be  forgiven  such  delin- 
quencies. If  it  be  said,  that  the  imputation  of  particular 
acts  is  not  necessary,  but  that  it  is  suflicient  if  men  have 
a  righteousness  imputed  to  them,  which  is  eijuivalent  to 
them,  it  is  answered,  the  strict  and  perem|itory  nature 
of  law  knows  nothing  of  this  doctrine  of  the  equiva- 
lency of  one  act  to  another.  The  suflering  of  an  un- 
obliged  substitute,  where  such  a  provision  is  adnutted, 
may  be  an  equivalent  to  the  suffering  of  the  oflender ; 
but  one  course  of  duties  cannot  be  accepted  in  the  place 
of  another,  when  justification  is  placed  on  the  ground 
of  the  actual  fulfilment  of  the  law  by  a  delegate  in  the 
place  of  the  delinquent,  which  is  the  ground  on  which 
the  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  active  right- 
eousness for  justification  places  it.  Tlie  law  must  exact 
conformity  to  all  its  precepts  in  their  place  and  order, 
and  he  that  "  offends  in  one  is  guilty  of  all." 

6.  A  crowning  and  most  fatal  objection  is,  that  this 
doctrine  shifts  the  meritorious  causeof  man's  justifica- 
tion from  Christ's  "  obedience  unto  death,"  where  the 
Scriptures  place"it,  to  Christ's  active  obedience  to  the 
precepts  of  the  law  ;  and  leaves  no  rational  account  of 
the  reason  of  Christ's  vicarious  sufferings.  To  his 
"  blood"  the  New  Testament  writers  ascribe  our  re- 
demption, and  "  faith  in  his  blood"  is  as  clearly  held 
out  as  the  in.strumental  cause  of  our  justification  ;  but 
by  this  doctrine,  the  attention  and  hope  of  men  are  per- 
versely turned  away  from  his  sacrificial  death  to  his 
holy  hfe,  which,  though  necessary,  both  as  an  example 
to  us,  and  also  so  to  qualify  his  sacrifice,  that  his  blood 
should  be  that  of  "  a  lamb  without  spot,"  is  nowhere 
represented  as  that  on  account  of  wliich  men  are  par- 
doned. 

Piscator,  though  a  Calvinist,  thus  treats  the  subject 
in  scholastic  form.  "  If  our  sins  have  been  expiated 
by  the  obedience  of  the  life  of  Christ,  either  a  perfect 
expiation  has  been  thus  made  for  all  of  them,  or  an 
imperfect  one  for  some  of  them.  The  first  cannot  be 
asserted,  for  then  it  would  follow  that  Christ  had  died 
in  vain  ;  for  as  he  died  to  expiate  our  sins,  he  would 
not  have  accounted  it  necessary  to  offer  such  an  expia- 
tion for  them,  if  they  had  been  already  expiated  by  the 
obedience  of  his  life.  And  the  latter  cannot  be  main- 
tained, because  Christ  has  yielded  perfect  obedience  to 
the  law  of  God,  wherefore,  if  he  have  performed  that 
for  the  expiation  of  our  sins,  he  must  necessarily, 
through  that  obedience,  have  expiated  all  of  them 
perfectly."'  Again,  "  If  Christ,  by  the  obedience  of  his 
life,  had  rendered  satisfaction  to  God  for  our  sins,  it 
would  follow,  as  a  consequence,  that  God  is  unjust, 
who  has  inade  an  additional  demand  to  receive  satis- 
faction through  the  obedience  oi death,  and  thus  required 
to  have  the  same  debt  paid  twice."  Again,  "  If  Christ, 
by  his  obedience  to  the  law,  has  merited  for  us  the  for- 
giveness of  sins,  the  consequence  will  be,  that  the 
remission  of  sins  was  effected  without  the  shedding  of 
blood  ;  but  without  shedding  of  blood  no  remission  is 
effected,  as  appears  from  Heb.  ix.  22 ;  therefore  Christ 
has  not  merited  for  us  the  remission  of  sins  by  the  obe- 
dience which  he  performed  to  the  law. "(8)  To  the 
same  effect,  also  is  a  passage  in  Goodwin's  Treatise  on 
Justification,  written  while  he  was  yet  a  Calvinist. 
"  If  men  be  as  righteous  as  Christ  was  in  his  hfe, 
there  was  no  more  necessity  of  his  death  for  them, 
than  there  was  either  of  his  own  death,  or  the  death  of 
any  other,  for  himself  If  we  were  perfectly  just  or 
righteous  in  him,  or  with  him,  in  his  life,  then  the  just 
would  not  have  died  for  the  unjust,  but  he  would  have 
died  for  the  just,  for  whom  there  was  no  necessity  he 
should  die.  This  reason  the  apostle  expressly  delivers, 
Gal.  ii.  21,  '  If  righteousness  be  by  the  law,  then  Christ 
died  in  vain.'  I  desire  the  impartial  reader  to  observe 
narrowly  the  force  of  this  inference  made  by  the  Holy 


(8)  See  note  in  Nichol's  Translation  of  the  Works 
of  Armiuius,  vol,  i,  p.  634. 


298 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


Ghost.  If  rlphteonsncfis,  or  justification,  bo  by  tlie  law, 
then  ('hrist  died  in  vain.  Men  cannot  here  tjetaku 
themselves  to  tlieir  wonted  reluje,  to  .say,  that  by  the 
law  is  to  be  understood  the  works  of  the  htw  as  per- 
formed by  a  man's  self  in  person.  For,  if  by  the  word 
law  in  this  place,  we  understand  ttie  worlcs  of  ttic  law 
as  performed  by  Christ,  the  consequence  will  rise  \ip 
with  the  greater  strength  against  them.  If  righteous- 
ness were  by  the  works  of  the  law,  as  performed  by 
Christ,  that  is,  if  the  imputation,  of  them  were  our 
complete  righteousness,  the  death  of  Christ  for  us  had 
been  in  vain,  because  the  righteousness  of  his  life  im- 
puted had  been  a  sufficient  and  complete  righteousness 
for  us." 

The  same  writer  also  powerfully  argues  against  the 
same  doctrine,  from  its  coiilounding  the  two  covenants 
of  works  and  grace.  "  It  is  true,  many  that  hold  the 
way  of  imputation  are  nothing  ashamed  of  this  conse- 
quent, the  confoimdiiig  the  two  covenants  of  God  with 
men,  that  of  works  wiih  ihat  of  grace.  Those  conceive 
that  God  never  made  more  covenants  than  one  with 
man  ;  and  that  the  (Jospel  is  nothing  else  but  a  gracious 
aid  from  God  to  help  man  to  perform  the  covenant  of 
works  ;  so  that  the  life  and  salvation  which  are  said  to 
come  by  Christ,  in  no  other  sensd  come  by  him,  but  as 
lie  fullilled  that  law  of  works  for  man  which  men  them- 
selves were  not  able  to  fulfil:  and  by  imputation,  as 
by  a  deed  of  gift,  he  makes  over  his  perfect  obedience 
and  fulfilling  of  the  law  to  those  that  believe;  so  that 
they,  in  right  of  this  perfect  obedience,  made  theirs  by 
imputation,  come  to  inherit  life  and  salvation,  accord- 
ing to  the  strict  tenor  of  the  covenant  of  works — '  Do 
this  and  live.' 

"  But  men  may  as  well  say  there  was  no  second 
Adam,  really  differing  from  the  first ;  or  that  the  spirit 
of  bondage  is  the  same  with  the  spirit  of  adoption.  If 
the  second  covenant  of  grace  were  im|)Ucitly  con- 
tained in  the  first,  then  the  meaning  of  the  first  cove- 
nant, conceived  in  those  words,  '  Do  this  and  live,'  must 
be,  do  tliis,  either  by  thyself,  or  by  another,  and  live. 
There  is  no  other  way  to  reduce  them  to  the  same 
covenant. 

Again,  if  the  first  and  second  covenant  were  in  sub- 
stance the  same,  then  must  the  conditions  in  both  be  the 
same.  For  the  conditions  in  a  covenant  are  as  essential 
a  part  of  it  as  any  other  belonging  to  it.  Though  there 
be  the  same  parties  covenanting,  and  the  same  things 
covenanted  for,  yet  if  there  be  new  articles  of  agree- 
ment, it  is  really  another  covenant.  Now  if  the  condi- 
tions be  the  same  in  both  tho.se  covenants,  then  to  do 
this,  and  to  btlicve,  faith  and  works,  are  the  same ; 
whereas  the  Scripture,  from  place  to  place,  makes  the 
most  irreconcilable  ojiposition  between  them.  But 
some,  being  shy  of  this  consequence,  hold  the  imputa- 
tion of  Christ's  rigbteousness  (in  the  sense  opjiosed) 
and  yet  demur  upon  an  identity  of  the  two  covenants. 
Wherefore,  to  prove  it,  I  thus  reason  :  Where  the  par- 
ties covenanting  are  the  same,  and  the  things  covenant- 
ed for  the  same,  and  the  cdiidilioiis  llie  same,  there  the 
covenants  an'  the  same,  liut  if  iln:  rif-'hteousnessofthe 
law  imputed  to  us  be  the  coiiiUtioii  of  the  new  covenant, 
all  the  three,  persons,  things,  conditions,  are  the  same. 
Therefore,  the  two  covenants,  first  and  second,  the  old 
and  the  new,  are  the  same ;  because  as  to  the  par- 
ties covenanting  and  the  things  covenanted  for,  it  is 
agreed,  on  both  sides,  they  are  the  same. 

"  If  it  be  objected  that  the  righteousness  of  the  law 
imputed  from  another,  and  wrought  by  a  man's  self, 
are  two dilTcrent  conditions ;  and  that,  therefore,  it  doth 
not  follow,  that  the  covenants  are  the  same  ;  to  this  1 
answer,  the  subsiaiice  of  the  agreement  will  be  found 
thesame  notwithstanding  ;  the  works  or  righteousness 
ol'the  law  are  the  same,  by  whomsoever  wrought.  If 
Adam  had  fulfilled  the  law,  as  Christ  did,  lie  bad  been 
Justified  by  the  same  righteousness  wlurcwiili  Christ 
iiimself  was  righteous.  If  it  be  said,  that  niiputalioii 
in  the  second  covenant,  which  was  not  in  the  first. 
makes  a  dilVereiice  in  the  condition  ;  I  answer,  1.  Im- 
putation of  works,  or  of  righteousness,  is  not  the  con- 
dition of  the  new  covenant,  but  believing.  If  imputa- 
tatimi  were  the  condition,  then  the  whole  covenant 
would  lie  upon  God,  and  nothing  be  required  on  the 
creature's  jiart ;  for  imputation  is  an  act  of  God,  not 
of  men.  '2.  If  it  were  granted,  that  the  righteousness, 
or  the  works  of  the  law  imputed  from  Christ,  were 
thai  whereby  we  are  justified,  yet  they  must  jiisiily, 
not  as  imputed,  but  as  righiuoujnesB,  or  works  of  the 


[Part  IL 

law.  Therefore,  imjnitntimi  makcfl  no  difiercnce  in 
this  resjiect.  Im/ii/tatiim  can  be  no  part  of  that 
righteousness  by  which  we  are  justified,  because  it  is 
no  conformity  with  any  law,  nor  with  any  part  or 
branch  of  any  law,  that  man  was  ever  bound  to  keep. 
Therefore,  it  can  be  no  part  of  that  righteousness  by 
which  he  is  justififil.  So  that  the  condition  of  both 
covenants  will  be  Ibund  the  same  (and  consequently 
both  covenants  the  same),  if  justification  be  niaintaijied 
by  the  righteousness  ol Christ  iminited." 

To  the  work  last  quutcd  the  reader  may  be  referred 
as  a  complete  treatise  on  the  subject,  and  a  most  mas- 
terly refutation  of  a  notion,  which  he  and  other  Calvin- 
istic  divines,  in  diU'erent  ages,  could  not  fail  to  perceive 
was  most  delusive  to  the  souls  of  men,  directly  de- 
structive of  moral  obedience,  and  not  less  so  of  the 
Christian  doctrine  of  the  atonement  of  Christ,  and  jus- 
tification by  "faith  in  liis  blood."  It  is  on  this  ground 
that  men  who  turn  the  grace  oKiod  into  licentiousness, 
contend  that,  being  invested  with  the  perfect  righteous- 
ness of  (-'hrist,  God  cannot  see  any  sin  in  them  ;  and, 
indeed,  upon  their  own  principles,  they  reason  conclu- 
sively. Justice  has  not  to  do  with  them,  but  with 
Christ ;  it  demands  perlect  obedience,  and  Christ  has 
rendered  that  perfect  obedience  lor  them,  and  what  he 
did  is  always  accounted  as  done  by  them.  They  are, 
therefore,  under  no  real  obligation  of  obedience ;  they 
can  fear  no  penal  eonseiiuences  from  disobedience  ;  and 
a  course  of  the  most  flagrant  vice  may  consist  with  an 
entire  confidence  in  the  indefeisible  favour  of  ftod,  with 
the  jirofession  of  son.slup  and  discipleshij),  and  the  hope 
of  heaven.  These  notions  many  shamelessly  avow  ; 
and  they  have  been  too  much  encouraged  in  their  fatal 
creed,  by  those  who  have  held  the  same  system  sub- 
stantially, though  they  abhor  the  bold  conclusions 
which  the  open  Antinoniian  would  draw  from  :t. 

The  doctrine  on  which  the  above  remarks  have  been 
made  is  the  first  of  the  three  ojiinions  which  have  been 
held  on  the  subject  of  the  imputation  of  righteousness 
in  our  justification.  The  second  is  the  opinion  of  Cal- 
vin Iiimself,  and  those  of  his  followers,  who  have  not 
refined  so  much  upon  the  scheme  of  their  master  as 
others,  and  with  them  many  Arminians  have  also,  in 
some  respects,  agreed ;  not  tliat  they  have  approved  the 
terms  in  winch  this  ojiinion  is  usually  expressed,  but 
because  they  have  thought  it,  under  a  certain  intcrpre- 
tatation,  right,  and  one  which  would  allow  them,  for  the 
sake  of  peace,  to  use  either  the  [ihrase,  "the'  inijiutation 
of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,"  or  "  the  imputation  of 
faith  for  nglitcoiismss,"  which  latter  they  consider 
more  scri))tnial,  ami  therefore  interpret  the  former  so  as 
to  be  consistent  with  it. 

The  sentiments  of  (Jalvin  on  this  subject  may  be  col- 
lected from  the  Ibllowing  passages  in  the  third  book  of 
his  Institutes  : 

"  We  simply  explain  justification  to  be  an  acceptance, 
by  which  God  receives  us  into  his  favour  and  esteems 
us  as  righteous  persons,  and  we  say  it  consists  in  the 
remission  of  sins  and  the  imputation  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ."  "  He  must  certainly  be  destitute  of  a 
righteousness  of  his  own,  who  is  tauirht  to  seek  it  out 
of  himself.  This  is  most  clearly  assittcd  by  the  apos- 
tle when  he  says,  '  lie  hath  made  liini  to  be  sin  for  us 
who  kiiewno  sin,  that  weiniglil  be  made  the  righteous- 
ness of  God  in  him.'  We  see  that  our  rigliteonsncss  is 
not  in  ourselves  but  in  Christ.  '  As  by  one  man's  dis- 
obedience many  were  made  sinners,  so  by  the  obedience 
of  one  shall  many  be  made  righteous.'  \\'liat  is  plac- 
ing our  righteousness  in  the  obedience  of  Christ,  but 
asserting  that  we  are  accounted  righteous  only  be- 
cause his  obedience  is  accepted  for  us  as  if  it  were  our 
own ! 

In  these  passages,  the  wording  of  which  seems  at 
first  sjglit  to  favour  the  opinion  above  refuted,  there  is, 
however,  this  marked  dill'ereiice,  that  there  is  no  se- 
paration made  between  the  active  and  jiassive  dght- 
eousness  of  Christ,  his  obedience  to  the  precepts  of 
the  moral  law,  and  bis  obedience  to  its  iienally  ;  so  that 
one  is  imjinled  in  our  justilicalion  lor  one  jmrpose  and 
I  he:  other  lor  another,  one  to  lake  the  place  of  our  obli- 
gation to  obey,  the  other  of  our  obligation  to  sufltr ;  but 
the  obedience  of  Christ  is  considered  as  one,  as  his 
holy  life  and  sacrificial  death  considered  together,  and 
forming  that  righteousness  of  Christ,  which  being  im- 
putinl  to  us,  we  are  "  reputed  righteous  before  God, 
and  not  of  ourselves."  This  is  farther  conlirmed  by  \ht- 
strenuous  manner  iu  whicU  Calvin  vroveti,  that  jusiifi- 


Chap.  XXIIL] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


289 


cation  13  simply  ilio  remission,  or  non-imputation  of  sin, 
"  Whom,  therelbre,  the  Lord  receives  into  lellovvship 
with  him,  him  he  is  said  to  justify,  because  he  cannot 
receive  any  one  into  fellowship  with  himself  without 
making  him  Irom  a  sinner  to  he  a  righteous  person. 
This  is  accomiilishcd  by  the  remission  of  sins.  For  if 
they  whom  the  Lord  hath  reconciled  to  himself  be 
judged  according  to  their  works,  '''ey  will  still  be 
(bund  actually  sinners,  who,  notwi.i  :,i.  nding,  must  be 
absolved  and  free  from  sin.  It  appears,  then,  that  those 
whom  God  receives  are  made  righteous  no  otherwise 
than  as  they  are  purified  by  being  cleansed  Irorn  all 
their  defilements  by  the  remission  of  sins  ;  so  that  such 
righteousness  may,  in  one  word,  be  denominated  a  re- 
mission of  sins.  Both  these  points  are  fully  established 
by  the  language  of  Paul,  wliich  I  have  already  cited. 
'  God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto  liimself, 
not  imputing  their  trespasses  unto  them ;  and  hath 
cominifted  to  us  the  word  of  reconciliation.'  Then  he 
adds,  '  He  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us,  who  knew 
no  sin,  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of 
God  in  him.'  The  terms  righteousness  and  reconcilia- 
tion are  here  used  by  St.  Paul  indiscriminately  to  teach 
us,  that  they  are  mutually  comprehended  in  each 
other.  And  he  slates  the  manner  of  obtaining  thi.s 
righteousness  to  consist  in  our  transgressions  not  being 
imputed  to  us ;  wherefore  we  can  no  longer  doubt  how 
God  justifies,  when  we  hear  that  he  reconciles  us  to 
himself  by  not  imputing  our  sins  to  us."  "  So  Paul,  in 
preaching  at  Antioch,  says,  'Through  this  man  is 
preached  unto  you  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  by  him 
all  that  believe  are  justified.'  The  apostle  thus  con- 
nects '  forgiveness  of  sins,'  witli  'justification,'  to  sliow 
that  they  are  identically  the  same."(9) 

This  simple  notion  of  justification  as  the  remission 
of  sins,  could  not  have  been  maintained  by  Calvin  had 
lie  held  the  notion  of  a  distinct  imputation  of  Christ's 
active  righteousness  ;  for  it  has  always  followed  from 
that  notion,  that  they  who  have  held  it  represent  justi- 
fication as  consisting  of  two  parts,  first,  the  forgiveness 
of  sins,  and  then  the  imputation  of  Christ's  moral  obe- 
dience, so  that  he  who  is  forgiven  may  be  considered 
personally  righteous,  and  thus,  when  both  meet,  he  is 
justified. (1) 

The  view  taken  by  Calvin  of  the  imputation  of  Christ's 
righteousness  in  jii-stification  is  obviously,  that  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  that  is,  his  entire  obedience  to 
the  will  of  his  Father,  both  in  doing  and  suflering,  is,  as 
he  says,  "  accepted  for  us,  as  though  it  were  our  own ;" 
so  that,  in  virtue  of  it  upon  our  believing  we  are  ac- 
counted righteous,  not  iiersonally,  but  by  the  remis- 
sion or  non-imputation  of  our  sins.  Thus,  he  observes 
on  Acts  xiii.  38,  3'J,  "  The  justification  which  we  have 
by  Christ  in  the  Gospel  is  not  a  justification  with 
rigkteousness,  properly  so  called,  but  a  justification 
from  sin,  and  from  the  guilt  of  sin  and  condemnation 
due  to  it.  So  when  Christ  said  to  men  and  women  in 
the  Gospel,  'thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee,'  then  he  justi- 
fied them— the  forgiveness  of  their  sins  was  their  justi- 
fication." 

Calvin,  however,  like  many  of  his  followers,  who 
adopt  no  views  on  this  subject  substantially  different 
from  their  master,  uses  figurative  terms  and  phrases 
which  somewliat  obscure  liis  real  meaning,  and  give 
much  countenance  to  the  Antinomian  doctrine ;  but 
then,  so  little,  it  has  been  thought,  can  be  objected  to 
the  opinion  of  (Jalvin,  in  the  article  of  imputed  right- 
eousness, in  the  main,  that  many  divines,  opposed  to 
the  Calvinian  theory  generally,  have  not  hesitated,  in 
substance,  to  assent  to  it,  reserving  to  themselves 
some  liberty  in  the  use  of  the  terms  in  which  it  is  often 
enveloped,  either  to  modify,  explain,  or  reject  them. 

Thus  Arminius :  "  I  believe  that  sinners  are  ac- 
counted righteous  solely  by  the  obedience  of  Christ ; 
and  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  the  only  meri- 
torious cause  on  account  of  which  God  pardons  the  sins 
of  believers,  and  reckons  thern  as  righteous  as  if  they  had 
perfectly  fulfilled  the  law.  But  since  God  imputes  the 
righeousness  of  Christ  to  none  except  believers,  I  con- 
clude that,  in  this  sense,  it  may  be  well  and  properly  said, 
to  a  man  who  believes,  faith  is  imputed  for  righteousness, 
through  grace,  because  God  hath  set  forth  his  son  Jesus 


(9)  Institutes,  lib.  3,  cap.  xi. 

(1)  "  To  be  released  from  the  damnatory  sentence  is 
one  thing,  to  be  treated  as  a  righteous  person  is  cvi- 
aeatly  another."— HiiBVKV'd  Thcroa  and  Aspasio. 


Christ  to  be  a  projiitial  ion,  through  Paith  In  his  blood. 
Whatever  interpretation  may  be  put  upon  these  ex- 
pressions, none  of  our  divines  blame  Calvin,  or  coii- 
siiler  him  to  be  heterodox  on  this  point ;  yet  my  opinion 
is  not  so  widely  ditt'crent  from  liis,  as  to  prevent  me 
employing  the  signature  of  my  own  hand,  in  subscrib- 
ing to  those  things  which  he  has  delivered  on  this  sub- 
ject, in  the  third  book  of  his  Institules."('.>) 

!So  also  Mr.  Wesley,  in  his  sermon  entitled  "The 
Lord  our  Righteousness,"  almost  repeats  Arminius's 
words  ;  but  though  these  eminent  divines  seem  to  agree 
substantially  with  Calvin,  it  is  clear  that,  in  their  inter- 
pretation of  the  phrase,  the  "  imputed  righteousness  of 
Christ,"  he  would  not  entirely  follow  them.  "  As  the 
active  and  passive  righteousness  of  Christ  were  never 
in  fact  separated  from  each  other,  so  we  never  need  se- 
parate them  at  all.  It  is  with  regard  to  both  these 
conjointly,  that  Jesus  is  called  '  the  Lord  our  righteous- 
ness.' But  when  is  this  righteousness  imputed  ;  When 
they  believe.  In  that  very  hour  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  is  theirs.  It  is  imputed  to  every  one  that  be- 
lieves, as  soon  as  he  believes.  But  in  what  sense  is 
this  righteousness  imputed  to  believers?  In  this;  all 
believers  are  forgiven  and  accepted,  not  for  the  sake  of 
any  thing  in  them,  or  of  any  thing  that  ever  was,  that 
is,  or  ever  can  be  done  by  them,  but  wholly  for  llie  sake 
of  what  Christ  hath  done  and  suffered  for  them.  But 
perhaps  some  will  affirm,  that  faith  is  imputed  to  us  for 
righteousness.  St.  Paul  aflirms  this,  therefore  I  affirm 
it  too.  Faith  is  imputed  lor  righteousness  to  every  be- 
liever, namely,  faith  in  the  righteousness  of  Christ ; 
but  this  is  exactly  the  same  thing  which  has  been  said 
before;  for  by  that  expression  I  mean  neither  more  nor 
less  than  that  we  are  justified  by  faitli,  not  by  works, 
or  that  every  believer  is  forgiven  and  accepted, 
merely  for  the  sake  of  what  Clurist  had  done  anil 
suirered."(3) 

In  this  sermon,  which  is  one  of  peace,  one  in  which  he 
shows  how  near  he  was  willing  to  approach  those  who 
held  the  doctrine  of  Calvin  on  this  subject,  the  author 
justly  observes,  that  the  terms  themselves,  in  which  it 
is  often  expressed,  are  liable  to  abuse,  and  intimates 
that  they  had  better  be  dispensed  with.  Tins  every 
one  must  feel ;  for  it  is  clear  that  such  figurative  ex- 
pressions, as  being  clothed  with  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  and  appearing  before  God  as  invested  in  it,  so 
that  no  fault  can  be  laid  to  our  charge,  are  modes  of 
speech,  which,  though  used  by  Calvhi  and  his  follow- 
ers of  the  moderate  school,  and  by  some  evangelical 
Arminians,  who  mainly  agree  with  them  on  the  subject 
of  man's  justification,  are  much  more  appropriate  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  active  right- 
eousness, as  held  by  the  higher  Calvinists,  and  by  An- 
linomians,  than  to  any  other.  The  truth  of^  the  case  is, 
that  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteoujness  is  held  by 
such  Calvinists  in  a  proper  sense,  by  evangelical  Ar- 
minians in  an  improper  or  accommodated  sense ;  and 
that  Calvin  and  his  real  followers,  though  nearer  to  the 
latter  than  the  former,  do  not  fully  agree  with  either. 
If  the  same  phrases,  therefore,  be  used,  they  are  cer- 
tainly understood  in  different  senses,  or,  by  one  party, 
at  least,  with  limitations ;  and  if  it  can  be  shown,  that 
neither  is  tlie  "  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness," 
in  any  good  sense  expres.sed  nor  implied  in  Scripture, 
and  that  the  phrases,  being  clothed  and  invested  with  his 
righteousness,  are  not  used  with  any  reference  to  jus- 
tification, it  seems  preferable,  at  least  when  we  are  in- 
vestigating truth,  to  discard  them  at  once,  and  fully  Co 
bring  out  the  testimony  of  Scripture  on  the  doctrine  of 
imputation. 

The  question  then  will  be,  not  whether  the  imputa- 
tion of  Christ's  righteousness  is  to  be  taken  in  the  sense 
of  the  Antinomians,  which  has  been  sufficiently  re- 
futed ;  but  whether  there  is  any  Scripture  authority  for 
the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  as  it  is  under- 
stood by  Calvin,  and  admitted,  though  with  some  hesi- 
tancy, and  with  explanations,  by  Arminius  and  some 
others. 

With  Calvin,  the  notion  of  imputation  seems  to  be, 
that  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  that  is,  his  entire 
obedience  to  the  will  of  his  Father,  both  in  doing  and 
sufiering,  is,  upon  our  belii^viiig,  imputed,  or  accounted 
to  us,  or  accepted  for  us,  "  as  though  it  were  oi'R  own." 
From  which  we  may  conclude,  that  he  admitted  some 
kiiid  of  transfer  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  our  ac- 


(2)  Nichol's  Arminius. 


(3)  Sermons. 


300 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part.  II. 


count,  and  that  believers  are  considered  so  to  be  in 
Christ,  as  that  lie  stiould  answer  li^r  them  in  law,  and 
plead  his  righleousness  in  dcl'ault  of  tliiirs.  All  this, 
we  grant,  is  capable  of  being  interpreted  to  a  good  and 
scriptural  sense ;  but  it  is  also  cajiable  of  a  contrary 
one.  The  opinion  of  some  professedly  t'alvinistic  di- 
vines ;  of  Baxter  and  his  followers ;  and  of  the  major- 
ity of  evangelical  Arminians,  is,  as  Baxter  well  ex- 
presses it,  that  Christ's  righteousness  is  im))uted  to  us 
in  the  sense  "of  its  being  accounted  of  God  the  valu- 
able consideration,  satisfaction,  and  merit  (attaining 
God's  ends),  for  which  we  are  (when  we  consent  to  the 
covenant  of  grace)  forgiven  and  justified,  against  the 
condemning  sentence  of  the  law  of  innocence,  and 
accounted  and  accepted  of  (;od  to  grace  and  glory."(4) 
So,  also,  Goodwin.  "  If  we  take  the  phrase  of  imput- 
ing Christ's  righteousness  imi)roperly,  viz.  for  the  be- 
stowing, as  it  were,  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  in- 
cluding his  obedience,  eis  well  passive  as  active,  in  the 
return  of  it,  i.  e.  in  the  privileges,  blessings,  and  bene- 
fits purchased  by  it,  so  a  believer  may  be  said  to  be 
justified  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed.  But 
then  the  meaning  can  be  no  more  than  this,  God  justi- 
fies a  believer  for  the  sake  of  Christ's  righteousness, 
and  not  for  any  righteousness  of  his  own.  Such  an 
imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  as  this  is  no 
way  denied  or  (iuestioned."(5) 

Between  these  opinions,  as  to  the  imputation  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  it  will  be  seen,  that  there  is  a 
manifest  ditt'erence,  which  difference  arises  from  the 
different  senses  in  which  the  term  imputation  is  taken. 
The  latter  takes  it  in  the  sense  of  accounting  or  allow- 
ing to  the  believer  the  benefit  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  the  other  in  the  sense  of  reckoning  or  account- 
ing the  righteousness  of  Christ  as  ours  ;  that  is,  what 
he  did  and  suffered,  is  regarded  as  done  and  suffered  by 
us.  "  It  is  accepted,"  says  Calvin,  "  as  though  it  were 
our  own  ;"  so  that,  though  Calvin  does  not  divide  the 
active  and  passive  obedience  of  Christ,  nor  make  justi- 
fication any  thing  more  than  the  remission  of  sin,  yet 
his  opinion  easily  slides  into  the  Antinomian  notion, 
and  lays  itself  ojjcn  to  several  of  the  same  objections, 
and  especially  to  this,  that  it  involves  the  same 
kind  of  fiction,  that  what  Christ  did  or  suffered  is,  in 
any  sense  whatever,  considered  by  him  who  knows 
all  tilings  as  they  are,  as  being  done  or  suffered  by 
any  other  person,  than  by  him  who  did  or  suffered  it  in 
fact. 

For  this  notion,  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  so 
imputed  as  to  be  accounted  our  own,  there  is  no  warrant 
in  the  Word  of  God  ;  and  a  slight  examination  of  those 
passages  which  are  indifferently  adduced  to  support 
either  the  Antinomian  or  the  Calviiiistic  view  of  the 
subject,  will  suffice  to  demonstrate  this. 

Psalm  xxxii.  1.  "  Blessed  is  the  man  whose  trans- 
gression is  forgiven,  whose  sin  is  covered."  The  co- 
vering of  sin  here  spoken  of,  is  by  some  considered  to 
be  the  investment  of  the  sinner  with  tlie  righteousness 
or  obedience  of  Christ.  But  this  is  entirely  gratuitous, 
for  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  even  by  the  legal  atonements, 
is  called,  according  to  the  Hebrew  idiom  (though  ano- 
ther verb  is  used),  to  cover  sin  ;  and  the  latter  part  of 
the  sentence  is  clearly  a  parallelism  to  the  former.  This 
is  the  interpretation  of  Luther  and  of  Calvin  hiiii.self. — 
To  forgive  sin,  to  cover  sin,  and  not  to  impute  sin,  are 
in  this  psalm  all  phrases  obviously  of  the  same  import, 
and  no  other  kind  of  imputation  but  the  non-imputation 
of  sin  is  mentioned  in  it.  And,  indeed,  the  [lassage  will 
not  serve  the  purpose  of  the  advocates  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  active  righteousness,  on 
their  own  princijiles  ;  for  sin  cannot  be  covered  by  the 
imputation  of  (Christ's  active  rigl  tcousness,  since  they 
hold  that  it  is  taken  away  by  the  imputation  of  his  death, 
and  that  the  office  of  Christ's  active  righteousness 
is  not  to  take  away  sin,  but  to  render  us  personally 
and  ])ositively  holy  by  imputation  and  the  fiction  of  a 
transfer. 

.ler.  xxiii.  6,  and  xxxiii.  10.  "And  this  is  the  name 
whereby  he  shall  be  called,  The  Lord  our  Righteous- 
ness." This  passage  also  proves  nothing  to  the  point, 
for  it  is  neither  saicl  that  the  righteouMicss  ol  the  I.onl 
shall  be  our  righteousness,  nor  that  it  slmll  lie  iiiiputed 
to  us  for  righteousness,  but  simply,  that  the  iiamc  by 
which  he  shall  be  called,  or  acknowledged,  shall  b(!  the 

(4)  Breviate  of  Controversies. 
(.^)  Un  Justification, 


Lord  our  Righteousnes.s,  that  Is,  the  Author  and  Pro- 
curer of  our  righteousness  or  justification  before  Go<l. 
.So  he  is  said  to  be  "the  Uesurrection,"  "our  Life," 
"our  Peace,"  &c.,  aa  the  author  ol  these  blessings;  for 
who  everdreanied  that  Christ  is  the  lile,  the  resurrection, 
the  peace  of  his  people  by  imjiutation  ?  or  that  we  will 
live  by  being  accounted  to  live  in  him,  or  are  raised 
from  the  dead  by  being  accounted  to  have  risen  in 
him? 

"  Some,"  says  Goodwin,  "  have  digged  for  the  trea- 
sure of  imputation  in  Isaiah  xlv.  24,  '  iSurely  shall  one 
say,  in  the  Lord  have  1  righteousness  and  strength.'— 
But,  first,  neither  is  there  here  the  least  breathing  of 
that  imputation  so  much  wandered  alter,  nor  do  1  find 
any  intimation  given  of  any  such  business  by  any  sound 
exjiositor.  iSecoiidly,  the  "plain  and  direct  meaning  of 
the  place  is,  that  when  (ion  shouhl  communicate  the 
knowledge  of  himself,  in  his  Son,  to  the  world,  hw  peo- 
ple should  have  this  sense  of  the  means  of  their  salva- 
tion and  [leace,  that  they  received  tliem  of  the  free  grace 
of  God,  and  not  of  themselves,  or  by  the  merit  of  their 
own  righteousness.  And  Calvin's  cxjiosition  is  to  this 
effect; — 'Because  righteousni-ss  and  strength  are  the 
two  main  points  of  our  salvation,  the  faithful  acknow- 
ledge God  to  be  the  author  of  both.' " 

With  respect  to  all  those  passages  which  speak  of 
the  Jewish  or  Christian  churches,  or  their  individual 
members  being  "clothed  with  garments  of  salvation," 
"  robes  of  righteousness,"  "white  linen,  the  righteous- 
ness of  the  saints,"  or  of  "  putting  on  Christ ;"  a  class  of 
texts  on  which,  from  their  mere  sound,  the  advocates 
of  imputed  righteousness  ring  so  many  changes,  the 
use  which  is  thus  made  of  them  shows  either  great  in- 
attention to  the  context,  or  great  ignorance  of  the  prin- 
ciples of  criticism ; — the  former,  because  the  context  will 
show  that  either  those  passages  relate  to  temi)oral  de- 
liverances, and  external  blessings  ;  or  else,  not  to  jus- 
tification, but  to  habitual  and  practical  sanctification, 
and  to  the  honours  and  rewards  of  the  saints  in  glory  : 
— the  latter,  becaii.se  nothing  is  more  common  in  laii- 
guage  than  to  represent  good  or  evil  habits  by  clean  or 
filthy,  by  soiled  or  resplendent  veslrncnts,  by  naked- 
ness or  by  clothing  ;  and  this  is  especially  the  case  in 
the  Hebrew  language,  because  it  was  the  custom  of 
the  Jews,  by  changing  their  garments,  to  express  the 
changes  in  their  condition.  They  put  on  sackcloth,  or 
laid  aside  their  upper  robe  (which  is,  in  Scripture  style, 
called  making  themselves  naked),  or  rent  their  garments 
wlien  jiersor.al  or  national  alHictions  came  upon  them  ; 
and  they  arrayed  themselves  in  white  and  adorned  ap- 
parel, in  seasons  of  festivity,  and  after  great  deliver- 
ances. In  all  these  figurative  expressions  tliereis,  how- 
ever, nothing  which  countenances  the  notion  that 
Christ's  righteousness  is  a  robe  thrown  upon  sinful  men, 
to  hide  from  the  eye  of  justice  their  natural  squalidness 
and  jioUution,  and  to  give  them  confidence  in  the  pre- 
sence of  God.  No  inteqiretation  can  be  more  fanciful 
and  unlbundcd. 

Kom.  iii.  21,  22.  "  But  now  the  righteousness  of  Gon, 
without  the  law,  is  manifested,  being  witnessed  by  the 
law  and  the  prophets,  even  the  righteousness  of  Go<l 
which  is  by  the  liiith  of  Jesus  Christ."  The  righteousness 
of  God  here  IS,  by  some,  taken  to  signify  the  rigliteou.s- 
ness  of  Christ  imputed  to  them  tlrat  believe.  But  the 
very  text  makes  it  evident,  that  by  "  the  righteousness 
of  God"  the  righteousness  of  the  Father  is  meant,  for 
he  is  distinguished  from  "Jesus  Christ,"  mentioned 
immediately  afterward ;  and  by  the  righteousness  of 
God,  it  is  also  jtlain,  that  his  rectoral  justice  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  pardon  is  meant,  which,  of  course,  is 
not  thought  capable  of  imputation.  This  is  made  indu- 
bitable by  the  verse  which  Ibllows,  "  to  declare  at  this 
tiini:  his  r/irA/KJi/.vyu.vx,  that  he  might  be_;'i<4Y,  and  the 
jiistijirr  of  liim  that  bclieveth  on  Jesus." 

Tlie  phrase,  the  righteousness  of  (iod,  in  this  and  se- 
veral other  passages  in  St.  Paul's  writings,  obviously 
means  (;od's  righteous  method  of  justifying  sinners 
through  the  atonement  of  Christ,  and,  instruiiientally, 
by  faith.  This  is  the  grand  peculiarity  of  the  (Jospel 
scheme,  the  fulness  at  once  of  its  love  and  its  wisdom, 
that  "  the  righteousness  of  (.'od  is  iiiaiiili  sted  without 
law;"  and  that  without  either  an  enrorceinent  of  the 
l)enally  of  the  violated  law  upon  the  personal  offender, 
which  would  have  cut  him  olf  from  hope  ;  or  willioiil 
making  his  justification  to  lUpeiid  upon  works  of 
obcilience  to  the  law  (which  was  the  only  method  of 
justification  admitted  by  the  Jews  of  Bt.  Paul's  day), 


Chap.  XXIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


301 


and  which  obedience  was  impossible,  and  tliorclbre 
hopeless;  ho  can  yet,  In  perfect  consistency  with  his 
justice  and  righteous  administration,  ofli;r  pardon  to 
the  guilty.  No  wonder,  tlierefore,  that  the  apostle,  wlio 
discourses  professedly  on  this  subject,  siiould  lay  so 
great  a  stress  upon  it,  and  that  his  mind,  always  lull  of 
a  subject  so  great  and  glorious,  should  so  often  advert 
to  it  incidentally,  as  well  as  in  his  regular  discourses  on 
the  justification  of  man  in  the  sight  of  Goi>.  Thus  he 
gives  it  as  a  reason  why  he  was  not  ashamed  of  tlie 
Gospel  of  (Jhrist,  that  "  therein  is  the  righteousness  of 
God  revealed  from  faith  to  faith ;  as  it  is  written,  the  just 
shall  live  by  faith,"  Rom.  i.  17.  Thus,  again,  in  contrast- 
ing God's  method  of  justifying  the  ungodly  with  the 
error  of  the  Jews,  by  whom  justification  was  held  to 
be  the  acquittal  of  the  righteous  or  obedient,  he  says, 
"  for  they,  being  ignorant  of  God's  righteousness,  and 
going  about  to  establish  their  own  righteousness,  have 
not  submitted  themselves  to  the  righteousness  of  Gon," 
Romans  ,\.  3.  The  same  contrast  we  liave  in  Philippians 
iii.  9,  "  Not  having  mine  own  righteousness  which  is 
of  the  law,  but  that  which  is  through  the  faith  of  Jesus 
Christ,  the  righteousness  which  is  of  Gnd  by  faith." 
In  all  these  passages  the  righteousness  of  God  mani- 
festly signifies  liis  righteous  method  of  justifying  them 
that  believe  in  Christ.  No  reference  at  all  is  made  to 
the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  to  such  per- 
sons, and  much  less  is  any  distinction  set  up  between 
his  active  and  passive  righteousness. 

1  Cor.  i.  30,  "  But  of  him  are  ye  in  Christ  Jesus,  who 
of  God  is  made  unto  us  wisdom  and  righteousness,  and 
sanctification  and  redemption."  Here,  also,  to  say  that 
Christ  is  "made  unto  us  righteousness"  by  imputation, 
is  to  invent  and  not  to  interpret.  This  is  clear,  that  he 
is  made  unto  us  righteousness  only  as  he  is  made  unto 
us  "  redemption,"  so  that  if  we  are  not  redeemed  by  im- 
putation, we  are  not  justified  by  imputation.  The 
meaning  of  the  apostle  is,  that  Christ  is  made  to  us,  by 
the  appointment  of  God,  the  sole  means  of  instruction, 
justification,  sanctification,  and  eternal  life. 

2  Cor.  V.  21,  "  For  he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us, 
who  knew  no  sin,  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteous- 
ness of  God  in  him."  To  be  made  sin,  we  have  already 
shown,  signifies  to  be  made  an  olTering  for  sin ;  conse- 
quently, as  no  imputation  of  our  sins  to  Christ  is  here 
mentioned,  there  is  no  foundation  for  the  notion,  that 
there  is  a  reciprocal  imputation  of  Christ's  righteous- 
ness to  us.  The  text  is  wholly  silent  on  this  subject,  for 
it  is  wholly  gratuitous  to  say,  that  we  are  made  the 
righteousness  of  God  in  or  through  Christ,  by  imputa- 
tion or  reckoning  to  us  what  he  did  or  suffered  as  our 
acts  or  sufferings.  This  passages  we  have  already  ad- 
duced will  explain  the  phrase,  "  the  righteousness  of 
God,"  in  this  place.  This  righteousness,  with  respect 
to  our  pardon,  is  God's  righteous  method  of  justifj'ing, 
through  the  atonement  of  Christ,  and  our  being  made 
or  becoming  this  righteousness  of  God  in  or  by  Christ, 
is  our  becoming  righteous  persons  through  the  pardon 
of  our  sins  in  this  peculiar  method,  by  renouncing  our 
own  righteousness  and  by  "  submitting  to  this  right- 
eousness of  God." 

Rom.  V.  18,  19,  "  As  by  the  offence  of  one,  judgment 
came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation ;  even  so  by  the 
righteousness  of  one  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men 
unto  justification  of  life.  For  as  by  one  man's  disobe- 
dience many  were  made  sinners,  so  by  the  obedience  of 
one  shall  many  be  made  righteous."  That  this  passage, 
though  generally  depended  upon  in  this  controversy,  as 
the  most  decisive  in  its  evidence  in  favour  of  the  doctrine 
of  imputation,  proves  nothing  to  the  purpose,  may  be 
thus  demonstrated.  It  proves  nothing  in  favour  of  the 
imputation  of  Christ's  active  righteousness.     For, 

1.  Here  is  nothing  said  of  the  active  obedience  of 
Christ,  as  distinguished  from  his  obedient  suffering, 
and  which  might  lead  us  to  attribute  the  free  gift  of 
justification  to  the  former,  rather  than  to  the  latter. 

2.  If  the  apostle  is  supposed  to  speak  here  of  the 
active  obedience  of  Christ,  as  distinguished  from  his 
sufferings,  his  death  is  of  course  excluded  from  the 
work  of  justification.  But  this  cannot  be  allowed, 
because  the  apostle  has  intimated  in  the  same  chapter, 
that  we  are  ''justified  by  his  blood,"  Rom.  v.  9,  and, 
therefore,  it  cannot  be  allowed  that  he  is  sjieaking  of 
the  active  obedience  of  Christ,  as  distinguished  from 
his  passive. 

3.  As  the  apostle  has  unequivocally  decided,  that  we 
are  justified  by  the  blood  of  Cluist,  or,  in  other  words, 


"  that  we  are  justified  through  the  redemption  which  ia 
in  Christ  Jesus,  whom  God  hatli  set  forth  a  propitiation, 
tlirough  faith  in  his  blood"  (a  thing  which  the  doctrine 
under  examination  supposes  to  be  impossible),  there  ia 
reason  to  conclude  that  tio  speaks  here  of  his  passive, 
rather  than  of  his  active  obedience.  "  If,  indeed,  his 
willingness  to  suffer  for  our  sins  were  never  spoken  of 
as  an  act  of  obedience,  such  an  observation  might  have 
the  appearance  of  a  mere  expedient  to  get  rid  of  a  diffi- 
culty. But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  this  sliould  prove  to  be 
the  very  spirit  and  letter  of  Scripture,  tlie  justness  of  it 
will  be  obvious.  Hear,  then,  our  Lord  himself  on  thia 
subject.  '  Therefore  doth  my  Father  love  me,  because  I 
lay  down  my  life,  that  I  might  take  it  again.  No  man 
taketh  it  from  me,  but  I  lay  it  down  of  myself:  I  have 
power  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  have  power  to  take  it  again. 
This  commandment  have  I  received  of  my  Father.' 
John  X.  17,  18.  This,  then,  was  the  commandment  to 
which  he  rendered  willing  obedience,  when  he  said, 
'  Oh,  my  Father,  if  this  cup  may  not  pass  away  from 
me,  except  I  drink  it,  thy  will  be  done.'  Matt.  xxvi.  42. 
'  The  cup  which  my  Father  hath  given  me,  sliall  I  not 
drink  it?'  Johnxviii.il.  In  conformity  with  this,  the 
ajjostle  applies  to  him  the  following  words :  '  Wherefore 
when  he  cometh  into  the  world,  he  saith,  sacrifice  and 
offering  thou  wouldst  not,  but  a  body  hast  thou  pre- 
pared me.  Then  said  I,  Lo,  I  come  to  do  thy  will,  oh 
God.  By  (his  performance  of)  which  will  we  are  sanc- 
tified ;  through  the  offering  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ 
once  for  all."  Heb.  x.  5, 10.  '  Being  found  in  fashion  as 
a  man  (says  St.  Paul),  he  became  obedient  unto  death, 
even  the  death  of  the  cross.'  I'hil.  ii.  8.  Such  was  hia 
obedience,  an  obedience  unto  the  death  of  the  cross. 
And  by  this  his  obedience  unto  the  death  of  the  cross, 
shall  many  be  constituted  righteous,  or  be  justified. 
Where,  then,  is  the  imputation  of  his  active  obedience 
for  justification ?"(6) 

It  proves  nothing  in  favour  of  the  imputation  of 
Christ's  righteousness  considered  as  one,  and  including 
what  he  did  and  suffered,  in  the  sense  of  its  being 
reputed  our  righteousness,  by  transfer  or  by  fiction  of 
law.  For,  though  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his 
posterity  is  supposed  to  be  taught  in  this  chapter,  and 
the  imputation  of  Christ's  obedience  in  one  or  other  of 
the  senses  above  given  is  argued  from  this  particular  text, 
the  examination  of  the  subject  will  show  that  the  right 
understanding  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  wholly 
overthrows  both  the  Antinomian  and  Calvinistic  view 
of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness.  This  argu- 
ment is  very  ably  developed  by  Goodwm.(7) 

"Because  the  itnptitation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  pos- 
terity is  frequently  produced  to  prove  the  imputation 
of  Christ's  righteousness,  I  shall  lay  down,  with  aa 
much  plainness  as  I  can,  in  what  sense  the  Scripturca 
countenance  that  imputation.  The  Scriptures  own  no 
other  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity,  than  of 
Christ's  righteousness  to  those  that  believe.  The 
righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed,  or  given  to  those 
that  believe,  not  in  the  letter  or  formality  of  it,  but  in 
blessings,  privileges,  and  benefits,  purchased  of  God  by 
the  merit  of  it.  So  the  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed  to  his 
posterity,  not  in  the  letter  and  formality  of  it  (which  is 
the  imputation  commonly  urged),  but  in  the  demerit 
of  it,  that  is,  in  the  curse  or  punishment  due  to  it. 
Therefore,  as  concerning  this  imputation  of  Adam's  sin, 
I  answer, 

"  First,  the  Scripture  nowhere  affirms,  either  the  im- 
putation of  Adam's  sin  to  bis  jiosterity,  or  of  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ  to  tho.se  that  believe ;  neither  is  such 
a  manner  of  speaking  any  wise  agreeable  to  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Holy  Ghosl;  for,  in  the  Scriptures, 
wheresoever  the  term  imputing  is  used,  it  is  only  ap- 
plied to,  or  spoken  of,  something  of  the  same  persons, 
to  whom  the  imputation  is  said  To  be  made,  and  never, 
to  my  remembrance,  to  or  of  any  thing  of  another's. 
So,  Rom.  iv.  3,  'Abraham  behoved  God,  and  it  was  im- 
puted to  him  for  righteousness,'  that  is,  his  own 
beheving  was  imputed  to  him,  not  another  man's.  So, 
verse  5,  but '  to  him  that  workcth  not,  but  believeth,  his 
faith  is  IMPUTED  to  him  for  righteousness.'  So,  Psalm 
cvi.  30,  31,  '  Pliineas  stood  up  and  executed  judgment, 
and  that'  (act  of  his) '  was  imputed  to  him  for  right- 
eousness,' that  is,  received  a  testimony  from  God  of 
being  a  righteous  act.    .So  again,  2  Cor.  v.  19,  'not 


(6)  Hark  on  Justification. 

(7)  Treatise  on  Justification. 


302 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


IMPUTINO  their  trespasses' (their  own  trespasses), '  unto 
them.' 

"  Secondly,  When  a  tiling  is  said  simply  to  be  impelled, 
as  sin,  lolly,  and  so  rti;Ufeotixtiess,  the  phrase  is  not  to 
be  taken  concerning  the  bare  acts  ol'  the  thing's,  as  if 
(for  example)  to  impute  sin  to  a  man,  signified  ibis,  to 
repute  the  man  (to  whom  sin  is  imjiuted)  to  have  com- 
mitted a  sinful  act,  or,  as  if  to  iiiijriilc  lolly  were  simi)ly 
to  charge  a  man  to  have  done  fbolislily  :  but  when  it  is 
applied  to  things  that  are  evil,  and  attributed  to  persons 
tbat  have  power  over  those  to  whom  the  imputation  is 
made,  it  signifieth  the  charging  the  guilt  of  what  is  im- 
puted upon  the  bead  of  the  person  to  whom  the  imputa- 
tion is  made,  with  an  intent  of  inllicling  some  condign 
punishment  upon  him.  So  that  to  impute  sin  (in  Scrip- 
ture phrase)  is  to  charge  the  guilt  of  sin  upon  a  man 
with  a  purpose  to  punish  liim  for  it.  Thus,  liom.  v.  13, 
sin  is  said  '  not  to  be  imimitki)  where  there  is  no  law.' 
The  meaning  cannot  be,  that  tbe  act  which  a  man  doth, 
whether  there  be  a  law  or  no  law,  should  not  bi;  imi)Uted 
to  him.  The  law  doth  not  make  any  act  to  be  imputed, 
or  ascribed  to  a  man,  which  might  not  as  well  have  been 
lni])uted  without  it.  liut  the  meaning  is,  that  there  is 
no  guilt  charged  by  God  upon  men,  nor  any  ])unishment 
inflicted  for  any  thing  done  by  them,  but  only  by  virtue 
of  the  law  prohibiting.  In  which  respect  the  law  is 
said  to  be  the  strength  of  sin,  because  it  gives  a  con- 
demning power  against  the  doer,  to  that  which  otherwise 
would  have  had  none.  1  Cor.  xv.  5().  So  again.  Job 
xxiv.  12,  when  it  is  said,  '  God  doth  not  lay  folly  to  the 
charge  of  them  (i.  e.  impale  liilly  to  them),  that  make 
the  souls  of  the  slain  to  cry  out,'  the  meaning  is  not 
that  God  doth  not  repute  them  to  have  committed  the 
acts  of  oppression  or  murder.  For  supposing  they  did 
such  things,  it  is  impossible  but  God  should  j-epute 
them  to  have  done  them :  but  that  God  doth  not  visibly 
charge  the  guilt  of  these  sins  upon  them,  or  inthct 
punishment  for  thein.  So,  2  Sam.  xix.  19,  'When 
Shimei  prayeth  David  not  to  imputk  wickedness  unto 
him,  his  meaning  is,  not  to  desire  David  not  to  think  he 
had  done  wickedly  in  railing  upon  him  (for  himself 
confesseth  this  in  the  very  next  words),  but  not  to 
inflict  the  |)uni.shment  which  that  wickedne.ss  deserved. 
So  when  JJavid  himself  pronouiiceth  the  man  blessed 
to  whom  the  Lord  i.Mri  tetii  not  sin,  his  meaning 
is,  not  that  there  is  any  man  whom  the  Lord  would 
not  repute  to  have  committed  those  acts  of  sin  which 
he  has  committed,  but  that  such  are  blessed  on  whom 
Oiod  will  not  charge  the  demerit  of  their  sins  in  the 
punishment  due  to  them.  So,  yet  again  (to  forbear 
farther  citations),  2  Cor.  v.  I'J,  when  God  is  said  'not 
to  IMPUTK  their  sins  unto  men,'  the  meaning  is,  not  that 
God  should  not  repute  men  to  have  committed  such  and 
such  sins  against  him,  but  that  he  freely  discharges 
them  from  the  punishment  dui:  to  them.  15y  all  which 
testimonies  from  Scripture,  concerning  the  constant  use 
of  the  term  imputing,  or  imputation,  it  is  evident,  that 
proposition,  '  that  the  transgression  of  the  law  is  im- 
putable from  one  person  to  another,'  hath  no  foundation 
in  Scripture. 

"And,  therefore,  thirdly  and  la.stly,  to  come  home  to 
the  imputntionof  Adam's  sin  to  hispostcritu,  I  answer, 

"  First,  that  either  to  say  that  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  is  imputed  to  his  po.sterity  (of  believers)  or  the 
sin  of  Adam  to  bis,  are  both  expressions,  at  least, 
unknown  to  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  Scriptures.  There 
is  neither  word,  nor  syllable,  nor  Utter,  nor  tittle  of  any 
such  thing  to  be  found  there.  Hut  that  l\ie/aUh  of  him 
that  believelh  is  imputed  for  righteousness,  are  words 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  uselh. 

"  Ilut,  secondly,  be<ause  I  would  make  no  exceptions 
against  words,  farther  than  iiuiissity  i  jifcircclh,  1  grant, 
there  are  expressions  in  Scripture  ((inccniiiig  both  the 
communication  of  Adam's  sin  with  his  |iosicrily,  and 
the  nglilioiitnesx  of  Christ  with  those  that  //(7i<  ir,tbat 
will  fairly  ciidugh  bear  the  term  of  iinpulalion,  if  it  be 
rightly  understood,  and  according  to  the  use  of  it  in 
Scripture  upon  other  occasions.  Hut  as  it  is  commonly 
taken  and  understood  by  many,  it  occasions  much  error 
and  mistake. 

"Concerning  Adam's  sin  or  disobeilicnco,  mnni/ are 
said  to  be  '  made  sinners  by  it,'  Iloni.  v.  li).  And  so 
«  by  the  obedience  of  (Christ,'  it  is  said  (in  the  same  place) 
'that  many  shall  be  made  righlexjus.'  Bui  if  men  will 
exchange  language  with  the  Iloly  Ghost,  they  must  see 
that  they  make  him  no  loser.  If,  when  they  say, 
'  Adain'a  sin  is  imputed  to  alt  unto  condemnation,'  their 


meaning  be  the  same  with  the  Holy  Ghost's,  when  he 
saitli,  '  that  by  the  disiibcdience  of  one,  many  were  made 
sinners,' there  is  no  harm  done;  but  it  is  evident  by 
what  many  speak,  that  the  Holy  (Jliost  and  they  are  not 
of  one  mind,  touching  the  Imputation  or  communication 
of'Adam's  sin  wilti  his  posterity,  but  that  they  difl'er  as 
much  in  meaning  as  in  words.  If,  when  they  say, 
'  Adam's  sin  is  imputed  to  all  unto  condemnation,'  their 
meaning  be  this,  that  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  is  charged 
ujioii  his  whole  posterity,  or  that  the  punishment  of 
Adam's  sin  redounded  from  his  person  to  his  whole  pos- 
terity, a  main  part  of  which  imnishment  lieth  in  that 
original  defilement  wherein  they  are  all  conceived  and 
born,  and  whereby  they  are  made  truly  sinners  before 
God ;  if  this  be  the  meaning  of  the  term  imputation, 
when  applied  to  Adam's  sin,  let  it  pa.ss.  But  if  the 
meaning  be,  that  that  sinful  act,  wherein  Adam  trans- 
gressed when  he  ate  the  forbidden  fruit,  is,  in  the  letter 
and  Ibrrnality  of  it,  imputed  tu  his  pustcrity,  so  that  by 
this  imputation  all  his  pd.stenty  arr  iiiinlc  tormally  sin- 
ners :  this  is  an  imputalion  which  the  Scrijiture  will  ne- 
ver justify." 

The  last  text  necessary  to  mention  is  Rom.  iv.  C, 
"  Even  as  David  declareth  the  blessedness  of  the  man 
to  whom  God  imputeth  Tighteouiiiess  without  works."' 
Here  again  the  expositors  of  this  class  assume,  even 
against  the  letter  of  the  text  and  context,  that  the  right- 
eousness which  God  is  said  to  impute  is  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ.  Hut  Calvin  himself  may  here  be  sulli- 
cient  to  answer  them.  "  In  the  fourth  chapter  of  the 
Romans  the  apostle  first  mentions  an  imputation  of 
righteousness,  and  immediately  represents  it  as  consist- 
ing in  remission  of  sins.  David,  says  he,  describeth  the 
blessedness  of  the  man,  unto  whom  God  imputeth  right- 
eousness without  works,  saying,  '  Blessed  are  they 
whose  iniquities  are  forgiven,'  &;c.  He  there  argues, 
not  concerning  a  branch,  but  the  whole  of  justification ; 
he  also  adduces  the  definition  of  it  given  by  David, 
when  he  pronounces  those  to  be  blessed  who  receive 
the  free  forgiveness  of  their  sins,  whence  it  appears  that 
this  righteousness  is  simply  opjiosed  to  guilt."(8)  The 
imputation  of  righteousness  in  this  passage  is,  in  Cal- 
vin's view,  therefore,  the  simple  non-iinputation  of  sin, 
or  in  other  words,  the  remission  of  sins. 

In  none  of  these  passages  is  there,  then,  any  thing 
found  to  countenance  even  that  second  view  of  imputa- 
tion which  consists  in  the  accounting  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  in  justification  to  be  our  righteousness.  It  is 
only  imputed  in  the  benefit  and  ellcct  of  it,  that  is,  in  the 
blessings  and  privileges  purchased  by  it ;  and  though 
we  may  use  the  jihrase,  the  imputed  righteousness  of 
Christ,  in  tliis  latter  sense,  qualifying  our  meaning  like 
I'arcKUs,  who  says,  "  In  this  sense  imputed  righteous- 
ness is  called  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  by  way  of 
merit  or  effect,  because  it  is  procured  for  us  by  the 
merit  of  Chri.st,  not  because  it  is  subjectively  or  inhe- 
rently in  Christ;"  yet  since  this  manner  of  speaking 
has  no  foundation  in  Scripture,  and  must  generally  lead 
to  misa(ipiihcnsions,  it  will  be  found  more  conducive 
to  the  1  "iiisc  (ii  truth  to  confine  ourselves  to  the  language 
of  the  Scrijitures.  According  to  them,  there  is  no  ficti- 
tious accounting  cither  of  what  (,'hrist  did  or  suffered, 
or  of  both  united,  to  us,  as  being  done  and  suffered  by 
us,  through  our  union  with  him,  or  through  his  becom- 
ing our  legal  representative ;  but  his  active  and  passive 
righteousness,  advanced  in  dignity  by  the  union  of  the 
Divine  nature  and  perfection,  is  the  true  meritorious 
cause  of  our  justification.  It  is  that  great  whole  which 
constitutes  his  "  merits ;"  that  is,  the  coiisiilrration,  in 
view  of  which  the  oirendcd  but  incrcitiil  (Jovirnorof 
the  world  has  determined  it  to  be  a  just  and  righteous, 
as  well  as  a  merciful  act,  to  justify  the  ungodly;  and, 
for  the  sake  of  this  jierfect  obedience  of  our  Lord  to  the 
will  of  the  Father,  an  obedience  extending  unto  "death, 
even  the  death  of  the  cross,"  to  every  penitent  sinner 
who  believes  in  him,  but  considered  still  in  his  own  i>er- 
son  as  "  ungodly,"  and  meriting  nothing  but  punish- 
ment, "  his  faith  is  imputed  lor  righteousness ;"  it  ia 
followed  by  the  remission  of  his  sins  and  all  the  benefits 
of  the  cvaii^rlii-il  covenant. 

Tills  iiii|>iii;iii(>n  of  FAITH  for  righteousness  is  the 
third  o|piiii(iii  which  we  projiosed  to  examine. 

That  this  IS  llie  doctrine  taught  by  the  express  letter 
of  Scripture  no  one  can  deny,  and,  as  one  well  observes, 
"  what  that  is  which  is  inii)Uted  for  righteousness  in 


(8)  Institut.  lib.  iii.  cop.  IL 


Chap.  XXIIL] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


303 


justification  all  the  wisdom  and  lonming  of  men  is  not 
so  fit  or  able  to  detennine,  as  the  Holy  Ghost,  speaking 
in  Scripture,  he  being  the  great  secretar5"orheiivon,and 
privy  to  all  the  counsels  of  God."  "Abraham  believed 
God,  and  it  was  imputed  unto  him  for  righteousness." 
Rom.  iv.  3.  "To  him  that  worketh  not,  but  bclieveth 
on  him  that  justilictli  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted 
to  him  for  nghleousness"  (verse  5).  "We  say  that 
faith  was  imputed  to  Uim  for  righteousness"  (verse  9). 
"  Now  it  was  not  written  for  liis  sake  alone,  that  it  was 
imputed  to  him,  but  for  us  to  whom  it  shall  be  imputed, 
if  we  believe  in  him  who  raised  up  Jesus  our  Lord  from 
the  dead"  (verse  22—24). 

The  testimony  of  the  apostle,  then,  being  so  express 
on  this  point,  the  nnputation  of  faith  for  righteousness 
must  be  taken  to  be  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament, 
unless,  indeed,  we  admit,  with  the  advocates  of  the  im- 
putation of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  that  faith  is  here 
used  metonymically  for  the  object  of  faith,  that  is,  the 
righteousness  of  Christ.  The  context  of  the  above  pas- 
sages, however,  is  suflicient  to  refute  this,  and  makes 
it  indubitable  that  the  apostle  uses  the  term  faith  in  its 
proper  and  literal  sense.  In  verse  5,  he  calls  the  faith 
of  him  that  believeth,  and  which  is  imputed  to  him  for 
righteousness,  "  uis  faith ;"  but  in  what  sense  cc^uld 
this  be  taken  if  St.  Paul  meant  by  "  his  faith,"  the  ob- 
ject of  his  faith,  namely,  the  righteousness  of  Christ  ? 
And  how  could  that  be  his  before  the  imputation  was 
made  to  him?  Again,  in  verse  5,  ihe  fait k  spoken  of  is 
opposed  to  works,  "  To  him  that  worketh  not,  but  belitv- 
cth  on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is 
counted  to  him  for  righteousness."  Finally,  in  verse 
22,  the  faith  hnputed  to  us  is  described  to  be  our  "  be- 
lieving in  him  who  raised  up  our  Lord  Jesus  from  the 
dead :"  so  that  the  apostle  has,  by  these  explanations, 
rendered  it  impossible  for  us  to  understand  him  as 
meaning  any  thing  else  by  faith  but  the  act  of  beheving. 
To  those  who  will,  notwithstanding  this  evidence  from 
the  context,  still  insist  upon  understanding  faith,  in 
these  passages,  to  mean  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
Baxter  blimtly  observes,  "  If  it  be  not  faith  indeed  that 
the  apostle  meaneth,  the  context  is  so  far  from  relieving 
our  understandings,  that  it  contributeth  to  our  un- 
avoidable deceit  or  ignorance.  Read  over  the  texts  and 
put  but  'Christ's  righteousness'  every  where  instead 
of  the  word  '  faith,'  and  see  what  a  scandalous  para- 
phrase you  will  make.  The  Scripture  is  not  so  auda- 
ciously to  be  corrected." 

Some  farther  observations  will,  however,  be  necessary 
for  the  clear  apprehension  of  this  doctrine. 

We  have  already  seen,  in  establishing  the  Christian 
doctrine  of  the  atonement,  that  the  law  of  God  inrticts 
the  penalty  of  death  upon  every  act  of  disobedience,  and 
that  all  men  have  come  under  that  i)enalty.  That  men, 
having  become  totally  corrupt,  are  not  capable  of  obe- 
dience in  future.  That  if  they  were,  there  is  nothing  in 
the  nature  of  that  future  obedience  to  be  a  consideration 
for  the  forgiveness  of  past  offences,  under  a  righteous 
goverimient.  It  follows,  therefore,  that,  by  moral  obe- 
dience, or  attempted  and  professed  moral  obedience, 
there  can  be  no  remission  of  sins,  that  is,  no  deliverance 
from  the  penalty  of  offences  actually  committed.  This 
is  the  ground  of  the  great  argument  of  the  apostle  Paul 
in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  He  proves  both  Jews 
and  Gentiles  under  sin  ;  that  the  whole  world  is  guilty 
before  God ;  and  by  conse(iuence  under  his  wrath, 
under  condemnation,  from  which  they  could  only  be 
relieved  by  the  Gospel. 

In  his  argument  with  the  Jews,  the  subject  is  farther 
opened.  They  sought  justification  by  "  works  of  law." 
If  we  take  "  works"  to  mean  obedience  both  to  the  mo- 
ral and  ceremonial  law,  it  makes  no  difference ;  for,  as 
they  had  given  up  the  typical  character  of  their  sacri- 
fices, and  their  symbolical  reference  to  the  death  of 
Messiah,  the  performance  of  their  religious  rites  was  no 
longer  an  expression  of  faith ;  it  was  brought  down  to 
the  same  principle  as  obedience  to  the  moral  law,  a  sim- 
ple comphance  with  the  commaiid-s  of  God.  Their  case, 
then,  was  this,  they  were  sinners  on  conviction  of  their 
law,  and  by  obedience  to  it  they  sought  justification, 
ignorant  both  of  its  si>iritual  meaning  and  large  extent, 
and  unmindful,  too,  of  this  obvious  principle,  that  no 
acts  of  obedience,  even  if  perfect,  could  lake  away  past 
transgression.  The  aimstle's  great  axiom  on  this  sub- 
ject is,  that  "  by  works  of  law,  no  man  can  be  jiistijied," 
and  the  doctrine  of  justification,  which  ho  teaches,  is 
the  opposite  of  theirs.    It  is,  that  men  arc  sinners ;  that 


they  must  confess  themselves  such,  and  Join  to  this 
confession  a  true  n^iientanco.  That  justification  is  a 
gratuitous  act  of  (iod's  mercy,  a  procedure  of  pure 
"  grace,"  not  of  "  debt."  That  in  order  to  the  exercise 
of  this  grace,  on  the  part  of  (iod,  Christ  was  set  forth 
as  a  p:opitiation  for  sin  ;  that  his  death,  under  this  cha- 
racter, is  a  "  demonstration  of  the  riglUeousness  of 
(iod"  in  the  free  and  gratuitous  reriiission  of  sins  ;  and 
that  this  actual  remission  or  justification,  follows  upon 
believing  in  Christ,  because  faith,  under  this  gracious 
constitution  and  method  of  justification,  is  accounted  to 
men  for  righteousness  ;  in  other  words,  that  righteous- 
ness is  imputed  to  them  upon  their  believing,  wliich  im- 
putation of  righteousness  is,  as  he  teaches  us,  in  the 
jiassages  before  quoted,  the  forgiveness  of  sins ;  for  to 
have  faith  counted  or  imputed  for  righteousness  is  ex- 
plained by  David  in  the  psalm  which  the  apostle  quotes 
(Romans  iv.),  to  have  sin  forgiven,  covered,  and  not  im- 
jjuted.  That  this  was  no  new  doctrine,  he  shows  also 
from  the  justification  of  Abraham.  "  Abraham  believed 
God,  and  it  was  counted  to  him  for  righteousness." 
Rom.  iv.  3.  "  Know  ye,  therefore,  that  they  which  are 
of  the  faith,  the  same  are  the  children  of  Abraham. 
And  the  Scripture,  foreseeing  that  God  would  justify 
the  heathen  through  faith,  preached  before  the  Gospel 
unto  Abraham,  saying,  in  thee  shall  nations  be  blessed. 
So  these  which  are  of  faith  are  blessed  with  faithful 
Abraham."   Gal.  ill.  7 — 9. 

On  the  one  hand,  therefore,  it  is  the  plain  doctrine 
of  Scripture  that  man  is  not,  and  never  was,  in  any  age, 
justified  by  works  ofany  kind,  whether  moral  or  ceremo- 
nial ;  on  the  other,  that  he  is  justified  by  the  imputation 
and  accounting  of  "  faith  for  righteousness."  On  this 
point,  until  the  Antinomian  corruption  began  to  infest 
the  reformed  churches,  the  leading  commentators,  from 
the  earliest  ages,  were  very  uniform  and  explicit.  That 
when  faith  is  said  to  be  imputed  to  us  for  righteous- 
ness, the  word  is  taken  literally,  "  and  not  tropically, 
was,"  says  Goodwin,  "  the  common  interpretation  an- 
ciently received  and  followed  by  the  principal  lights  of 
the  church  of  God;  and  for  1500  years  together  (as  far 
as  my  memory  will  assist  me),  was  never  questioned  or 
contradicted.  Neither  did  the  contrary  opinion  ever 
look  out  into  the  world,  till  the  last  age.  So  that  it  is 
but  a  calumny  brought  upon  it  (unworthy  the  tongue 
or  pen  of  any  sober  man),  to  make  either  Arminius  or 
Socinus  the  author  of  it.  And  for  this  last  hundred 
years  and  upwards,  li-oin  Luther's  and  Calvin's  times, 
the  stream  of  interpreters  agrees  therewith. 

"  Tertullian,  who  wrote  about  the  year  194,  in  his 
fifth  book  against  Marcion,  says,  '  but  how  the  chil- 
dren of  faith  ;  or  of  whose  faith,  if  not  of  Abraham's  ? 
for  if  Abraham  believed  God,  and  that  was  imputed 
unto  him  for  righteousness,  and  he  thereby  deserved 
the  name  of  a  father  of  many  nations,  we,  also,  by 
believing  God,  are  justified  as  Abraham  was.'  There- 
fore TertuUian's  opinion  directly  is,  that  the  faith 
wliich  is  said  to  be  imputed  to  Abraham  for  righteous- 
ness, is  fiuth  properly  taken,  and  not  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  apprehended  by  faith. 

"  Origen,  who  lived  about  the  year  203,  in  his  fourth 
book  upon  the  Romans,  chap.  iv.  verse  3,  says,  '  It 
seems,  therefore,  that  in  this  place  also,  whereas  many 
faiths  (that  is,  many  acts  of  believing)  of  Abraham 
had  gone  before,  now  all  Ills  faith  was  collected  and 
united  together,  and  so  was  accoimted  unto  him  for 
righteousness.' 

"  Justin  Martyr,  who  lived  before  them  both,  and 
not  long  after  the  apostle  John's  time,  about  the  year 
130,  in  his  disputation  with  Trypho  the  Jew,  led  them 
both  to  that  interpretation.  '  Abraham  carried  not 
away  the  testimony  of  righteousness,  because  of  his 
circumcision,  but  because  of  his  faith.  For  before  he 
was  circumcised,  this  was  pronounced  of  him,  Abra- 
ham believed  God,  and  it  was  imputed  unto  hun  for 
righteousness.' 

"  Chrysostom,  upon  Gal.  iii.  says,  '  For  what  was 
Abraham  the  worse  for  not  being  under  the  law  ?  No- 
thing at  all.  For  his  faith  was  sufficient  unto  him  for 
righteousness.'  If  Abraham's  faith  was  suflicient 
unto  him  for  righteousness,  it  must  needs  be  imputed 
by  God  for  righteousness  unto  him ;  for  it  is  this  im- 
putation from  God,  that  must  make  that  sufficiency  of 
it  unto  Abraham.  That  which  will  not  pass  in  ac- 
count with  God  for  righteousness,  will  never  be  suffi- 
cient for" righteousness  unto  the  creature. 

"  St.  AugustiJio,  who  lived  about  the  year  390,  gives 


304 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


frequent  testimony  to  this  interpretation.  Upon  I'salni 
cxlviii.,  '  For  we,  by  believing,  fiavc  found  ttiat  whitli 
they  (the  Jews)  lost  by  not  believing.  For  Abrabaiii 
beUeved  God,  and  it  was  imputed  unto  him  lor  right- 
eousness.' Therefore  his  opinion  clearly  is,  that  it  was 
Abraham's  faith  or  believing,  properly  taken,  that  was 
imputed  unto  him  for  righteousness,  and  not  the  right- 
eousness of  <;hrist.  For  that  faith  of  his,  which  was 
so  iinjiutud,  lie  opposeth  to  the  unbelief  of  the  .lews, 
whereby  they  lost  the  grace  and  favour  of  God.  Now 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  not  oj)p'!:;od  to  unbelief, 
but  faith  properly  taken.  Again,  writing  upon  Psalm 
Ixx.,  '  For  I  believe  in  him  that  justdieth  the  ungodly, 
that  my  faitli  may  be  imputed  unlo  me  for  righteous- 
ness.' The  same  father  yet  again,  in  his  tract  of 
Nature  and  (irace :  '  Hut  il' tiirist  died  not  in  vain,  the 
ungodly  IS  ju.siiflcd  ill  him  alone:  to  whom,  believing 
in  hini  ili:il  jusiiiicth  the  ungodly ,  his  faith  is  accounted 
for  righteousness.' 

"  I'riinasius,  about  the  year  500,  writes  upon  Rom. 
iv.  verse  3,  '  Abraham's  faith  by  the  gift  of  Goil  was 
BO  great,  that  both  his  former  sins  were  forgiven  him, 
and  this  faith  of  his  alone  preferred  in  acceptation  be- 
fore all  righteousness.' 

"  Bede,  who  lived  somewhat  before  the  year  700, 
upon  Rom.  iv.  verse  5,  observes,  '  What  faith,  but  that 
which  the  apostle  in  another  place  fully  defineth  ?  nei- 
ther circumcision  nor  uiicircumcision  availeth  any 
thing,  but  faith  which  worketh  by  love;  not  any  faith, 
but  that  faith  which  worketh  by  love.'  Certainly  that 
faith,  which  Paul  defineth  to  be  a  faith  working  by  love, 
cannot  be  conceived  to  be  the  righteousness  of  Christ ; 
and  yet  this  faith  it  was,  in  the  judgment  of  tliis  author, 
that  was  imputed  unto  Abraham  for  righteousness. 

"  Haymo,  about  the  year  840,  on  Rom.  iv.  3,  writes, 
'  Because  he  believed  God,  it  was  imputed  unto  him 
for  righteousness,  that  is,  unto  remission  of  sins,  be- 
cause by  that  faith,  wherewith  he  believed,  ho  was 
made  righteous.' 

"  Anselm,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  about  the  year 
1090,  upon  Rom.  iv.  3,  '  That  he  (meaning  Abraham) 
believed  so  strongly,  was  by  God  hnputed  for  righteous- 
ness unto  him ;  that  is,  ifcc,  by  his  believing,  he  was 
imputed  righteous  before  God.' 

"  From  all  these  testimonies  it  is  apparent,  that  the 
interpretation  of  this  Scripture  which  we  contend  for, 
anciently  obtained  in  the  church  of  God,  and  no  man 
was  found  to  open  his  mouth  against  it,  till  it  had  been 
established  for  above  a  thousand  years.  Come  we  to  the 
times  of  reformation ;  here  we  shall  find  it  still  main- 
tained by  men  of  the  greatest  authority  and  learning. 

"  Luther,  on  (iai.  iii.  6,  '  Christian  righteousness  is 
an  affiance  or  faith  in  the  Son  of  God,  which  afliance  is 
imputed  unto  righteousness  for  Christ's  sake.'  And  in 
the  same  place,  not  long  after,  '  God  for  Christ's  sake, 
in  whom  I  have  begun  to  believe,  accounts  this  (my) 
imperfect  faith,  for  perfect  righteousness.' 

"  Bucer,  upon  Rom.  iv.  3,  '  Abraham  believed  God, 
and  it  was  imputed  unto  him  for  righteousness,  that 
is,  he  accounted  this  faith  tor  righteousness  unto  him. 
So  that  by  believing  lie  obtained  this,  that  God  esteemed 
him  a  righteous  man.' 

"  Peter  Martyr  declares  himself  of  the  same  judg- 
ment, upon  Rom.  iv.  3,  '  To  be  imputed  for  righteous- 
ness in  another  sense,  that  by  wliich  we  ourselves  are 
reckoned  in  the  number  of  the  righteous.  And  this 
Paul  attributes  to  faith  only.' 

"  Calvin  has  the  same  interpretation  upon  Rom.  iv.  3, 
'  Wherefore  Abraham,  by  belicviug,  doth  only  embrace 
the  grace  tendered  unto  him,  that  it  might  not  be  in 
vain.  If  this  be  imputed  unto  liiiii  lor  righteousness, 
it  follows,  that  he  is  no  othcrwisi;  righteous,  but  as 
trusting  or  relying  upon  the  goodness  of  God,  he  hath 
boldness  to  hope  for  all  things  from  him.'  Again,  upon 
verse  5,  '  Faith  is  imputed  tor  nghieousness,  not  be- 
cause it  carrieth  any  merit  from  us,  but  because  it  ap- 
prehends the  goodness  of  God.'  Hence,  it  appears, 
that  he  never  thought  of  a  tropical  or  metonymical 
sense  in  the  word  faith ;  but  that  he  took  it  in  the 
plain,  ready,  and  grammatiial  significalimi. 

"  Muscultis  (•oMl(  lids  lor  this  imputation,  also,  in  his 
common  place  of  lustiliratiim,  sect.  5,  '  This  liiiih 
should  be  in  high  esteem  with  us;  not  in  regard  of  the 
proper  quality  of  it,  but  in  regard  of  the  purposes  of 
(Jod,  whereby  he  hath  decn^ed,  for  Christ's  sake,  to 
impute  il  for  righteousness  unto  those  that  believe  in 
him.'    The  same  author  upon  Gal.  iii.  6,  '  What  did 


[Part  II. 

Abraham  that  should  be  Imputed  unto  him  for  right- 
eousness, but  only  tliis,  that  he  believed  God?'  Again, 
'  But  when  he  firmly  believed  God  promising,  that 
very  faith  was  imputed  to  him,  in  the  jilacc  of  right- 
eousness, that  is,  he  was  of  God  reputed  righteous  for 
that  faith,  and  absolved  from  all  lus  sins.' 

"  Bulhnger  gives  the  same  interpretation,  upon 
Romans  iv.,  '  Abraham  committed  himself  unto  God 
by  believing,  and  this  very  thing  was  imputed  unto 
him  lor  righteousness.'  And  so,  upon  Gal.  iii.  6,  '  It 
was  imputed  unto  him  for  righteousness,  that  is,  that 
very  faith  of  Abraham  w,as  imiiuled  to  him  for  right- 
eousness, while  he  was  yet  uncircumcised.' 

"  Ganlter  conies  behind  none  of  the  former,  in 
avouching  the  grammatical  against  the  rhetorical  in- 
terpretation, upon  Rom.  iv.  3, '  Abraham  believed  God, 
and  he,  viz.  God,  imputed  unto  hiin  this  faith  for  right- 
eousness.' 

"  Illyricus  forsakes  not  his  fellow-interpreters  in  this 
point,  ujion  Rom.  iv.  3,  '  That  same  believing  was  im- 
puted unto  him  for  righteousness.' 

"  Pellicanus,  in  like  manner,  says,  \ipon  Gen.  xx.  6, 
'  Abraham  sini]ily  believed  the  word  of  God,  and  re- 
ijuired  not  a  sign  of  the  Lord,  and  God  imputed  that 
very  liiith  unto  Abraham  himself  for  righteousness.' 

"  Ilunnius,  another  divine,  sets  to  his  seal,  on  Ro- 
mans iv.  3,  'The  lailli  whereby  Abraham  believed  God 
promising,  was  impiUed  unto  hiin  for  righteousness.' 

"  lieza,  upon  the  same  Scripture,  says,  '  Here  the 
business  is,  concerning  that  which  was  imputed  unto 
him,  viz.  his  faith.' 

"  Juiiiu  i  and  Tremellius  are  likewise  of  the  same 
mind,  on  Gen.  xv.  0,  '  God  esteemed  (or  accounted)  him 
for  righteous,  though  wanting  righteousness,  and 
reckoned  this  in  the  place  of  righteousness,  that  ho 
embraced  the  jironiise  with  a  firm  belief '"(9) 

Our  English  divines  have  generally  differed  in  their 
interjjretations,  as  they  have  embraced  or  opposed  the 
Calvinistic  system;  but  among  the  more  moderate  of 
that  school  there  have  not  been  wanting  many  who 
have  bound  their  system  to  the  express  letter  and  ob- 
vious meaning  of  Scripture,  on  this  point ;  not  to  men- 
tion either  those  who  have  adopted  that  middle  scheme 
generally,  but  not  with  exactness  attributed  to  Baxter, 
or  the  followers  of  the  Remonstrants. 

When,  however,  we  say,  that  faith  is  imputed  for 
righteousness,  in  order  to  prevent  misapprehension, 
and  fully  to  answer  the  objections  raised  on  the  other 
side,  the  meaning  of  the  different  terms  of  this  propo- 
sition ought  to  be  explained.  They  are,  righteous- 
ness, FAITH,  and  IMl'UTATION. 

To  explain  the  first,  reference  has  sometimes  been 
made  to  the  three  terms  used  by  the  ajiostlc  Paul, 
ftKaiu)fia,  fiKiiiwaig,  and  ^iKaioavv)/ ;  of  which,  says 
Baxter,  "  the  first  usually  signihes  the  jiractical  or 
]ireceptive  manner,  that  is,  riffhtcmisncss ;  the  second, 
actiir,  r//irii  nf  ji/^ti/icatioii. ;  the  third,  the  state  of  the 
just,  (pialitative  or  relative,  or  ipsmn  justitiam.'' 
others  have  made  these  distinctions  a  little  different; 
but  not  much  help  is  to  be  derivi'd  liom  them,  and  it  is 
iiineli  more  important  to  observe,  that  the  apostle  often 
uses  the  term  i^tKitiDcvvrj,  righteousness,  in  a  passive 
sense  for  juslificalion  itself  So  in  Gal.  ii.  21,  "  If  right- 
eousness (jiixtijiriitinii)  come  by  the  law,  then  Christ 
is  dead  in  vain."  Gal.  iii.  21,  "  For  if  there  had  been  a 
law  given  which  couUl  have  given  life,  verily  righteous- 
ness (jiixti/icatitm)  should  have  been  by  the  law." 
Rom.  ix.  30,  '  The  Gentiles  have  attained  to  righteous- 
ness (  iiistilirdliiin),  even  the  righteousness  {justiji- 
culimi)  whiVli  is  by  faith."'  And  in  Rom.  x.  4,  "Christ 
is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  lo  every  one 
that  believelh;"  where,  also,  we  must  understand 
righteousness  to  mean  Justification.  Rom.  v.  18,  l'.», 
will  also  show,  that  with  the  apostle,  "  to  make  right- 
eous," and  "  to  justify,"  signify'  the  same  thing ;  lor 
"  jiislilication  of  liie,"  in  the  18th  verse,  is  called  in  the 
I'Jth,  being  "  made  righteous."  To  be  accounted  right- 
eous is,  then,  in  the  apo.stle's  style,  where  there  has 
been  personal  guilt,  to  he  justified;  and  what  is  ac- 
counted or  imiiuted  to  us  for  righteotisness,  is  accovmted 
or  imputed  to  us. for  our  justification. 

The  second  term  of  the  above  inoposilion  which  it  is 
necessary  lo  explain,  is  faith.  The  true  nature  of 
justifying  faith  will  be  explained  below  ;  all  that  is 
iiere  necessiu-y  to  remark  is,  thai  ii  is  not  every  act  of 


(9)  Vide  GuuDwiN  on  Justillcatiou. 


Chap.  XXIIL] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


305 


faith,  or  luith  in  tlic  general  truths  of  revelation,  which 
is  imputed  lor  rif^liteousnoss,  though  it  supposes  ilvni 
all,  and  is  the  coiiiiiklion  of  them  all.  By  faith  we 
understand  that  llie  worlds  were  framed  by  the  word 
of  God ;  but  it  is  not  our  taith  in  creation  which  is 
imputed  to  us  for  righteousness.  So  in  the  case  of 
Abraham,  he  not  only  had  faith  in  the  truths  of  the 
religion  of  wluch  he  was  the  teaeher  and  guardian, 
but  had  exercised  alliance,  also,  in  some  particular 
promises  of  God,  before  he  exhibited  that  great  act  of 
faith,  which  was  "  counted  to  him  lor  righteousness," 
and  which  made  his  justification  the  pattern  of  the 
justification  of  sinful  men  in  all  ages.  Hut  having 
received  the  promise  of  a  son,  from  whom  the  Messiah 
should  spring,  in  whom  all  nations  were  to  be  blessed  ; 
and  "  being  not  weak  in  failh,  he  con.sidered  noi  his 
own  body  now  dead,  when  he  was  about  a  hundred 
years  old,  nor  yet  the  deadness  of  Sarah's  womb ;  he 
staggered  not  at  the  promises  of  God  through  unbelief ; 
but  was  strong  in  faith,  giving  glory  to  God,  and  being 
fully  persuaded  that  what  he  had  promised  he  was  able 
also  lo  perlbrm,  ami  therefore  it  was  imputed  to  liini  /hr 
riii/iteoasiiess."  Horn.  iv.  19— 23.  His  faith  had  Messiah 
for  its  great  and  ultimate  object,  and  in  its  nature  it 
was  an  entire  alliance  in  the  promise  and  faithfulness 
of  God  with  reference  to  the  lioly  seed.  So  the  object 
of  that  faith  which  is  imputed  to  us  ibr  righteousness 
is  Christ ;  Christ  as  having  made  atonement  for  our 
sins  (the  remission  of  our  sins,  as  e.xjiressly  taught  by 
St.  Paul,  being  obtained  by  "  faith  in  lus  blood) ;"  and 
it  is  in  its  nature  an  entire  affiance  in  the  promise  of 
God  to  this  efiect,  made  to  us  through  his  atonement, 
and  founded  upon  it.  Kailh  being  thus  understood,  ex- 
cludes all  notion  of  its  meritoriousness.  It  is  not  faith, 
generally  considered,  which  is  imputed  to  us  for  right- 
eousness ;  but  faith  (trust)  in  an  atonement  offered  by 
another  in  our  behalf;  by  whicli  trust  in  something 
without  us,  wc  acknowledge  our  own  insufficiency, 
guilt,  and  unworthiness,  and  directly  ascribe  the  merit 
to  that  111  which  we  trust,  and  which  is  not  our  own, 
namely,  the  propitiation  of  the  blood  of  Christ. 

The  third  term  is  imputation.  The  original  verb  is 
xvell  enough  translated  to  impute,  in  the  sense  of  to 
reckon,  to  account ;  but,  as  we  have  stated  above,  it  is 
never  used  to  signify  imputation  in  the  sense  of  ac- 
counting the  actions  of  one  person  to  have  been  per- 
formed by  another. 

A  man's  sin  or  rigliteousness  is  imputed  to  him, 
when  he  is  considered  as  actually  the  doer  of  sinful  or 
of  righteous  acts,  in  whicli  sense  the  word  repute  is 
in  more  general  use ;  and  he  is,  in  consequence,  re- 
puted a  vicious  or  a  holy  man.  A  man's  sin  or  right- 
eousness is  imputed  to  him  in  its  legal  conseqiience, 
under  a  government  by  rewards  and  punishments ;  and 
then  to  impute  sin  or  righteousness,  signifies,  in  a  legal 
sense,  to  reckon  and  to  account  it,  to  acquit  or  con- 
demn, and  forthwith  to  punish,  or  to  exempt  from  pu- 
nishment. Thus  Shimei  entreats  David,  that  he  would 
"  not  impute  folly  to  him,"  that  is,  that  he  would  not 
punish  his  folly.  In  this  sense,  too,  David  speaks  of 
the  blessedness  of  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  "  im- 
puteth  not  sin,"  that  is,  whom  he  forgives,  so  that  the 
legal  consequence  of  his  sin  shall  not  fall  upon  him. 
This  non-imputation  of  sin  to  a  sinner  is  expressly 
called  the  "  imputation  of  righteousness  ivithout 
works  ;"  the  imputation  of  righteousness  is,  then,  the 
non-punishment  or  jiardon  of  sin ;  and  if  this  passage 
be  read  in  its  connexion,  it  will  also  be  seen,  that  by 
"  imputing"  faith  for  righteousness,  the  apostle  means 
precisely  the  same  thing.  "  But  to  him  that  worketh 
not,  but  believeth  on  tiiin  that  justifieth  the  ungodly, 
his  failh  is  counted  for  righteousness ;  even  as  Da- 
vid, also,  describefh  the  man  to  whom  God  imputeth 
righteousness  without  works,  saying,  blessed  is  the 
man  whose  iniquities  are  forgiven,  and  whoso  sins 
are  covered,  blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord 
"  imputeth  not  sin."  This  quotation  from  David 
would  have  been  nothing  to  the  apostle's  purpose,  un- 
less he  had  understood  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  an.i  the 
imputation  of  righteousness,  and  the  non-imputation 
of  sin,  to  signify  the  same  thing  as  "  counting  faith  bir 
righteousness,"  with  only  this  difference,  that  the  in- 
troduction of  the  term  "  faith"  marks  the  manner  in 
which  the?  forgiveness  of  sin  is  obtained.  To  impute 
faith  for  righteousness,  is  nothing  more  than  to  be 
justified  by  faith,  which  is  also  calleii  by  St.  Paul,. 
"  being  made  righteous,"  that  is,  bcnig  placed  by  an 
U 


act  ol  I'rce  forgiveness,  through  fhith  in  Christ,  in  the 
condition  of  righteous  men,  in  this  respect,  that  the 
penalty  of  the  law  does  not  lie  against  them,  and  that 
they  are  restored  to  the  Divine  favour. 

From  this  brief,  bui,  it  is  hoped,  clear  explanation  of 
these  terms,  righteousness,  faith,  and  imputation,  it 
will  appear,  that  it  is  not  quite  correct  in  the  advocates 
of  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  fjiith  for 
righteousness,  to  say,  lliat  our  faith  in  Christ  is  ac- 
cejrted  in  the  place  of  personal  obedience  to  the  law ; 
except,  indeed,  in  this  loose  sense,  that  our  faith  in 
Christ  as  effectually  exempts  us  from  punishment,  as 
if  we  had  been  personally  obedient.  The  Scriptural 
doctrine  is  rather,  that  the  death  of  Christ  is  accepted 
in  the  iilacc  of  our  personal  punishment,  on  condition 
of  our  faith  in  him ;  and  that  when  faith  in  him  is  ac- 
tually exerted,  then  comes  in,  on  the  part  of  God,  the 
act  of  imputing  or  reckoning  righteousness  to  us  ;  or, 
what  is  the  same  thing,  accounting  failh  for  righteous- 
ness ;  that  is,  pardoning  our  offences  through  failli, 
and  treating  us  as  the  objects  of  his  restored  favour. 

To  this  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  faith  for  right- 
eousness, the  principal  objections  which  have  been 
made  admit  of  an  easy  answer. 

The  first  is  that  of  the  Papists,  who  take  the  term 
justification  to  signify  the  making  men  morally  just  or 
righteous;  and  they  therefore  argue,  that  as  faith  alone 
is  not  righteousness  in  the  moral  sense,  it  would  be 
false,  and  therefore  imjiossible,  to  impute  it  for  right- 
eousness. But  as  we  have  proved  from  Scripture  that 
justification  simply  signifies  the  pardon  of  sin,  this 
objection  has  no  foundation. 

A  second  objection  is,  that  if  faith,  that  is,  believing, 
is  imputed  for  righteousness,  tlien  justification  is  by 
works,  or  by  somewhat  in  ourselves.  In  this  objection 
the  term  works  is  equivocal.  If  it  mean  works  of  obe- 
dience to  the  moral  law,  the  objection  is  unfounded,  for 
faith  is  not  a  work  of  tins  kind :  and  if  it  mean  the 
merit  of  works  of  any  kind,  it  is  equally  without 
foundation  ;  for  no  merit  is  allowed  to  faith,  and  faith, 
in  the  sense  of  exclusive  affiance,  or  trusting  in  the 
merits  of  another,  shuts  out,  by  its  very  nature,  all 
assumption  of  merit  to  ourselves,  or  there  would  be 
no  need  of  resorting  lo  another's  merit :  but  if  it  mean 
that  faith  or  believing  is  the  doing  of  something  in  or- 
der to  our  justification,  it  is  in  this  view  the  perform- 
ance of  a  condition,  a  sine  qua  non,  which  is  not  only 
not  forbidden  by  Scripture,  but  required  of  us, — "  This 
is  the  work  of  God,  that  ye  believe  on  him  whom  he 
hath  sent;"  "  He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved,  and  he 
that  beUeveth  not  shall  be  damned."  And  so  far  is  this 
considered  by  the  apostle  Paul  as  prejudicing  the  free 
grace  of  God  in  our  justification,  that  he  makes  our 
justification  by  faith  the  proof  of  its  gratuitous  nature, 
"  for  by  grace  are  ye  saved,  through  faith."  "  There- 
fore it  is  by  faith,  that  it  might  be  through  grace." 

A  third  objection  is,  that  the  imputation  of  faith  for 
righteousness  gives  occasion  to  boasting,  which  is  con- 
demned by  the  Gospel.  The  answer  to  this  is,  1.  That 
the  objection  lies  with  equal  strength  against  the  the- 
ory of  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
since  failh  is  required  in  order  to  that  imputation.  2. 
Boasting  of  our  faith  is  cut  off  by  the  consideration  that 
Ihis  failh  itself  is  the  gift  of  God.  3.  If  it  were  not, 
yet  the  blessings  which  follow  upon  our  faith  are  not 
given  with  reference  to  any  worth  or  merit  which  there 
may  be  in  our  beUeving,  but  are  given  with  respect  to 
the  death  of  Christ,  from  the  bounty  and  grace  of  (Jod. 
4.  St.  Paul  was  clearly  of  the  contrary  ojiinion,  who 
tells  us  that  "  boasting  is  excluded  by  the  law  nf faith  ;" 
the  reason  of  which  has  been  already  slated,  that  trust 
in  another  lor  salvation  does,  ipso  facto,  attribute  the 
power,  and  consequently  the  honour,  of  saving  to  an- 
other, and  denies  both  to  ourselves. 

Since,  then,  we  are  "justified  by  faith,"  our  next  in- 
quiry must  be  somewhat  more  particularly  into  the 
specific  quality  of  that  faith,  which  thus,  by  the  ap- 
pointment of  God,  leads  to  this  imiiortant  change  in 
our  relations  to  the  Being  whom  we  haveptlended,  so 
that  our  offences  are  freely  forgiven,  and  we  are  restored 
lo  his  favour. 

On  the  subject  of  justifying  faith,  so  many  distinc- 
tions have  been  set  up,  so  many  logical  terms  and  defi- 
nitions are  found  in  the  writings  of  systematic  divines, 
and  often,  as  Baxter  lias  it,  "such  quihliling  and  jin- 
gling of  a  mere  sound  of  words,"  (hat  Ihe  simple 
Christian,  (o  whom  tliis  subject  ought  always  to  be 


306 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  It 


made  plain,  has  often  been  grievously  pcr|)k'xed,  and 
no  small  cause  has  been  given  lor  the  derision  of  infi- 
dels. On  this,  as  on  otlier  points,  wc  appeal  "  to  the 
law  and  testimony,"  to  Christ  and  his  apostles,  who 
are  at  once  the  only  true  authorities  and  teachers  ol' 
the  greatest  simplicity. 
We  remark,  then, 

1.  That  in  Scripture,  faith  is  presentiul  to  us  under 
two  leading;  views.  The  first  is  that  of  assent  or  per- 
suasion ;  the  second,  that  of  confidence  or  reliance. 
That  the  former  may  be  separated  from  the  latter  is  also 
plain,  though  the  latter  cannot  e.xist  without  the  for- 
mer. Faith,  in  the  sense  of  intellectual  assent  to 
truth,  is  allowed  to  he  possessed  by  devils.  A  dead, 
inoperative  faith,  is  also  supposed  or  declared  to  be 
possessed  by  wicked  men  proli-ssing  Christianity ;  (or 
our  Lord  represents  persons  coming  to  him  at  the  last 
day,  saving,  "  Lord,  have  we  not  prophesied  in  thy 
name,"  &c. ;  to  whom  he  will  say,  "  Diipart  from  nie, 
I  never  knew  you ;"  and  yet  the  charge,  in  this  case, 
does  not  lie  against  the  sincerity  of  their  belief,  but 
against  their  conduct  as  "  workers  of  iniquity."  As 
this  distinction  is  taught  in  Scripture,  so  it  is  also  ob- 
served in  experience,  that  assent  to  the  truths  of  re- 
vealed religion  may  result  from  examination  and  con- 
viction, while  yet  the  spirit  and  conduct  may  be  unre- 
newed and  wholly  worldly. 

On  the  otlier  hand,  that  the  fiiith  which  God  requires 
of  men  always  comprehends  confidence  or  reliance,  as 
well  as  assent  or  persuasion,  is  equally  clear.  The 
faith  by  which  "  the  elders  obtained  a  good  report,"  was 
of  tills  character ;  it  united  assent  to  the  truth  of  Cod's 
revelations,  to  a  noble  confidence  in  his  promises.  "  Cur 
fathers  trusted  in  Thee,  and  were  not  confounded." 
We  have  a  farther  illustration  in  our  Lord's  address  to 
his  disciples  upon  the  witheritig  away  of  the  fig-tree. 
"  Have  faith  in  God."  He  did  not  question  whether 
they  believed  the  existence  of  God,  but  exhorted  them 
to  confidc-nce  in  his  promises,  when  called  by  him  to 
contend  with  mountainous  difficulties.  "  Have  faith 
in  God  ;  for  verily  1  say  unto  you,  tliat  whosoever  shall 
say  unto  this  mountain.  Be  thou  removed,  and  be  thou 
cast  into  the  sea,  and  shall  not  doubt  in  his  heart,  but 
shall  believe  that  these  things  which  he  saith  shall 
come  to  pass,  he  shall  have  whatsoever  he  saith."  It 
was  in  reference  to  his  simple  confidence  in  Christ's 
power,  that  our  Lord  so  highly  coinmcndeil  the  centu- 
rion. Matt.  viii.  10,  and  said,  "  I  have  not  found  so  great 
faitli,  no,  not  in  Israel."  And  all  the  instances  of 
faith  in  the  persons  miraculously  healed  by  (Christ 
were  also  of  this  kind ;  it  was  belief  in  his  claims,  and 
confidence  in  his  goodness  and  power. 

The  faith  in  Christ,  which  in  the  New  Testament  is 
connected  with  salvation,  is  clearly  of  this  nature ; 
that  is,  it  combines  assent  with  reliance,  belief  with 
trust.  "  Whatsoever  ye  ask  the  Father  in  ?nij  na/nr," 
that  is,  in  dependence  upon  my  interest  and  merit.s, 
"  he  shall  give  it  you."  Christ  was  jjreached  both  to 
Jews  and  Gentiles  as  the  object  of  their  trust,  becau.se 
ho  was  preached  as  the  only  true  sacrifice  for  sin ;  and 
they  wiTC  re(iuired  to  renounce  their  dependence  U])on 
their  own  accustomed  sacrifices,  and  to  transfer  that 
dependence  to  his  death  and  mediation,  and  "in  his 
name  shall  the  Gentiles  trust."  He  is  set  forth  as  a  ])ro- 
pitiation,  "  through  faith  in  his  blood ;"  wliicli  faitli  can 
neither  merely  mean  assent  to  the  historical  lUci  tli.ii  his 
blood  was  shed  by  a  violent  death,  nor  imre  assent  to 
the  general  doctrine  that  his  blood  had  an  atoning  qua- 
lity ;  but  as  all  expiatory  ollirings  were  Iruatcd  in  as 
the  means  of  propitiation,  both  among  Jews  andtien- 
tiles,  that  faith  or  trust  was  now  to  be  exclusively  ren- 
dered to  the  blood  of  Christ,  heightened  by  the  stronger 
demonstrations  of  a  Divine  appointment. 

To  the  most  unlettered  (.'hristian  this,  then,  will  be 
most  obvious,  that  that  failh  in  Christ,  which  is  re- 
quired of  us,  consists  both  of  assent  and  trust;  and 
the  necessity  of  maintaining  these  inseparably  united 
will  farther  appear,  by  considering  that  it  is  not  a  blind 
and  superstitious  trust  in  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  like 
that  of  the  iK^alhens  in  their  sacrifices,  which  leads  to 
salvation ;  nor  the  presumptuous  trust  of  wukcil  and 
impenitent  men,  who  depend  on  Christ  to  siivc  them  in 
their  sins  ;  but  such  a  trust  as  is  cxcrcLsiil  uccDrdiiig 
to  the  authority  and  direction  of  the  Word  ol  (;oil ;  so 
thai  to  Know  the  (Jospel  in  its  leading  primiplt  s,  and 
to  have  a  cordial  belief  in  it,  is  necessary  to  that  more 
Bpecilic  act  of  lUitU,  wliich  is  called  rollaiice,  or,  in  sys- 


tematic language,  fiducial  assent,  of  which  cometb 
salvation.  Tho  Gospel,  as  the  scheme  of  man's  salva- 
tion, supposes  that  he  is  under  law  ;  that  this  law  of 
God  has  been  violated  by  all ;  and  tliat  every  man  is 
lUider  sentence  of  <|path.  Serious  consideration  of  our 
ways,  confession  of  the  fact,  and  sorrowful  conviction 
of  the  evil  and  danger  of  sin,  wUl  follow  the  gift  of  re- 
pentance and  a  cordial  belief  of  the  testimony  of  God  ;, 
and  we  shall  thus  turn  to  G'od  with  contrite  hearts,  and 
earne.st  prayers  and  supiilications  for  liis  mercy.  This 
is  called  "  repentance  towards  God ;"  and  repentance 
being  the  first  subject  of  evangehcal  preaching,  and 
then  the  belief  of  the  Gospel,  it  is  plain  that  Christ  is 
only  immediately  held  out  in  tins  Divine  plan  of  our 
redemption  as  the  object  of  trust,  in  order  to  forgive- 
ness to  persons  in  tliis  state  of  penitence,  and  vmder 
this  sense  of  danger.  The  degree  of  sorrow  for  sin, 
and  alarm  upon  this  discovery  of  our  danger  as  sin- 
ners, is  nowhere  fixed  m  Scripture ;  only  it  is  supposed 
every  where,  that  it  is  such  as  to  lead  men  to  inquire 
earnestly  "  what  shall  I  do  to  be  saved  ?"  and  to  use  all 
the  appointed  means  of  sal.  stion,  as  those  who  feel  that 
their  salvation  is  at  issue,  that  they  are  in  a  lost  con- 
lUtion,  and  must  be  pardoned  or  perish.  To  all  such 
persons,  Clu'ist,  as  the  only  atonement  for  sin,  is  cxlii- 
bited  as  the  object  of  their  trust,  with  the  promise  of 
God  "  that  whosoever  bclicveth  in  him  shall  not  i)erish, 
but  have  everlasting  life."'  Nothing  is  required  of  such 
but  this  actual  trust  in,  and  personal  apprehension  or 
taking  hold  of,  the  merits  of  Christ's  death  as  a  sacri- 
fice lor  sin ;  and  upon  their  thus  believing  they  are 
justified, their  faith  is  "counted  for  righteousness." 

This  appears  to  be  the  plain  Scriptural  representa- 
tion of  this  doctrine,  and  we  may  infer  from  it,  1.  That 
the  faith  by  which  we  are  justified  is  not  a  mere  assent 
to  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  which  leaves  the  heart 
unmoved  and  unaffected  by  a  sense  of  the  evU  and 
danger  of  sin,  and  the  desire  of  salvation,  though  it 
supposes  tins  assent ;  nor,  2.  Is  it  that  more  lively  and 
cordial  assent  to,  and  belief  in,  the  doctrine  of  the 
Gospel,  touching  our  sinful  and  lost  conihtion,  which 
is  wrought  in  the  heart  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  from 
which  si)ringeth  repentance,  though  this  must  precede 
it;  nor,  3.  Is  it  only  the  assent  of  the  mind  to  the  me- 
thod by  wliich  God  justifies  the  ungodly  by  faith  in  the 
sacrifice  of  his  Son,  though  tliis  is  an  element  of  it; 
hut  it  is  a  hearty  concurrence  of  "  the  will  and  affec- 
tions with  this  plan  of  .salvation,  which  implies  a  re- 
nunciation of  every  other  refuge,"  "  and  an  actual 
trust  in  the  Saviour,  and  personal  apjjrchension  of  his 
merits :  such  a  belief  of  the  Gosi)el,  by  the  power  of 
the  Spirit  of  (iod,  as  leads  us  to  come  to  Christ,  to  re- 
ceive Christ,  to  trust  in  Christ,  and  to  commit  the 
keeping  of  our  souls  into  his  hands,  in  hmnble  confi- 
dence of  his  abdity  and  his  willingness  to  save  us."(l) 

This  is  that  qualifying  condition  to  which  the  pro- 
mise of  God  annexes  justification ;  that  without  which 
justification  would  not  take  place;  and  in  this  sense  it 
is  that  wc  are  justified  by  faith ;  not  by  the  merit  of 
faith,  but  by  faitli  instrunientally  as  this  condition,  for 
its  connexion  with  the  benefit  arises  fn.m  the  mcrita 
of  Christ  and  the  proiiiise  of  God.  "If  Christ  had  not 
merited,  (;od  tia<l  not  promised;  if  God  had  not  pro- 
mised, juslilicalion  had  never  followed  upon  this  faith; 
so  that  the  indissoluble  coMiiixion  of  faith  and  justifi- 
cation is  from  God's  institution,  w  hereby  he  hath  bound 
himself  to  give  the  bciiclit  upon  pcrlbrinance  of  the 
condition.  Yet  there  is  an  ajititude  in  this  faith  to  be 
made  a  condition,  for  no  other  act  can  nc.ivc  Christ  as 
a  priest  propitiating,  an(f  pleading  the  iiniiutiaiinn,  and 
the  promise  of  (Jod  Ibr  his  sake  to  give  the  beiiel'rt.  As 
receiving  (  brist  and  the  gracious  jiromisc  in  this  man- 
ner, it  ackiiowlc  ilgiih  man's  guilt,  and  soman  re- 
nounccth  all  nL'btcousness  in  himself,  and  honoureth 
(kxl  the  I'alliiT,  and  Christ  the  Son,  I  tie  oiil\  Ucdeemcr. 
It  glciniiis  God's  iiicn-y  and  free  grace  in  llic  highest 
degree,  It  acknowledgcth  on  earth,  as  it  will  be  per- 
petually acknowliilgril  in  heaven,  that  the  whole  sal- 
vation of  sinful  man,  from  the  bcgiimiiig  to  the  last  de- 
gree thereof,  whereof  there  shall  bi:  no  end,  is  ft-om 
(iod's  freest  love,  Christ's  merit  and  intercession.  Ids 
ow.'i  gracious  promise,  and  the  ix)wer  of  his  own  Holy 
Spirit. "(2) 

.lustilication  by  faith  alone  is  thus  dearly  the  doc- 

(1)  HuNTiNo's  Scnnon  on  Justification. 

(2)  LxwsoN. 


Chap.  XXIiL] 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


307 


trine  of  the  Scriptures  ;  and  it  was  this  great  <Ioeiriiie 
brought  forth  again  from  the  Scriptures  into  public 
view,  and  maintained  by  their  authority,  which  consti- 
tuted one  of  the  main  pillars  of  the  reformation  from 
Popery ;  and  on  which  no  compromise  could  hv  allowed 
with  that  corrupt  church,  wliich  had  substituted  for  it 
the  merit  of  works.  Melancthon,  in  his  Apology  lor 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  thus  siieaks  :  "  To  represent 
justification  by  laith  only  has  been  considered  objec- 
tionable, though  Paul  concludes  that  'a  man  is  justi- 
fied by  faith  without  the  deeds  of  the  law;'  'that  we 
are  justilied  freely  by  his  grace,'  and  '  that  it  is  the  gift 
of  God,  not  of  works,  lest  any  man  should  boast.'  If 
the  use  of  the  exclusive  term  on!y  is  deemed  inadmis- 
sible, let  them  expunge  from  the  writings  of  the  apos- 
tles the  exclusive  phrases,  '  by  grace,'  •  not  of  works,' 
'  the  gift  of  Ood,'  and  others  of  similar  import."  "  We 
arc  accounted  righteous  before  God,"  says  the  llth  ar- 
ticle of  the  Church  of  England,  "  only  for  tlie  merit  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  faith,  not  for  our  works  and 
deservings ;"  and  again,  in  the  Homily  on  Salvation, 
"  St.  I'aul  declares  nothing  upon  the  behalf  of  man 
concerning  his  justification,  but  only  a  true  and  lively 
laith,  which,  nevertheless,  is  the  gift  of  God,  and  not 
man's  only  work  without  God.  And  yet  that  faith  doth 
not  shut  out  repentance,  hope,  love,  dread,  and  the  fear 
of  God,  to  be  joined  with  faith  in  every  man  that  is  jus- 
tified ;  but  only  shutteth  them  out  from  the  ofiice  of 
justifying.  So  that,  although  they  be  all  present  to- 
gether ill  him  that  is  justified,  yet  they  justify  noL  alto- 
gether." 

It  is  an  error,  therefore,  to  suppose,  as  many  have 
done,  that  the  doctrine  of  justification  by, faith  alone, 
is  peculiarly  a  Calvinistic  one.  It  has,  in  consequence, 
often  been  attacked  under  this  mistake,  and  confounded 
with  the  peculiarities  of  that  system,  by  writers  of 
limited  reading,  or  perverting  ingenuity.  It  is  the  doc- 
trine, as  we  have  seen,  not  of  the  Calvinistic  confes- 
sions only,  but  of  the  Lutheran  church,  and  of  the 
Church  of  England.  It  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Dutch 
Remonstrants,  at  least  of  the  early  divines  of  that 
party  ;  and  though,  among  many  divines  of  the  Church 
of  England,  the  errors  of  Popery  on  the  subject  of  jusli- 
tication  have  had  their  influence,  and  some,  who  have 
contended  liir  justification  by  faith  alone,  have  lowered 
Uie  scriptural  standard  of  believing,  the  doctrine  itself 
has  often  heen  very  ably  maintained  by  its  later  noii- 
Calvmislic  divines.  Thus  justification  by  faith  alone ; 
faith  which  excludes  all  works,  both  of  the  ceremonial 
and  moral  law ;  all  works  performed  by  Gentiles 
under  the  law  of  nature  ;  all  works  of  evangelical  obe- 
dience, though  they  spring  from  faith ;  has  been  de- 
fended by  Whitby,  in  the  preface  to  his  notes  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  though  he  was  a  decided  anti- 
Calvinist.  The  same  may  be  said  of  many  others  ;  and 
we  may,  finally,  refer  to  Mr.  Wesley,  who  revived,  by 
his  preaching  and  writings,  an  evangelical  Arminian- 
ism  in  this  country  ;  and  who  has  most  clearly  and 
abiy  established  this  truth  in  connexion  with  the  doc- 
trine of  geueral  redemption,  and  God's  universal  love 
to  man. 

"  By  affirming  that  faith  is  the  term  or  condition  of 
jusiijicatton,  I  mean,  first,  that  there  is  no  justification 
without  it.  '  He  that  believeth  not  is  condemned  al- 
ready,' and  so  long  as  he  believeth  not,  that  condemna- 
tion cannot  be  removed,  but  the  '  wrath  of  God  abideth 
on  him.'  As '  there  is  no  othername  given  under  heaven, 
t'tiaii  that  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,' no  other  merit  m7«')77/i/ 
a  condemned  sinner  can  ever  be  saved  from  the  guilt 
of  sin ;  so  there  is  no  other  way  of  obtaining  a  share 
in  his  merit,  than  by  faith  in  his  name.  So  that,  as 
long  as  we  are  without  this  faith,  we  are  '  strangers  to 
tUe  covenant  of  promise,  we  are  aliens  from  the  coi 
monwealth  of  Israel,  and  without  God  in  the  world.' 
Whatsuever  virtues  (so  called)  a  man  may  have,  I 
speak  of  those  mito  whom  the  Gospel  is  preached  ;  for 
'  what  have  I  to  do  to  judge  them  that  are  without  V 
Whatsoever  good  works  (so  accounted)  he  may  clo,  it 
profi.teth  not ;  he  is  still  a  child  of  wrath,  still  umler  the 
curse  till  he  believe  in  Jesus. 

"  Faith,  therefore,  is  the  necessary  condition  of  justi- 
fication. Yea,  and  the  only  necessary  condition  thereof. 
This  is  tlie  second  point  carefully  to  be  observed  ;  that 
the  very  monient  God  giveth  laith  (lor  it  is  the  gilt  of 
God)  to  the  '  ungodly,  that  work(!th  not,'  that  '  faith  is 
counted  to  him  lor  righteousness.'  He  hath  no  right- 
eousness at  all  autecedcut  to  this,  not  so  mucli  as  nc- 
U2 


gative  righteousness,  or  innocence.  But  '  faith  is  im- 
puted (o  him  for  righteousness,'  the  very  moment  that 
he  believeth.  Not  that  God  (as  was  observed  before  ) 
thinketh  him  to  be  what  he  is  not.  But  as  '  he  made 
Christ  to  be  a  sin-ofl'ering  for  us,'  that  is,  treated  him 
as  a  sinner,  punished  him  for  our  sins ;  so  he  covinteth 
us  righteous,  from  the  time  we  believe  m  him  ;  that  is, 
he  doth  not  punish  us  lor  our  sins,  yea,  treats  us  as 
though  we  were  guiltless  and  righteous. 

"  Surely  the  difficulty  of  assenting  to  the  proposition, 
that  faith  is  the  only  condition  of  justification,  must 
arise  from  not  understanding  it.  We  mean  thereby 
this  much,  that  it  is  the  only  thing  without  which  no 
one  is  justified  ;  the  only  thing  that  is  immediately,  in- 
dispensably, absolutely  reijuisite  in  order  to  pardon. 
As,  on  the  one  hand,  though  a  man  should  have  every 
thing  else,  without  faith,  yet  he  cannot  he  justified : 
so  on  the  other,  though  he  be  sujiiMscd  to  want 
every  thing  else,  yet  if  he  hath  faith  he  cannot  but  Vic 
justified.  For  suppose  a  siimer  of  any  kind  or  de- 
gree, in  a  full  sense  of  his  total  ungodliness,  of  his 
utter  inability  to  think,  speak,  or  do  good,  and  his  ab- 
solute meetness  for  hell  fire :  suppose,  I  say,  this  sin- 
ner, helpless  and  hopeless,  casts  himself  wholly  on  the 
mercy  of  God  in  Christ  (which  indeed  he  cannot  do 
but  by  the  grace  of  God),  who  can  doubt,  liut  he  is  for- 
given in  that  moment  ?  Who  will  aftirin  that  any  more 
is  indispeiisabiy  required,  before  that  siiuier  can  be 
justified  V'(3) 

To  the  view  of  justifying  faith  we  have  attempted  to 
establish,  namely,  the  entire  trust  and  reliance  of  an 
awakened  and  penitent  sinner,  in  the  atonement  of 
Christ  alone,  as  the  meritorious  ground  of  his  pardon, 
some  objections  have  been  made,  and  some  contrary 
hypotheses  opposed,  which  it  will  be  necessary  to  bring 
to  the  test  of  the  Word  of  God. 

The  general  objection  is,  that  it  is  a  doctrine  unfa- 
vourable to  morality.  This  was  the  objection  in  St. 
I'aul's  day,  and  it  has  been  urged  through  all  ages  ever 
since.  It  proceeds,  however,  upon  a  great  misapprehen- 
sion of  the  doctrine  ;  and  Jias  sometimes  been  suggested 
by  that  real  abuse  of  it,  to  which  all  truth  is  liable  by 
men  of  perverted  minds  and  corrupted  hearts.  Some  of 
these  have  pretended,  or  deceived  themselves  into  the 
conclusion,  that  if  the  atonement  made  for  sin  by  the 
death  of  Christ  only  be  relied  upon,  however  presump- 
tuously, the  sins  which  they  commit  will  be  forgiven ; 
and  that  there  is  no  motive,  at  least  from  fear  of  conse- 
quences, to  avoid  sin.  Others  observing  this  abuse,  or 
misled,  probably,  by  incautious  statements  of  sincere 
persons  on  tliis  point,  have  concluded  this  to  be  the  lo- 
gical consequence  of  the  doctrine,  however  innocently 
it  may  sometimes  be  held.  Attempts  have,  therefore, 
been  made  to  guard  the  doctrine,  and  from  these,  on  the 
other  hand,  errors  have  arisen.  The  Romish  church 
contends  for  justification  by  inherent  righteousness, 
and  makes  faith  a  part  of  that  righteousness.  Others 
contend,  that  faith  signifies  obedience ;  others  place 
justification  in  faith  and  good  works  united ;  otherss 
hold  that  faith  gives  us  an  interest  in  the  merit  of  Christ, 
to  make  up  the  deficiency  of  a  sincere  but  imperfect 
obedience ;  othe  rs  think  that  true  faith  is  in  itself  essen- 
tially, and,  per  sc,  the  necessary  root  of  obedience. 

The  proper  answer  to  the  objection,  that  justification 
by  faith  alone  leads  to  licentiousness,  is,  that  "  though 
we  are  justified  by  faith  alone,"  the  faith  by  which  we 
are  justified  is  not  alone  in  the  heart  which  exercises 
it.  In  receiving  Christ,  as  the  writers  of  the  Reforma- 
tion often  say,  "  faith  is  sola,  yet  not  solitaria."  It  Is 
not  the  trust  of  a  man  asleep  and  secure,  but  the  trust 
of  one  awakened  and  aware  of  the  peril  of  eternal 
death,  as  the  wages  of  sin ;  it  is  not  the  trust  of  a  man, 
ignorant  of  the  spiritual  meaning  of  God's  holy  law  ; 
but  of  one  who  is  convinced  and  "  slain"  by  it ;  not  the 
trust  of  an  impenitent,  but  of  a  penitent  man ;  the  trust 
of  one,  in  a  word,  who  feels,  through  the  convincing 
power  of  the  word  and  spirit  of  Guil,  that  he  is  justly 
exposed  to  wrath,  and  in  whom  this  conviction  pro- 
iluces  a  genuine  sorrow  for  sin,  and  an  intense  and  su- 
preme desire  to  be  delivered  from  its  penalty  and  do- 
minion. Now,  that  all  this  is  substantially,  or  more 
particularly,  in  the  experience  of  all  who  jiass  into  this 
state  of  justification  through  faith,  is  manifest  from  the 
7th  and  Hlh  chapters  of  the  Epistle  to  llie  Romans,  in 
wiiich  the  moral  state  of  man  is  traced  in  the  experi- 


(3)  Wkhlkv's  SermoHB. 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


cncc  of  St.  Paul  as  an  example,  from  his  conviction  for 
sin  by  the  law  of  (.'od,  revealed  to  him  in  its  spirituality, 
to  his  entrance  into  the  condition  and  privilc;;e.s  of  a 
justilied  state.  We  see  liero,  guilt,  fear,  a  vain  stru^'gle 
with  bondage,  poignant  distress,  self-despair,  readines.s 
to  submit  to  any  efTectual  mode  of  deliverance  which 
may  be  ofl'ercd,  acceptance  of  salvation  by  (."hrist,  the 
immediate  removal  of  condemnation,  dominion  over 
sin,  with  all  the  fruits  of  regeneration,  and  the  lolly 
hopes  of  the  glory  of  Gon.  So  far,  then,  is  the  doc- 
trine of  justification  by  faith  alone  from  leading  to  a 
loose  and  careless  conduct,  that  that  very  slate  of  mind 
in  which  alone  tins  faith  can  be  exercised,  is  one  which 
excites  the  most  earnest  longings  and  clforts  of  mind 
to  be  free  from  the  bondage  of  sin,  as  well  as  from  its 
penalty  ;  and  to  be  free  from  its  penalty  in  order  that 
freedom  from  its  bondage  may  follow.  As  this  is  proved 
by  the  7th  chapter  of  the  epistle  referred  to,  so  the 
Ibrmer  part  of  the  8th,  which  continues  the  discourse 
(unforluiialely  broken  by  the  division  of  the  chapters), 
shows  the  moral  state  which  is  the  immediate  result  of 
"  being  in  Christ  Jesus,"  through  the  exercise  of  that 
faith,  which  alone,  as  we  have  seen,  can  give  us  a  per- 
sonal interest  in  him.  "There  is  now  no  conde?n>ia- 
tion  to  them  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus."  Tliis  is  the  first 
result  of  the  pardon  of  sin,  a  consequent  exemption 
from  condemnation.  The  next  is  nianilestly  concomi- 
tant with  it, — •'  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh  but  after 
thcHpirit,"  which  is  now  in  its  fulness  imjiarted  to  thein ; 
and  by  which  being  regenerated,  they  are  delivered  from 
the  bondage  before  described,  and  "walk"  alter  his 
will,  and  under  his  sanctilying  intluence.  This  brings 
us  precisely  to  the  answer  which  the  apostle  himself 
gives  to  tiie  objection  to  which  we  are  referring,  in  the 
fith  chapter — "  What  shall  we  say,  then  ?  shall  we  con- 
tinue in  sin  that  grace  may  abound  '.  God  forbid ;  how 
shall  we  who  are  dead  to  sin  live  any  longer  therein  ?" 
The  moral  state  of  every  man  who  is  justified  is  here 
described  to-  be  that  he  is  "  dead  to  sin."  Not  that 
justification  strictly  is  a  death  unto  sin,  or  regenera- 
tion ;  but  into  this  state  it  immediately  brings  us,  so  that 
though  they  are  properly  distinguished  in  the  order  of 
our  thoughts,  and  hi  the  nature  of  things,  they  go  to- 
gether ;  lie  to  whom  "  there  is  no  condemnation,"  walks 
net  after  the  Hesh,  but  alter  the  .Spirit ;  and  he  who 
experiences  the  "  abounding  of  the  grace  of  (Jod"  in 
his  pardon,  is  "  dead  to  sin,"  and  cannot,  therefore,  con- 
tinue therein.  This  is  the  clfect  of  the  lallh  that  justi- 
fies; from  that  alone,  as  it  brings  us  to  Christ  our  de- 
liverer, our  entire  deliverance  from  sin  can  Ibllow;  and 
thus  the  doctrine  of  faith  becomes  exclusively  the  doc- 
trine of  holiness,  and  points  out  the  only  remedy  for 
sin's  dominion. 

It  is  true,  that  some  colour  would  be  given  to  the 
contrary  opinion,  were  it  to  be  admitted,  that  this  act  of 
faith,  Ibllowedby  our  justification,  didindnleisilily  set- 
tle our  right  to  eternal  blessedness  by  a  title  not  to  be 
vitiated  by  any  future  transgression  ;  but  this  doctrine, 
\yhich  forms  a  part  of  the  theory  of  the  Calvinists,  we 
shall,  in  its  place,  showlobe  unscriptural.  Itis  enough 
here  to  say,  that  it  has  no  connexion  with  the  doctrine 
of  justification  by  laith  alone,  though  so  olteii  igno- 
rantly  identified  with  it.  Our  probation  is  not  termi- 
nated by  our  i)ardon.  Wilful  sin  will  infallibly  plunge 
us  again  into  condemnation,  with  heightened  aggrava- 
tions and  hazards ;  and  lie  only  retains  this  slate  of 
favour,  who  continues  to  believe  with  that  same  faith 
which  brings  back  to  him,  not  only  the  assurances  of 
God's  mercy,  but  the  continually  renewing  inJluences 
of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone,  as  stated 
in  the  Scriptures,  needs  not,  therefore,  any  of  those 
guards  and  cautions,  which  we  have  enumerated  above, 
and  which  all  involve  serious  errors,  which  it  may  not 
be  useless  to  point  out. 

1.  The  error  of  the  Romish  church  is  to  confound 
jostificatioii  and  sanctification.  So  the  Council  of 
Trent  declares,  that  "justification  is  not  only  the  re- 
mission of  sins,  but  also  the  sanctification  of  ihi;  inner 
man;  anjjthal  the  (inly  formal  cause  of  juslificahon,  is 
the  righteousness  of  (Uu],  not  that  whereby  he  Is  |iisl, 
but  that  by  wlnclilu;  makes  us  ju.st;"  that  is,inli(;ri!nlly 
so.  That  justificulioii  and  sunclificatioii  go  together, 
we  have  seen ;  but  this  is  not  what  is  meant  by  the 
Council.  Tlltir  doctrine  is,  that  man  is  made  just  or 
holy,  and  then  Justifiud.  'J'he  answer  to  this  lia.s  been 
already  given.    God  "  jusliliclh  llic  uni^oilly  .''  and  U»e 


Scriptures  plainly  mean  by  jastification,not  sanctifica- 
tion, but  simply  the  remission  of  sin,  as  already  esta- 
blished. 'I'he  passages,  also,  above  quoted,  show  that 
those  who  hold  this  doctrine  reverse  the  order  of  the 
Scriptures.  The  sanctification  which  constitutes  a 
man  inherently  righteous,  is  concomitant  with  justifi- 
cation, but  does  not  precede  it.  Before  "  condemna- 
tion" is  taken  away,  he  cries  out  "  Oh,  wretched  man 
that  1  am,  who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this 
death  ;"  when  "  there  is  now  no  condemnation,"  he 
"  walks  not  alter  the  ficsli  but  alter  the  Spirit."  In  the 
nature  of  things,  too,  justification  and  sanctification 
are  distinct.  The  active  sanctification  of  the  Spirit, 
taken  in  itself,  either  habitually  or  actually,  and  as  in- 
herent in  us,  can  in  no  wise  be  justification,  for  justifi- 
cation is  the  remission  of  sins.  God  gave  tliis  Spirit  to 
angels,  he  gave  it  to  Adam  in  the  day  of  creation,  and 
tins  Spirit  did  sanctify,  and  now  doth  sanctify  the  bles- 
sed angels,  yet  this  sanctification  is  not  remission. 
Sanctification  cannot  be  the  formal  cause  of  justifica- 
tion, any  more  than  justification  can  be  the  formal 
cause  of  glorification ;  for  however  all  these  may  bo 
connected,  they  are  things  perfectly  distinct  and  differ- 
ent in  their  nature.  "  Tliere  be  two  kinds  of  Christian 
righteousness,"  says  Hooker,  "the  one  without  us, 
which  we  have  by  imputation;  the  other  in  us,  which 
consisleth  of  faith,  hope,  and  charity,  and  other  Chris- 
tian virtues.  God  giveth  us  both  the  one  justice  and 
the  other;  the  one  by  accepting  us  for  righteous  in 
Christ,  the  other  by  working  Christian  righteousness 
in  us."(4) 

2.  To  the  next  opinion,  that  justifying  faith,  in  the 
Christian  sen.se,  includes  works  of  evangelical  obedi- 
ence, and  is  not,  therefore,  simple  affiance  or  fiducial 
assent,  the  answer  of  Whitby  is  forcible.  "  The  Scri])- 
tnre  is  express  and  freiiuent  in  the  assertion,  that  be- 
lievers are  justified  by  faith,  in  which  expression  either 
fail  h  must  include  works,  or  evanselical  obedience,  or  it 
doth  not :  if  it  dolh  not,  we  are  justified  by  faith  alone  ; 
and  that  itdolhiiot  formally  include  works  of  evangelical 
righteousness,  appears,  1.  From  the  plain  distinction 
which  ilie  Scn))ttire  puts  between  them,  when  it  informs 
us,  lliat  fail  h  works  by  love,  is  shown  forth  by  our  w  orks, 
and  exhorts  us  to  add  to  our  faith  virtue,  to  virtue  know- 
ledge ;  and,  2.  Because  it  is  not  reasonable  to  con- 
ceive, that  Christ  and  his  apostles,  making  use  of  a 
word  which  had  a  known  and  fixed  import,  should 
mean  more  by  ttiis  word  than  what  it  signified  in  com- 
mon use,  as  sure  they  must  have  done,  had  they  in- 
cluded in  the  meaning  of  the  word  the  whole  of  our 
evangelical  righteousness."(5)  To  this  we  may  add, 
that  in  everydiscour.se  of  St.  Paul,  as  to  our  justification, 
faith  and  works  are  opposed  to  each  other ;  and  fiirther, 
that  his  argument  necessarily  excludes  works  of  evan- 
gelical obedience.  For  as  it  clearly  excludes  all  works 
of  ciniiioiiial  law,  so  also  all  works  of  obedience  l» 
tlie  moral  law  ;  and  that  not  with  any  reference  to  their 
degree,  as  perfect  or  imperfect,  but  with  reference  to 
their  nature  as  works;  so  then,  for  this  same  reason, 
must  all  works  of  evangelical  obedience  be  excluded 
from  the  office  of  justifying,  for  they  are  also  moral 
works,  works  of  obedience  to  the  same  law,  which  is 
in  (nrcc  under  the  Gospel ;  and  however  they  may  be 
perliirmed  ;  whether  by  the  assistance  of  the  Spirit  or 
without  that  assistance  ;  whether  they  spring  IVoinfailh 
or  any  other  principle,  these  are  mere  circumstances 
which  alter  not  the  nature  of  the  acts  themselves,  they 
arc  ivarkx  still,  and  are  opposed  by  the  apostle  to  gract 
ai\<\ /aitli.  "And  if  by  grace,  then  it  is  no  more  of 
works ;  otherwise  grace  is  no  more  grace ;  but  if  it 
be  of  works,  then  is  it  no  more  (of)  grace,  otherwise 
work  is  no  more  work."    Bom.  xi.  6. 

3.  A  third  notion  winch  has  been  adojited  to  guard 
the  doclriiie  of  justification  by  faith  is,  that  faith  appre- 
hends and  ai>|)ropriates  the  merits  of  Christ  to  make 
up  fiir  tlie  deficiency  of  ourimpcrlect  obedience.  There 
must,  therefore,  be  a  sincere  endeavour  after  obedience, 
and  in  tliis  the  required  guard  is  supposed  to  he ;  but  to 
secure  justification  where  obedience  is  still  imperfect, 
though  sini-erc,  reciuires  faith. 

It  is  a  sufiiciont  refutation  of  this  theoryj  that  no  in- 
timation IS  given  of  it  in  Scripture,  and  it  is  indeed 
contradicted  by  it.  Either  this  sincere  and  imperfect 
obeihence  has  its  share  in  our  justification,  or  it  has  not ; 

(4)  Discourse  of  Justification. 

(5)  Preface  to  Ualuliauf. 


Chap.  XXIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


309 


if  it  has,  we  are  justified  by  works  and  laith  united, 
which  has  just  been  disproved ;  if  it  has  not,  then  we 
are  justified  by  faith  alone,  in  the  manner  before  ex- 
plained. 

4.  The  last  error  referred  to  is  that  which  represents 
faith  as,  per  se,  the  necessary  root  of  obedience :  so  that 
justification  by  faith  alone  nriay  be  allowed  ;  but  then 
the  guard  against  abuse  is  said  to  lie  in  this,  that  true 
faith  is  itself  so  enancat  a  virtue,  that  it  naturally 
produces  good  works . 

The  objection  to  this  stateuicnt  lies  not  indeed  so 
much  tu  the  substantial  truth  of  the  doctrine  taught  by 
it,  or  to  what  is  perhaps  intended  by  most  of  those 
wlio  so  speak,  for  similar  modes  of  expression  we  find 
in  the  writaigs  of  many  of  the  elder  divines  of  the  re- 
formation, who  most  strenuously  advocated  justifica- 
tion by  faith  alone ;  but  to  the  view  under  which  it  is 
presented.  Faith,  when  genuine,  is  necessarily  the 
"  root  and  mother  of  obedience ;"  good  works  of  every 
kind,  without  exception,  do  also  necessarily  spring 
from  it ;  but  though  we  say  necessarily,  yet  we  do  not 
say  naturally.  The  error  lies  in  considering  faith  in 
Christ  as  so  eminently  a  virtue,  so  great  an  act  of  obe- 
dience, that  it  must  always  argue  a  converted  and  re- 
newed state  of  mind  wherever  it  exists,  from  which, 
therefore,  obedience  must  flow.  We  have,  however, 
seen  that  regeneration  does  not  precede  justification; 
that  till  justification  man  is  under  bondage,  and  that 
he  does  not "  walk  after  the  (Spirit,"  until  he  is  so  "  in 
Christ  Jesus ;"  that  to  him  "  there  is  now  no  condem- 
nation ;"  yet  faith,  all  acknowledge,  must  precede  justi- 
fication, and  it  cannot,  therefore,  presuppose  a  regene- 
rate state  of  mind.  The  truth,  then,  is,  that  faith  does 
not  produce  obedience  by  any  virtue  there  is  in  it,  per 
se ;  nor  as  it  suppo.ses  a  previous  renewal  of  heart; 
but  as  it  unites  to  Christ,  gives  us  a  personal  interest 
in  the  covenant  of  God's  mercy,  and  obtains  for  us,  as 
an  accomplished  condition,  our  justification,  from  which 
tlow  the  girt  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  regeneration  of 
our  nature.  The  strongtli  of  faith  lies  not,  then,  in 
what  it  is  in  itself,  but  in  what  it  interests  us  in;  it 
necessarily  leads  to  good  works,  because  it  necessarily 
leads  to  justification,  on  which  Lmmediately  follows 
our  "  new  creation  in  Christ  Jesus  to  good  works,  that 
we  may  walk  in  them." 

There  are  yet  a  few  theories  on  the  subject  of  justi- 
fication to  be  stated  and  examined,  which,  however,  the 
principles  already  established  will  enable  us  briefly  to 
dismiss. 

That  of  the  Romish  church,  which  confounds  sanc- 
tification  with  justification,  has  been  already  noticed. 
The  influence  of  this  theory  may  be  traced  in  the  writ- 
ings of  some  leadin.(>  divines  of  the  English  church, 
who  were  not  fully  imbued  with  the  doctrines  of  the 
reformers  on  this  great  point,  such  as  Bishop  Taylor, 
Archbishop  Tillotson,  and  others,  who  make  regene- 
ration necessary  to  justification ;  and  also  in  many  di- 
vines of  the  Calvinistic  Nonconformist  class,  who  make 
regeneration  also  to  precede  justification,  though  not, 
like  tiie  former,  as  a  coudilion  of  it. 

The  .source  of  this  error  appears  to  he  twofold. 

It  arises,  first,  from  a  loose  and  general  notion  of  the 
scriptural  doctrine  of  regeneration ;  and,  secondly,  from 
confounding  that  change  which  true  evangelical  repen- 
tance doubtless  implies,  with  regeneration  itself.  A 
few  observations  will  dissipate  these  erroneous  impres- 
sions. 

As  to  those  previous  changes  of  mind  and  conduct, 
which  they  often  argue  from,  as  proving  a  new  state 
of  mind  and  character,  they  are  far  from  marking  that 
defined  and  unequivocal  state  of  renovation,  wliicli  our 
I,ord  expresses  by  the  phrases  "  born  again,"  and 
"  born  of  the  Spirit,"  and  which  St.  Paul  evidently  ex- 
plains by  being  "  created  anew,"  "  a  new  creation ;" 
"  living  after  the  Spirit,"  and  "  walking  in  the  Spirit." 
In  the  established  order  in  which  God  eflfects  this 
mighty  renovation  of  a  nature  previously  corrupt,  in 
answer  to  prayers  directed  to  him,  with  confidence  in 
his  promises  to  that  effect  in  Christ  Jesus,  there  must 
be  a  previous  process,  which  divines  have  called  by  the 
expressive  names  of  "  awakening,"  and  "  conviction  ;" 
that  is,  the  sleep  of  indifference  to  spiritual  concerns  is 
removed,  and  conviction  of  the  sad  facts  of  the  case  of 
a  man  who  has  hitherto  Uved  in  sin,  and  under  the  sole 
dominion  of  a  carnal  ami  earthly  mind,  is  fixed  in  the 
judgment  and  the  conscience.  From  this  arises  an 
altered  and  a  corrected  view  of  things ;  apprehension  of 


danger;  ilcsire  of  deliverance;  abhorrence  of  the  evils 
of  the  heart  and  the  lili; ;  strong  efforts  for  freedom,  re- 
sisted, however,  by  the  bondage  of  established  liauits 
and  innate  corruptions;  and  a  still  deeper  sense,  in 
consequence  of  the  net;d  not  only  of  pardon,  but  of  that 
almighty  and  renewing  influence  which  alone  can  effect 
the  desired  change.  It  is  in  this  state  of  mind,  t'  t 
the  prayer  becomes  at  once  heartl'elt  and  ap))ropriaic, 
"  create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  oh  God,  and  renew  a 
right  spirit  within  me." 

Itut  all  this  is  not  regeneration  ;  it  is  rather  the  effect 
of  the  full  and  painful  discovery  of  the  want  of  it;  nor 
will  "  fruits  meet  for  repentance,"  the  effects  of  an 
alarmed  conscience,  and  of  a  corrected  judgment ;  the 
efforts  to  be  right,  however  imperfect ;  which  are  the 
signs,  we  also  grant,  of  sincerity,  prove  more  than  that 
the  preparatory  process  is  going  on  under  the  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Others  may  endeavour  to  persuade 
a  person  in  this  state  of  mind  that  he  is  regenerate, 
but  the  absence  of  love  to  God  as  his  reconciled  Fa- 
ther; the  evils  which  he  detests  having  still,  in  many 
respects,  the  dominion  over  him  ;  the  resistance  of  his 
heart  to  the  unaccustomed  yoke,  when  the  sharp  pangs 
of  his  convictions  do  not,  for  the  moment,  arm  him 
with  new  powers  of  contest ;  his  pride ;  his  remaining 
self-righteousness ;  his  reluctance  to  be  saved  wholly 
as  a  sinner,  whose  repentance  and  all  its  fruits,  how- 
ever exact  and  copious,  merit  nothing  ;  all  assure  him, 
that  even  should  he  often  feel  that  he  is  "  not  far  from 
the  kingdom  of  God,"  he  has  not  entered  it ;  that  his 
burden  is  not  removed ;  that  his  bonds  are  not  broken ; 
that  he  is  not  "  walking  in  the  spirit ;"  that  he  is  at 
best  but  a  struggling  slave,  "  not  the  Lord's  free  man." 
But  there  is  a  point  which,  when  passed,  changes  the 
scene.  He  believes  wholly  in  Christ ;  he  is  justified 
by  faith;  he  is  comforted  by  the  Spirit's  "  witnessing 
with  his  spirit,"  that  he  is  now  a  cluld  of  God  ;  he  serves 
God  from  filial  love ;  he  has  received  new  powers ;  the 
chain  of  his  bondage  is  broken,  and  he  is  delivered; 
he  walks  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit ;  he  Is 
"  dead  to  sin,  and  cannot  continue  longer  therein ;"  and 
the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  are  in  him — "  love,  joy,  ])eace, 
gentleness,  goodness,  meekness,  faith,  temperance." 
He  is  now,  and  not  till  now,  in  a  REOE.NKR.vrK  ,«tate, 
as  that  state  is  described  in  the  Scriptures.  Before  he 
was  a  seeker,  now  he  has  obtained  what  he  sought ; 
and  he  obtains  it  concomitantly  with  justification. 

Still  indeed  it  may  be  said,  that,  call  this  previous 
state  what  you  will,  either  regeneration  or  repentance, 
it  is  necessary  to  justification  ;  and,  therefore,  justifi- 
cation is  not  by  faith  alone.  We  answer,  that  we  can- 
not call  it  a  regenerated  state,  a  being  "  born  of  the 
Spirit,"  for  the  Scriptures  do  not  so  designate  it ;  and  it 
is  clear,  that  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  do  not  belong  to  it; 
and,  therefore,  there  is  an  absence,  not  of  the  work  of  the 
Spirit,  for  all  has  its  origin  there,  but  of  that  work  of 
the  Spirit  by  which  we  are  "  born  again"  strictly  and 
properly.  Nor  is  the  connexion  of  this  preparatory 
process  with  justification  of  the  same  nature  as  that  of 
faith  with  justification.  It  is  necessary,  it  is  true,  as 
hearing  the  word  is  necessary,  for  "  faith  conieth  by 
hearing ;"  and  it  is  necessary,  as  leading  to  prayer,  and 
to  faith,  for  prayer  is  the  language  of  discovered  want, 
and  faith  in  another,  in  the  sense  of  trust,  is  the  result 
of  self-iUifidence,  and  self  despair;  but  it  is  necessary 
remotely,  not  immediately.  Tills  distinction  is  clearly 
and  accurately  expressed  by  Mr.  Wesley .(6)  "  And 
yet  I  allow  you  this,  that  although  both  repentance  and 
the  fruits  thereof  are,  in  some  sense,  necessary  before 
justification,  yet  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  is  ne- 
cessary in  the  same  sense,  nor  in  the  same  degree 
with  faith.  Not  in  the  same  degree ;  for  in  whatever 
moment  a  man  believes,  in  the  Christian  sense  of  the 
word,  he  is  justified ;  his  sins  are  blotted  out ;  his  faith 
is  counted  to  liim  for  righteousness.  But  it  is  not  so 
at  whatever  moment  he  repents,  or  brings  forth  any  or 
all  the  fruits  of  repentance.  Faith  alone,  therefore,  jus- 
tifies, which  repentance  alone  does  not ;  much  less  any 
outward  work:  and  consequently  none  of  these  are 
necessary  to  justification  in  the  same  degree  as  faith. 
Nor  in  the  same  sense:  for  none  of  these  has  so  direct 
and  immediate  relation  to  justification  as  faith.  This 
is  proximately  necessary  thereto;  repentance  and  its 
fruits,  remotely,  as  these  are  necessary  to  the  increase 
and  continuance  of  faith.    And  even  in  this  sense,  these 


(f))  Farther  Appeal,  &c. 


310 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  IL 


are  only  necessary  on  supposition  that  there  is  time 
and  opj)ortunity  for  ttieai ;  ibr  in  many  instances  there 
is  not;  Init  (Jod  cuts  sliort  his  work,  and  lUiUi  pre- 
vents the  I'ruits  of  repentance.  So  tliat  the  general  pro- 
jwsition  is  not  overtlirown,  but  clearly  established  by 
these  concessions,  and  we  conclude  still,  both  on  the 
authority  of  Scripture  and  the  church,  that  faith  alone 
is  the  proximate  condition  of  justillcation."(") 

If  regeneration,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  used  in 
Scripture,  and  not  loosely  and  vaguely,  as  by  many  di- 
vines, both  ancient  and  modern,  is  then  a  concomitant 
of  justification,  it  cannot  be  a  condition  of  it ;  and  as 
we  have  shown,  that  all  tlie  changes  which  repentance 
implies  fall  short  of  regeneration,  repentance  is  not  an 
evidence  of  a  regenerate  state ;  and  thus  the  theory  of 
justification  by  regeneration  is  untenable.  A  second 
theory,  not  indeed  substantially  different  from  the  for- 
mer, but  put  into  different  phrase,  and  more  formally 
laboured,  is  that  of  Uishop  Bull,  which  gave  rise  to 
the  celebrated  controversy  of  his  day,  upon  the  publi- 
cation of  his  Harmiiaia  Apostolica ;  and  it  is  one  which 
has  left  the  deepest  impress  ujjon  the  views  of  the 
clergy  of  the  English  church,  and  contributed  more 
than  any  tiling  else  to  obscure  her  true  doctrine,  as  con- 
tained in  her  articles  and  homilies,  on  this  leading  point 
of  experimental  theology.  This  theory  is  professedly 
that  of  justification  by  works,  with  these  ijualificatioiis, 
that  the  works  arc  evangelical,  or  such  as  proceed  from 
faith ;  that  they  are  done  by  tlie  assistance  of  the  Spi- 
rit of  God :  and  that  such  works  are  not  meritorious, 
but  a  neccs'sary  condition  of  justilieation.  To  establish 
this  hypothesis,  it  was  necessary  to  avoid  the  force  of 
the  words  of  St.  Paul ;  and  the  learned  prelate  just  men- 
tioned, therefore,  reverses  the  usual  practice  of  com- 
mentators, which  is  to  reconcile  St.  James  to  St.  Paul 
on  the  doctrine  of  justification  ;  and  assuming  that  St. 
James  speaks  clearly  and  explicitly,  and  St.  Paul,  on  this 
point  things  "  hard  to  be  understood ;"  he  interprets  the 
latter  by  the  former,  and  reconciles  St.  Paul  to  St. 
James.  According  then  to  this  opinion,  St.  James  ex- 
plicitly asserts  the  doctrine  of  justification  of  sinful 
men  before  God  by  the  works  which  proceed  from  faith 
in  Christ:  St.  Paul,  therefore,  when  he  denies  that 
man  can  be  justified  by  works,  refers  simply  to  works 
of  obedience  to  the  Mosaic  law  ;  and  by  the  faith  which 
justifies,  he  means  tlie  works  which  spring  from  faith. 
Thus  the  two  apostles  are  harmonized  by  Bishop  Bull. 
The  main  pillar  of  this  scheme  is,  that  St.  James 
teaches  the  doctrine  of  justification  before  God  by  works 
springing  from  faith  in  Christ ;  and  as  it  is  necessary 
ill  a  discourse  on  justification,  to  ascertain  the  mean- 
ing of  this  apostle  in  the  passages  referred  to,  both  be- 
cause his  words  may  appear  to  form  an  objection  to  the 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone,  wliich  we  have 
established ;  and,  also,  on  account  of  the  misleading 
statements  which  are  found  in  many  of  the  attempts 
which  have  been  made  to  reconcile  the  two  apostles, 
this  may  be  a  projior  place  for  that  inquiry ;  the  result 
of  which  will  show,  that  Bishop  Bull  and  the  divines 
of  that  school,  have  as  greatly  mistaken  St.  James  as 
they  have  mistaken  St.  Paul. 

We  observe,  then,  1,  that  to  interpret  Si.  Paul  by  St. 
James  involves  this  manifest  absurdity,  that  it  is  inter- 
preting a  writer  who  treats  professedly,  in  a  set  dis- 
course, on  the  subject  in  (lucstion,  the  justification  of 
a  sinful  man  belbre  God,  by  a  writer  who,  if  lie  could 
be  allowed  to  treat  of  that  subject  with  the  same  de- 
sign, does  it  but  incidentally.  This  itself  makes  it 
clear,  that  the  great  (urinmatd,  I  he  principles  of  this  doc- 
trine, must  be  first  sought  Hiriii  llu^  writer  who  enters 
professedly,  and  by  copious  arguiiiMit,  into  the  imiuiry. 
But,  2,  the  two  apostles  do  not  engage  in  the  same 
argument,  and  for  this  reason,  that  they  are  not  ad- 
dressing themselves  to  persons  in  the  same  circum- 
stances. St.  Paul  addresses  the  unbelieving  Jews, 
who  sought  justification  by  obedience  to  the  law  of 
Moses,  moral  and  ceremonial ;  proves,  that  all  men  are 
guilty,  and  that  neither  Jew  nor  (leniile  can  be  justified 
by  works  of  obedience  to  any  law,  and  that  therelbre 
justification  must  be  by  lUith  alone.  On  the  other  hand, 
St.  James,  having  to  do,  in  lii.s  epistle,  with  such  as 
professed  the  (Christian  faith  and  juslirjialion  by  it,  but 
erring  dangerously  about  the  nature  ul  laiih,  aHirming 
that  faith,  in  the  sense  of  opinion  or  iner<;  belief  of  doc- 
trine, would   save  them,  though  they  should  remain 


(7)  ScrmoUii. 


destitute  of  a  real  change  in  the  moral  frame  and  con- 
stitution of  their  minds,  and  give  no  evidence  of  this  in 
a  holy  life,  it  became  necessary  (or  liim  to  plead  the 
renovation  of  man's  nature  and  evangelical  obedience, 
as  the  necessary  fruits  of  real  or  living  liiith.  The 
question  discussed  by  St.  Paul  is,  whether  works 
\\Q\i\i\  juxlify ;  that  by  St.  James  is,  whether  a  dead 
liiith,  the  mere  laith  of  assent,  would  save. 

3.  St.  Paul  and  St.  James  do  not  use  the  term  justi- 
fication in  the  same  sense.  The  former  uses  it,  as  we 
have  seen,  lor  the  pardon  of  sin,  the  accepting  and 
treating  as  righteous  one  who  is  guilty,  but  penitent. 
But,  that  St.  James  does  not  speak  of  this  kind  of  jus- 
tification is  most  evident,  from  his  reference  to  the 
case  of  Abradam.     '•  Was  not  Abraham,  our  father, 

justified  by  works,  when  he  had  oflered  I.saac  his  son 
upon  the  altar !"  Does  St.  James  mean,  that  Abraham 
was  then  justified  in  the  sense  of  being  foigiven?  Cer- 
tainly not ;  Ibr  St.  Paul,  when  speaking  of  ilie  justifi- 
cation of  Abraham,  in  the  .sense  of  his  lijrgiveness  betiin; 
God,  by  the  imputation  of  his  faith  for  righteousness, 
fixes  that  event  many  years  previously,  even  before 
Isaac  was  born,  and  when  the  promise  of  a  seed  was 
made  to  him  ;  for  it  is  added  by  Moses,  when  he  gives 
an  account  of  this  transaction.  Gen.  xv.  6,  "  And  he  be- 
lieved in  the  Lord,  and  lie  counted  it  to  him  ibr  right- 
cousne.ss."  If,  then,  St.  James  speaks  of  the  same  kind 
of  justification,  he  contradicts  St.  Paul  and  Moses,  by 
implying  that  Abraham  was  not  pardoned  and  received 
into  God's  favour,  until  the  olTering  of  Isaac.  If  no  one 
will  maintain  this,  then  the  justification  of  Abraham, 
mentioned  by  St.  James,  it  is  plain,  does  not  mean  the 
forgiveness  of  liis  sins,  and  lie  uses  the  term  in  a  dif- 
ferent sense  to  St.  Paul. 

4.  The  only  sense,  then,  in  which  St.  James  can 
take  the  term  justification,  when  he  says  that  Abra- 
ham was  "  justified  by  works,  when  he  bad  oflered 
Isaac  his  son  upon  the  altar,"  is,  that  his  works  mani- 
fested or  proved  that  he  was  justified,  proved  that  he 
was  really  justified  by  faith,  or,  in  other  words,  that 
the  faith  by  which  he  was  justified,  was  not  dead  and 
inoperative,  but  living  and  active.  This  is  abundantly 
confirmed  by  what  follows.  So  far  is  St.  James  fVotn 
denying  that  Abraham  was  justified  by  the  imputation 
of  lus  faith  for  righteousness,  long  before  he  olTered  up 
his  son  Isaac,  tliat  he  expressly  allows  it  by  quoting 
the  i)assage.  Gen.  xv.  6,  in  which  this  is  said  to  have 
taken  place  at  least  twenty-five  years  before ;  and  ho 
makes  use  of  his  subsequent  works  in  the  argument, 
expressly  to  illustrate  tiie  vital  and  obedient  nature  of 
the  faith  by  which  he  was  at  first  justified.  ''  Sees* 
thou  how  faith  wrought  with  his  works,  and  by  work.s 
was  his  faith  made  pertect,  and  the  Scripture  ivfts/ul- 
filled,  which  saith, '  Abraham  believed  God'  (iu  a  tran- 
saction twenty-five  years  previous),  '  and  it  was  im- 
puted to  him  for  righteousness,  and  he  was  called  the 
Friend  of  God.' "  'fhis  quotation  of  James,  from  Gen. 
.\v.  6,  demands  special  notice.  "  And  the  Scripture," 
he  says,  "  wax  ful/illai,  which  saith,"  &c.  Whitby 
paraplirases,  "  was  ai;ain  fulfilled  ;"  some  other  COM- 
mentators  say  it "  was  twice  fulfilled,"  in  the  transaction 
of  Isaac,  and  at  the  previous  perioil  to  which  the  quo- 
tation refers.  These  comments  arc,  however,  hasty, 
darken  the  argument  of  St.  James,  and  have  indeed 
no  discernible  meaning  at  all.  For,  do  they  mean 
that  Abraham  was  twice  justified,  in  the  sense  of 
being  twice  pardoned ;  or  that  his  justification 
was  begun  at  one  pf  the  periods  referred  to,  and 
finished  twenty-five  years  afterward.'  These  are  ab- 
surdities ;  and  if  they  will  not  maintain  them,  in  what 
sense  do  they  understand  St.  James  to  use  the  phrase 
"and  Ihe  Scripture  iias  fulfilled?"  The  Scripture 
alluded  to  by  St.  James,  is  that  given  above,  '•  and  lie 
believed  iu  the  Lord,  and  he  comited  it  to  luin  for 
righteousness."  When  was  the  first  fulfihiwiit  of 
this  Scripture,  of  which  they  speak  ?  It  could  not  be 
in  the  transaction  of  Abrahanfs  proper  justification, 
through  his  faith  in  the  promise  respecting  "lus  seed" 
as  iiienlioiii  (I,  (;en.  xv.  (>,  for  that  Scripture  is  an  his- 
tori<al  iiarniiion  of  the  fact  of  that,  his  justification. 
The  fact,  thill,  was  not  a.  fulfilment  of  that  part  of 
Scripture,  but  that  part  of  Scripture  a  sub.sequcnt  nar- 
ration of  the  fact.  The  only  fulfilment,  consequently, 
that  it  had,  was  in  the  transarlioii  adduced  by  St. 
James,  \\w  offering  of  Isaac  ;  but  if  Abraham  hail 
been,  in  the  proper  sense,  jiislilicd,  then  that  event 
could  be  no  fulfilment,  iu  their  sense,  of  a  Scripture, 


Ghap.  XXIIL] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


which  is  a  narrative  of  what  was  done  twenty-five 
years  before,  and  which  relates  only  to  what  God  then 
«lid,  namely,  "  count  the  faith  of  Abraham  to  him  for 
righteousness."  The  only  senses  in  which  the  term 
■"  fulfil"  can  be  taken  in  this  passage  are,  that  o{  accom- 
plishment, or  that  of  ilhistration  and  establishment. 
The  first  cannot  apply  here,  for  the  passage  is  neither 
lypical  nor  prophetic,  and  we  are  left,  therefore,  to  the 
second  ;  '•  and  the  Scripture  was  fulfilled,"  illustraltd, 
and  cnnfirined,  which  saith,  "Abraham  believed  in 
God,  anil  it  was  imputed  unto  him  for  righteousness." 
It  was  established  and  confirmed  that  he  was,  in  truth, 
a  man  truly  justified  of  God,  and  that  the  faith  by 
"Which  he  was  justified  was  living  and  operative. 

5.  As  St.  James  does  not  use  the  term  justification 
in  the  sense  of  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  when  he  speaks 
of  the  ju.stification  of  Abraiiam  by  works,  so  neither 
can  he  use  it  in  thi.s  sense  in  the  general  conclusion 
which  he  draws  from  it ;  "Ye  see,  then,  how  that  by 
works  a  man  is  justified,  and  not  by  faith  only."  The 
ground  on  which  he  rests  this  general  inference  is  the 
declarative  justification  of  Abraham,  which  resulted 
from  his  lof^y  act  of  obedience  in  the  case  of  Isaac,  and 
which  was  eminently  itself  an  act  of  obedient  faith  ; 
and  the  justification  of  which  he  speaks  in  the  general 
conclusion  of  the  argument,  must,  therefore,  be  taken 
in  the  same  sense.  He  speaks  not  of  the  act  of  being 
justified  before  God,  and  tlie  means  by  which  it  is  ef- 
fected ;  but  of  being  proved  to  be  in  a  manifest  and 
scripiuraliy  approved  state  of  justification.  "  Ye  see, 
that,  then,  by  works  a  man  is"  shown  to  be  in  a  "justi- 
fied" state ;  or  how  his  profession  of  being  in  the  Di- 
vine favour  is  justified  and  confirmed  "  by  works,  and 
not  by  faith  only,"  or  mere  doctrinal  faith  ;  not  by  the 
faith  of  mere  intellectual  assent,  not  by  the  faith 
which  is  dead,  and  unproductive  of  good  works. 

Lastly,  so  far  are  the  two  apostles  from  being  in  op- 
position to  each  other,  that,  as  to  faith,  as  well  as 
works,  they  most  perfectly  agree.  St.  James  declares, 
that  no  man  can  be  saved  by  mere  faith.  But,  then, 
by  faith  he  means,  not  the  same  faith  to  which  St. 
Paul  attributes  a  saving  efiicacy.  His  argument  suffi- 
ciently siiows  this.  He  speaks  of  a  faith  which  is 
*' alone"  and  "dead,"  St.  Paul  of  the  faith  which  is 
never  akme,  though  it  alone  justifieth ;  which  is  not 
soHtaria,  though  it  is  sola  in  this  work,  as  our  old 
divines  speak ;  the  faith  of  a  penitent,  humbled  man, 
who  not  only  yields  speculative  assent  to  the  scheme 
of  Gospel  doctrine,  but  flies  with  confidence  to  Christ, 
as  his  sacrifice  and  Redeemer,  for  pardon  of  sin  and  de- 
Jiverance  from  it ;  the  faith,  in  a  word,  which  is  a  fruit 
«f  the  Spirit,  and  that  by  which  a  true  believer  enters 
into  and  lives  the  spiritual  life,  because  it  vitally 
unites  him  to  Chri.st,  the  fountain  of  that  life—"  the 
life  which  I  now  live  in  the  flesh,  I  live  by  the  faith 
of  the  Son  of  God,  who  loved  me,  and  gave  himself 
for  me." 

There  is,  then,  no  foundation  in  the  Epistle  of  St. 
James  for  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  works,  ac- 
cording to  Bishop  Bull's  theory.  The  other  arguments 
by  which  tiiis  notion  has  been  supported  are  refuted 
by  the  principles  which  have  been  already  laid  down, 
and  confirmed  from  the  word  of  God. 

A  third  theory  has,  also,  had  great  influence  in  the 
Church  of  England,  and  is  to  this  day  explicitly  as- 
serted by  some  of  its  leading  divines  and  prelates.  It 
acknowledges  that,  provided  faith  be  understood  to  be 
sincere  and  genuine,  men  arc  justified  by  faith  only, 
and  in  this  they  reject  the  opinion  just  examined ;  but 
then  .they  take  faith  to  be  mere  belief,  assent  to  the 
truth  of  the  Gospel,  and  nothing  more.  This  is  largely 
defended  by  Whitby,  in  his  preface  to  the  Galatians, 
which,  in  other  respects,  ably  shows  that  justification 
is  in  no  sense  by  works,  either  natural.  Mosaic,  or 
evangelical.  The  faith  by  which  we  are  justified,  he 
describes  to  be  "  a  full  assent  to,  or  firm  persuasion  of 
mind  concerning  the  truth  of  what  is  testified  by  God 
himself  respecting  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  and  in  par- 
ticular, "  that  he  was  Christ  the  Son  of  Gou."  "This 
■was  the  faith  which  the  apostles  required  in  order  to 
baptism ;"  "  by  this  faith  men  were  put  into  the  way 
of  salvation,  and  if  they  persevered  in  it  would  ob- 
tain it." 

Nearly  the  same  view  is  taught  by  the  present  Bishop 
of  Winchester,  in  his  Refutation  of  Calvinism,  and 
his  Elements  of  Theology,  and  it  is,  probably,  the  opi- 
nion of  the  great  body  of  the  national  clergy,  not  dis- 


311 

tinguished  as  evanjj.ilical,  ilh)u;:h  with  many  it  is  also 
much  mingled  wiih  i\w  .sclicinc  (it  IJishop  Bull.  "  Faith 
and  beliel,"says  Idsbop  Toinliiie,  "sirutly  si)eaking, 
mean  the  same  thing."  It,  then,  a  penitent  Heathen 
or  Jew,  convinced  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  the 
promised  Saviour  of  the  world,  "  having  understood 
that  baptism  was  essential  to  the  blessings  of  the  new 
and  mercifiU  dispensation,  of  the  Divine  authority  of 
which  he  was  fully  persuaded,  would  eagerly  apply  to 
some  one  of  those  who  were  commissioned  to  bajiti/.e; 
his  baptism,  administered  according  to  the  appointed 
form  to  a  true  believer,  would  convey  justification ;  or, 
in  other  words,  the  baptized  jierson  would  receive  re- 
mission of  his  past  sins,  would  be  reconciled  to  God, 
and  be  accounted  just  and  righteous  in  his  sight. "(8) 
"  Faith,  therefore,  including  repentance  lor  former  of- 
fences, was,  as  far  as  the  person  himself  was  con- 
cerned, the  sole  reiiuisite  for  justification  ;  no  previous 
work  was  enjoined  ;  but  baptism  was  invariably  the 
instrument,  or  external  form,  by  wluch  justification 
was  conveyed. "(9) 

The  confUsedness  and  contrariety  of   this  scheme 
will  be  obvious  to  the  reader. 

It  will  not  be  denied  to  Dr.  Whitby,  that  the  ajiostles 
baptized  upon  the  profession  of  a  belief  in  the  Mes- 
sftwiship  and  Sonship  of  our  Lord ;  nor  is  it  denied  to 
Bishop  TomUne,  that  when  baptism,   in  the  case  of 
true  penitents,  was  not  only  an  outward  expression  of 
the  talth  of  assent ;    but,  accompanied  by  a  solemn 
committal  of  the  spiritual  interests  of  the  baptized  to 
Christ,  by  an  act  of  confidence,  the  power  to  do  whicii 
was,  no  doubt,  often  given  as  a  part  of  the  grace  of 
baptism,  justification  would  follow  ;— the  real  question 
is,  whether  justification  follows  mere  assent.    This  is 
wholly  contradicted  by  tlie  argument  of  St.  James ; 
for  if  dead  faith,  by  which  he  means  mere  assent  to 
dectrine,  is  no  evidence  of  a  justified  state,  it  cannot 
be  justifying  ;  which  I  take  to  be  as  conclusive  an  ar- 
gument as  possible.    For  St.  James  does  not  deny 
faith  to  him  who  has  faith  without  works;    if  then 
he  has  faith,  the  ajxistle  can  mean  by  faith  nothing 
else  certainly  than  assent  or  belief:  "Thou  believest 
there  is  one  God,  thou  doest  well';"  and  as  this  faith, 
according  to  him  is  "alone,"  by  faith  he  means  vurc 
asisent  of  the  intellect.    This  argument  shows,  that 
those  theologians  are  unquestionably  in   error,  who 
make  justification  the  result  of  mere  assent  to  the  evi- 
dence  of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel,  or  doctrinal  belief. 
And  neither  Dr.  Whitby  nor  Bishop  Tomline  is  able  to 
carry  tliis  doctrine  throughout.    The  former  contends 
that  this  assent,  when  firm  and  sincere,  must  produce 
obedience;  but  St.  James  denies  neither  firmness  of 
conviction,  nor  sincerity  to  his  inoperative  faith,  and 
yet,  he  tells  us,  that  it  remained  "  alone,"  and  wa.s 
"dead."     Besides,  if  faith  justifies  only  as  it  produces 
obedience,  it  does  not  justify  alone,  and  the  justifying 
efficacy  lies  in  the  virtual  or  actual  obedience  proceed- 
ing from  It,  which  gives  up  Whitby's  main  position, 
and  goes  into  the  scheme  of  Bishop  Bull.     Equally  in- 
consistent is  Bishop  Tomline.    He  acknowledges  that 
"belief,  or  faith,  may  exist,  unaccompanied  by  any 
of  the  Cliristian  graces;"  and  that  "  this  faith  does  not 
justify."    How  then  will  he  maintain  that  justification 
is  by  faith  alone,  in  the  sense  of  belief?    Again,  he 
tells  us,  that  the  faith  which  is  the  means  of  salvation, 
"  is  that  belief  of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  which  pro- 
duces obedience  to  its  precepts,  and  is  accompanied  by 
a  firm  reliance  upon  the  merits  of  Christ."    Still  far- 
ther, that  "  baptism  is  the  instrument  invariably  by 
which  justification  is  conveyed."(l)     Thus,  then,  wo 
are  first  told,  that  justifying  faith  is  belief  or  assent ; 
then  that  various  other  things  are  connected  with  it  to 
render  it  justifying,  such  as  previous  repentance,  the 
power  of  producing  obedience,  reliance  on  the  merits 
of  Christ,  and  baptism  I  All  tliis  confusion  and  contra- 
diction shows,  that  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith 
alone,  in  the  sense  of  belief  or  intellectual  assent  only, 
cannot  be  maintained,  and  that,  in  order  to  avoid  the 
worse  than  Antinomian    consequence,  which   would 
follow  from  the  doctnne,  its  advocates  are  obliged  .so  to 
explain,  and  qualify,  and  add,  as  to  make  many  ap- 
proaches to  that  true  doctrine  against  which  they  hurl 
both  censure  and  ridicule. 
The  error  of  this  whole  scheme  lies  in  not  consider- 


(8)  Refutation  of  Calvinism,  chap.  iii. 
(1)  Ibid. 


(9)  Ibid. 


312 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


ing  the  essence  o(  justifying  faiili  to  be  trust  or  confi- 
(I'TiC'i  in  ('lirist  as  our  sacrifice  for  sin,  wliicli,  llioudli 
Wliithy  and  others  of  his  school  have  attcinpud  tu 
riJiculi:,  by  calling  it  "  a  leaning  or  rolling  of  ourselves 
upon  him  for  salvation,"  availing  themselves  of  the 
coarse  icnns  us?(l  by  scoffers,  is  yet  most  manifestly, 
as  we  have  indeed  alrea<ly  seen,  the  only  sense  in 
wliich  faith  can  be  rationally  taken,  when  a  sacrifice 
for  sin,  a  means  of  reconciliation  with  God,  is  its  object, 
and  indeed  when  any  promise  of  God  is  made  to  us. 
It  is  not  surely  that  we  rnay  merely  believe  that  the 
ileath  of  Christ  is  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  that  he  is  "set 
lorth  as  a  propitiation,"  but  that  we  may  trvst  in  its 
ethcacy;  it  is  not  that  we  may  merely  heluvcihai  God 
has  made  promises  to  us,  that  his  merciful  engage- 
ments in  our  liivoui-  are  recorded  ;  but  that  we  may 
have  confidence  in  llniii,  and  thus  be  supported  by 
them.  This  was  the  faiili  of  the  saints  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, "iiy  fail  h  Abraham,  when  lie  was  called  to 
go  out  into  a  place  which  he  should  after  receive  for  an 
inheritance,  obeyed,  and  ho  went  out,  not  knowing 
whither  ho  went."  Ills  fiiith  was  confidence.  "Though 
ho  slay  me,  yet  will  I  trust  in  him."  "  Who  is  among 
you  that  feareth  the  Lord  ?  let  him  tnixt  in  the  r»anic 
of  the  Lord,  and  slay  ujion  his  God."  "  Blessed  isr*3 
man  that  tri/stetk  in  the  Lord,  and  whose  hope  the 
Lord  is."  It  is  under  this  notion  of  tnixt  that  faith  is 
continually  represented  to  us  also  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. "  In  his  name  shall  tlie  Gentiles  trvst.'"  "  For 
tlierefore  we  both  labour  and  suffer  reproach,  because 
we  trust  in  the  living  God,  who  is  the  Saviour  of  ail 
men,  and  especially  of  them  that  believe."  "For  I 
know  whom  I  liave  believed  (trusted),  and  am  per- 
suaded that  he  is  able  to  keep  that  wliich  /  have  com- 
mitted unto  him  against  that  day."  "  If  we  hold  the 
beginning  of  our  cuiijiiliii.ee  steadfast  to  the  end." 

The  fourth  theory  which  we  may  notice,  is  that 
which  rejects  justification  in  the  present  life,  and  de- 
fers its  administration  to  the  last  day.  This  has  had  a 
few,  and  hut  a  few  abettors,  and  the  principal  argu- 
ments for  it  are,  1.  That  all  the  consequences  of  sin 
are  not  removed  from  even  believers  in  the  present 
life,  whereas  a  full  remission  of  sin  necessarily  implies 
the  full  and  immediate  remission  of  punishment.  2. 
That  if  believers  are  justified,  thai  is,  judged  in  the  I 
present  life,  they  must  be  judged  twice,  whereas  I 
there  is  but  one  judgment,  which  is  to  take  place  at 
Christ's  second  coming.  3.  That  the  Scriptures  speak 
of  justification  at  the  last  day,  as  when  our  Lord  de- 
clares "  that  every  idle  word  that  men  shall  speak  they 
shall  give  an  account  thereof  in  the  day  of  judgment," 
and  adds,  "  by  thy  words  thmi  slialt  (then)  be  justi- 
fied, and  by  thy  worils  shall  tbon  l)e  condemned." 

To  all  these  argnincnts,  wlmli  a  lew  words  will  re- 
fute, the  general,  and  iiidci'd  sulficient  answer  is,  that 
justification  in  Ihesense  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  the 
only  import  of  the  term  in  (juestion,  is  constantly  and 
explicitly  spoken  of  as  a  present  attainment.  This  is 
declared  to  be  the  case  with  Abraham  and  with  David, 
by  St.  Paul ;  it  was  surely  the  cii.se  with  those  to 
whom  our  Lord  said,  "  Thy  sins  be  Ibrgiven  thee  ;  and 
with  her  of  whom  he  declared,  that  having  "  much 
forgiven  she  loved  much."  "We  have,"  says  St.  I'aul, 
writing  to  the  Colossians,  "redem])tion  through  his 
blood,  the  forgiveness  of  sins."  So  plain  a  point  needs 
no  confirmation  by  more  numerous  cinotalions  ;  and 
the  only  means  which  the  advocates  of  the  tlionry  have 
resorted  to  for  explaining  such  pnssagiis  consistently 
with  their  own  views,  is  absurdly,  and  we  may  add 
audaciously,  to  resolve  them  into  fijii;ure  of  sprtch 
which  speaks  of  a  future  thing  when  certain,  as  pre- 
sent ;  a  mode  of  interpretation  which  sets  all  criticism 
at  defiance. 

As  to  the  first  argument,  wr  may  observe,  that  it  as- 
sumes, that  it  is  essential  to  the  piinlon  of  sin,  that  all 
its  consequences  should  be;  immediately  removed,  or 
otherwise  they  assert  it  is  no  purdnn  at  all.  This  is  to 
affirm,  that  to  be  freed  from  punishment  in  another 
life,  and  finally,  and  indeed  in  a  short  lime,  in  he  ihcd 
from  the  afihciions  of  this,  is  not  a  pardon  ;  wbi'h  no 
one  can  surely  deliberately  affirm.  'I'liis  imlloii,  also, 
lo.scs  sight  entirely  of  the  obviously  wise  ends  winch 
are  answered  by  postponing  thi'  rcnifival  ol'  allliclioii 
and  (Useases  from  lliose  who  are  uihiMltcd  nUo  ihr 
Divine  favour,  till  anotluT  life;  and  of  the  sanctilicM 
lion  of  all  these  to  their  binelil,  so  that  Ibcy  entirely 
lose,  when  they  arc  not    the  conscijuence  oi  nen-  of- 


fonces,  their  pmal  chamctcr,  and  become  parts  of  a 
mrrciful  dL-cijiline,  "working  together  lor  good." 

'J'lie  siconil  argument  assumes,  that  because  there 
is  but  one  general  judgment,  there  can  be  no  acts  of 
judgment  which  are  private  and  personal.  But  the  one 
is  in  no  sense  contrary  to  the  other.  Justification  may, 
therefore,  be  allowed  to  be  a  judicial  proceeding  under 
a  merciful  constitution,  as  before  e.xplained,  and  yet 
ofiTer  no  obstruction  to  a  general,  pulilic,  and  final 
judgment.  The  latter  indeed  grows  out  of  the  former ; 
for  since  this  offer  of  mercy  is  made  to  all  men  by  the 
f  .'ospel,  they  are  accountable  for  the  acceptance  or  re- 
fusal of  it,  which  it  is  a  part  of  the  general  judgment  to 
exhibit,  that  the  righteousness  of  God,  in  the  punish- 
meiii  of  them  "that  believe  not  the  Gospel,"  may  be 
demonstrated  and  the  ground  of  the  salvation  of  those 
who  have  been  sinners,  as  well  as  the  rest  of  man- 
kind, may  be  declared.  We  may  also  farther  observe, 
that  so  far  is  the  a|ipointnient  of  one  general  judgment 
from  iiitcrliriiig  with  acts  of  juil^'inent  in  the  proceed- 
i4igs  of  the  Most  High  aslbi' govcruorof  men,  that  he  is 
constantly  judging  men,  both  as  individuals  and  nations, 
and  distributing  to  them  both  rewards  and  punishments. 

The  argnnieiil  from  the  justification  of  men  at  the 
last  day,  proceeds,  also,  upon  a  false  assumption.  It 
takes  justification  then  and  now  for  the  same  act ;  and 
it  supposes  it  to  proceed  upon  the  same  principle  ;  nei- 
ther of  which  is  true. 

1.  It  is  not  true  that  it  is  the  same  act.  The  justifi- 
cation of  believers  in  this  life  is  the  remission  of  sins  ; 
but  where  are  we  taught  that  remission  of  sins  is  to  be 
attained  in  the  day  of  judgment  1  Plainly  nowhere, 
and  the  whole  doctrine  of  Scripture  is  in  opposition  to 
this  notion,  for  it  confines  our  preparation  for  judgment 
to  tli(^  present  life  only.  When  our  Lord  says,  "  by  thy 
words  thou  shall  be  justified,"  he  does  not  mean  "  by 
thy  words  tby  sins  shall  be  forgiven ;"  and  if  this  is  not 
mainlLiiiied,  tlie  [lasstige  is  of  no  force  in  the  argument. 

2.  .lusllfication  at  tlie  last  day  does  not  proceed  upon 
the  same  jiriiuiple,  and,  therefore,  is  not  to  be  (-onduded 
to  be  the  continuance  of  the  same  act,  commenced  on 
earth.  Justification  at  the  last  day  is,  on  all  hands, 
allowed  to  be  by  works  ;  but,  if  that  justification  mean 
the  pardon  of  sin,  then  the  jiardon  oi'  sin  is  by  works 
and  not  by  failh,  a  doctrine  we  have  already  refuted 
from  the  clear  evidence  of  Scripture  itself.  The  just- 
ification of  the  last  day  is,  therefore,  not  the  par- 
don of  sins ;  for  if  our  sins  are  previously  pardoned, 
we  then  need  no  pardon  ;  if  they  are  not  pardoned,  no 
provision  for  their  remission  then  remains.  And  as 
this  justification  is  not  pardon,  neither  is  it  acquittal ; 
for,  as  to  those  sins  of  wliiih  the  wicked  have  not  been 
guilty,  they  will  not  be  acquitted  of  them,  because  an  all- 
wise  (;od  will  not  charge  tliein  with  those  of  wliich  they 
have  not  been  guilty,  and  there  can  be  no  acquittal  as  to 
thosethey  have  committed.  Believers  will  not  be  acquit- 
ted of  the  sins  for  which  they  have  obtained  forgiveness, 
because  they  will  not  be  charged  upon  them.  "Who 
shall  lay  any  thing  to  the  charge  of  (iod's  elect,  it  is 
God  thai  justifieth."  So  far  from  llieir  being  arraigned 
as  sinners,  that  their  justificalion  on  earth  may  be  for- 
mally iikailed  for  their  aci)uiual  at  the  last  day,  that 
the  very  circumstances  of  I li(t  jtulgmeiit,  will  be  a  public 
recogiiilion,  f^om  its  very  commeiKement,  of  their  par- 
don and  acceptance  upon  earth.  "  The  dead  in  Christ 
shall  rise  first."  "TJicyrise  to  glory,  not  to  shame,* 
their  bodies  being  made  like  unto  (.;hri.st's  "  glorious 
body."  Tho.se  that  sleep  in  Christ  shall  "  God  bring 
with  him"  in  his  train  of  triumiili;  they  shall  beset 
on  his  "  right  hand,"  in  token  of  accejuance  and  fa- 
vour; and  of  the  books  which  shall  be  o|K'ned,  one  is 
"  the  book  of  life,"  in  which  their  names  have  been  pre- 
viously recorded.  It  follows,  then,  that  our  justifica- 
tion at  the  last  day,  if  we  must  still  use  that  phrase, 
which  has  lilllc  to  supjiort  it  in  Scripture,  and  might 
be  well  substituted  for  others  less  equivocal,  can  only 
he  declarative,  approbatory,  and  rrmuiicrative.  Decla- 
rative, as  recognising,  in  the  manner  just  stated,  the 
jiistillcation  of  bi^lievers  on  earth;  approbatory,  of 
their  works  of  faith  and  love;  and  rnunneratire  of 
them,  as  made  graciously  rcwardable,  in  their  diflcrent 
mea.siires,  by  the  ev.angclical  conslilulion. 

And  here  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  notice  an  argument 
against  the  doctrine  of  justificalion  by  failh  alone,  JUid 
in  favour  of  juslilicntion  by  failh  and  works,  which  is 
ilrawii  from  the  proceedings  of  the  last  day: — "If 
works  wfoiii;ht  ihrongh  faith  are  the  ground  of  I  he  sen- 


Chap.  XXIV. 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


313 


tence  passed  upon  us  in  iliat  day,  then  they  are  a  ne- 
cessary condition  of  our  justification."  This  is  an  ar- 
gument which  has  Ijceii  built  much  upon,  from  Bp. 
Bull  to  the  i)respnt  day.  Its  fallacy  lies  in  considoriii;^ 
the  works  of  helicvers  as  the  only  or  chief  ground  ol' 
that  sentence  ;  that  is,  the  administration  of  eternal 
life  to  them  in  its  different  degrees  of  glory  at  the  com- 
ing of  Christ.  That  it  is  not  so,  is  i)laiu  from  those 
express  passa2;es  of  Strii>ture  which  represent  oternal 
life  as  the  fruit  of  Christ's  atonement,  and  the  gill  of 
God  through  him.  "  By  grace  are  ye  saved,  through 
faith,  and  that  not  of  yourselves,  it  is  the  girt  of  God, 
not  of  works,"  &o.  "  Why,"  says  an  old  writer, "  miglit 
he  not  have  said,  By  grace  are  ye  saved,  through  (aith 
and  works;  it  were  as  easy  to  say  the  one  as  the 
other."(2)  If  our  works  are  the  sole  ground  of  that 
sentence  of  eternal  life,  then  is  the  reward  of  right- 
eotisncss  of  debt  according  to  the  law  of  works,  and 
not  of  grace ;  but  if  of  grace,  then  works  are  not  the 
sole  or  chief  ground  of  our  final  reward.  If  of  debt, 
we  claim  in  our  own  right ;  and  the  works  rewarded 
must  be  in  every  sense  our  ovm  ;  but  good  works  are 
not  our  own  works ;  we  are  "  created  in  Christ  .lesus 
unto  good  works ;"  and  derive  all  the  power  to  do  them 
from  him.  If,  then,  we  have  not  the  right  of  reward  m 
ourselves,  we  have  it  in  another ;  and  thus  we  again 
come  to  another  and  higher  ground  of  the  final  sen- 
tence than  the  works  wrought  even  by  them  that  be- 
lieve, namely,  the  covenant-right  which  we  derive  from 
Christ, — rigiit  grounded  on  promise.  If  then,  it  is  asked, 
in  what  sense  good  works  are  any  ground  at  all  of  the 
final  sentence  of  eternal  life,  we  answer,  they  are  so  se- 
condarily andsubordinately,  1.  Asevidencesof  tliat faith 
and  that  justified  state  from  which  alone  truly  good 
works  can  spring.  2.  As  qualifying  us  for  heaven ; 
they  and  the  principles  from  which  they  spring  consti- 
tuting our  holiness,  our  "meetncss  for  the  inheritance 
of  the  saints  in  light."  3.  As  rewardable;  but  still  of 
grace,  not  of  debt,  of  promise,  not  of  our  own  right, 
since  after  all  we  have  done,  though  we  had  lived  ami 
suffered  as  the  ajwstlcs  to  whom  the  words  were  first 
addressed,  we  are  commanded  to  confess  ourselves 
"uniirofitable  servants."  In  this  sense  good  works, 
though  they  have  no  part  in  the  olfice  of  justifying  the 
ungodly,  that  is,  in  obtaining  forgiv^eness  of  sin,  are 
necessary  to  salvation,  though  they  are  not  the  ground 
of  it.  As  they  are  pleasing  to  God,  so  are  they  ap- 
proved and  rewarded  by  God.  "  They  prevent  future 
guilt,  but  take  away  no  former  guilt,  evidence  our  faith 
and  title  to  everlasting  glory,  strengthen  our  union 
with  Christ  because  they  strengthen  faith,  confirm  our 
hope,  glorify  God,  give  good  example  to  men,  make  us 
more  cajjable  of  communion  with  God,  give  some  con- 
tent to  our  consciences,  and  there  is  haj)piness  in  the 
doing  of  them,  and  in  the  remembrance  of  them  when 
done.  Blessed  are  they  who  always  abound  in  them, 
for  they  know  that  their  labour  is  not  in  vain  in  the 
Lord.  Yet  Bellarmin,  though  a  great  advancer  of 
merit,  thought  it  the  safest  way  to  put  ouv  sole  trust 
not  in  these  good  works,  but  in  Christ.  It  is,  indeed, 
not  only  the  safest,  but  the  only  way  so  to  do,  if  we 
would  be  justified  before  God.  True,  we  shall  be 
judged  according  to  our  works,  l)Ut  it  doth  not  follow 
that  we  shall  be  justified  by  our  works.  God  did  never 
ordain  good  works,  which  are  the  fruits  of  a  sincere 
faith  in  (Jhrist,  to  acquire  a  right  unto  the  remission  of 
sin  and  eternal  life  ;  but  to  be  a  means  by  which  we 
may  obtain  possession  of  the  rewards  he  hath  pro- 
mised.(3) 

The  last  theorj-  of  justification  to  which  it  is  neces- 
sary to  advert,  is  that  comprised  in  the  scheme  of  Ur. 
Taylor,  of  Norwich,  in  his  Key  to  the  Apostolic  Writ- 
imts.    It  is,  that  all  such  phrases  as  to  elect,  call,  adopt. 


(2)  The  reader  will  also  recollect,  Rom.  vi.  23,  "  The 
wages  of  sin  is  death ;  but  the  gift  of  God  is  eternal 
life,  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  The  following 
passages  expressly  make  the  atonement  of  Christ  the 
ground  of  our  title  to  eternal  life.  "  By  his  own  blood 
he  entered  in  once  into  the  holy  iilace,  having  obtained 
itiriud  redemption,  for  us."  "  He  is  the  Mediator  of 
the  New  Testament,  that,  by  means  of  death,  they 
which  are  called  might  receive  the  ]irfrmi.se  of  eternal 
inheritance,"  Ueb.  ix.  ;i2 — 15.  "  Christ  (/*><<  for  us, 
that  whether  wo  wake  or  sleep,  wc  should  live  together 
with  him,'"  1  Thcss.  v.  10. 

(3)  Lawson's  Thco-poUtica. 


justify,  sanctify,  &c.,  are  to  be  taken  to  express  that 
church  relation  into  which,  by  the  destruction  of  the 
Jewish  polity,  believing  Jews  and  Gentiles  were  brought ; 
that  they  are  "  antecedent  blessings,"  enjoyol  by  ad  pro- 
fessed Christians,  though,  unless  they  aviid  lliiinsclves 
of  these  privileges  for  the  purposes  of  personal  holi- 
ness, they  cannot  be  saved. 

This  scheme  is,  in  many  respects,  delusive  and  ab- 
surd, as  it  confounds  colleciive  privileges  with  those 
attainments  which  from  their  nature  can  only  be  per- 
sonal. If  we  allow  that  with  respect  to  "  election,"  for 
instance,  it  may  have  a  plausibility,  because  nations  of 
men  may  be  elected  to  peculiar  privileges  of  a  religious 
kind  ;  yet  with  respect  to  the  others,  as  "  justification," 
&c.,  the  notion  requires  no  lengthened  refutation.  Jus- 
tification is,  as  the  apostle  Paul  states  it,  pardon  of  sin  ; 
but  are  the  sins  of  nations  pardoned,  because  they  are 
professedly  Christian  ?  This  is  a  personal  attainment, 
and  can  be  no  other,  and  collective  justification,  by 
church  privileges,  is  a  wild  dream,  which  mocks  and 
trifles  with  the  Scriptures.  According  to  this  scheme, 
there  is  a  scriptural  sense  in  which  the  most  profane 
and  immoral  man,  provided  he  profess  himself  a  Chris- 
tian, may  be  said  to  be  justified,  that  is,  pardoned  ;  sanc- 
tified, that  is,  made  holy  ;  and  adopted,  that  is,  made  a 
child  of  God ! 


CHAPTER   XXIV. 

Benefits  derived  to  Man  from  the  Atonement. — 
Concomitants  of  Justification. 

The  leading  blessings  concomitant  with  justification, 
are  regeneration  and  adoption;  with  respect  to 
which  we  may  observe  generally,  that  although  wo 
must  distinguish  them  as  being  diflerent  from  each 
other,  and  from  justification,  yet  they  arc  not  to  be  se- 
parated. They  occur  at  the  same  time,  and  they  all 
enter  into  the  experience  of  the  same  person ;  so  that 
no  man  is  justified  without  being  regenerated  and 
adopted,  and  no  man  is  regenerated  and  made  a  son  of 
God,  who  is  not  justified.  Whenever  they  are  men- 
tioned in  Scripture,  they,  therefore,  involve  and  imjjly 
each  other ;  a  remark  wliich  may  preserve  us  from 
some  errors.  Thus,  with  respect  to  our  heirship,  and 
consequent  title  to  eternal  file,  in  Titus  iii.  7,  it  is 
grounded  upon  o^\i  justification,  "  For  we  are  justified 
by  his  grace,  that  we  should  be  heirs  according  to  tho 
hope  of  eternal  life."  In  1  Pet.  i.  3,  it  is  connected 
with  our  reg-eaeration.  "  Blessed  be  God  and  the  Fa- 
ther of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  of  his  abundant 
mercy  hath  begotten  us  again  unto  a  lively  hope,  by 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead,  unto  an 
inheritance,"  &c.  Again,  in  Rom.  viii.  17,  it  is  grounded 
upon  our  adoption — "  If  children,  then  heirs."  These 
passages  are  a  sufficient  proof,  that  justification,  rege- 
neration, and  adoption  are  not  distinct  and  different 
titles,  but  constitute  one  and  the  same  title,  through  the 
gift  of  God  in  Christ,  to  the  heavenly  inheritance.  They 
are  attained,  too,  by  the  same  faith.  We  are  "justified 
by  faith ;"  and  we  are  the  "  children  of  God  by  faith  in 
Christ  Jesus."  Accordingly,  in  the  following  passages, 
they  are  all  united  as  the  effect  of  the  same  act  of  faith. 
"  But  as  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he  power 
to  become  the  sons  of  God  (which  appellation  includes 
reconciliation  and  adoption),  even  to  them  that  believe 
on  his  name,  which  were  born  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the 
will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God," 
or,  in  other  words,  were  regenerated. 

The  observations  which  have  been  made  on  the  sub- 
ject, in  the  preceding  chapter,  will  render  it  the  less 
necessary  to  dwell  here  at  length  upon  the  nature  and 
extent  of  Regeneration. 

It  is  that  mighty  change  in  man,  wrought  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  by  which  the  dominion  which  sin  has  over 
him  in  his  natural  state,  and  which  he  deplores  and 
struggles  against  in  his  penitent  state,  is  broken  and 
aboUshed,  so  that,  with  full  choice  of  will  and  the  ener- 
gy of  right  affections,  he  serves  God  freely,  and  "  runs 
in  the  way  of  his  commandments."  "  Whosoever  is 
bom  of  God  doth  not  commit  sin,  for  his  seed  re- 
maineth  in  him,  and  he  cannot  sin,  because  he  is  bom  of 
God."  "  For  sin  shall  not  have  dominion  over  you ; 
for  ye  are  not  under  the  law,  but  under  grace."  "  But 
now  being  made  free  from  sin,  and  become  servants  to 
God,  ye  have  your  fruit  unto  holiness,  and  tlie  end 


314 


THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES. 


[Part  IL 


everlasting  lifo."  Deliverance  from  the  liondageol  sin, 
and  the  jiowor  ami  the  will  to  do  all  things  which  arc 
pleasing  to  Coil,  lioth  as  to  inward  habits  and  outward 
acts,  are,  therefore,  the  distinctive  characters  olthis  state. 

That  repentance  is  not  rcccneration,  we  have  belore 
observed.  It  will  not  bear  disputins  whether  regenera- 
tion begins  with  repentance ;  lijr  if  the  rcL'eiu^rate  state 
is  only  entered  upon  at  our  justiliiaiimi,  tin  ii  all  that 
can  be  meant  by  this,  to  be  cuiisistciil  wiili  ilir  Scrip- 
tures, is,  that  the  preparatory  process,  which  leads  to 
regeneration,  as  it  leads  to  pardon,  commences  with 
conviction  and  contrition,  and  goes  on  to  a  repentant 
turning  to  the  Lord.  In  the  order  which  God  has  esta- 
blished, regeneration  does  not  take  place  without  this 
process.  Conviction  of  the  evil  and  danger  of  an  un- 
regenerate  slate  must  first  be  felt.  God  hath  appointed 
this  change  to  be  effected  in  answer  to  our  prayers ; 
and  acceptable  prayer  supjioses  that  we  desire  the  bless- 
ing we  ask  ;  that  we  accejit  of  Christ  as  the  appointed 
medium  of  access  to  God  ;  that  we  feel  and  confess  our 
own  inability  to  attain  what  we  ask  from  another ;  and 
that  we  exercise  faith  in  the  promises  of  God  which 
convey  the  good  we  seek.  It  is  clear  that  none  of  these 
is  regeneration,  for  they  all  suppose  it  to  be  a  good  in 
prospect,  the  object  of  prayer  and  eager  desire.  True 
it  is,  that  deep  and  serious  conviction  lor  sin,  the  power 
to  desire  deliverance  from  it,  the  power  to  pray,  to 
struggle  against  the  corruptions  of  an  unregenerate 
heart,  are  all  proofs  of  a  work  of  God  in  the  heart,  and 
of  an  important  moral  change ;  but  it  is  not  this  change, 
because  regeneration  is  that  renewal  of  our  nature 
which  gives  us  dominion  over  sin,  and  enables  us  to 
serve  God,  from  love,  and  not  merely  from  fear,  and  it 
is  yet  confessedly  unattained,  being  still  the  object  of 
search  and  eager  desire.  We  are  not  yet  "  created 
anew  unto  good  works,"  which  is  as  special  and  in- 
stant a  work  of  God  as  justification,  and  tor  this  rea- 
son, that  it  is  not  attained  before  the  pardon  of  our 
sins,  and  always  accompanies  it. 

This  last  pomt  may  be  proved, 

1.  From  the  nature  of  justification  itself,  which  takes 
away  the  penalty  of  sin ;  but  that  penalty  is  not  only 
obligation  to  punishment,  but  the  loss  of  the  sanctifying 
Spirit,  and  the  curse  of  being  lefl  under  the  slavery  of 
sin,  and  under  the  dominion  of  Satan.  Regeneration  is 
effected  by  this  S]iirit  restored  to  us,  and  is  a  conse- 
quence of  our  pardon  ;  for  though  justification  in  itself 
is  the  remis.sion  of  sin,  yet  a  justified  Mate  implies  a 
change,  both  in  our  condition  and  in  our  disposition  :  in 
our  condition,  as  we  are  in  a  state  of  life,  not  of  death, 
of  safety,  not  of  condemnation  ;  in  our  disposition,  as 
regenerate  and  new  creatures. 

2.  From  Scripture,  which  affords  us  direct  proof  that 
regeneration  is  a  concomitant  of  justification,  "  If  any 
man  be  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature."  It  is  then 
the  result  of  our  entrance  into  that  state  in  which  we 
are  said  to  be  in  Christ ;  and  the  meaning  of  this 
phra.se  is  most  satisfactorily  e.iplained  by  Rom.  viii.  1, 
considered  in  connexion  with  the  preceding  chapter, 
from  which,  in  the  division  of  the  chapters,  it  ought  not 
to  have  been  separated.  Th.at  chapter  clearly  describes 
the  state  of  a  person  convinnal  and  slain  by  the  law  ap- 
plied by  the  JSimhit.  We  may  discover,  indeed,  in  this 
description,  certain  moral  changes,  as  consenting  to  the 
law  that  it  is  good  ;  delighting  in  it  after  the  inward 
man  ;  powerful  desires ;  humble  confession,  &c.  The 
state  represented  is,  however,  in  fact,  one  of  guilt, 
si)iritual  captivity,  helplessness,  and  misery ;  a  state 
of  cotidannation  ;  and  a  stale  of  liimdas:f  to  sin.  The 
opposite  coniillion  is  that  of  a  man  "  in  (Jurist  Jksits  :" 
to  him  "  there  is  no  condciniiiilion ;"  lie  is  forgiven ;  the 
hoiidri^''  to  sill  is  broken ;  he  "  walks  not  after  the  tlcsh, 
but  alter  till' .Si'iRiT."  To  be  in  Christ  is,  therefore, 
to  be  jnsiified,  and  regeneration  instantly  follows.  We 
see,  then,  the  order  of  the  Divine  operatiim  in  individual 
experience:  convictionof  sm,  liil|ilessnrss  and  ihuiger; 
faith;  ju.stification  ;  and  regeneration.  Tlii' re^nicrate 
state  is,  also,  called  in  Scripliirc  Naiiclilicalliiii  ;  llioiigha 
distinction  is  made  by  iheapostir  I'anI  bruvcrn  that  and 
being  "sanctified  rrhollfi,"  a  dnitrini' to  be  iillerward 
considered.  In  this  regenerate  or  saiutiliid  state,  the 
former  corruptions  of  the  heart  may  ninaiii,  and  strive 
for  the  mastery ;  but  that  which  characlirr/.cs  and  dis- 
tinguishrs  it  Irom  the  state  of  a  peniltnl  liclorc  jnslifi- 
eatiiiii,  licliirc  lie  is  "in  Christ,"  is,  thai  tliey  iirr  not 
cvi'ii  Ins  inward  kahit ;  and  that  they  liavi;  no  i/();;;(/t«ort. 
FaitU  unites  to  Christ ;  by  it  we  derive  "  grace  and 


peace  from  God  the  Father,  and  his  Son  Jesus  Christ," 
and  enjoy  "  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;"  and 
tins  Sjiirit,  as  the  sanctifying  Spirit,  is  given  to  us  to 
"  abide  with  us,  and  to  be  in  us,"  and  then, we  walk  not 
after  the  Uesh  but  after  the  Spirit. 

Anoi'TioN  is  the  .second  concomitant  of  justification, 
and  is  a  large  and  comiirehensive  blessing. 

To  su|ipi:si'  that  tlie  apostles  lake  this  term  from  the 
practice  ol  the  (iieiks,  Uomaiis,  and  other  nations  who 
liad  the  custom  of  ailuplin^  the  children  of  others,  and 
investing  them  with  all  the  privileges  of  their  natural 
offspring,  is,  probably,  a  refinement.  It  is  much  more 
likely,  that  they  had  simply  in  view  the  obvious  fact, 
that  our  sins  had  deprived  us  of  our  sonshiji,  the 
favour  of  God,  and  our  right  to  the  inheritance  of  eternal 
life ;  that  we  had  become  strangers,  and  ahens,  and 
enemies  ;  and  that,  upon  our  reiiini  to  God,  and  recon- 
ciliation with  him,  our  fiirleiieil].riviieges  were  not  only 
restored,  but  heightened  tliroiigh  the  paternal  love  of 
God.  They  could  scarcely  be  forgetful  of  the  affecting 
parable  ol'  the  prodigal  son  ;  and  it  is  under  the  same 
simple  view,  tliat  St.  Paul  ([uotes  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, "  wherefore  come  out  from  among  them,  and  be 
ye  separate,  saiih  the  Lord,  and  touch  not  the  unclean 
thing,  and  I  will  receive  you,  and  I  will  be  a  Father 
unto  you,  and  ye  shall  be  my  sons  and  daughters,  saith 
the  Lord  Almighty." 

Adoption,  then,  is  that  act  by  which  we  who  are 
alienated,  and  enemies,  and  disinherited,  are  made  the 
sons  of  God,  and  heirs  of  his  eternal  glory.  "  If  children, 
then  heirs,  heirs  of  God  and  joint  heirs  with  Christ ;" 
where  it  is  to  be  remarked,  that  it  is  not  in  our  own 
right,  nor  in  the  right  of  any  work  done  in  us,  or  which 
we  ourselves  do,  though  it  be  an  evangelical  work, 
that  we  become  heirs,  but  jointly  with  him,  and  iu  his 
right. 

To  this  state  belong  freedom  from  a  servile  spirit, — 
vve  are  not  servants,  but  sons ;  the  special  love  and  care 
of  God  our  Heavenly  Father;  a  filial  confidence  iu 
him ;  free  access  to  him  at  all  times  and  in  all  circum- 
stances ;  the  title  to  the  heavenly  inheritance ;  and  the 
Spirit  of  adoption,  or  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
our  adoption,  which  is  the  foundation  of  all  the  comfort 
we  can  derive  from  those  privileges,  as  it  is  the  only 
means  by  which  we  can  know  that  they  are  ours. 

The  point  stated  last  requires  to  be  explained  more 
largely,  and  the  more  so  as  it  has  often  been  derided  as 
entiiusiastic,  and  often  timidly  explained  away  by  those 
whose  opinions  are  in  the  main  correct. 

The  doctrine  is,  the  inward  witness  or  testnnony  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  to  the  ailii|ilioii  or  sonsliip  of  believers, 
from  which  llows  a  conirorlablejn  rsiiiixion  oTcmivictioii 
of  our  present  acceptance  with  (iod,  and  the  hope  of  our 
future  and  eternal  glorj'. 

This  is  taught  in  several  passages  of  Scripture. 
Rom.  viii.  15,  10,  "  For  ye  have  not  received  the  spirit 
of  bondage  again  to  fear,  but  the  Spirit  of  adoption, 
whereby  we  cry  Abba,  Father.  The  Spirit  itself 
beareth  witness  with  our  spirit  that  we  are  the  children 
of  (;od."  In  this  jiassage  it  is  to  be  remarked,  1.  That 
the  gift  of  the  Spirit  sjioken  of.  takes  away  "/ear," 
being  opposed  to  the  persunilied  spirit  of  the  law,  or 
rather,  jierhaps,  to  the  Holy  .Spirit  in  his  convincing 
agency,  called  the  spirit  of  boinlage,  producing  "  fear," 
a  servile  dread  of  God  as  olTended,  2.  That  the  "  Spirit 
of  God"  here  mentioned,  is  not  the  personified  spirit 
or  genius  of  the  Gospel,  as  some  would  have  it,  but 
"  the  Spirit  itself,"  or  himself,  and  hence  called  in 
thcGalalnins,  in  the  text  adiliiced  below,  "  the  Sjiirit  of 
his  Sun,"  wliiili  caniiol  iniiiii  the  genius  of  the  Gosim-I. 
3.  That  he  inspires  a  lilial  coiilidencc  in  (Jod  as  our  Fa- 
ther, which  is  oiipiised  to  "the  fear"  produced  by  the 
"  spirit  of  bonilage."  4.  That  he  produces  this  filial 
confuhmce,  and  enables  us  to  call  G'od  our  Father,  by 
witnessing,  hearing  testimony  with  our  .spirit,  "that  we 
are  the  children  of  Ond." 

Gal.  iv.  4,  5,  6,  "  Hut  when  the  fXilness  of  the  time 
was  come,  <Jod  sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of  a  wo- 
man, made  under  the  law,  to  redeem  them  that  were 
undc^r  the  law,  that  we  might  receive  the  adoption  of 
sons  ;  and  because  ye  are  sons,  God  hath  sent  forth  the 
Spirit  of  bis  Son  into  your  hearts,  crying  Abba,  Father." 
Her(!,  also,  arc  to  be  noted,  1.  The  means  of  our  re- 
dein|ition  from  under  (the  cur.se  of)  the  law,  the  incar- 
nation and  sulVerings  of  ( 'hrist.  2.  That  the  adoption 
of  sons  Ibllows  \i\mn  our  actual  redemption  from  that 
curse,  or,  in  other  words,  our  pardon.    3.  That  uikiu 


Chap.  XXIV.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


315 


our  pardon,  the  "  Spirit  of  his  Snn"  is  "  sent  forth"  and 
that  "  iiiti)  mir  hearts,"  i)rodiicinK  the  same  ofTect  as  that 
mentioned  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, flhal  confidence 
in  God,—"  cnjiiig:,  Abba,  Father."  To  those  are  to  be 
added  all  those  passaiies  so  numerous  in  the  New  Tes- 
tainent,  which  express  the  confidence  and  the  joy  of 
Christians;  their  friendship  with  God  ;  their  coniident 
access  to  him  as  their  t.'od  ;  their  entire  union,  and  de- 
lightful intercourse  with  him  in  spirit. 

Tliis  doctrine  tias  been  generally  termed  the  doctrine 
of  assurance,  and,  perhaps,  the  expressions  of  St.  Paul, 
— "  the  fUU  assurance  of  faith,"  and  "  the  full  assurance 
of  hope,"  may  warrant  the  use  of  the  word.  But 
as  there  is  a  current  and  generally  understood  sense 
of  this  term  among  persons  of  the  Calvinistic  per- 
suasion, implying,  that  the  assurance  of  our  present 
acceptance  and  sonship,  is  an  assurance  of  our  final 
perseverance,  and  of  our  indcfeisible  title  to  heaven; 
the  phrase,  a  comfortable  persuasion,  or  conviction 
of  our  justification  and  adoption,  arising  out  of  the 
Spirit's  inward  and  direct  testimony,  is  to  be  pre- 
ferred: tor  this  has  been  held  as  an  indubitable  doc- 
trine of  holy  writ  by  Christians,  who,  by  no  means, 
receive  the  doctrine  of  assurance  in  the  sense  held  by 
the  followers  of  Calvin. 

There  is,  also,  another  reason  for  the  sparing  and 
cautious  use  of  the  term  assurance,  which  is,  that  it 
seems  to  imply,  though  not  necessarily,  the  absence  of 
all  doubt,  and  shuts  out  all  those  lower  degrees  of  per- 
suasion which  may  exist  in  the  experience  of  Christians. 
For,  as  our  faith  may  not  at  first,  or  at  all  times,  be 
equally  strong,  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  may  have  its 
degrees  of  strength,  and  our  persuasion  or  conviction 
I)t;  proportionately  regulated.  Yet,  if  faith  be  genuine. 
God  respects  its  weaker  exercises,  and  encourages  its 
growth,  by  affording  measures  of  comfort,  and  dfegrees 
of  this  testimony.  Nevertheless,  while  this  is  allowed, 
the  fulness  of  this  attainment  is  to  be  pressed  upon  every 
one  that  believes,  according  to  the  word  of  God :  "  Let 
us  draw  near,"  says  St.  Paul  to  all  Christians,  "  with 
full  assurance  of  faith." 

It  may  serve,  also,  to  remove  an  objection  sometimes 
made  to  the  doctrine,  and  to  correct  an  error  which 
sometimes  pervades  the  statement  of  it,  to  observe  that 
this  assiu^ance,  persuasion,  or  conviction,  whichever 
term  be  adopted,  is  not  of  the  essence  of  justifying  faith ; 
that  is,  that  justifying  faith  does  not  consist  in  the  as- 
surance that  I  am  now  forgiven,  through  Christ.  This 
would  be  obviously  contradictory.  For  we  must  believe 
before  we  can  be  justified  ;  much  more  before  we  can  be 
assured,  in  any  degree,  that  we  are  justified;  and  this 
persuasion,  therefore,  follows  justification,  and  is  one 
of  its  results.  We  beUeVe  in  order  to  justification ; 
but  we  cannot  be  persuaded  of  our  forgiveness  in  order 
to  it,  lor  the  persuasion  would  be  false.  But  though  we 
must  not  only  tUstinguish,  but  separate  this  persuasion  of 
our  acceptance  from  the  faith  which  justifies,  we  must  not 
separate,  but  only  distinguish  it  from  justification  itself 
With  that  come  as  concomitants,  regeneration,  adop- 
tion, and.  as  far  as  we  have  any  information  from 
Scripture,  the  "Spirit  of  adoption,"  though,  as  in  all 
other  cases,  in  various  degrees  of  operation. 

On  the  subject  of  this  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
there  are  four  opinions. 

The  first  is,  that  it  is  twofold;  a  direct  testimony  to, 
or  "  inward  impression  on  the  soul,  whereby  the  Spirit 
o!  God  witnesses  to  my  spirit  that  I  am  a  child  of  God ; 
that  Christ  hath  loved  me,  and  given  himself  for  me, 
that  I,  even  1,  am  reconciled  to  God  ;"(4)  and  an  indirect 
testimony,  arising  from  the  work  of  the  Spirit  in  the 
heart  and  life,  which  St.  Paul  calls  the  testimony  of  our 
own  spirits ;  for  this  is  inferred  from  his  expression, 
"  And  the  Spirit  itself  beareth  witness  with  our  spirit," 
<fec.  This  testimony  of  our  own  spirit,  or  indirect  tes- 
timony of  the  Holy  Spirit  by  and  through  our  own 
spirit,  is  considered  as  con  firmatory  of  the  firs  t  testimon  y , 
and  is  thus  explained  by  the  same  writer.  "  How  am 
I  assured,  that  I  do  not  mistake  the  voice  of  the  Spirit  ? 
even  by  the  testimony  of  my  own  spirit,  '  by  the  answer 
of  a  good  conscience  towards  CJod ;'  liereby  you  shall 
know  that  you  are  in  no  delusion,  that  you  have  not 
deceived  your  own  soul.  The  immediate  fruits  of  the 
Spirit  ruling  in  the  heart  are  love,  joy,  peace;  bowels 
of  mercies,  humbleness  of  mind,  meekness,  gentleiiess, 
long-suffering.    And  the  outward  fruits  are,  the  doing 


(4)  Wbsle^'s  Sermons. 


good  to  all  men,  and  a  uniform  obedience  to  all  the 
commands  of  Gotl." 

The  second  opinion  acknowledges,  also,  a  twofold 
watness;  the  witness  of  the  Spirit,  which  consists  in 
the  moral  effects  produced  in  liim  that  believes,  other- 
wise called  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit ;  and  the  witness  of 
our  own  spirits,  that  is,  the  consciousness  of  possessing 
faith.  This  they  call  "  the  reflex  act  of  faith,  by  which 
a  person,  conscious  of  believing,  reasons  in  this  inigl- 
ner,  I  know  that  I  believe  in  Christ,  therefore  1  know 
that  I  shall  obtain  everlasting  life."(5) 

The  third  opinion  is,  that  there  is  but  one  witness,  the 
Holy  Spirit,  acting  concurrently  with  our  own  spirits. 
"  The  Sjiirit  of  God  produces  those  graces  in  us  which 
are  the  evidence  of  our  adoption ;  it  is  he  who,  as  occa- 
sion requires,  illuininates  our  understandings  and  assists 
our  memories  in  discovering  and  recollecting  those  argu- 
ments of  hope  and  comfort  within  ourselves.  But 
God's  Spirit  does  witness  with,  not  without  our  spirits 
and  understandings  ;  in  making  use  of  our  reason  ui 
considering  and  reflecting  upon  those  grounds  of  com- 
fort, which  the  Spirit  of  God  hath  wrought  in  us,  and 
from  them  drawing  this  coinfortable  conclusion  to  our- 
selves, that  'we  are  the  sons  of  God.'  "(G)  With  this 
notion  is  generally  connected,  that  of  the  entire  imper- 
ceptibility  of  the  Spirit's  operations,  as  distinguished 
from  the  operations  of  our  own  mind,  '•  so  that  we  could 
never  have  known,  unless  it  had  been  communicated  to 
us  by  Divine  revelation,  that  our  souls  are  moved  by  a 
Divine  power,  when  we  love  God,  and  keep  his  com- 
mandments."(7) 

The  following  passage,  from  the  Rev.  Thomas  Scott's 
Commentary,  agrees  with  Bishop  Bull  in  making  the 
witness  of  the  Spirit  mediate  through  our  own  spirit ; 
and  differs  chiefly  in  phraseology.  It  may  be  taken  as 
the  view  of  a  great  part  of  those  called  the  evangelical 
clergy  of  the  present  day.  "The  Holy  Spirit,  by  pro- 
ducing in  believers  the  tempers  and  affections  of 
children,  as  described  in  the  Scriptures,  most  manifestly 
attests  their  adoption  into  God's  family.  This  is  not 
done  by  any  voice,  immediate  revelation,  or  impulse,  or 
merely  by  any  text  brought  to  the  mind  (for  all  these 
are  equivocal  and  delusory),  but  by  coinciding  with 
the  testimony  of  their  own  consciences,  as  to  their 
uprightness  in  embracing  the  Gospel,  and  giving  them- 
selves up  to  the  service  of  God.  So  that,  while  they 
are  examining  themselves  as  to  the  reality  of  their  con- 
version, and  find  scriptural  evidence  of  it,  the  Holy 
Spirit,  from  time  to  time,  shines  upon  his  own  work, 
excites  their  holy  affections  into  lively  exercise,  renders 
them  very  efficacious  upon  their  conduct,  and  thus  puts 
the  matter  beyond  doubt ;  for  while  they  feel  the  spirit 
of  dutiful  cliildren  towards  God,  they  become  satisfied 
concerning  his  paternal  love  to  them." 

A  fourth  opinion  allows  the  direct  witness  of  the 
Spirit,  as  stated  above ;  but  considers  it  only  the  special 
privilege  of  a  few  favoured  persons  ;  of  which  notion 
it  is  a  sufficient  refutation,  that  the  apostle,  in  the  texts 
before  quoted,  speaks  generally  of  believers,  and  re- 
strains not  the  attainment  from  any  who  seek  it.  He 
places  it  in  this  respect  on  the  ground  of  all  other  bless- 
ings of  the  new  covenant. 

Of  the  four  opinions  just  adduced,  the  first  only  ap- 
pears to  express  the  true  sense  of  the  word  of  God ; 
but  that  the  subject  may  be  fully  exhibited,  we  may  ob- 
serve, 1,  that  by  all  sober  divines  it  is  allowed,  that 
some  comfortable  persuasion,  or,  at  least,  hope  of  the 
Divine  favour,  is  attainable  by  true  Christians,  and  is 
actually  possessed  by  them,  except  under  the  influtnco 
of  bodily  infirmities,  and  in  peculiar  seasons  of  tempta- 
tion, and  that  all  true  faith  is,  in  some  degree  (though 
to  what  extent  they  differ),  personal  and  apjiropriating. 

"  The  third  part  of  repentance  is  faith,  whereby  we 
do  apprehend  and  take  hold  upon  the  promises  of  God, 
touching  the  free  pardon  and  forgiveness  of  our  sins  ; 
which  promises  are  sealed  up  unto  us,  with  the  death 
and  blood-shedding  of  his  Son  .lesus  Christ.  For  what 
should  it  avail  and'  profit  us  to  be  sorry  for  our  sins,  to 
lament  and  bewail  that  we  have  offended  our  most 
bounteous  and  merciful  Father,  or  to  confess  and  ac- 
knowledge our  offences  and  trespasses,  though  it  be 
done  never  so  earnestly,  unless  we  do  steadfastly  be- 
lieve, and  be  fully  persuaded,  that  God,  for  his  son  .le- 
sus Christ's  sake,  will  forgive  us  all  our  sins,  and  ptit 

(5)  Dr.  Hill's  Lectures.        (G)  Bishop  Bull. 
(7)  Manx  and  D'Ovlbv's  Comnieutary. 


316 


THEOLOGICAL  LXSTITUTES. 


them  out  of  rcmemlir;ince  aiirt  from  his  sight  ?  There- 
fore, they  tliat  Iciirli  ri'pciitiince  witliout  ;i  lively  fiilli 
in  our  Saviour  Jisus  Clirisi,  do  toacli  nouc  other  Iml 
Jufliis's  rciientani'e."(N) 

"  Faith  is  not  merely  a  speculative,  but  a  praetical  ac- 
knowledgment of  Jesus  as  the  Christ,— an  iffirrt  and 
motion  of  the  iiitii.il  towards  God;  wIkmi  llie  sinner, 
convinced  of  sin,  accepts  with  th;uiklul]H-is  the  prof- 
fered terms  ofjiardon,  and  in  humble  coiilidence  ai>ply- 
ing  individually  to  himself  the  benefit  of  the  general 
atonement,  in  the  elevated  language  of  a  venerable  fa- 
ther of  the  church,  drinks  of  the  stream  which  llows 
from  tlie  Redeemer's  side.  The  effect  is,  that  in  a  little, 
he  is  filled  with  that  perfect  love  of  Rod  which  casteth 
out  fear,— he  cleaves  to  God  with  the  entire  affection  of 
the  soul  ."(9) 

"  It  is  the  property  of  saving  faith,  that  it  hath  a  force 
to  approjiriate,  and"  make  Christ  our  own.  Without 
this,  a  general  remote  belief  would  have  been  eold  com- 
fort. '  He  loved  ine,  and  gave  himself  for  me,'  saith 
St.  Paul.  What  saith  St.  Chrysostom  ?  '  Did  Christ 
die  only  for  St.  Paul  ?  No ;  non  excludit,  sed  nppro- 
priat ;'  he  excludes  not  others,  but  he  will  secure  lum- 
self."(l) 

2.  By  those  who  admit,  that  upon  previous  contrition 
and  faith  in  Christ,  an  act  of  justification  takes  place, 
by  which  we  are  reconciled  to  God,  and  adopted  into 
his  family,  a  doctrine  which  has  been  scripturally  es- 
tablished ;  it  must  also  be  admitted,  that  this  act  of 
mercy  on  the  part  of  God,  is  entirely  kept  secret  from 
us,  or  that  by  some  means,  it  is  made  knowable  by  us. 
If  the  former,  there  is  no  remedy  at  all  for  doubt,  and 
fear,  and  tormenting  anticipation,  which  must  be  great 
in  proportion  as  our  repentance  is  deep  and  germine ; 
and  so  there  can  be  no  comfort,  no  freedom,  no  cheerful- 
ness of  spirit  in  reUgion,  which  contradicts  the  senti- 
ments of  all  churches  and  all  their  leading  theologians. 
What  is  still  more  important,  it  contradicts  the  Scrip- 
tures. 

To  all  true  believers,  the  Almighty  is  represented  as 
the  "  God  of  peace  and  consolation  ;"  as  "  a  Father ;" 
as  "  dwelling  in  them,  and  walking  in  them."  Nay, 
there  is  a  marked  distinction  between  the  assurances 
of  grace  and  favour  made  to  penitents,  and  to  believers. 
The  declarations  as  to  the  former  are  highly  conso- 
latory ;  but  they  constantly  refer  to  some  future  good 
designed  for  them  by  the  God  before  whom  they  hum- 
ble themselves,  for  the  encouragement  of  their  seeking 
prayers,  and  their  efforts  of  trust.  "  To  that  man  will 
/  look  (a  Hebraism  for  showing  f^ivour),  saith  the  Lord, 
who  is  poor,  and  of  a  contrite  spirit."  The  "  weary 
and  heavy  laden"  are  invited  to  (Jhrist,  that  he  may 
"  give  rest  unto  their  souls."  The  apostles  exhorted 
men  to  repent  and  be  baptized,  in  order  to  the  remission 
of  sins.  But  to  all  who  in  the  Christian  sense  arc  be- 
lievers, or  who  have  the  faith  by  which  we  are  justified, 
the  language  is  much  higher.  "  We  have  peace  with 
God."  "  We  joy  in  God,  by  whom  we  have  received 
the  atonement."  They  are  exhorted  "  to  rejoice  m  the 
l^rd  always."  "  The  spirit  of  bondage"  is  exchanged 
for  "  the  Spirit  of  adoption."  They  are  "  Christ's." 
They  are  "  children,  heirs  of  God,  and  joint  heirs  with 
Christ."  They  "  rejoice  in  hope  of  the  glory  of  God." 
They  are  "  always  confident,  knowing,  that  while  at 
home  in  the  body,  they  are  absent  from  the  Lord,  but 
that  when  absent  from  the  body,  they  shall  be  present 
with  the  Lord." 

3.  If  then  we  come  to  know  that  this  great  act  of 
forgiveness  has  taken  jilace  in  our  favour ;  tliat  it  is 
vouchsafed  to  us  in  particular,  and  know  this  with  that 
degree  of  conviction,  whicli  lays  a  sufficient  ground  of 
comfort  and  joy,  the  simple  i|Uestion  is,  by  what  means 
the  knowledge  of  this  is  attained  by  us?  The  general 
promise  of  pardon  alone  is,  in  all  the  schemes  just 
stated,  acknowledged  to  be  insullicient  lor  this  jiurpose ; 
for  since  that  promise  is  suspcndcil  upon  conditions, 
they  all  profess  to  explain  the  means  by  whuli  we  may 
conclude  that  we  are  actually  and  pcrsoimlly  interested 
in  the  benefit  of  the  general  promise-,  tlii!  conditions 
being  on  our  part  personally  lnllilU:d.  The  lirst  opi- 
nion attributes  this  to  a  double  testimony,  a  direct  one  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  to  our  minds,  and  an  indirect  one  of  the 
same  Spirit,  through  our  own  minds,  and  (bundi'd  upon 

(H)  Homily  on  Repentance. 
(!))  Hishop  Housi.KY. 

(1)  liishop  liROWNRlOO. 


[Part  II. 

his  moral  work  in  them :  or,  what  is  the  same  thing, 
the  teslimony  of  our  own  spirit.  This  twofold  testi- 
mony we  lliink  clearly  established  by  tlie  texts  above 
(juoted.  For  the  first,  "  the  Spirit  itself,"  and  the  "  Spi- 
rit of  his  Son,"  is  manifestly  the  Spirit  of  God  :  his  of- 
fice is  to  give  testimony,  and  the  object  of  the  testi- 
mony is  to  declare  that  we  are  the  .sons  of  God.  When 
also  the  apostle,  in  Itom.  viii.  Hi,  says  that  lliis  Spirit 
bears  witness  "  witK'  our  spirit,  he  makes  our  own 
minds  witnesses  with  him  to  the  same  fact,  though  in 
a  different  manner.  For  though  some  writers  will  have 
the  compound  to  be  used  here  lor  the  simple  form  of 
the  verb,  and  render  it  "  to  witness  to  our  spirit  ;"  and 
instances  of  this  use  of  llie  compound  verb  do  occur 
in  the  New  Testament ;  yet  it  agrees  both  with  the 
literal  rendering  of  the  word,  and  with  other  passages, 
to  conjoin  this  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  with  those 
confirmatory  prools  of  our  adojitiou  which  arise  from 
his  work  within  us,  and  which  may,  upon  examination 
of  our  state,  be  called  the  testimony  of  our  own 
mind  or  conscience.  To  this  testimony  the  apostle  Paul 
refers  in  the  same  chapter,  "  they  that  are  alter  the  Spi- 
rit, (do  mind)  the  tilings  of  the  Spirit."  "But  ye  are 
not  after  the  fiesh,  but  after  the  Spirit,  if  .so  be  that  the 
Spirit  of  (Christ  dwell  in  you  ;  now  if  any  man  have 
not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his  ;  for  as  many 
as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  they  are  the  sons  of 
God."  And  again,  in  Galatians,  "  But  if  ye  be  led  of 
the  Spirit,  ye  are  not  under  the  law."  "  But  the  frtiit 
of  the  Spirit  is  love,  joy,"  <Jcc. 

4.  Two  witnesses,  and  a  twofold  testimony  is  then 
sufficiently  estabhshed  ;  but  the  main  con.sideration.is, 
whether  the  Holy  Spirit  gives  his  testimony  directly  to 
the  mind,  by  impression,  suggestion,  or  by  whatever 
other  term  it  may  be  called,  or  mediately  by  our  own 
spirits,  in  some  such  way  as  is  described  by  Bishop 
Bull  in  the  extract  above  given;  by  "illuminating  our 
understandings,  and  assisting  our  memories  in  discus- 
sing and  recollecting  those  arguments  of  hope  and  com- 
fort within  ourselves,"  which  arise  from  "  the  graces 
which  he  has  produced  in  us ;"  or  as  it  is  expressed  by 
Mr.  Scott,  by  "  shining  upon  his  own  work,  exciting 
their  affections  into  lively  exercise,  rendering  them 
very  efficacious  upon  their  conduct,"  and  "  thus  puts 
the  matter  beyond  doubt,  for  while  they  feel  the  spirit 
of  dutiful  children  towards  God,  they  become  satisfied 
concerning  his  paternal  love  to  them." 

To  this  statement  of  the  doctrine  we  object,  that  it 
makes  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  point  of  fact 
but  the  testimony  of  our  own  spirit ;  and  by  holding 
but  one  witness  contradicts  SI.  Paul,  who,  as  we  have 
seen,  holds  two.  For  the  testimony  is  that  of  our  own 
consciousness  of  certain  moral  changes  which  have 
taken  place;  rio  other  is  admitted;  and  therefore  it  is 
but  one  testimony.  Nor  is  the  Holy  Spirit  brought  in 
at  all,  except  to  (lualify  our  own  spirit  to  give  witness 
by  assisting  its  "  discernment  and  memory,"  according 
to  Bishop  Bull,  and  by  "  shining  upon  his  own  work," 
according  to  Mr.  Scott":  and  so  there  is  but  one  witness, 
and  that  ourselves ;  for  though  another  may  assist  a 
witness  to  prepare  and  arrange  his  evidence,  there  is  still 
but  one  deposition,  and  but  one  deposer.  This  is  made 
still  stronger,  since  it  is  supposed  by  both  these  writers, 
that  there  is  no  impression  or  revelation  from  the  Spirit 
of  the  fact  of  our  adoption,  and  tliat  he  does  not  in  any 
way  which  we  may  distiii^nusli  Irani  the  operation  of 
our  own  minds,  assist  us  to  pri'pan'  this  evidence ;  for  if 
this  assistam'c,  or  sliiuiny  upon  his  own  work,  could 
be  ascertained  lo  lie  from  hiimlisliiirtli),  ami  with  iiitrii- 
tio)i  to  assure  us  from  these  moral  changes  that  we  are 
adopted  into  llie  family  of  (iod,  then  an  immediate  col- 
lateral iiii|jr(s>ion  or  revelation  would  be  sujiiiosed, 
which  1)01  li  re  icet.  It  follows,  iherelbre,  that  we  have  no 
other  ground  lo  eonclude  those  "  graces  and  virtues" 
which  we  discern  in  ourselves  to  be  the  work  of  the 
Spirit,  than  the  ixcacral  one,  that  all  good  in  man  is  of 
his  production,  and  our  repentance  and  contrition  might 
as  well,  on  this  genera!  ground,  be  concluded  to  be  the 
evidence  of  pardon,  although  they  arise  from  our  con- 
sciousness of  jiiiilt,  and  our  neiul  of  pardon.  The  argu- 
ment oltlusopiuioii,  siiii|ily  and  in  fact  is,  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  woiks  moral  cliaiiiii's  in  the  heart,  and  that  these 
are  the  evidence  of  our  soiiship.  It  gois  not  beyond  this ; 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  excluded  by  this  ojiinion,  as  the 
source  of  good  in  man,  he  is  not  excluded  as  c|ualifyiiig 
our  minds  to  adduitc  evidence  as  lo  certain  changes  be- 
ing wrought  within  us;  hm  he  is  excluded  as  a  wit- 


Chap.  XXIV.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


317 


ncss,  although  lie  is  said  so  explicitly  by  the  apostle  to 
give  witness  to  the  fact,  not  of  a  moral  change,  but 
of  our  adoption. 

5.  l!ut,  farther,  suppose  our  minds  to  be  so  assisted 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  as  to  discern  the  reality  of  his  work 
in  us;  and  in  an  investigation,  whether  we  are  or  are 
not  accepted  of  God,  pardoned  by  his  mercy,  and  adopted 
into  his  fainilv,  we  depose  this  as  the  evidence  of  it ;  to 
what  degree  'must  this  work  of  the  Sj)irit  m  us  have 
advanced  belbre  it  can  be  evidence  of  this  l;;ct  ?  We 
have  seen  that  it  were  absurd  to  allege  contrition,  and 
penilence,  and  fear,  as  the  proofs  of  our  pardon,  since 
they  suppose,  that  we  are  still  under  condemnation  ; 
what  fan  her  work  of  the  Spirit,  then,  is  the  proof  ?  The 
reply  to  this  usually  is,  that  though  repentance  should 
not  be  evidence  of  pardon,  yet,  when  faith  is  added,  this 
becomes  evidence,  since  God  has  declared  in  his  word 
that  we  are  "justified  by  faith,"  and  "  whosoever  be- 
licvcth  shall  be  saved." 

To  this  we  reply,  that  though  we  should  become  con- 
scious of  both  repentance  and  faith,  either  by  "  a  reflex 
act  of  our  own  minds,"  or  by  the  assistance  of  the  Sj)!- 
rit  "  shining  upon  his  own  work,"  this  would  be  no 
evidence  of  our  forgiveness;  our  spirit  would,  in  that 
case,  witness  the  fact  of  our  repenting  and  believing, 
but  tliat  would  be  no  witness  to  the  fact  of  our  adop- 
tion. Justification  is  an  act  of  God,  it  is  secret  and  in- 
visible, it  passes  in  his  own  mind,  it  is  declared  by  no 
outward  sign,  and  no  one  can  know,  except  the  Holy 
.Spirit,  who  knows  the  mind  of  God,  whether  we  are 
pardoned  or  not,  unless  it  had  been  stated  in  his  word, 
that  in  every  case  pardon  is  dispensed  when  repentance 
and  faith  have  reached  some  definite  degree,  clearly 
jiointed  out,  so  that  we  cannot  fail  to  ascertain  that 
they  have  reached  that  degree ;  and,  also,  unless  we 
were  expressly  authorized  to  be  ourselves  the  judges 
of  this  case,  and  confidently  and  comfortably  to  con- 
clude our  Justification.  For  it  is  not  enough  that  we 
have  faith.  Faith,  both  as  assent  and  confidence,  has 
every  possible  degree ;  it  is  capable  of  mixture  with 
doubt,  and  self-dependence ;  nor,  without  some  definite 
and  particular  characters  being  assigned  to  juslilying 
faith,  could  we  ever,  with  any  confidence,  conclude  as  to 
our  own.  But  we  have  no  such  particular  description  of 
faith ;  nor  are  we  authorized,  any  where,  to  make  our- 
selves the  judges  of  the  fact,  whether  the  act  of  pardon, 
as  (0  us,  has  passed  the  mind  of  God.  The  apostle,  in 
the  ])assages  quoted  above,  has  assigned  that  office  to 
the  Holy  Spirit ;  but  it  is  in  no  part  of  Scripture  ap- 
jiointed  to  us. 

If,  then,  we  have  no  authority  from  God  to  conclude 
that  we  are  pardoned,  when  faith,  in  an  uncertain  de- 
gree, is  added  to  repentance,  the  whole  becomes  a  mat- 
ter of  inftrence;  and  we  argue,  that  having  "repent- 
ance and  faith,"  we  are  forgiven  ;  in  other  words,  that 
these  are  the  sufficient  evidences  of  pardon.  But  re- 
pentance and  faith  are  exercised  in  order  to  pardon  ; 
that  must,  therefore,  be  subseciuent  to  both,  and  they 
cannot,  lor  that  reason,  be  the  evidence  of  it,  or  the 
evidence  of  pardon  might  be  enjoyed  before  pardon  is 
actually  received,  which  is  absurd.  But  it  has  been 
said,  "  that  we  have  the  testimony  of  God  in  his  word, 
that  when  repentance  and  faith  exist,  God  has  infallibly 
connected  pardon  with  them  from  the  moment  they  are 
perceived  to  exist,  and  so  it  mny  he  surely  inferred  from 
them."  The  answer  is,  that  we  have  no  such  testi- 
mony. We  have,  through  the  mercy  of  God,  the  pro- 
mise of  pardon  to  all  who  repent  and  believe ;  but  re- 
jientance  is  not  pardon,  and  faith  is  not  pardon,  but  they 
are  its  prerequisites ;  each  is  a  sine  quA  non,  but 
surely  not  the  pardon  itself,  nor,  as  we  have  just  seen, 
can  either  be  considered  the  evidence  of  pardon,  with- 
out an  absurdity.  They  are  means  to  that  end,  but 
nothing  more ;  and  though  God  has  "  infallibly  con- 
nected" the  blessing  of  pardon  with  repentance  and 
faith,  he  has  not  connected  it  with  antj  kind  of  repent- 
ance, nor  with  any  kind  of  faith  ;  nor  with  every  degree 
of  repentance,  nor  with  ei>ery  degree  of  faith.  How 
then  shall  we  ever  know  whether  our  repentance  and 
faith  are  accepted,  unless  pardon  actually  Ibllovv  them? 
And  as  this  pardon  cannot  be  attested  by  Ihem,  for  the 
reason  above  given,  and  must  therefore,  have  an  attest- 
ation of  higher  authority,  and  ol  a  distinct  kind,  the 
only  attestation  conceivable  which  remains,  is  the  di- 
rect witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Either  this  must  be 
acknowledged,  or  a  painful  uncertainty  as  to  the  gewa- 
ineiuss  or  llie  runuired  viacaure  and  degree  of  our  re- 


pentance and  faith,  quite  destructive  of  "  comfort,"  must 
remain  throughout  life. 

6.  But,  if  neitlier  our  repentance,  nor  even  a  consci- 
ousness of  faith,  when  joined  with  it,  can  be  the  evi- 
dence of  the  fact  of  our  adoption  ;  it  has  been  urged, 
that  when  all  those  graces,  which  are  called  the  fruits 
of  the  Spirit,  are  found  in  ourexperience,  they,  at  least, 
must  be  sufficient  evidence  of  the  fact,  without  suppos- 
ing a  more  direct  testimony  of  tlie  Holy  Spirit.  The 
"  fruits"  thus  referred  to,  are  those  enumerated  by  St. 
Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  "  But  the  fruit  of 
the  Spirit,  is  love,  joy,  peace,  long-sufiering,  gentleness, 
goodness,"  &c.  Two  things  will  here  be  granted, 
and  they  greatly  strengthen  the  argument  for  a  direct 
testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit:— that  these  fruits  arc 
found  only  in  those  who  have  been  received,  by  the 
remission  of  their  sins,  into  the  Divine  favour,  and  that 
they  are  fruits  of  the  Spirit  of  adoption.  The  first  is 
proved  from  the  connexion  of  the  words  which  follow : 
"  And  they  that  .\rk  Christ's  have  crucified  the  flesh," 
&c.  For  to  be  "  Christ's,"  and  to  be  "  m  Christ"  are 
phrases,  with  the  apostle,  equivalent  to  being  in  a  state 
of  justification  : — "  There  is  no  condemnation  to  them 
that  are  in  Christ  Jesus."  The  second  is  proved  by 
the  connexion  of  the  words  with  verse  18,  "  But  if  ye 
be  led  by  the  Spirit,  ye  are  not  under  the  law,"  for  these 
words  are  exactly  parallel  to  chap.  iv.  5,  6,  "  To  redeem 
them  that  were  under  the  law,  that  we  might  receive 
the  adoption  of  sons  ;  and  because  ye  are  sons,  God 
hath  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  your  hearts,  cry- 
ing Abba,  Father."  These  are  tlien  the  fruits  following 
upon  a  state  of  pardon,  adoption,  and  our  receiving  the 
Spirit  of  adoption.  We  allow  that  they  presuppose 
pardon ;  but  then  they  as  clearly  ])rcsuppose  the  Spirit 
of  adoption,  "  sent  forth  into  our  hearts,  crying  Abba, 
Father;"  that  is,  they  not  only  presuppose  our  pardon, 
but  pardon  previously  attested  and  made  known  to  us  ; 
the  persuason  of  which,  conveyed  to  the  mind,  not  by 
them,  but  by  the  Spirit  of  adoption,  is  the  foundation  of 
them  ;  at  least,  of  that  "  love,  joy,  and  peace,"  which 
are  mentioned  first,  and  must  not  be  separated,  in  the 
argument,  from  the  other.  Nor  can  these  "  fruits"  re- 
sult from  any  thing  but  manifested  pardon  ;  they  can- 
not themselves  manifest  our  pardon,  tor  they  cannot  ex- 
ist till  it  is  manifested.  If  we  "  love  God,"  it  is  because 
we  know  him  as  God  reconciled  ;  if  we  have  "joy  in 
God,"  it  is  because  "  we  have  received  the  reconcilia- 
tion ;  if  we  have  peace,  it  is  because,  "  being  justified 
by  faith,  we  have  peace  with  God,  through  our  Lord 
.lesus  Christ."  God,  conceived  of  as  angry,  cannot  be 
the  object  of  filial  love;  pardon  unfelt,  suppo.ses  guilt 
and  fear  still  to  burden  the  mind,  and  guilt,  and  "joy," 
and  "  peace"  cannot  exist.  But  by  the  argument  of 
those  who  make  these  the  ynedia  of  ascertaining  the  fact 
of  our  forgiveness  and  adoption,  we  must  be  supposed 
to  love  God,  while  yet  we  feel  him  to  be  angry  with  us  j 
to  rejoice  and  have  peace,  while  the  fearful  apprehen- 
sions of  the  consequences  of  unremitted  sin  are  not  re- 
moved ;  and  if  this  is  impossible,  then  the  ground  of  our 
love,  and  joy,  and  peace,  is  pardon  revealed  and  witness- 
ed, directly  and  immediately,  by  the  Spirit  of  adoption. 

it  has  been  said,  indeed,  tliat  love  to  God  may  bo  pro- 
duced from  a  consideration  of  God's  general  luve  to- 
mankind  in  his  Son,  and  that,  therefore,  the  force  of  the 
above  argument  is  broken  ;  but  we  reply,  that  in  Scrip- 
ture Christians  are  spoken  of  as  "reconciled  to  God ;"  as 
"  translated  into  the  kingdom  of  his  dear  Son ;"  a.s 
"  children,"  "  heirs,"  &c. ;  and  correspondently  with 
these  relations,  their  love  is  spoken  of  as  love  to  Goi! 
as  their  Father, — love  to  God  as  their  God  in  covenant, 
who  calls  himself  "  their  God,"  and  them  "  his  people." 
This  is  the  love  of  God  exhibited  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment ;  and  the  question  is,  whether  such  a  love  of  God 
as  this  can  spring  from  a  knowledge  of  his  "■general 
love  to  man,"  or  whether  it  arises,  under  the  Spirit's 
influence,  from  a  persuasion  of  his  pardoning  love  to 
us  "  individually:'  To  clear  this,  we  may  divide  those 
who  hear  the  Gospel,  or  Christians  by  profession,  into 
the  following  classes :— the  carnal  and  careless;  the 
despairing  ;  the  penitent,  who  seek  God  with  hope  as 
well  as  desire,  now  discouraged  by  their  fears,  and 
sunk  under  their  load  of  conscious  guilt,  and  again  en- 
couraged by  a  degree  of  hope  ;  and  lastly,  those  who 
are  "justified  by  faith,  and  have  peace  with  God." 
The  first  class  know  God's  "  general  love  to  man ;"  but 
it  will  not  be  jileaded  that  llicy  love  him.  The  second 
know  the  "  general  love  of  God  to  man ;"  but  thinking 


318 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


((Part  II. 


tlieniselves  cxrcplions  from  his  mercy,  cannot  love  him 
on  that  account.  The  thinl  admit  the  same  "  general 
love  of  God  to  man,"  and  it  is  the  foundation  ol  their 
hope;  but  does  this  produce  love.'  The  view  of  his 
mercy  in  the  gift  of  his  Son,  and  in  the  ^m  neral  [iroinise, 
may  produce  a  degree  of  this  emotion,  or  perhaps  more 
\iTO{\(ir\y  of  firatitude ;  but  do  they  love  his  justice, 
under  the  condenmation  of  whicli  tliey  feel  themselves, 
and  his  holinens,  the  awful  purity  of  which  makes 
them  afraid  .'  If  not,  they  do  not  love  fJod  as  God ;  that 
is,  as  a  whole,  in  all  his  perfections,  the  awful  as  well 
as  the  attractive,  the  alarming  as  well  as  Iheencourag- 
ing ;  which  is,  doubtless,  the  character  of  the  love  of 
tho.se  who  are  justiiied  by  faith.  Hut  leaving  this  nicer 
distinction,  the  main  question  is,  do  they  love  him  as  a 
Father,  ^s  their  God  in  covenant,  with  the  love  which 
leads  Uj)  the  afl'ections  of  "  peace  and  joy,"  as  well  as 
"  gentleness,  goodness,  and  lidelity  ?"  for  in  this  com- 
pany, so  to  speak,  the  ajiostle  places  this  grace,  where 
it  is  a  fruit  of  the  Spirit," — "  The  Spirit  which  they  that 
believed  on  him  should  receive."  This  is  impo.ssible ; 
for  these  seeking,  though  hoping  penitents,  do  not  re- 
gard God  as  their  Father,  in  that  special  sense  in  which 
the  word  is  correlative  "to  children  and  heirs  ;"  they 
do  not  regard  him  as  their  God  in  that  covenant,  which 
says,  "  I  will  be  merciful  to  their  unrighteousness,  and 
their  sins  and  iniquities  I  will  remember  no  more  ;  and 
I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  and  they  shall  be  to  me  a 
people."  This  is  what  they  seek,  but  have  not  found ; 
and  they  cannot  love  God  under  relations  in  which  they 
know,  and  pahifuUy  feel,  that  he  does  not  yet  stand  to 
them.  They  know  liis  "  general  love  to  ?nan,'''  but  not 
his  pardoning  love  to  them ;  and  therefore  cannot  love 
him  as  reconciled  to  them  by  the  death  of  las  Son.  It 
follows,  therefore,  that  the  last  class  only,  the  "  justi- 
fied by  faith,"  bear  that  love  to  God,  which  is  marked 
by  the  characters  impressed  upon  it  by  the  apostles. 
He  is  their  Father,  and  they  love  him  as  his  children  : 
he  is  their  God  in  covenant ;  and  as  they  can  in  this 
appropriating  sense  call  him  their  God,  that  love  liim 
carrespondently,  though  not  adequately.  Their  love, 
therefore,  rests  upon  their  persuasion  of  their  personal 
and  individual  interest  in  his  pardoning,  adopting,  and 
covenant-fulfilling  mercy  to  thein;  and  wlieii-  these 
benefits  are  not  personally  enjoyed,  tlux  kind  of  lnveto 
God  cannot  exist.  This,  then,  we  think  sulliciently 
establishes  the  fact,  that  the  Scriptures  of  the  New 
Testament,  when  speaking  of  the  love  of  believers  to 
God,  always  suppose  that  it  arises  from  a  persuasion  of 
God's  special  love  to  them  as  individuals,  and  not  merely 
from  a  knowledge  of  his  "gaieral  love"  to  mankind. 
Others  there  are,  who,  in  adverting  to  these  fruits  of 
the  Spirit,  overlook  "  love,  joy,  and  peace,"  and  li.x  their 
attention  only  on  "  gentleness,  goodness,  meekness, 
fidelity,  and  temperance,"  as  those  graces  which  make 
up  our  practical  holiness,  and  thus  argue  justification 
from  regeneration,  which  is  an  unquestionable  conco- 
mitant of  it.  The  rejily  to  this  is,  that  the  fruit  of  the 
Spihl  is  undivided ;  that  all  attempts  at  separating  it 
is,  therefore,  criminal  and  delusive;  and  that  where 
there  is  not  "  love,  joy,  and  peace,"  we  have  no  Scrip- 
tural reason  to  con<;lude  that  there  is  that,  gentleness, 
that  goodness,  that  meekness,  iVc,  of  which  the  apos- 
tle speaks,  or,  in  other  words,  that  there  is  that  state 
of  regeneration  which  the  Scriptures  describe  ;  at  least 
not  ordinarily,  for  we  leave  seasons  of  deep  sjiiritual 
exercise  and  ca.ses  of  physical  depression  to  be  treated 
according  to  thiir  iiKirils.  Tliusllii.s  argiiinciit  fiills  to 
the  ground.  IJul  the  same  cuiii-lu.-iHiii  is  rein-hril  in 
another  way.  I'ersons  of  ihisupiiHon  would  iiiler  for- 
giveness from  holiness ;  but  holiness  consists  in  habits 
and  acts  of  which  love  to  Cnd  is  the  princiiile ;  for  we 
first  "love  (;od,"  and  then  "kec^p  his  commandments." 
Ilohness,  then,  is  preceded  by  love  as  its  root,  and  that, 
as  we  have  seen,  by  manifested  jiardon.  For  I  his  love 
is  the  love  of  a  pardoned  sinner  to  (lod  as  a  Father,  as 
a  God  in  actual  covenant,  offered  on  one  part,  and  ac- 
cepted on  the  other;  and  it  exists  before  holiness,  as 
the  principle  exists  before  the  act  and  the  habit.  In  the 
process,  then,  of  inferring  our  justified  state  from  moral 
changes,  if  we  find  what  we  think  liolim.sK  wjilioul 
love,  it  is  the  holiness  of  a  Pharisee  wiilionl  |)rin(iplc. 
If  we  join  to  it  the  love  which  is  supposeil  to  he  capa- 
ble of  springing  from  (Jod's  general  love  to  man,  this 
is  a  principle  of  which  Scripture  lakes  no  cogm/.ance, 
and  which  at  best,  if  it  exist  at  all,  must  be  a  very  mixed 
aud  defective  sciitiineni,  uuil  cuiuwl  origiiiule  a  iwluiesb 


like  that  which  distinguishes  the  "  new  creattire."  K 
is  not,  th(;retore,  a  warrantable  evidence  of  either  rege- 
neration or  juslilication.  l!ut  if  we  find  hive  to  God 
as  a  God  reconciled ;  as  a  Father ;  as  a  God  who  "  loves 
us ;"  it  is  jilain,  that  as  this  love  is  the  root  of  holiness, 
it  precedes  it ;  and  we  must  consider  God  under  these 
lovely  relations  on  some  other  evidence  than  "  the  tes- 
timony of  our  own  spirits,"  which  evidence  can  be  no 
other  than  that  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 

Thus  it  18  established,  that  the  witness  of  the  Spirit 
is  direct,  and  not  mediate  ;  and  the  Ibllowiiig  extracts 
will  show  that  this  is  no  new  or  unsanctioned  doctrine. 
Luther  "  wa.s  strengthened  by  the  discourse  of  an  old 
Augustine  monk  concerning  the  certainty  we  may  have 
that  our  sins  are  forgiven.  God  likewise  gave  him 
much  comfort  in  his  temiitations,  by  that  saying  of  St. 
Uernard,  '  It  is  necessary  to  believe,  first  of  all,  that  you 
cannot  have  forgiveness  but  by  the  mercy  of  <;od  ;  and 
next,  that  through  his  mercy  thy  sins  are  forgiven 
thee.'  This  is  the  witness  which  the  Holy  Spirit  bears 
in  thy  heart,  '  Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee.'  And  thus  it 
is,  that,  according  to  the  apostle,  a  uian  is  justified 
freely  through  faith."(2) 

"  In  the  88ih  Psalm  is  contained  the  prayer  of  one, 
who,  allliuugh  he  felt  in  liimself  that  he  had  not  only 
man,  but  also  Cod  angry  towards  him  ;  yet  he  by  prayer 
humbly  nsurled  unto  (Jod,  as  the  only  port  of  conso- 
lation ;  and  in  the  midst  of  his  desiierate  slate  of  trou- 
ble, put  the  hope  of  his  salvation  in  him  whom  he  felt 
his  enemy.  Ilowbeit,  no  man  of  hunself  can  do  this; 
but  the  Spirit  of  God,  that  striketh  man's  heart  with 
fear,  prayeth  lor  the  man  stricken  and  li  and  with  un- 
speakable groanings.  And  when  you  ti  rl  yourself,  and 
know  any  other  ojipressed  after  such  sort,  be  glad  ;  for 
alter  that  God  hath  made  you  know  what  you  be  of 
yourself,  he  mil  doubtless  show  you  comfort,  and  de- 
clare unto  you  what  you  be  in  Christ  his  o-nly  Son; 
and  use  jirayer  often,  lor  that  is  the  means  whereby 
God  will  be  sought  unto  for  his  gifls."(3) 

"  It  is  the  proper  effect  of  the  blood  of  Christ  to 
cleanse  our  consciences  from  dead  works  to  serve  the 
living  God ;  which,  if  we  find  it  doth,  Christ  is  come 
to  us  as  he  is  to  come ;  and  the  Spirit  is  come,  and  puts 
his  teste  (witness).  Aud  if  we  have  his  teste,  we  may 
go  our  way  in  jicacc ;  we  have  kept  a  right  feast  to 
him,  and  to  the  memory  of  his  coming.  Even  so,  come. 
Lord  .lesus,  and  come,  ohble.t.'ied  .Spirit,  mid  bear  wil- 
ness  to  our  Spirit  tlntl  Christ's  water  and  his  blood,  we 
have  our  part  la  both  ;  both  in  the  fountain  opened  for 
sin  and  uncleanuess,  and  in  the  blood  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, the  legacy  whereof  is  everlasting  life  in  thy 
kingdom  of  glory ."(4) 

"  The  Spirit  which  God  hath  given  us,  to  assure  us 
that  we  are  the  sons  of  God,  to  enable  us  to  call  upoa 
him  as  our  Fat  her.  "(5) 

"  Unto  you,  because  ye  are  sons,  God  has  sent  forth 
the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  your  hearts,  to  the  end  ye 
might  know  that  Christ  hath  built  you  upon  a  rock  im- 
movable, that  he  hath  registered  your  names  in  the 
Book  of  Life."(6) 

^  "  From  a<loption  flows  all  Christians'  joy,  for  the 
Spirit  of  adoption  is,  first,  a  witness,  Rom.  viii.  10 ;  se- 
cond, a  seal,  Fpli.  iv.  30  ;  third,  the  pledge  and  earnest 
of  our  inheritance,  Eph.  i.  14 ;  setting  a  holy  security 
on  the  soul,  whereby  it  rejoiceth  even  in  affliction,  in 
hope  of  glory."(7) 

"  This  is  one  great  ofllce  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  ratify 
and  seal  up  to  us  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins.  '  In 
whom,  alter  ye  believed,  ye  were  sealed  with  that  Holy 
Spirit  of  promise,'  "  &c.(8) 

"  It  is  the  office  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  assure  us  of  the 
adoption  of  sons,  to  create  in  us  a  sense  of  the  paternal 
love  of  God  towards  us,  to  give  us  an  earnest  of  our 
everlasting  inheritance.  The  lore  of  God  is  sited  abroml 
ill  our  hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  given  unto 
us.    For  as  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God  arc 


(2)  Life  of  Martin  Luther,  by  Johm  Daniel  Hkr- 

SMIHMID 

(:i)  IlishopIIoopEn.  See  Fo.x's  Acta  and  Monuments. 

(1)  Bishop  Andrew.  Sermon  of  the  Sending  of  tho 
Holy  (ihost. 

(5)  IIooK KR.    Sermon  of  fk;rtainty  of  Faith. 

(())  HooKKK.     Sermon  on  .lud(^ 

(7)  Archliishoji  UsiiicK.  Sum  and  Substance  of  tho 
Cliri.sfiaii  Keligion. 

(^)  Uisliop  BuowMKioo's  Sennon  on  AVliitsunday. 


•Chap.  XXV.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


319 


the  sons  of  God.  And  becmise  we  are  sons,  God  hath 
sent  forth  the  Hpirit  of  his  Son  into  our  hearts,  cryini^ 
Abba,  Father.  For  we  have  not  received  the  spirit  of 
bondage  again  to  fear  ;  but  we  have  received  the  Spirit 
of  adoption,  whereby  we  cry  Abba,  Fattier.  The  Spirit 
itself  bearelh  witness  irith  our  spirit,  that  we  are  the 
children  of  God.  As,  tlieretbre,  we  are  born  again  by 
the  Spirit,  and  receive  from  him  our  regeneration,  so 
we  are  -dlsoassuredby  the  same  Spirit  of  our  adoption; 
and  because,  being  sons,  we  are  also  heirs,  heirs  of 
God,  and  joint  heirs  with  Christ,  by  the  same  Spirit 
we  have  the  pledge,  or  rather  the  earnest  of  our  iniie- 
rttance.  For  he  which  establisheth  its  in  Christ,  and 
hath  anointed  ms  in  God,  who  hath  also  sealed  ics,  and 
hath  given  us  the  earnest  of  his  Spirit  in  our  hearts ; 
so  that  we  are  sealed  with  that  Holy  Spirit  of  promise, 
which  is  the  earnest  of  our  inheritance,  until  the  re- 
demption of  the  purciiascd  possession.'\9) 

"  This  is  that  i^vevpa  vwOcaiai,  that  Spirit  of  adoption, 
wliich  eonstituteth  us  the  sons  of  God,  qualifying  us  so 
to  be  by  dispositions  resembling  God,  and  tilial  affec- 
tions towards  him  ;  certifying  us  that  we  are  so,  and 
causing  us  by  a  free  instinct  to  cry  Abba,  Father ;  run- 
ning into  his  bosom  of  love,  and  flying  under  the  wings 
of  his  mercy  in  all  our  needs  and  distresses ;  whence, 
as  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit,  they  (saith  Paul)  are 
the  sons  of  God,  and  the  Spirit  itself  beareth  witness 
with  our  spirits  that  we  are  the  children  ofGod."(l) 

The  second  testimony  is  that  of  our  own  spirits, 
"  and  is  a  consciousness  of  our  having  received  in  and 
by  the  Spirit  of  adoption,  the  tempers  mentioned  in  the 
word  of  God  as  belonging  to  his  adopted  children ;  that 
we  are  inwardly  conformed  by  the  Spirit  of  God  to  the 
image  of  his  Son,  and  that  we  walk  before  him  in  jus- 
tice, mercy,  and  truth,  doing  the  things  wliich  are  pleas- 
ing in  liis  sight."(2)  But  this  testimony,  let  it  be  ob- 
served, is  not  the  fact  of  our  adoption  directly,  but  to 
the  fact  that  we  have  in  truth  received  the  Spirit  of 
adoption,  and  that  we  are  under  no  delusive  impres- 
sions. This  will  enable  us  to  answer  a  common  objec- 
tion to  the  doctrine  of  the  Spirit's  direct  witness.  Tliis 
is,  that  when  the  evidence  of  a  first  witness  must  be 
supported  by  that  of  a  second,  before  it  can  be  fully 
relied  on,  it  appears  to  be  by  no  means  of  a  "  decisive 
and  satisfactory  character ;  and  that  it  might  be  as  well 
to  have  recourse  at  once  to  the  evidence,  winch,  after 
all,  seems  to  sustain  the  rnaui  weight  of  the  cause." 
The  answer  to  tills  is  not  ditBcult ;  if  it  were,  it  would 
weigh  nothing  against  an  express  text  of  Scripture, 
which  speaks  of  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the 
witness  of  our  own  spirits.  Both  must,  therefore,  be 
concluded  neces.sary,  though  we  should  not  see  their 
concomitancy  and  mutual  relation.  The  case  is  not, 
however,  involved  in  entire  obscmrity.  Our  own  spirits 
can  take  no  cognizance  of  the  mind  of  God  as  to  our 
actual  pardon,  and  can  bear  no  witness  to  that  fact. 
The  Holy  Spirit  only,  who  knows  the  mind  of  God, 
can  be  this  witness ;  and  if  the  fact  that  God  is  recon- 
ciled to  us  can  only  be  known  to  liim,  by  him  only  can 
it  be  attested  to  us.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  "  as  well 
for  us  to  have  recourse  at  once  to  the  evidence  of  our 
own  spirits  ;'"  because,  as  to  this  fact,  our  own  spirits 
have  no  evidence  to  give.  They  cannot  give  direct  evi- 
dence of  it ;  for  we  know  not  what  passes  in  the  mind 
of  the  invisible  God  :  they  cannot  give  indirect  evidence 
of  the  fact ;  for  no  moral  changes,  of  which  our  spirits 
can  be  conscious,  have  been  stated  in  Scrii)ture  as  the 
proofs  of  our  pardon ;  they  prove  that  there  is  a  work 
of  God  in  our  hearts,  but  they  are  not  proofs  of  our 
actual  forgiveness.  Our  own  spirits  are  competent 
v^fitnesses  that  such  moral  effects  have  been  produced 
in  our  hearts  and  character,  as  it  is  the  office  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  produce  ;  they  prove,  therefore,  the  real- 
ity of  the  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  with  us,  and  in 
us.  That  competent  and  infaJlible  witness  has  borne 
liis  testimony  that  God  is  become  our  Father ;  he  has 
shed  abroad  Ins  holy  comfort,  the  comfort  wliich  arises 
from  the  sense  of  pardon ;  and  his  moral  operation 
within  us,  accompanying,  or  immediately  following 
upon  this,  making  us  nevv  creatures  in  Christ  Jesus,  is 
the  proof  that  we  are  in  no  delusion  as  to  the  witness 
who  gives  this  testimony  being  in  truth  the  Spirit  of  God. 


(9)i Bishop  Pearson  on  the  Creed. 

(1)  Dr.  Isaac  Bakuow's  Sermon  on  the  Gitt  of  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

(2)  Wesley's  Sermons. 


Of  the  (bi>r  opinions  on  this  subject  entertained  by 
divines,  the  first  alone  is  fully  conformable  to  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  ought,  therefore,  to  be  believed  and  taught. 
The  second  opinion  is  refuted  in  our  examination  of 
the  third  ;  for  what  is  called  "  the  reflex  act  of  fiiih"  is 
only  a  consciousness  of  believing,  wliich  we  have 
shown  must  be  exercised  in  order  to  pardon,  but  can- 
not be  an  evidence  of  it.  The  third  opinion  has  been 
examined  in  all  its  parts,  except  the  reference  to  "  voices 
and  impulses,"  in  the  quotation  from  Scott's  Commen- 
tary, which  appears  to  have  been  thrown  in  ad  cap- 
tamlum.  To  this  we  may  reply,  that  however  the  fact 
of  his  adoption  is  revealed  to  man  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  it 
is  done  by  his  influence  and  inexplicable  operation, 
producing  clear  satisfaction  and  conviction  that  God  is 
reconciled ;  that  "  our  iniijuities  are  forgiven,  and  our 
sins  covered."  The  fourth  opinion  was  refuted  when 
first  stated. 


CHAPTER  XXV. 

Extent  of  the  Atonement. 

We  have  already  spoken  of  some  of  the  leading 
blessings  derived  to  man  from  the  death  of  Christ,  and 
the  conditions  on  which  they  are  made  attainable.  Before 
the  remainder  are  adduced,  it  may  be  here  a  proper  place 
to  inquire  into  the  extent  of  that  atonement  for  sin 
made  by  the  death  of  our  Saviour,  and  whether  the 
blessings  of  justification,  regeneration,  and  adoption 
are  rendered  attainable  by  all  to  whom  the  Gospel  is 
proclaimed. 

This  inquiry  leads  us  into  what  is  called  tlie  Calvin- 
istic  controversy;  a  controversy  which  has  always 
been  conducted  with  great  ardour,  and  sometimes  with 
intemperance.  I  shall  endeavour  to  consider  such  parts 
of  it  as  are  comprehended  in  the  question  before  us,  with 
perfect  calmness  and  fairness ;  recollecting,  on  the  one 
hand,  how  many  excellent  and  learned  men  have  been 
arranged  on  each  side ;  and,  on  the  other,  that,  while 
all  honour  is  due  to  great  names,  the  plain  and  unso- 
phisticated sense  of  the  Word  of  inspired  Truth  must 
alone  decide  on  a  subject  with  respect  to  which  it  is  not 
silent. 

In  the  system  usually  called  by  the  name  of  Calvin- 
ism, and  which  shall  subsequently  be  exhibited  in  its 
different  modifications,  there  are,  I  think,  many  great 
errors  ;  but  they  have  seldom  been  held  except  in  con- 
nexion with  a  class  of  vital  truths.  By  many  writers 
who  have  attacked  this  system,  the  truth  which  it  con- 
tains, as  well  as  the  error,  has  often  been  invaded ;  and 
the  assault  itself  has  been  not  unfrequeiitly  conducted 
on  principles  exceedingly  anti-scriptural,  and  fatally 
delusive.  These  considerations  are  suificient  to  inspire 
caution.  The  controversy  is  a  very  voluminous  one  ; 
and  yet  no  great  dexterity  is  required  to  exhibit  it  with 
clearness  in  a  comparatively  small  compass.  Its  es- 
sence lies  in  very  limited  bounds ;  and,  according  to 
the  plan  of  this  work,  the  whole  question  will  be  tested, 
first  and  chiefly,  by  scriptural  authority.  High  Cal- 
vinism, indeed,  affects  the  mode  of  reasoning  a  priori, 
and  delights  in  metaphysics.  To  some  also  it  gives 
most  delight  to  see  it  opposed  on  the  same  ground ;  and 
to  such  disputants  it  will  be  much  less  imposing  to 
resort  primarily,  and  with  all  simplicity,  to  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Sacred  Writings.  "  It  is  sometimes  com- 
plained," says  one,  "that  the  mind  is  unduly  biassed 
in  its  judgment,  by  a  continual  reference  to  the  autho- 
rity of  the  Scriptures.  The  complaint  is  just,  if  the 
Scriptures  are  not  the  Word  of  God ;  but  if  they  are, 
there  is  an  opposite  and  corresponding  danger  to  be 
guarded  against,  that  of  suffering  the  mind  to  be  unduly 
biassed  in  the  study  and  interpretation  of  the  revealed 
will  of  God,  by  the  deductions  of  unaided  reason."(l) 

With  respect  to  the  controversy,  we  may  also  observe, 
that  it  forms  a  clear  case  of  appeal  to  the  Scriptures : 
tiir  to  whom  the  benefits  of  Christ's  death  are  extended, 
whether  to  the  whole  of  our  race,  or  to  a  part,  can  be 
matter  of  revelaton  only ;  and  the  sole  province  of 
reason  is  that  of  interpreting  with  fairness  and  consis- 
tently with  the  acknowledged  principles  of  that  revela- 
tion, those  parts  of  it  in  which  the  subject  is  directly  or 
incidentally  introduced. 

The  question  before  us,  put  into  its  most  simple  form. 


(1)  DK.WuniiLEvr'K  Essays 


320 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Paiit  n. 


is,  whether  our  Lord  .Icsns  Christ  did  so  <Uc  for  all  im-n, 
as  to  make  salvation  attainable  hy  all  men  ;  and  the 
aflirmative  of  tlus  question  is,  wc  think,  the  doctrine 
of  Scripture. 
We  assume  that  this  is  plainly  expressed, 
1.  In  all  those  passaj^es  which  declare  that  Christ 
died  '■\foT  all  men,"  and  speak  of  his  death  as  an  atone- 
ment tor  the  sins  ''  of  the  iv/iolr  worlds 

Wo  have  already  seen,  in  treating  of  our  Lord's  atone- 
ment, in  what  sense  the  phrase,  to  die  •'/or  us,"  irmst 
be  understood  ;  that  il  si^'uifies  to  die  in  the  place  and 
stead  of  man,  as  a  sacrilicial  oblation,  by  which  satis- 
faction is  made  for  the  sms  of  the  individual,  so  that 
they  become  remissible  ujion  the  terms  of  the  evan- 
gelical covenant.  When,  therefore,  it  is  said,  that 
Christ  "  hy  the  grace  of  God  tasted  death  for  every 
man  ;"  and  that  "  he  is  the  propitiation  lor  our  sins,  and 
not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  sias  of  the  wiiole 
world ;"  it  can  only,  we  think,  be  fairly  concluded  from 
such  declarations,  and  from  many  other  familiar  te.\ts, 
in  which  the  same  phraseology  is  emjiloyed,  that  by  the 
death  of  Christ,  the  sins  of  every  man  are  rendered  re- 
missible, and  tiiat  salvation  is  consequently  attainable 
by  every  man.  A^'am,  our  Lord  calls  himself  "  the 
Saviour  of  the  world  f  and  is,  by  St.  Paul,  called  "  the 
Saviour  of  all  men."  .John  the  IJaptist  points  hiin  out 
as  "  the  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of 
the  world;"  and  our  Lord  himself  declares,  "  God  so 
loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only-begotten  Son, 
that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but 
have  everlasting  life :  for  God  sent  not  his  Son  into 
the  world  to  condemn  the  world ;  but  that  the  world 
through  him  might  be  saved."  So,  also,  the  apostle 
Paul,  "  God  was  in  Christ,  reconciling  the  world  unio 
himself,  not  iinputing  their  trespasses  unto  them." 

2.  In  those  passages  which  attribute  an  equal  e.Ytent 
to  the  effects  of  the  death  of  Christ  as  to  the  etlects  of 
the  fall  of  our  first  parents.  "  For  if  tlirough  the  of- 
fence of  one  many  be  dead,  much  more  the  grace  of 
God,  and  the  gift  by  grace,  which  is  by  one  man,  Jesus 
Christ,  hath  abounded  unto  many."  "  Tlierelbre,  as 
by  the  offence  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to 
condemnation ;  even  so  by  the  rigliteousness  of  one 
the  free  gill  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of 
life."(2) 

As  the  unlimited  extent  of  Christ's  atonement  to  all 
mankind  is  plainly  expressed  in  the  above  cited  pas- 
sages, so  is  it,  we  also  assume,  necessarily  iinptud, 

1.  In  those  which'declare  that  Christ  died  not  only 
for  those  that  are  saved,  but  (or  those  Avho  do,  or  may 
perish :  so  that  it  cannot  be  argued,'  from  the  actual 
condemnation  of  men,  that  they  were  excepted  from 
many  actual,  and  from  all  the  offered,  benefits  of  his 
death.  "And, through  thy  knowledge  shall  thy  weak 
brother  "perish,  for  whom  Christ  died.''  "  Destroy  not 
him  with  thy  meat,  for  whom  Christ  died."  "  False 
teachers,  who  privily  shall  bring  in  damnable  here- 
sies, even  denying  the  Lord  that  bought  them,  and 


(2)  To  these  might  be  added,  all  those  passages 
which  ascribe  the  abolition  of  bodily  death,  to  Christ, 
who,  in  this  respect,  repairs  the  effect  ofthe  transgress- 
ion of  Adam,  wliich  he  could  only  do  in  consequence 
of  having  redeemed  that  body  from  the  power  of  the 
grave.  This  argument  may  be  thus  stated.  It  :s  taught 
in  Scripture,  that  all  shall  rise  from  the  dead.  It  is 
equally  clear  from  the  same  aulhority,  that  all  shall  rise 
in  consequence  of  the  iiiterpnsiijoii  of  Christ,  the  second 
Adam,  the  representative  and  Uedeenier  of  man — "as 
in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made 
alive."  It  follows,  therefore,  that  if  the  wicked  arc 
raised  from  the  dead,  it  is  in  conseiiuence  of  the  iiowcr 
which  Christ,  as  Redeemer,  acquired  over  them,  and  of 
his  right  in  them.  That  this  resurrection  is  to  them  a 
curse,  was  not  in  the  jiurpose  of  God,  but  arises  from 
their  wilful  rejection  of  the  gospel.  To  be  restored  to 
life  is  in  itself  a  good;  that  it  is  turned  to  an  evil  is 
their  own  fault ;  and  if  they  are  not  raised  from  the 
dead  in  consequence  of  Christ's  right  in  them,  acquired 
by  purchase,  it  behooves  those  of  a  different  oiiinion  to 
show  under  what  other  constitution  than  that  of  the 
gospel,  a  resurrection  of  Ihc^body  is  provided  for.  The 
original  law  contains  no  intimation  of  this,  nor  of  a 
general  judgment,  wliich  latter  supposes  u  suspi.iision 
of  the  seiiteni-.e  inconsistent  with  the  slricily  legal 
I)eualty,  '•  in  'he  djty  '.liou  ealcst  thereof  thou  shall 
saniy  die." 


bring  ui)on  themselves  swift  destruction.''  So  also  in 
the  case  of  the  apostates  mentioned  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  "  Of  how  much  sorer  punishment,  sup- 
pose ye,  shall  he  be  thought  worthy,  who  hath  trodden 
under  foot  the  Son  of  God,  and  hath  counted  the  blood 
of  the  covenant,  wherewith  he  was  sanctijied,  an  unholy 
thing,  anil  hath  done  despite  unto  the  Spirit  of  Grace  ?" 
If  any  disjmte  should  liere  arise  as  to  the  phrase, 
"wherewith  ho  was  sanctified,"  reference  may  be  made 
to  chap.  vi.  of  the  same  epistle,  where  the  same  class 
of  persons,  whose  doom  is  pronounced  to  be  inevitable, 
arc  said  to  have  been  "  once  enlightened ;"  to  have 
"  tasted  of  the  heavenly  gift ;"  to  have  been  "  made  par- 
takers of  the  Holy  Ghost ;"  to  have  "tasted  the  good 
word  of  God,"  and  "  the  powers  of  the  world  to  come  ;" 
all  which  expressions  show  that  they  were  placed  on 
the  same  ground  with  other  Christians  as  to  their  inte- 
rest in  the  new  covenant, — a  point  to  which  we  shall 
again  recur. 

2.  Ill  all  those  passages  which  make  it  the  duty  of 
men  to  believe  the  Gospel ;  and  place  them  under  guilt, 
and  the  penalty  of  death,  for  rejecting  it.  "He  that 
believeth  on  the  Son  hath  everlasting  life  :  and  he  that 
believeth  not  the  Son  shall  not  see  life;  but  the  wrath 
fy"  Gw<  abideth  on  him."  "  But  these  are  written,  that 
ye  might  believe  that  .lesus  is  the  (Christ,  the  Son  of 
God,  and  that  believing,  ye  might  have  life  through  His 
name."  "  lie  that  believeth  not  is  condemned  already, 
because  he  hath  not  believed  in  the  name  ofthe  only- 
begotten  Son  of  God."  "  And  he  said  unto  them.  Go  ye 
into  all  the  world,  and  ])reach  the  Gospel  to  every  crea- 
ture. He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved ; 
but  he  that  believeth  not,  shall  be  damned."  "  How 
shall  we  escape,  if  we  neglect  so  great  salvation  ?" 
"  The  Lord  Jesus  shall  be  revealed  from  heaven  with 
his  mighty  angels,  in  fiaming  fire,  taking  vengeance  on 
tliern  that  know  not  God,  and  that  obey  not  the  Gospel 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  The  plain  argument  from  all 
such  passages  is,  that  the  Gospel  is  commanded  to  be 
preached  to  all  men  ;  that  it  is  preached  to  them  that  they 
may  believe  in  Christ,  its  Author ;  that  this  faith  is 
required  of  them,  in  order  to  their  salvation, — "  that 
believing  ye  may  have  life  through  His  name ;"  that 
they  have  power  thus  to  believe  to  their  salvation, 
(from  whatever  source,  or  by  whatever  means  this 
power  is  derived  to  them,  need  not  now  be  examined: 
it  is  plainly  supposed  ;  for  not  to  believe,  is  reckoned  to 
them  as  a  irapital  crime,  for  which  they  are  condemned 
already,  and  reserved  to  final  condemnation) ;  and  that 
having  power  to  believe,  they  have  the  power  to  obtain 
salvation,  which,  as  it  can  be  bestowed  only  through 
the  merits  of  Christ's  sacrifice,  proves  that  it  extends  to 
them.  The  same  conclusion,  also,  follows  from  the  na- 
ture of  that  faith,  which  is  required  by  the  Gospel,  in 
order  to  salvation.  This,  we  have  already  seen,  is  not 
mere  assent  to  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  sacrificial  death, 
but  personal  trust  in  it  as  our  atonement ;  which  those, 
surely,  could  not  be  required  by  a  God  of  truth  to  exer- 
cise, if  that  atonement  did  not  embrace  them.  Nor 
could  they  be  guilty  for  refiishig  to  trust  in  that  which 
was  never  intended  to  be  the  object  of  their  trust ;  for 
if  God  so  designed  to  exclude  them  from  Christ,  he 
could  not  command  </«?«  to  trust  in  Christ ;  and  if  they 
are  not  commanded  thus  to  trust  in  Christ,  they  do  not 
violate  any  cominauU  by  not  beUeving ;  and,  in  tliis  re- 
spect, are  innocent. 

3.  In  all  those  passages  in  which  men's  failure  to 
obtain  "salvation  is  placed  to  the  account  of  their  own 
opposing  wills,  and  made  wholly  their  own  fault. 
"How  often  would  1  have  gathered  thy  cliildrcn 
together,  even  as  a  hen  gathereth  her  chickens  under 
her  wings,  and  ye  would  not ."'  "  And  ye  will  not  come 
to  me  that  ye  may  have  life."  "  Bringing  upon  them- 
selves swill  destruction."  "  Whosoever  will,  let  him 
take  ofthe  water  of  life  fl-eely."  It  is  useless  here  to 
multljily  quotations,  since  the  New  Testament  so  con- 
stantly t.vliorts  men  to  come  to  Christ,  rejirovcs  them 
for  neglect,  and  threatens  them  wth  the  penal  conse- 
quences of  their  own  folly  :  Hms  uniformly  placing  the 
bar  to  their  salvation,  just  where  Christ  ])laces  it,  in 
his  parable  ofthe  supper,  in  the  pcrverseness  of  those, 
who  having  been  bidden  to  the  fiast,  would  not  (;ome. 
From  these  iirenhses,  then,  it  liillows,  that  since  the 
Scriptures  always  attribute  the  ruin  of  men's  souls  to 
their  own  will,  and  not  to  the  wUI  of  God  ;  we  ought 
to  seek  lor  no  other  cause  of  their  condemnation.  Wo 
o;tu  know  nothing  on  this  subject  but  what  God  has 


Chap.  XXV.] 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


321 


revealed.  He  has  declared  that  it  is  not  his  will  that 
men  should  perish  :  on  the  contrary,  "  He  willeth  all 
men  to  be  saved ;"  and  therefore,  commands  us  to  pray 
for  "  all  men  ;"  he  has  declared,  that  the  reason  they 
are  not  saved,  is  not  that  Christ  did  not  die  for  them, 
but  that  they  will  not  come  to  him  for  the  "life"  which 
he  died  to  procure  for  "  the  world ;"  and  it  must  there- 
fore be  concluded,  that  the  sole  bar  to  the  salvation  of 
all  who  are  lost  is  in  themselves,  and  not  in  any  sucli 
limitation  of  Christ's  redemption,  as  supposes  that 
they  were  not  comprehended  in  its  efficacy  and  in- 
tention. 

It  will  now  be  necessary  for  us  to  consider  what  those 
who  have  adopted  a  diflerent  opinion  have  to  urge 
against  these  plain  and  literal  declarations  of  Scripture. 
It  is  their  burden,  that  they  are  compelled  to  explain 
these  passages  in  a  more  limite<l  and  ciualified  sense, 
than  the  letter  of  them  and  its  obvious  meaning 
teaches ;  and  that  they  must  do  this  by  inl'erence 
merely ;  for  it  is  not  even  pretended  that  there  is  any 
text  whatever  to  be  adduced,  which  declares  as  lite- 
rally that  Christ  did  not  die  lor  the  salvation  of  all,  as 
those  which  declare  that  he  did  so  die.  We  have  no  pa.s- 
sages,  therefore,  to  examine,  which,  in  their  clear  literal 
meaning,  stand  opposed  to  those  which  we  have  quoted, 
so  as  to  present  apparent  contradictions,  whicli  require 
to  be  reconciled  by  concession  on  one  side  or  the  other. 
This  is  at  least,  primafacie,  strongly  in  liivour  of  those 
who  hold  that,  in  the  same  sense,  and  with  the  same 
design,  "  Jesus  Christ  tasted  death  lor  every  man." 

To  our  first  class  of  texts  it  is  objected,  that  theterins 
"  all  men,''  and  "  the  voiid,"  are  sometimes  used  in 
Scripture  in  a  limited  sense. 

This  may  be  grained  without  injury  to  the  argument 
drawn  from  the  texts  in  question.  I!ut  though  in 
Scripture,  as  in  common  language,  all,  and  tvery, 
and  such  univorsals.  are  occasionally  used  with  limit- 
ation when  the  connexion  prevents  any  misunderstand- 
ing; yet  ;'iey  are,  nevertheless,  strictly  universal 
terms,  and  are  most  frequently  used  as  such.  The 
true  questio  i  is,  whether,  in  the  places  above  cited,  they 
can  be  understood  except  in  the  largest  sense ;  whether 
"  all  men"  and  "  the  world"  can  be  interpreted  of  the 
elect  only  that  is  of  some  men  of  all  countries. 

We  may  very  confldenlly  deny  this, 

1.  Hccause  the  universal  sense  of  the  terms,  "  all," 
and  ''all  men,"  and  "  every  man,"  is  confirmed,  either 
by  the  context  of  the  passages  in  which  Ihey  occur,  or 
by  other  Scriptures.  When  Isaiah  says,  "  All  we  like 
sheep  have  gone  astray ;  and  the  Lord  hath  laid  on  him 
the  iniquity  of  us  all ;"  he  affirms  that  the  iniquity  of 
all  those  who  have  gone  astray  was  laid  on  Christ. 
When  St.  Paul  says,  "We  thus  judge,  that  if  one  died 
for  all,  then  were  all  dead  ;"  he  argues  the  universality 
of  spiritual  death,  from  the  universaUty  of  the  means . 
adopted  for  raising  men  to  spiritual  life  :  a  plain  proof 
that  it  was  received  as  an  undisputed  principle  in  the 
primitive  church,  that  Christ's  dying  lor  all  men  was  to 
be  taken  in  its  utmost  latitude,  or  it  could  not  have  been 
made  the  basis  of  the  argument.  When  the  same 
apostle  calls  Christ  the  "  Saviour  of  all  men,  and  espe- 
cially of  those  that  believe,"  he  manifestly  includes 
both  believers  and  unbelievers,  that  is,  all  manldnd,  in 
the  term  "  all  men  ;"  and  declares,  that  Christ  is  their 
Saviour,  though  the  full  benefits  of  his  salvation  are 
received  through  litith  only,  by  them  that  believe. 
When  again  he  declares  that,  "  as  by  the  olTeiicc  of  one, 
judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation";  even 
so  by  the  righteousness  of  one,  the  free  gilt  came  upon 
all  men,  (tij),  in  order  to  justification  of  life;"  the  force 
of  the  comparison  is  lost  if  the  term  "all  men"  is  not 
taken  in  its  full  extent ;  for  the  apostle  is  thus  made  to 
say,  AS  by  the  offence  of  one,  judgment  came  upon  all 
MEN  ;  EVES  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one,  the  free 
gift  came  upon  a  few  hen.  Nor  can  it  be  objected, 
that  the  apostle  uses  the  terms, "  many,"  and  "  all  men," 
indiscriminately  in  this  chapter;  for  there  is  in  this  no 
contradiction,  and  tlie  objection  is  in  our  favour.  All 
men  are  many,  though  miany  acr  not  in  every  case  all. 
But  the  term  "  many,"  is  taken  by  him  in  the  sense  of 
all,  as  appears  from  the  following  parallels :  "  death 
passed  upon  all  men ;"  "  many  be  dead  ;"  "  the  gift  by 
grace  hath  abounded  unto  many  ;"  "  the  free  gill  came 
upon  all  men.''  "  By  one  man's  disobedience  many 
were  made  (constituted)  sinners,"  made  liable  to  death  ; 
"  so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made  (con- 
stituted) righteous."     On  the  la.^t  pjssage  we    may  J 


observe  that,  "  many"  or  "  the  many,"  must  mean  all 
men  in  the  first  clause  ;  nor  is  it  to  be  restricted  in  the 
second,  as  though,  by  being  "  made  righteous,"  actual 
personal  justification  were  to  be  understoo<l ;  for  the 
apostle  is  not  speaking  of  believers  individually,  but  of 
mankind  collectively,  and  the  opposite  conditions  in 
which  llii;  race  itself  is  placed  by  the  olTencc  of  Adam 
and  the  obedience  of  Christ  in  all  its  generations. 

It  is  equally  impracticable  to  restrict  the  jihrases, 
"  the  world,"  "  the  whole  world ;"  and  to  paraphrase 
them  the  "  world  of  the  elect :"  and  yet  there  is  no 
other  alternative  ;  for  either  "  the  whole  world"  means 
those  elected  out  of  it ;  or  else  Christ  died  in  an  equal 
sense  for  every  man.  "  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he 
gave  his  only-begotten  Son,"  &c.  Here,  if  the  world 
mean  not  the  elect  only,  but  every  man,  then  every  man 
was  "  so  loved"  by  God,  that  he  gave  his  own  Son  for 
Ills  redeniptioiL  To  say  that  the  world,  in  a  few  i)laces, 
means  the  Roman  empire,  and  in  others  .ludea,  is 
nothing  to  the  purpose,  unless  it  were  meant  to 
affirm,  that  the  elect  were  the  people  of  .ludca,  or  those 
of  the  Roman  emjiire  only.  It  proves,  it  is  true,  a  hy- 
perbolical use  of  the  term  in  both  instances ;  but  this 
cannot  be  urged  in  the  case  before  us  :  for, 

1.  The  elect  are  never  called  "the  world"  in  Scrip- 
ture ;  but  are  distinguished  from  it.  "  I  have  chosen 
you  out  of  the  world  ;  therefore  the  world  bateth 
you." 

2.  The  com.mon  division  of  mankind,  in  the  New 
Testament,  is  only  into  two  parts;  the  disciples  of 
<;hnst,  and  "the  world."  "If  ye  were  of  the  world, 
the  world  would  love  its  own."  "  Ye  are  not  of  the 
world,  even  as  I  am  not  of  the  world."  "  We  know 
that  we  are  of  God,  and  the  whole  world  lieth  in  -wick- 
edness." 

3.  When  the  redemption  of  Christ  is  spoken  of,  it 
olten  includes  both  those  who  had  been  chosen  out  of 
the  world,  and  those  who  remained  still  of  the  world. 
"  And  ymi  hath  he  reconciled,"  say  the  apostles  to  those 
that  had  already  believed ;  and  as  to  the  rest,  "  God  was 
in  Christ,  reconciling  the  ivorld  unto  himself,  not  imput- 
ing their  trespasses  unto  them  ;  and  hath  committed  to 
us  the  word  of  reconciliation,"  plainly  that  they  might 
beseech  this  "  world"  to  be  reconciled  to  God  :  so  that 
both  believers  and  unbelievers  were  interested  in  the 
reconciling  ministry,  and  the  work  of  Christ.  "And 
he  is  the  propitiation  for  07/r  sins,  and  not  for  ours  only ; 
but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world ;"  words  cannot 
make  the  case  plainer  than  these,  since  this  same  wri- 
ter, in  the  same  epistle,  makes  it  evident  how  he  uses 
the  term  "  world,"  when  he  affirms  that  "-the  world 
lieth  in  wickedness,"  in  contradistinction  to  those  who 
knew  that  they  were  "  of  God." 

4.  In  the  general  commission  before  quoted,  the  ex- 
pression "world"  is  connected  with  universal  terms 
which  carry  it  forth  into  its  utmost  latitude  of  mean- 
ing. "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  Gos- 
pel (the  good  news)  to  every  creature ;"  and  this  too  in 
order  to  his  believing  it,  that  he  may  be  saved ;  "  he  that 
believeth  shall  be  saved  ;  and  he  that  believeth  not  (thi.s 
good  news  preached  to  him  that  he  might  be  saved) 
shall  be  damned."  ( 

5.  All  this  is  confirmed  froin  the  gross  absurdity  of 
this  restricted  interpretation  when  applied  to  several  of 
the  foregoing  passages.  "  For  fiod  so  loved  the  world, 
that  he  gave  his  ouly-begotten  Son,  that  whosoever 
believeth  in  him  should  not  perish."  Now,  if  the  world 
here  means  the  elect  world,  or  the  elect  not  yet  called 
out  of  it,  then  it  is  affirmed,  that  "  wliosoevir"  of  this 
elect  body  believeth,  shall  not  perish;  which  plainly 
implies,  that  some  of  the  elect  might  not  believe,  and 
therefore  perish,  contrary  to  their  doctrine.  This  ab- 
surd consequence  is  still  clearer  from  the  verses  which 
immediately  follow.  John  iii.  17, 18, "  l'"or  God  sent  not 
his  Son  into  the  world  to  (condemn  the  world  ;  but  that 
the  world  through  him  might  be  saved.  He  that  be- 
lieveth on  him  is  not  condemned  ;  but  he  that  believeth 
not  is  condemned  already."  Now  here  we  must  take 
the  term  "  world"  either  extensively  for  all  mankind, 
or  limitedly  for  the  elect.  If  the  former,  then  all  men 
"thiTougli  him  may  be  saved,"  but  only  through  faith  : 
he,  therefore,  of  this  world  that  believeth  may  be  saved; 
but  he  of  Ibis  world  that  believeth  not  is  condemned 
already."  The  sense  is  here  plain  and  consistent ;  but 
if,  on  the  other  hand,  we  take  "  the  world"  to  mean  the 
elect  only,  then  he  of  this  elect  world  that  believeth 
may  be  saved,  and  he  uf  the  elect  worhllhat  "  believeth 


322 


THEOLOGICAL   LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  IL 


not  18  condenmcd  ;"  so  that  the  rcHtrictcd  inti;r[irti;iiiiin 
noocssarily  suppost-s  timl  elect  persons  ni;iy  riMniiiii  in 
uiiljclief,  and  be  lost.  The  same  absurdity  will  ibllow 
from  a  like  interpretation  of  the  general  connrussion. 
Either  "all  the  world"  anil  "every  creature"  mean 
every  man,  or  the  elect  only.  II  the  former,  it  Ibllows, 
that  he  of  this  "world,"  any  individual  amon;;  those 
included  in  the  phrase  "every  creature"  who  believes, 
"  shall  be  saved,"  or,  not  believinj;,  "  shall  he  i!aninc<l ;" 
if  the  latter,  then  he  of  tlie  elect,  any  individual  of  the 
elect  who  believes  "shall  be  saved,"  and  any  indivi- 
dual of  the  elect  who  believes  not  "  shall  be  danmed." 
Similar  absurdities  ini(;lit  be  bron^^ht  out  from  other 
pa.ssaiies;  but  if  these  are  candiiliy  wcif;lied,  it  will 
abundantly  appiuir,  that  te.xls  so  jilain  and  explicit  can- 
not be  turned  into  such  consetjucncos  by  any  true 
method  of  interpretation,  and  that  theymu.s't,  therefore, 
be  taken  in  their  obvious  sense,  which  unequivocally 
expresses  the  universality  of  the  atonement. 

It  has  been  urged,  indeed,  that  our  Lord  himself  says, 
John  xvii.  9,  "  I  pray  for  them :  I  pray  not  for  the 
world,  but  for  them  v/hich  thou  hast  given  me."  Hut 
',  will  they  here  interpret  "  the  world"  to  be  the  world 
"of  the  elect  ?  if  so,  they  cut  even  them  oIT  from  tlic^ 
prayers  of  Christ.  But  if  by  "  the  world"  they  would 
have  us  understand  the  world  of  the  non-elect,  then 
they  will  find  that  all  the  prayers  which  our  Lord  puts 
up  for  those  whom"  the  Father  hath  £;iven  him,"  had 
ttiis  end,  "  that  they,"  the  non-elect  "  '  world,'  may  be- 
lieve that  thou  hast  sent  me,"  verse  21 ;  let  tliem  choose 
either  side  of  the  alternative.  The  meaning  of  this 
passage  is,  however,  made  obvious  by  the  context. 
Christ,  in  the  former  part  of  his  intercession,  as  re- 
corded in  tliis  chapter,  prays  exclusively,  not  lor  his 
church  in  all  ages,  but  for  his  disciples  then  present 
with  him;  as  appears  plain  from  verse  12,  "  While  I 
was  with  tlum  in  the  world,  I  kejit  them  in  thy  name :" 
but  he  was  only  xvilh  his  first  disciples,  and  for  them 
he  exclusively  prays  in  the  first  instance ;  then,  in 
verse  20,  he  jirays  for  all  who,  in  future,  should  believe 
on  him  through  their  words;  and  he  does  this  in  order 
that  "  the  vvorlil  might  believe."  Thus  "  the  world," 
in  its  largest  seii.se,  is  not  cut  oil",  but  expressly  included 
in  the  benefits  of  this  prayer. 

John  X.  15,  "  I  lay  down  my  life  for  the  sheep,"  is 
also  adduced,  to  jirove  that  Christ  died  for  none  but  his 
sheep.  But  the  conscciuence  will  not  hold  ;  for  there 
is  no  inconsistency  between  his  having  died  for  them 
that  believe,  and  also  for  them  that  believe  not.  Christ 
is  said  to  be  "  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  and  especially  of 
them  that  believe  ;"  two  propositions  which  the  apostle 
held  to  be  perfectly  consistent.  The  very  context 
shows  that  Christ  hiid  down  his  life  for  others  besides 
those  whom,  in  that  jiassage,  he  calls  "  the  slieep." 
The  sheep  here  intended,  as  the  discourse  will  show, 
were  tliose  of  the  Jewish  "  fold  ;"  for  he  immediately 
adds,  "other sheep  1  have,  which  are  not  of  this  fold," 
clearly  meaning  the  Gentiles:  "them  must  I  bring." 
He,  therefore,  laid  down  his  life  for  them  also ;  for  the 
sheep  in  the  fold,  who  "  knew  his  voice  and  followed 
him,"  and  for  them  out  of  the  fold,  who  still  needed 
"  bringing  in  ;"  even  for  "  the  lost,  whom  he  came  to 
seek  and  save,"  which  is  the  character  of  all  mankind  : 
"all  we  like  slieep  have  gone  astray;"  and  "  the  Lord 
hath  laid  on  him  the  iniipiity  of  us  all." 

A  restrictive  interpretation  of  the  first  two  classes  of 
texts  we  have  (juoled  above,  may  then  be  affirmed  di- 
rectly and  expressly  to  contradict  the  plainest  declara- 
tions of  God's  own  word.  For,  it  is  not  true,  upon  this 
interpretation,  that  God  loved  "  the  world,"  if  the  ma- 
jority he  loved  not ;  nor  is  it  true,  that  Christ  was  not 
"sent  to  condemn  the  world,"  if  he  was  sent  even  to 
enhance  its  condemnation  ;  nor  that  the  Gospel,  as  the 
Gospel,  can  be  preaclied  "to  every  creature,"  if  to  the 
majority  it  cannot  beprea<'lieil  as  "gooil  iidingH  of  great 
joy  to  all  people;"  for  it  is  sad  aiiddulclnl  tidings,  iiihc 
greater  part  of  the  human  race  are  shut  out  I'rom  the 
mercies  of  their  (.'rcator.  If,  then,  in  this  interi)retation 
there  is  so  palpable  a  contradiction  ol'  the  words  of 
insjiiration  itself,  the  system  which  is  built  upon  it 
cannot  be  sustained. 

As  to  the  texts  which  we  have  urged,  as  necessarily 
implying  the  unrestricted  extent  of  the  death  of  Christ, 
tlic  usualanswers  to  those  which  speak  of  <  'hrist  having 
died  for  them  that  perish,  may  be  brielly  examined. 
••Destroy  not  him  with  thy  meal,  for  whom  Christ 
died,"  Honi.  xiv   15     Hun,  says  Toole,  for  whom,  "  m 


the  judgment  of  charity,"  we  arc  to  presume  Christ 
died.(^)  To  say  nothing  of  the  danger  of  such  unlicensed 
paraphrases,  in  the  interj)retation  of  Hcriiiture,  it  is  ob- 
vious, that  this  exposition  entirely  annuls  the  motive  by 
which  the  apostle  enforces  his  exhortation.  Why  are 
we  not  to  be  an  occasion  of  sin  to  our  brother?  The 
answer  is,  lest  we  "  destroy  him;"  and.  In  the  panUlcI 
place,  1  Cor.  viii.  II,  lest  "he  perish."  But  what  is  the 
aggravation  of  the  o/Tence  7  truly  that  "  Christ  (lied  lor 
him ;"  and  so  we  have  no  tenderness  for  a  soul  on  whom 
(,'hrist  had  so  much  compassion  as  to  die  for  his  salva- 
tion. Let  the  text  then  be  tried,  as  paraphrased  by 
Poole  and  other  Calvinists :  "Destroy  not  him,  for 
whom,  in  the  judgment  of  charity,  it  may  be  concluded, 
Christ  died ;"  and  it  turns  the  motive  the  other  way. 
For  if  I  admit  that  none  can  be  destroyed  for  whom 
Christ  died,  then,  in  proiionion  to  the  charity  of  my 
judgment,  that  any  individual  is  of  this  number,  I  may 
be  the  less  cautious  of  ensnaring  his  conscience  in  indif- 
ferent matters  ;  since  at  least,  this  is  certain,  that  he 
cannot  perish,  and  I  cannot  be  guilty  of  the  aggravated 
olliince  of  destroying  him  who  was  an  object  of  the 
cmiip.issiuii  of  (Jhrist.  Who  can  suppose  that  the 
apo.>,tlc-  would  thus  cotmteract  his  own  clesign  ?  or  that 
he  should  seriously  achnonish  his  readers  not  to  do  that 
which  was  impossible  if,  in  fact,  he  taught  them  that 
Christ  died  only  for  the  elect;  and  that  tiny  lor  whom 
he  died,  could  never  perish  '  Another  conimenator,  of 
the  same  school,  explains  this  as  a  caution  against  doing 
that  which  had  a  "  tindcnnj  to  the  ruin  of  one  for 
whom  Christ  died ;  not  that  it  implies,  that  the  weak 
brother  would  actually  perish."(5)  But  in  this  case, 
also,  as  it  is  assumed,  thai  it  was  adoctrinc  taught  by  St. 
Paul  and  received  by  the  churches  to  whom  he  wrote, 
that  the  elect  could  not  perish,  the  motive  is  taken  away 
upon  which  the  admonition  is  groimded.  For  if  the 
persons  to  whom  the  ai)nstle  wrote,  knew  that  the 
weak  brother,  for  whom  Clirist  died,  could  not  perish, 
then  nothing  which  thry  cinild  do  had  any  "  teiuifncy" 
to  destroy  liiin.  It  might  injure  him,  disturb  his  mind, 
lead  him  into  sin,  destroy  bis  comforts;  all,  or  any  of 
which,  would  have  been  a])propriate  motives  on  which 
to  have  urged  the  caution :  but  nothing  can  have  oven  a 
tendency  to  destroy  him  whose  salvation  is  fixed  by  an 
unalterable  decree.  Mr.  Scott  is,  however,  evidently 
not  satisfied  with  his  own  interpretation ;  and  gives  a 
painlid  example  of  the  inlluence  of  a  preconceived 
system  in  commenting  upon  Scripture,  by  charging  the 
apostle  himself  with  careless  w-riting.  "We  may, 
however,  observe,  that  the  apostles  did  not  write  in  that 
exact  systematical  style  which  some  affect,  otherwise 
they  would  acrupaloushj  have  (uoided  such  expres- 
sions." This  is  rather  in  the  manner  of  Priestley  and 
Relsham,  than  that  of  an  orthodox  commentator ;  but 
it  does  homage  to  the  force  of  truth  by  turning  away 
from  it,  and  by  tacitly  acknowledging  that  the  Scriptures 
cannot  be  Calvmisti -ally  interpreted.  The  same  com- 
mentators, following,  as  they  do,  in  the  train  of  the 
Calvinistic  divines  in  general,  may  furnish,  also,  the 
answer  to  the  argument,  from  2  Pet.  ii.  I,  "  Denying  the 
Lord  that  bought  them,  and  bringing  upon  themselves 
swifl  destruction."  Poole  gives  us  three  interjiretations : 
the  first  is,  "  The  Lord  that  bought  Israel  out  of  Egypt ;" 
as  though  St.  Peter  could  be  speaking  of  the  Mosaic, 
and  not  of  the  Christian  Redemption ;  and  as  though 
the  Judaizing  teachers,  supjiomng  the  ai)ostle  to 
spealt  of  them,  denied  the  God  of  the  .lews,  when  it  was 
their  object  to  set  uj)  his  religion  against  that  of  Christ. 
The  second  is,  tliat  "they  \v.  ic  iKiniibi,"  or  redeemed, 
by  Christ,  from  tenijioral  death,  thiir  lives  having  been 
sjiared  :  but  we  have  no  such  dni  trine  in  Scripture,  as 
that  the  long-snIftTing  of  wicked  men,  procured  by 
('hrisi's  Riidemplion,  is  unconnected  in  its  intent  with 
tlK'ir  eternal  Salvation.  The  barren  fig-tree  was  spared 
at  III!  iiilenrssiiinof  Christ,  that  means  niiglit  betaken 
with  It  to  make  it  fruitful;  and  in  this  same  epistle  of 
SI.  P(ter,  he  teaches  us  to  "account  the  liiiig-siillering 
of  the  Lord  salvntioii ;"  meaning,  doubtless,  in  iis  ten- 
dency and  intention.  To  this  we  may  add,  that  there 
is  noiliiiig  in  tlie  coiile  1  to  warrant  Ibis  notion  of  mere 
teinpornl  redcmplioii.  The  third  iiitirjiretation  is,  "that 
they  deiiiecl  the  Lord,  whom //;>//  ino/'issid  to  have 
bought  them."  This  idso  is  gralmloiis,  and  gives  a  very 
different  sense  from  that  which  the  words  of  the  apostle 


(4)  Annotations. 

(."))  Uev  T.  Scon's  Notes. 


Chap.  XXV.] 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


323 


convey.  Hut  it  is  argued,  that  the  oH'cnce  would  be  the 
same  in  ileiiyiufr  Christ,  whether  he  really  died  for 
Ihem,  or  that  lliuy  had  professed  to  believe  he  died  lor 
them.  Curlaiiily  not.  Their  crime,  a.s  it  is  put  by  the 
apostle,  is  not  the  denying  of  their  Cornier  profession, 
«r  denying  Christ,  whom  they  formerly  professed  to 
have  bought  them;  but  denying  Christ,  who  had  ac- 
tually bought  them,  and  whom,  lor  that  reason,  they 
ought  tiever  to  have  denied,  but  confessed  at  the  hazard 
of  their  lives.  FartlUT,  if  they  merely  denied  llial 
which  they  Ibrnierly  professed,  namely,  thall  hrist  had 
bought  them,  and,  in  point  of  fact,  he  never  did  buy 
them,  they  wcsre  in  error  wlien  they  i)rofessed  to  believe 
that  he  b<)ught  them,  and  spoke  the  truth  only  when 
they  denied  it ;  and  if  it  be  said,  that  they  knevif  not  but 
he  had  bought  them,  when  they  denied  him,  this  might 
be  a  reason  for  their  not  being  rewarded  for  renouncing 
an  error,  as  being  done  unwittingly  ;  but  can  be  no 
reason  for  their  being  punished,  though  unwittingly 
they  went  back  to  the  truth  of  the  case.  There  can  be 
no  great  guilt  in  our  denying  ClirisI,  if  Christ  never 
died  for  us. 

Mr.  Scott  partly  adopts,  and  partly  rejects  Poole's  so- 
lution of  this  .Scriptural  difficulty.  Hut  as  he  charged 
tst.  Patil  with  want  of  exactness  in  writing  to  the  Ro- 
mans, so  also  St.  Peter,  in  the  passage  before  us,  comes 
in  for  his  share  of  the  same  censure.  "  It  was  not  the 
manner  of  the  sacred  writers,  to  express  themselves 
with  that  systematic  exactness,  which  many  now  af- 
fect." The  question  is  not,  liowever,  one  of  systematic 
exactness ;  but  of  common  intelligible  writing.  Mr. 
Scott's  observation  on  this  pas.sage,  is,  that  Christ's 
ransom  was  of  infinite  sufficiency ;  and  the  proposal 
of  it,  in  Scripture,  general ;  so  that  men  are  addressed 
according  to  their  profession:  but  that  Christ  only  in- 
tended to  redeem  those  whom  he  foresaw  would 
eventually  be  saved.''((;)  On  this  we  may  remark,  1. 
That  the  sufficiency  of  Christ's  redemption  is  not  in 
question ;  but  the  Redemption  itself  of  these  deniers 
of  CMirist  :  he  is  called  "  the  Lord  tknf  !miii-ht  them." 
In  that  sulliciency,  too,  Mr.  Scott  allirms.  in  (act,  that 
iliey  had  no  interest ;  for  Christ  did  not  "  intend  to 
redeem  thein  ;"  on  this,  showing,  therefore,  the  Lord 
did  not  "  buy  them,"  which  contradicts  the  apostle.  2. 
That  the  "  proposal  of  the  benefits  of  Christ's  Redemji- 
tion  is  general ;"  and  that  men  arc  addressed,  accord- 
ingly, as  those  who  are  interested  in  it,  we  grant,  and 
feel  how  well  tliis  accords  writh  the  doctrine  of  general 
Redemption  ;  but  the  difficulty  lies  with  those  who  hold 
the  limitation  of  Christ's  Redemption  to  the  elect  only, 
to  explain,  not  merely  how  it  is  that  men  are  addressed 
generally,  but  how  the  sins  of  those  who  perish  can 
be  aggravated  by  the  circumstance  of  Christ's  having 
bought  them,  if  he  did  not  buy  them  ;  and  how  they 
can  be  punished  for  rejecting  him,  if  they  could  never 
receive  him,  so  as  to  be  saved  by  liim.  This  aggrava- 
tion of  their  offi;nce,  by  the  circumstance  of  Christ 
having  bought  them,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  text,  of  the 
force  of  which  the  above  interpretations  are  manifest 
evasions. 

We  come  now  to  the  case  of  the  apostates,  mentioned 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  vi.  4 — 8,  and  x,  2(1—31. 
With  respect  to  these  passages,  it  is  agreed  that  they 
speak  of  the  ultiinato  and  eternal  condemnation  and 
rejection  of  the  persons  mentioned  in  them.  The  ques- 
tion then  is,  whether  Christ  died  for  them,  as  he  died 
for  such  as  persevere  '<  which  is  to  be  determined  by 
another  question,  whether  they  were  ever  true  be- 
lievers, and  had  received  saving  grace  ?  If  this  be 
allowed,  the  proposition  is  established,  that  Christ  died 
for  them  that  perish;  but  in  order  to  arrest  this  con- 
clusion, all  ('alvinistic  divines  agree  in  denying  that  the 
persons  referred  to  by  the  apostle,  an<I  against  wliom 
his  terrible  denunciations  are  directed,  were  ever  true 
believers,  or  capable  of  becoming  sucli ;  and  here  again 
we  have  another  pregnant  instance  of  the  violence  done 
to  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  word  of  God,  through  the 
influence  of  a  preconceived  system.    For, 

1.  It  will  not  be  denied,  that  the  Hebrews  to  whom 
the  epistle  was  addressed,  were,  in  the  main  at  least. 
true  believers ;  and  that  the  passages  in  question  were 
written  to  preserve  them  from  apostacy;  of  which  the 
rejection,  and  liojicless  punishment,  described  by  the 
apostle,  is  represtnled  as  the  consequence.  Hut  if  St. 
Paul  had  taught  them,  as  he  must  have  done,  if  Cai- 


X  2 


(ti)  Notes  on  2  Peter. 


vinism  be  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament,  that  they 
never  could  so  fall  away,  and  so  perish,  this  was  n<« 
wanting  at  all  to  them.  To  suppose  ho  held  out  that 
as  a  terror,  which  he  knew  to  be  iiupo.ssibli-,  and  had 
taught  them  also  to  he  impossible,  is  the  first  absurdity 
which  the  Calvinistic  interpretation  involves. 

2.  It  will  not  be  diJiiied,  that  he  sjieaks  of  these 
wretched  apostates,  as  deterring  e.xanrplcs  to  the  true 
believers  among  the  Hebrews ;  but  as  such  apostates 
never  were  believers,  and  were  not  even  rendered  ca- 
pable, by  the  grace  of  God,  of  becoming  such,  they 
could  not  be  admonitory  examples.  To  assume  that  the 
a])ostle,  for  the  sake  of  argument  and  admonition,  sup- 
poses believers  to  be  in  the  same  circumstances  and  case 
as  those  who  never  were,  and  never  could  be  believers, 
and  when  he  had  instructed  them,  that  their  cases  could 
never  be  similar,  is  the  second  absurdity. 

3.  The  apostates  in  question  are  represented,  by  tho 
apostlej  "  as  falling  away"  from  "  repentance,"  and 
from  Christ's  "  sacrifice  for  sins."  The  advocates  of 
the  system  of  partial  redemption  affirm,  that  they  fell 
away  only  from  their  proleysion  of  repentance  and 
doctrinal  belief  of  Christ's  sacrifice  for  sins,  in  which 
they  never  had,  and  never  could  have,  any  interest. 
Yet  the  apostle  places  the  hopelessness  of  their  state 
on  the  impossibility  of  "  renewing  them  again  to  re- 
pentance ;"  which  proves  that  he  consideretl  their  first 
repentance  genuine  and  evangelical ;  because  the  ab- 
sence of  such  a  repentance,  as  they  had  at  first,  is  given 
as  the  reason  of  the  hopelessness  of  their  condition. 
He  moreover  heightens  the  case,  by  alleging,  that  there 
remained  "  no  more  sacrifice  for  sins ;"  which  as 
plainly  proves  that,  before  their  apostacy,  there  was  a 
sacrifice  for  their  sins,  and  that  they  hadonly  cut  them- 
selves off  from  its  benefits  by  "  wUfuUy"  renouncing 
it ;  in  other  words,  that  Christ  died  for  them,  and  that 
tlicy  had  placed  themselves  out  of  the  reach  of  the 
benefit  of  his  death,  by  this  one  act  of  aggravated 
apostacy.  The  contrast  lies  between  a  hojieful  and  a 
hopeless  case.  Theirs  Vv'as  once  a  hopeful  case,  because 
tliey  had  "  repented,"  and  because  there  was  then  a 
"  sacrifice  for  sins  ;"  afterward  it  became  hopeless,  be- 
cause it  was  "  impossible  to  renew  them  again  unto 
repentance,"  and  the  sacrifice  for  sin  no  more  remained 
for  them  :  they  had  not  only  renounced  their  profession 
of  it,  but  had  renounced  the  sacrifice  itself,  by  re- 
nouncing Christianity.  Now,  so  to  interpret  the  apostle, 
as  to  make  him  describe  the  awful  condition  of  apos- 
tates, as  a  "  falling  away"  into  a  state  of  hopelessness, 
when,  if  Calvinism  be  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, their  case  was  never  really  hopeful,  but  was  as 
hopeless,  as  to  their  eternal  salvation,  before  as  after 
their  apostacy,  is  the  third  absurdity. 

4.  Hut  it  is  jilain  that  theirs  had  been  a  state  of  actual 
salvation,  which  could  only  result  from  their  having 
had  an  interest  in  the  death  of  (Christ.  The  proof  of 
this  lies  in  what  the  apostle  affirms  of  the  previous 
state  of  those  who  had  finally  apostatized,  or  might  so 
ajiostatize.  They  were  "  enlightened  ;"  tins,  the  whole 
train  of  Calvinistic  commentators  tell  us,  means  a  mere 
speculative  reception  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Gosjiel ; 
they  had  "tasted  of  fhe  heavenly  gift,"  and  of  "the 
good  word  of  Cod  ;"  that  is,  say  Poole  and  others, 
"  they  tasted,  not  digcsled  ;  Ihey  had  superficial  relishes 
of  joy  and  peace,"  and  are  to  be  comiiared  "  to  the 
stony-ground  hearers,  wlut  r(;ceived  the  word  with  joy.' 
"And  were  made  partak'srs  of  the  Holy  (Jhost ;"  that 
is,  say  sotne  comnientatoi-s  of  this  cla.s.s,  in  his  opera- 
tions, "trying  how  far  a  natural  man  may  be  raised, 
and  not  have  his  nature  changed  :'\7)  others,  "  by  the 
communication  of  miraculous  powers."  They  had 
"  lasted  of  the  powers  of  tln^  world  to  come  ;"  that  is, 
they  had  felt  the  powerful  doclrints  of  the  (.'ospel,  but 
as  all  reprobates  may  feel  Ihem,  sometimes  powerfully 
convincing  their  judgment,  at  otiiers  troubling  their 
consciences.  "  All  these  things,"  says  Scott,(8)  "  olU'n 
take  place  in  the  hearts  and  consciences  of  men,  who 
yet  continue  unregenerate."  These  interpretations  are 
undoubtedly  forced  upon  these  anrliors  by  the  system 
they  have  adopted;  but  it  imlbrtuiiaiely  happens  for 
them,  that  the  apostle  uses  no  term  less  strong  in  de- 
scribing the  religious  experience  of  these  apostates 
than  hi;  dors  in  si"aking  of  that  of  true  believers. 
They  were  '' iulig/dtnal,"  is  .said  of  these  apostates, 
"  the  eyes  of  your  understanding  being  enlightened,"  is 


(7)  Poole  in  loc. 


(8)  Notes. 


324 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


said  of  the  EphfcHians;  and  "being  turned  froiri  il;irk- 
nBS3  to  ligtit"  istlio  <:haraclcristic  of  all  believers.  The 
aiiostates  "tasted  tlie  heavenly  ffi/i;"  ibis,  loo,  is 
atfirmed  of  true  believers,  "  niucii  more  Ibry  wbiili 
receive  abundance  of  grace,  and  of  the  sifl  »'  rij;lii((ius- 
ness,  shall  rei^'n  in  life  by  one,  Jesus  Christ,"  Koin.  v. 
17.  To  be  made  "partakers  of  the  Holy  (;host,"  is 
also  the  connnoii  distinctive  character  of  all  true  Chris- 
tians. "  If  any  man  have  not  the  Sj)irit  of  Christ,  he  is 
none  of  his;"  "but  ye  are  not  in  ihe  flush,  but  in  the 
Spirit,  if  so  be  that  the  Spirit  of  (Jod  dwell  iii  you." 
"  To  lasle  the  lieavenly  dill"  and  "  the  good  word  of 
Goil,"  is  also  made  the  mark  of  true  Christianity  :  "  if 
so  be  ye  have<aA<erf  that  the  lyord  is  gracious."  Finally, 
"  the  powers  of  the  world  to  come,"  that  is,  of  the  Cos- 
pel  dispensation,  or  the  power  of  the  Gospel,  stand  in 
precisely  the  same  case.  This  Gospel  is  the  '■'jioirir 
of  God  unto  salvation  to  every  one  that  belicveth." 
Since,  (hen,  the  apostle  expresses  the  prior  experience 
of  these  njwstates  by  the  same  terms  and  phrases  as 
those  by  which  ho  designates  the  work  of  God  in  the 
hearts  of  those  wliosi-  Christianity  is,  by  all,  acknow- 
ledged to  be  geniiiiic,  where  is  the  authority  on  wiiich 
these  comnieiitalors  make  hiin  describe,  not  a  saving 
work  in  the  hearts  of  these  apostates,  during  the  time 
Ihey  held  fast  their  profession,  but  a  simulated  one  7 
They  have  clearly  no  authority  for  this  at  all ;  and 
their  comments  arise  not  out  of  the  argument  of  St. 
Paul,  nor  out  of  his  terms  or  phrases,  or  the  connexion 
of  these  pa.ssages  with  the  rest  of  the  discourse,  but 
out  of  their  own  tliecilogiial  system  alone;  in  other 
words,  out  of  a  imri'  liiirMiiii  ojiinion  which  sujiplies  a 
meaning  to  the  aiioslle,  of  which  he  gives  not  the  most 
distant  intimation.  To  make  the  apostle  describe  the 
falling  away  from  a  mere  profession  unaccompanied 
with  a  state  of  grace,  by  terms  which  he  is  constantly 
using  to  describe  and  i:haracterize  a  slate  of  grace,  is 
the  fourth  alisurdily. 

We  mark,  also,  two  other  ab.surdities.  The  inter- 
pretations above  given  are  IhIdw  the  force  of  the  terms 
employed ;  and  they  are  above  the  character  of  rejiro- 
bales. 

They  are  helfnv  the  force  of  tlie  terms  emiiloyed.  To 
'■^tasli  till'  lieavenly  gill"  is  not  a  mere  intellectual  or 
s<_'nuiii(!il:il  ;iji|iroval  of  it;  for  this  heavenly  gift  is 
distiiignisbcd  bolli  from  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  from  the 
word  of  God,  mentioned  afterward ;  which  leaves  us 
no  choice  but  to  interpret  it  of  (Jhrist:  and  tlien  to 
taste  of  Christ,  is  to  receive  his  ^race  and  mercy  ;  "  if 
so  be  ye  have  tasled  that  the  I.oni  is  ^raciovs."  Thus 
the  Greek  fathers,  and  many  later  divines,  understand 
it  of  tlie  remission  of  sins ;  which  interpretation  is 
greatly  confirmed  by  Rom.  v.,  where  "the  ffi/t"  "the 
free  gift,'"  and  "  the  gi/'t  by  !;Tur.v,"  are  used  both  lor 
the  means  of  our  justification  and  for  justification  itself. 
To  "  taste  the  heavenly  gift,"  then,  is,  in  this  sense,  so 
to  taste  that  the  Lord  is  gracious  as  to  receive  the  re- 
mission of  sin.-3.  To  be  made  "  partakers  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  follows  this  in  the  usual  order  of  describing 
the  work  of  God  in  the  heart.  It  is  the  fruit  ol'  faith, 
the  Spirit  of  adoption  and  sanclification— the  Spirit  in 
his  comforting  and  renewing  inlluences  following  our 
justification.  To  restrain  this  participation  of  the 
Iloly  f;bost  to  the  endowment  of  miraculous  powers, 
reiiuires  it  lo  l)i;  previously  qjj.iblished,  either,  1.  That 
all  professing  Christian.",  iii^^hal  age,  were  thus  en- 
dowed with  miraiuloiis  po\»lVs,  of  which  there  is  no 
proof;  or,  2.  That  only  those  who  were  thus  einkjptrd 
with  miraculous  gills  were  lyipatilc  of  this  aggravated 
apowtacy ;  and  then  the  apw.iile's  warning  would  not 
be  a  general  one,  even  to  the  (;hrisiians  of  the  ajioslolic 
age,  nor  even  to  all  the  believing  Hebrews,  wliich  it 
manifestly  is.  On  the  oilier  hand,  since  all  true  be- 
lievers, in  the  sense  of  the  ai>oslle,  received  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  his  comforting  and  renovating  inlluences,  the 
meaning  of  the  phrase  becomes  obvious,  and  it  lays 
down  the  proper  ground  for  a  general  admonition. 
Again:  "to  taste  the  good  word  of  God,"  is  still  an 
advance  in  the  process  of  a  genuine  experience.  It  is 
tasting  the  good  word,  that  is,  the  goodness  of  the 
word  in  a  course  of  experience  and  practice;  having 
personal  proof  of  its  gooilnews  and  ailaptation  to  man's 
stale  in  the  world  :  for  to  argue  from  the  term  "  ta.st.K'" 
as  though  something  sujiorllcial  and  transitory  only 
were  meant,  is  as  absurd  as  to  argue  from  the  threat 
of  (;hritit  that  those  who  refused  the  iiivilaliuii  of  liis 
servants  should  not  "  Uisli'"  of  his  sujiper,  th.il  he 


(Part IL 

only  excluded  them  from  a  superficial  and  transient 
gustalioii  of  his  salvation  here  and  hereatler ;  or  that, 
when  the  Psalmist  calls  upon  us  to  "<«.v/e  and  see 
that  the  Lord  is  good,"  ho  excludes  a  full,  and  rich, 
and  permanent  experience  of  the  Divine  goodness. 
I'inally,  if  by  the  "  powers  of  the  world  to  come,"  it 
could  be  proved  thai  the  apostle  meant  the  miraculous 
evidences  of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel,  it  would  not  fol- 
low, Ihal  he  supposes  ihe  persons  rspoken  of  to  be  en- 
dowed with  miraculous  powers ;  but  that  to  taati: 
these  ]io\vt!rs  was  rather  to  experience  the  abundant 
blessing's  of  a  religion  thus  confirmed  and  demonsiratetl 
by  signs  and  wonders  and  divers  miracles,  according 
to  what  he  urges  in  chaj).  ii.  4,  of  the  same  epistle. 
The  |)bra.se,  however,  is  probably  a  still  farther  advance 
ujion  the  Ibrmer,  and  signifies  a  personal  experience  of 
the  mighty  energy  and  saving  power  of  the  Gosjiel. 
'i'hus  the  interpretation  of  the  Calvinisis  has  the  ab- 
surdity of  making  the  apostle  speak  little  tilings  in 
great  words,  and  of  using  unmeaning  tautologies.  'J'o 
"partake  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  is,  according  to  them,  to 
have  the  gift  of  miracles,  and  to  taste  "  the  powers  of 
the  world  to  come"  is  to  have  the  gift  of  miracles.  To 
taste  the  "heavenly  gift"  is  to  have  a  superficial  relisli 
of  Gospel  doctrine,  and  "  lo  taste  the  good  word  of  God" 
is  also  to  have  a  superficial  relish  of  Gospel  doctrine : 
but  how,  then,  are  we  to  take  the  term  "  taste,"  when 
Ihe  ajjostle  speaks  n(  liislina  "the  powers  of  the  world 
lo  come'"  According  to  these  comments,  this  can 
only  mean  that  they  had  a  superficial  taste  of  the  power 
of  working  miracles ! 

I!ul  as  tlirse  iiiteriiretations  arc  Mow  Ihe  force  of 
the  terms,  so  tiny  are  above  Ihe  capacity  of  the  repro- 
bate. "They  liad,  moreover,"  says  Scott,  "tasted  of 
the  good  word  of  God,  and  their  connexions,  imjires- 
sions,  and  transient  aftt;ctions  made  them  sensible  that 
it  was  a  good  word,  and  that  it  was  for  their  good  to 
attend  lo  it;  and  their  purposes  of  doing  so  had  pro- 
duced such  hopes  and  joys,  as  have  been  described  in 
the  case  of  the  stony-ground  hearers.  Matt.  xiii.  21,22." 
That  Mr.  Scott  had  no  right  apprehension  of  Ihe  class 
of  jier.sons  intended  by  those  wlio  received  the  good 
seed  ujion  stony  ground,  might  easily  be  proved  ;  but 
I  Ills  is  beside  our  [iresent  purpose.  We  find  in  the 
words  (jnoled  above  (and  we  refer  to  Mr.  Scott  rather 
than  lo  the  older  divines  of  the  same  school,  because  it 
is  olten  said  that  Calvinism  is  now  modified  and  im- 
jiroved),  "  convictions,"  "  impressions  of  the  goodness 
of  the  word,"  and  purposes  of  attending  to  it,  ascribed 
lo  the  non-elect  ;  persons  to  whose  salvation  this  bar 
is  placed,  that,  according  to  tliis  commentator,  and  all 
others  w  ho  adopt  the  same  system,  Christ  never  "  in- 
tentionally" died  for  llieni.  We  ask,  then,  are  these 
"convictions,  iniprcssioMs,"  and  "purposes,"  from 
Ihe  grace  of  God  working  in  man,  or  from  the  natural 
man  wholly  unassisted  by  the  grace  of  God?  If  the 
latter,  then,  what  becomes  of  the  doctrine  of  the  entire 
corru|)lion  of  human  nature,  which  they  profess  to 
hold,  and  that  so  strenuously  /  "  In  me,  that  is,  in  my 
ficsli,  dwilli  111  no  good  thing."  Py  the  flesh,  the 
apostle  means,  doubtless,  his  natural  and  unassisted 
state.  Vet  how  many  "  good  thing.s"  are  JLscribed,  by 
Mr.  Scott,  to  the  very  reprobate?  "  Coiiviction  of  Ihe 
truth  of  the  Gospel"  was  doubtless  "  good,"  and  showed, 
in  that  day  esjiecially,  when  the  prejudices  of  education 
had  not  yet  come  in  to  the  aid  of  truth,  an  honest  spirit 
of  intiuiry,  and  a  docile  mind.  "Impressions"  arc 
still  better,  as  they  argue  affection  to  truth,  which  the 
natural  man,  as  such,  hates ;  and  these  arc  improved 
into  an  acknowledgment  "  of  the  goodness  of  the  word,'' 
though  it  is  a  reproving  word,  and  a  doctrine  of  holi. 
ncss,  and  consequently  of  restraint.  To  this  the 
merely  "carnal  mind,"  which  St.  Paul  declares  lo  bo 
"enmity  against  God,"  is  here  allowed  not  only  lo 
assent,  but  also  to  perceive  with  some  taste  and  a)). 
proving  relish.  "Purposes  of  attending  to  this  good 
word"  are  also  admitted,  wliich  is  a  sliU  farther  ad- 
vanl■(^  and  must  by  all  be  acknowknlged  to  be  "  good," 
as  they  are  the  very  basis  of  real  religious  attainment. 
Yet  if  all  these,  which,  in  the  judgment  of  every  spirit- 
ual man,  would  be  considered  as  iilacing  such  persons 
ill  a  very  hopeful  state,  and  would  give  joy  to  angels, 
unless  they  were  admitted  lo  tin-  secret  of  reprobation, 
arc  to  be  ascribed  lo  nature ;  then  the  carnal  mind  i.s 
not  absolutely  and  in  all  ca.ses  "  enmity  against  God  ;" 
in  our  "  flesh  some  good  thing  may  dwell ;"  aucl  wc 
arc  not  by  nature  "  dead  in  irespassts  and  sins." 


Chap.  XXV.] 


THEOLOGICAL  L\STITUTES. 


325 


Let  us  ihcii  suppose,  sinc(!  this  position  cannot  be 
manitalned  in  ilefiant-c  of  ttie  Srnpturcs,  tliat  these  arc 
llie  etfects  of  the  grace  of  Ciod,  and  (he  influences  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  man :  to  what  end  is  tliat  grace 
exerted  ?  Is  it  that  it  may  lead  to  salvation  ?  This  is 
Jenied,  and  consistently  so ;  for  can  such  convictions, 
and  desires,  and  purposes  lead  to  true  repentance, 
when  Clirist  gives  true  repentance  to  none  but  to  the 
elect?  Nor  can  tliey  lead  to  pardon,  because  Clirist 
has  not  intentionally  "died  for  the  iiersons  in  (lueslion." 
Is  the  end,  then,  as  I'oole,  or  rather  liis  continuator, 
states  it,  that  the  Holy  .Siiirii  may  "try  how  far  a 
natural  man  may  be  raised"  wiiliout  ceasing  to  be  so? 
If  that  is  affirmed,  for  whose  sake  is  the  experiment 
tried  ?  Not  surely  for  the  sake  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
whose  omniscience  needs  no  instruction  by  experiment : 
not  for  ours;  for  this,  instead  of  being  edifying,  only 
puzzles  and  confounds  us,  for  who  can  tell  how  far 
this  experiment  may  go,  and  how  far  it  is  making  upon 
himself?  This,  too,  is  so  very  unworthy  an  aspersion 
ujjon  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  it  ought  to  make  sober  men 
very  much  suspect  the  system  which  requires  it.  Is  it 
then,  finally,  as  some  have  affirmed,  to  make  the  per- 
sons more  guilty,  and  to  heighten  their  condemnation  ? 
How  few  Calvinists,  in  the  present  day,  are  bold  enough 
to  affirm  this,  although  the  advocates  of  that  system 
liave  formerly  done  it;  and  yet  this  is  the  only  practical 
end  which  their  system  will  allow  to  be  assigned  to 
such  an  act  as  that  which,  by  a  strange  abuse  of  terms, 
is  called  the  operation  of  "  common  graci'"  in  the  hearts 
of  the  reprobate.  In  no  other  practical  end  can  it  issue, 
but  to  aggravate  their  guilt  and  damnation,  as  the  old 
divines  of  this  school  perceived  and  acknowledged. 
Either,  then,  their  interjiretation  of  these  passages 
affirms  a  change  in  the  principles  and  feelings  of  the 
persons  spoken  of  by  the  apostle  in  this  epistle,  much 
above  the  capacity  and  power  of  reprobates,  greatly  as 
it  falls  below  the  real  import  of  the  terms  used  ;  or  else 
those  who  advocate  the  doctrine  of  reprobation  are 
bound  to  the  revolting  conclusion,  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
thus  works  in  them  only  to  promote  and  deepen  their 
destruction. 

To  that  class  of  texts  which  make  it  the  duty  of  men 
to  believe  the  Gospel,  and  threaten  thein  with  punish- 
ment for  not  believing,  and  which  we  adduced  to  prove, 
by  necessary  implication,  that  Christ  died  for  all  men, 
it  has  been  replied,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  all  men  to 
believe  the  Gospel,  whether  they  are  interested  in  the 
death  of  Christ  or  not ;  and  that  they  are  guilty  and 
deserving  of  punishment  for  not  believing  it.  By  this 
argument  it  is  conceived  that  all  such  passages  are 
made  consistent  with  the  doctrine  of  the  limited  extent 
of  the  death  of  Christ. 

On  both  sides,  then,  it  is  granted,  that  it  is  the 
bounden  duty  of  all  men  who  hear  the  fJospel  to  be- 
lieve it,  and  that  the  violation  of  this  duty  induces  con- 
demnation ;  but  if  Christ  died  not  for  all  such  persons, 
we  think,  it  is  plain  that  it  cannot  be  their  duty  to  be- 
lieve the  Gospel ;  and  if  this  can  be  established,  then 
does  the  Scriptural  principle  of  the  obligation  of  all  men 
to  believe,  which  is  acknowledged  on  both  sides,  refute 
all  limitation  of  the  extent  of  Christ's  atonement. 

To  settle  this  point,  it  is  necessary  to  determine  what 
is  meant  by  believing  the  Gospel.  Some  writers  in 
this  controversy  seem  to  take  it  only  in  the  sense  of 
giving  credit  to  the  Gospel  as  a  Divine  Revelation ; 
and  not  for  accepting  and  trusting  in  it  in  order  to  sal- 
vation. Hut  we  have,  in  the  New  Testament,  no  such 
division  of  the  obligation  of  believing  into  two  distinct 
duties,  one  laid  upon  one  class  of  persons,  and  the  other 
upon  another  class.  So  far  from  this,  the  faith  which 
the  Gospel  requires  of  all  is  trust  in  the  Gospel ; — 
"repentance  towards  God,  and  faith  (trust)  in  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Will  any  say,  that  when  all  men 
are  commanded  "  every  where  to  repent,"  two  kinds 
of  repentance  are  intended,  one  ineffectual,  the  other 
effectual ;  one  to  death,  the  other  to  life?  And  if  not, 
will  he  comend  that  God  commands  one  kind  of  faith 
to  some,  a  faith  which  cannot  lead  to  salvation  ;  an- 
other kind  of  faith,  which  does  lead  to  salvation,  to 
others  ?  that  he  commands  a  dead  faith  to  the  reprobate, 
a  living  faith  to  the  elect  ?  For,  according  to  the  inten- 
tion of  the  command,  such  must  be  the  duty ;  and  if  it 
is  the  duty  of  the  reprobate  to  believe  with  the  mere 
faith  of  assent,  which,  as  to  them,  is  dead,  then  no 
more  was  ever  required  of  them,  in  the  intention  of 
OoD,  than  this  dead  faith.    Uut  if  men  will  affirm  this, 


they  must  show  us  such  a  restricted  ami  inodilied  oom- 
itiaiiil  IVoiii  Cod;  and  they  must  point  out,  in  the  com- 
mands which  we  have  to  believe  in  Christ,  such  a  dis- 
tinction of  the  obligation  of  believing  into  a  higher  and 
lower  di«y.  There  is  no  such  modified  command,  and 
there  is  no  such  distinction;  but,  on  the  contrary,  the 
faith  which  is  required  of  all  is  that,  ami  not  less  than 
that,  whereof  cometh  salvation  ;  for  with  remission  of 
sins  and  .salvation  it  is  constantly  connected.  "He 
that  believeth  shall  be  save<l."  "  Whosoever  believeth 
on  him  shall  not  perish."  "Iliat  believing  ye  might 
have  life  through  his  name."  "To  him  give  all  the 
pro))hets  witness,  that  through  his  name  whosoever 
believeth  in  him  shall  receive  remission  of  sins."  The 
faith,  then,  required  of  all  is  true  faith  ;  true  faith  fol- 
lowing true  repentance,  the  trust  of  a  true  penitent  in 
the  sacrifice  of  Christ  as  offered  for  his  sins,  that  he 
may  be  forgiven,  and  received  into  the  family  of  Goo. 

If  this,  then,  be  the  faith  which  is  required  of  all  who 
hear  the  Gospel,  it  is  not,  and  cannot  be,  the  duty  of 
those  to  believe  the  Gospel,  in  the  Scriptural  sense  of 
believing,  for  whom  Christ  died  not.  1.  Because  it  is 
impossible,  and  God  cannot  command  a  thing  impos- 
sible, and  then  punish  men  lor  not  doing  it ;  for  this 
contradicts  all  notions  of  justice  and  benevolence  Nor 
does  it  alter  the  case  whether  the  impossibility  arises 
from  a  positive  necessitating  decree,  or  from  withhold- 
ing the  aid  necessary  to  enable  them  to  comply  with 
the  command ;  such  jiersons  as  those  for  whom  Christ 
died  not  never  had,  and  never  can  nave,  the  i)ower  to 
exercise  the  saving  fkith  which  is  enjoined  upon  them ; 
and  being  impossible  to  them,  it  never  could  be  the 
subject  of  express  command  and  obligation  as  to  them ; 
which  nevertheless  it  is.  2.  Because,  according  to 
the  Calvinistic  opinion,  it  is  not  in  the  intention  of 
God  that  they  should  believe  and  be  saved :  what, 
therefore,  he  never  intended,  he  could  not  command ; 
and  yet  he  has  plainly  commanded  it.  3.  Because 
wliat  all  are  bound  to  believe  or  trust  in  is  true ;  but  it 
is  false,  according  to  this  system,  that  Christ  died  for 
the  reprobate,  and  therefore  they  are  not  bound  to  be- 
lieve or  trust  in  him,  though  they  are  both  commanded 
to  believe,  and  threatened  with  condemnation  if  they 
believe  not. 

Here,  then,  is  the  dilemma  into  which  all  must  fall, 
who  deny  that  the  necessary  inference  from  the  univer- 
sal obligation  to  believe  in  Christ,  is,  as  we  have  stated 
it,  that  he  dieil  for  all.  If  they  deny  the  universality 
of  the  obligation  to  believe,  they  deny  plain  and  ex- 
press Scripture,  which  commands  all  men  to  believe  ; 
if  they  affirm  the  obligation  to  believe  to  be  universal, 
they  hold  that  men  are  bound  to  do  that  which  is  im- 
possible ;  that  the  Lawgiver  commands  them  to  do 
what  he  never  intended  they  should  do;  and  that  they 
are  bound  to  believe  and  trust  in  what  is  not  true, 
namely,  that  Christ  died  tor  them,  and  thus  to  leaii  upon 
a  broken  reed,  and  to  trust  their  salvation  to  a  delusion. 

This  is  a  difficulty  which  the  theologians  of  this 
school  have  felt.  The  Synod  of  Uort  says,(9)  "  It  is 
the  promise  of  the  Gospel,  that  whosoever  believes  in 
Christ  crucifiedshouldnot  perish,  but  have  everlasting 
life ;  which  promise,  together  with  the  injunction  of 
repentance  and  faith,  ought,  promiscuously  and  with- 
out distinction,  to  be  declared  and  published  to  all  men 
and  people  to  whom  God  in  his  good  pleasure  sends  the 
Gospel."  But  as  some  of  the  later  Calvinists  Ibund 
themselves  perplexed  with  tliis  statement,  they  began 
to  differ  from  the  Synod  ;  and,  allowing  that  Christ  died 
for  all  whom  he  commands  to  believe  in  him,  denied 
that  God  had  commanded  all  men  so  to  believe.(l )  These 
divines  chose  to  fall  on  the  opposite  horn  of  the  di- 
lemma, and  thus  expressly  to  deny  tlie  word  of  God. 
Others  have  endeavoured  to  escape  the  difficulty  by 
making  faith  in  Christ  a  command  of  the  moral  law, 
under  which  even  rcjirobates,  as  they  take  it,  uncjues- 
tionably  are,  and  argue,  that  as  by  the  principle  of 
moral  law,  all  are  bound  to  believe  every  thing  which 
God  hath  revealed,  so  by  that  law  all  are  bound  to  be- 
lieve in  Christ,  and,  failing  of  that,  are  by  the  moral 
law  justly  condemned.  It  were  easy,  in  answer  to 
this,  to  show,  that  no  man  in  the  state  of  a  reprobate, 
as  they  represent  it,  is  under  law  of  any  kind,  except  a 
law  of  necessity  to  do  evil ;  but  waiving  this,  it  were 
as  easy  to  prove,  that,  because  the  moral  law  obliges 

(0)  Act.  Syn.  Dord,  part  1,  cap.  2,  art.  5. 

(1)  Vide  Wo.M.iCK's  Arcana  Uogmaturn,  p.  CT. 


326 


THEOLOGICAL  L\ST1TUTES. 


fPAHT  11. 


na,  "in  principh.''  lu  do  all  which  God  commands,  the 
conimanil  to  the  Jews  to  circumcise  their  childrt-ii  was 
a  command  of  tho  monil  law,  as  that  to  believe  in 
(Christ  is  a  command  of  the  moral  law,  because,  m  prin- 
ciple, it  obliges  us  to  believe  what  Goil  has  revealed. 
Hut  should  it  be  admitted  that  all  are  bound,  by  the 
moral  law,  to  believe  all  that  God  reveals,  yet,  accord- 
ing to  Iliem,  it  is  not  revealeil  that  Christ  (fuel  lor  all ; 
this  we  contend  for,  but  lliey  contend  against  :  all  are 
not,  upon  that  very  principle,  llierelbre,  bouml  to  be- 
lieve that  Christ  died  for  ihem.  Farther,  those  who 
hold  this  notion,  contend  that  the  moral  law  commands 
us  to  do  a  thing  impossible,  and  contrary  to  truth  ;  and 
thus  they  fall  upon  the  other  born  of  the  dilemma. 

The  last  class  of  te.\ts  we  have  adduced  in  favour  of 
f;eneral  redemiiiion,  consist  of  lho.se  which  impute  the 
blame  and  fault  of  their  non-salvation  to  men  them- 
selves. If  Christ  died  for  all  men,  so  as  to  make  their 
salvation  practicable,  then  the  fault,  according  to  the 
doctrine  of  .Scripture,  lies  in  themselves  ;  if  he  died  not 
so  for  thcni  that  tliry  may  be  saved,  then  the  bar  to  their 
salvation  lies  out  of  tlii^mselves,  and  in  the  absence  of 
any  saving  provision  for  them  in  the  Go.sj)el,  which  is 
contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  Scrijjture. 

We  enter  not  now  upon  the  questions  of  the  invini'i- 
bility  of  grace,  and  free  and  bound  will.  These  will 
come  under  consideration  in  their  place  ;  and  we  now 
confine  ourselves  to  the  argument,  as  it  is  ground(;d  u|ion 
te.xts  of  tills  class,  as  given  above.  The  common  reply  to 
our  argument,  grounded  uponlhe.se  te.\ts,at  least  among 
the  more  moderate  kind  of  Calvinist.s,  is,  that  the  fault  is 
indeed  in  the  willof  man,  and  thatif  men  willed  to  come 
to  Christ,  that  they  might  liave  life,  they  would  have  life; 
and  thus,  they  wouhl  have  it  understood,  that  the  argu- 
ment is  answered.  This,  however,  we  deny :  they  have 
neither  refuted  it,  nor  escaped  its  force ;  and  nothing 
which  is  thus  apparently  conceded  weakens  the  force 
of  the  conclusion,  that  if  the  bar  to  men's  salvation 
be  wholly  in  themselves,  it  lies  not  in  the  want  of  a 
provision  made  for  tlieir  salvation  in  the  Gospel ;  and 
therefore  they  are  so  interested  in  the  death  of  Christ, 
that  they  may  be  saved  by  it. 

For  let  us  put  tho  case  as  to  the  non-elect,  who  are 
indeed  the  persons  in  question.  Either  it  is  possible 
for  them  to  will  to  come  to  Christ,  and  to  believe  in 
iiim ;  or  it  is  not.  If  the  former,  then  they  may  come 
to  (Jhrist,  and  believe  in  him,  without  obtaining  life  and 
salvation ;  for  he  can  dispense  these  blessings  only  to 
those  for  whom  ho  purchased  them,  which,  it  is  con- 
tended, he  did  for  the  elect  only.  If  the  latter,  then  the 
bar  to  their  salvation  is  not  in  themselves ;  but  in  that 
which  makes  it  impossil.lc  for  them  to  will  to  come  to 
Christ,  and  to  believe;  in  him.  If  it  be  said,  that  though 
tliis  is  impossible  to  them,  yet  that  still  the  bar  is  in 
themselves,  because  it  is  in  the  obstinacy  and  perverse- 
ness  of  their  own  wills,  we  ask,  whether  the  natu- 
ral will  of  the  elect  is  so  much  better  than  that  of 
the  reprobate,  that  by  virtue  of  that  better  natural  will, 
they  come  to  Cl.vist,  and  believe  in  him  ?  This  they 
will  deny,  and  ascribe  their  willing,  and  coining  to 
Christ,  and  believing  in  him,  to  the  inlluencc  only  of 
Divine  grace.  It  will  follow,  then,  from  Ibis,  that  the 
bar  to  tins  same  kind  of  willing,  and  believing,  on  the 
jiart  of  the  reprobate,  lies  not  in  themselves,  where  the 
Scriptures  constantly  place  it,  and  so  charge  it  upon 
men  as  their  fauU,  and  the  riasoii,  of  their  cumleinna- 
tioii ;  but  in  something  wiiliouf  them,  even  in  the  de- 
termination and  decree  of  tJod  not  to  bestow  upon 
them  that  inlluence  of  his  grace,  by  which  this  good 
will,  and  this  power  to  t)elieve  in  Christ,  are  wrought 
in  the  elect :  which  is  [)recisely  what  I  he  .Synod  of  Dort 
lia.s  affirmed.  "This  was  the  most  free  counsel,  gra- 
cious will,  and  intention  of  (iod  the  Father  ;  that  the 
lively  and  saving  ellicacy  of  the  ino.st  precious  death  of 
his  Son  should  maiiilesl  itself  In  all  the  elect,  for  the 
bestowing  upon  them  c)NI,v,  justifying  faith,  and  bring- 
ing TiiKM  inlallilily  by  it  nnio  eternal  life. "(2)  This 
doctrine  cannot,  Iheretiirc,  be  true  ;  for  the  Scriptures 
jilaiiily  place  tlie  bar  to  the  salvation  of  them  that  arc 
lost,  in  lh(;mselvos,  and  charge  the  fault  only  on  the 
wilful  disobedience  and  unbelief  of  men  ;  while  this 
ojiinion  places  it  in  the  refusal,  on  the  part  of  God,  to 
bestow  that  grace  upon  the  non-elect,  by  which  alone 
the  evil  of  their  natural  will  can  be  removed. 
Nor  is  tills  in  the  least  remedied  by  arguing,  that  as 

(2)  Cup.  2,  Art.  B. 


Christ  IS  rejected  IVeely  and  volimtarily  by  the  natural 
will  of  man,  the  guilt  is  still  chargeable  uimn  liimself. 
For,  not  here  to  anticipate  what  may  be  said  on  the 
freedom  of  the  will,  it  is  confessed  by  Calvinists  that 
the  will  of  the  reprobate  is  not  free  to  choose  to  come 
to  Christ,  and  believe  in  him,  since  without  grace,  not 
even  the  elect  can  do  this.  Uut  if  it  were  free  to  choose 
Christ,  and  believe  in  him,  the  not  doing  it  would  not 
be  chargeable  upon  them  as  a  fault.  For  they  do  not 
reject  Christ  as  a  Saviour,  since  he  is  not  offered  to  them 
as  such ;  and  they  sin  not,  by  not  believing,  that  is,  by 
not  trusting  in  (;hrist  for  salvation.  For  as  it  is  not 
the  will  of  God  that  they  should  so  believe,  they  vio- 
late no  comnuind  given  to  them  to  believe,  unless  it  be 
held  that  God  coiiiniaiids  them  to  do  that  which  he  wills 
they  should  not  do  ;  winch  is  only  absurdly  to  say  that 
he  wills,  and  he  does  not  will  tlie  same  thing.  And 
seeing  that  his  commands  are  the  declarations  of  his 
will,  if  the  command  reaches  to  them,  it  is  a  declara- 
tion thai  he  wills  that  concerning  them,  which,  on  this 
system,  ln'  dcM.'s  not  will ;  andtliis  coiilradiciion  all  are 
bound  to  maintain,  who  charge  the  want  ol  liiilli,  as  a 
fault  upon  lbo.se  to  whom  the  iiower  of  believing  is  not 
imparted. 

Uut  the  argument  from  this  class  of  texts  is  not  ex- 
hausted. They  not  only  place  that  bar  and  fault  which 
prevents  the  salvation  of  men  in  themselves;  but  they 
as  expressly  exclude  God  from  all  participation  in  it, 
contrary  to  the  doctrine  before  us.  "  lie  willeth  all 
men  to  be  saved  ;"  be  has  "  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of 
him  th.it  dieth."  "  He  sent  his  .Son,  not  to  condemn  the 
world,  but  that  the  world  through  him  might  be  saved  ;" 
and  he  invites  all,  beseeches  all,  obtests  aill,  and  makes 
even  his  threatenings  merciful,  since  he  interjioses  them 
to  prevent  men  from  going  on  still  in  their  trespasses, 
and  involving  themselves  in  final  ruin. 

Perhaps  not  many  Calvinists  in  the  present  day  aro 
disposed  to  resort  to  the  ancient  subterfuge  of  a  secret 
and  a  revealed  will  of  God  ;(."!)  and  yet  it  is  diflicult  to 
conceive  how  they  can  avoid  admitting  this  notion, 
without  totally  dfuiyiiig  that  which  is  so  clearly  writ- 
ten, that  (!od  "  willeth  all  men  to  be  saved,  and  to 
come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth ;"  and  that  he  com- 
mands, by  his  apostle,  that  prayers  should  be  made  "  lor 
all  men."  The  universality  of  such  declarations  lias 
already  been  established ;  and  no  way  is  left  lor  escap- 
ing the  dillicully  in  tliis  direction.  The  incompati- 
bility of  such  declarations  with  the  limited  cxteut  of 
Christ's  death,  is  therefore  obvious,  unless  the  term 
"  will"  can  be  modified.  Uut  if  (Jod  declares  his  will 
in  absolute  terms,  while  he  has  yet  secret  reserves  of 
a  contrary  kind  (to  say  nothing  of  the  injury  done  by 
such  a  notion,  to  the  character  of  the  (iod  of  truth, 
whose  words  are  without  dross  of  falsehood,  "  as  sil- 
ver tried  in  a  furnace  of  earth,  purified  seven  times") ; 
this  is  to  will  that  all  men  may  be  saved  in  word,  and 
yet  not  to  will  it  in  fact,  which  is  in  truth  not  to  will 
it  at  all.  No  sul.'tlely  of  distinction  lan  reconcile  this. 
Nor,  according  to  this  scheme  of  doctrine,  can  God  jn 
any  way  will  the  salvation  of  the  non-elect.  It  is  only 
under  one  condition,  that  he  wills  the  salvation  of  any 
man:  namely,  through  the  death  of  Christ.  His  jus- 
tice required  this  atoncinent  for  sin ;  and  he  could  not 
will  man  to  be  saved  to  the  dishonour  of  his  justice. 
If,  then,  that  atonement  does  not  extend  to  all  men,  he 
cannot  will  the  salvation  of  all  men  ;  for  such  of  thom 
as  are  not  interested  in  this  atoiuinent,  could  not  W. 
saved  consistently  with  his  righteous  administration, 
and  he  could  not,  therefore,  will  it.  If,  then,  he  wills 
the  non-elt.'ct  to  he  saved,  in  nnij  srasr,  he  must  will 
this  indeiHiidenlly  of  <  hrist's  sacrifice  for  sins  ;  and  if 
he  cannot  will  this  lor  the  reason  just  given,  he  cannot 
"  will  all  men  to  be  saved,"  wliicli  is  contrary  to  thetexls 
quoted  ;  he  cannot, therefore,  invile  all  to  be  saved;  he 
cannot  beseech  all  by  his  ministers  to  be  reconciled  to 
him  ;  lor  these  acts  could  only  proceed  from  his  willing 
thom  to  be  saved:  and  for  the  same  rca.son,  "  all  men" 
ought  not  to  be  prayed  for  by  those  w  ho  bold  this  doc- 
trine, since  they  assume,  that  it  is  not  the  will  of  (Jod 
that  all  men  should  be  saved.  Tims  iliey  repeal  the 
apostle's  precept,  as  well  as  the  principle  upon  which 
it  is  built,  by  mere  human  authoriiy  ;  or  else  Ihcy  so 
interpret  the  principle,  as  to  impeach  the  truth  of  God, 

(3)  The  scholastic  terms  are  mluntas  si!:7ii,  and  vo- 
tuntax  hciif  placili,  a  signified  or  revealed  will,  and  « 
will  of  pleasure  or  purpose.    ' 


Chap.  XXVI.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


327 


and  so  practice  the  precept,  ns  to  indulge  reserves  in 
their  own  mind,  similar  to  those  they  feijjn  to  be  in  the 
Blind  of  God.  While,  iheret'orc,  it  remains  on  record, 
that  "  God  willeth  all  men  to  be  saved,  and  to  come  to 
the  knowledge  of  the  truth ;"  and  that  he  "  willeth  not 
that  miij  should  perish,  but  that  all  should  come  to  ro- 
pentence,"  it  must  he  coiK-luded,  that  Christ  died  for 
all ;  and  that  the  reason  of  the  destruction  of  any  part 
01'  our  race  lies  not  in  the  want  of  a  provision  for  tlieir 
salvation ;  not  in  any  limitation  of  the  purchase  of 
Christ,  and  the  administration  of  his  grace ;  hut  in  their 
obstinate  rejection  of  both. 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 

TiiK  SAME  Subject  continued. 

So  far,  then,  we  have  advanced  in  this  discussion  as 
to  show,  that  while  no  passage  of  Scripture  can  be  ad- 
duced, or  is  even  pretended  to  exist,  which  declares 
that  Christ  did  not  die  equally  for  all  men,  there  are  nu- 
merous passages  which  explicitly,  and  in  terms  which 
cannot,  by  any  fair  interpretation,  be  wrested  from  that 
meaning,  declare  the  contrary ;  and  that  there  are 
others,  as  numerous,  which  contain  the  doctrine  by  ne- 
cessary implication  and  inference.  To  imi)lication  and 
inference  the  Calvinist  divines  also  resort,  and  the  more 
so,  as  they  have  not  a  direct  text  in  favour  of  their 
scheme.  It  is  nccessarj',  therefore,  in  order  to  obtain 
a  comprehensive  view  of  this  controversy,  compressed 
into  as  narrow  limits  as  possible,  to  examine  those 
parts  of  Scripture  which,  according  to  their  mferential 
interpretations,  limit  not  merely  the  actual,  but  the  in- 
tentional efficacyof  the  death  of  Christ  to  the  elect  only. 
The  first  are  those  paiisagcs  which  treat  of  persons 
said  to  be  elected,  foreknown,  and  predestinated  to  the 
spiritual  and  celestial  blessings  of  the  new  dispensa- 
tion ;  and  the  argument  from  the  texts  in  which  these 
distinctionsoccur,  is,  that  the  persons  so  called,  elected, 
foreknown,  and  predestinated,  are,  by  that  very  dis- 
tinction, nuirked  out  as  the  only  persons  lo  whom  the 
death  of  Christ  intentionally  extends. 

We  reserve  it  to  another  place  lo  stale  the  sijstematic 
views  which  the  followers  of  Calvin,  in  their  different 
shades  of  opinion,  take  of  the  doctrines  of  election, 
&.C.,  lest  our  more  simple  inquiry  mto  the  sense  of 
Scripture  should  be  disturbed  by  extraneous  topics  ;  and 
we  are  now,  therefore,  merely  called  to  consider,  how 
far  this  argument,  which  is  professedly  drawn  from 
Scripture  and  not  from  metaphysical  principles,  is  sup- 
ported or  refuted,  by  an  examination  of  those  portions 
of  Holy  Writ  on  which  it  is  usually  built :  ana  it  will 
not  prove  a  difficult  task  to  show,  that,  when  fairly  in- 
terpreted, they  contain  nothhig  which  obliges  us  to  nar- 
row our  interpretation  of  those  passages  which  extend 
the  benefii  of  the  death  of  Christ  to  all  mankind ;  and 
that,  in  some  views,  they  strongly  corroborate  their 
most  extended  meaning.  Of  a  divine  election,  or  choos- 
ing and  separation  from  others,  we  have  three  kinds 
mentioned  in  the  Scriptures. 

The  FIRST  is  the  election  ol  individuals  to  perform 
some  particular  and  special  service.  Cyrus  was 
"  elected"  to  rebuild  the  temple ;  the  twelve  apostles 
were  "chosen."  elected,  to  their  office  by  Christ;  St. 
Paul  was  a  "  chosen"  or  elected  "  vessel,"  to  be  the  apos- 
tle of  the  Gentiles.  This  kind  of  election  to  special 
office  and  service  has,  however,  manifestly  no  relation 
to  the  limitation  of  eternal  salvation,  either  in  respect 
to  the  persons  themselves  so  chosen,  Ot  of  others. 
With  respect  to  themselves,  it  did  not  confer  upon 
them  an  absolute  security.  One  of  the  twelve  elected 
apostles  was  Judas,  who  fell  and  was  lost ;  and  St. 
Paul  confesses  his  own  personal  liability  to  become  "  a 
castaway"  after  all  his  zeal  and  abundant  labours.  With 
respect  to  others,  the  twelve  apostles,  and  St.  Paul  af- 
terward, were  "  elected"  to  preach  the  Gospel  in  order 
to  (he  salvation  of  all  to  whom  they  had  access. 

The  SECOND  kind  of  election  which  we  find  in  Scrip- 
ture, is  the  election  of  nations,  or  bodies  of  people,  to 
eminent  religious  privileges,  and  in  order  to  accomplish, 
by  their  superior  illumination,  the  merciful  purposes 
of  God,  in  benefiting  other  nations  or  bodies  of  peojile. 
Thus  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  the  Jews,  were 
chosen  to  receive  special  revelations  of  truth ;  and  to  | 


be  "  the  people  of  (iod,"  to  be  his  visible  church,  and 
l)Ubllcly  to  observe  and  uphold  his  worstui).  "The 
Lord  thy  (iod  \\Mh.  chosen  Ihee  to  be  a  peculiar  jKXjple 
unto  himself,  above  all  people  that  are  upon  the  liico  of 
the  earth."  "The  Lord  had  a  delight  in  thy  fathers  to 
love  them,  and  he  chose  their  seed  alter  them,  even  you, 
above  all  people."  It  was  especially  on  account  of  the 
applicationof  the  terms  elect,  ciio.sen,  and  i'sculiah, 
to  the  .Jewish  peojile,  that  they  were  so  familiarly  used 
by  the  apostles  in  their  epistles  addressed  to  the  believ- 
ing Jews  and  Gentiles  then  constituting  the  church  of 
Christ  in  various  places.  For  Christians  were  the  sub- 
jects, also,  of  this  second  kind  of  election ;  the  elec- 
tion of  bodies  of  men  to  be  the  visible  people  and  church 
of  God  in  the  world,  and  to  be  endowed  with  peculiar 
privileges.  Thus  they  became,  though  in  a  more  spe- 
cial and  exalted  sense,  the  chosen  people,  the  elect  of 
God.  We  say  in  a  more  special  sense,  because  as  the 
entrance  into  the  .lewish  church  was  by  natural  birth, 
and  the  entrance  into  the  Christian  church,  properly  so 
called,  is  by  faith  and  spiritual  birth,  these  terms,  al- 
though many  became  Christians  by  mere  profession, 
and  enjoyed  various  privileges  in  consequence  of  their 
people  or  nation  being  chosen  to  receive  the  Gospel, 
have  generally  respect,  in  the  New  Testament,  to  bodies 
of  true  believers,  or  to  the  whole  body  of  true  believers 
as  such.  Tliey  arenot,  therefore,  lobe  interpreted,  ac- 
cording to  the  scheme  of  Dr.  Taylor,  of  Norwich,  by 
the  coii.stitution  of  the  Jewish,  but  by  the  constitulioa 
of  the  Christian  church. 

To  understand  the  nature  of  this  "  election,"  as  ap- 
plied sometimes  to  particular  bodies  of  Christians,  as 
when  St.  Peter  says,  "  the  church  which  is  at  Babylon, 
elected  together  with  you,"  and  sometimes  to  the  whole 
body  of  believers  every  where;  and  also  the  reason  of 
the  frequent  use  of  the  term  election,  and  of  the  occur- 
rence of  allusions  to  the  fact,  it  is  to  be  remembered, 
that  a  great  religious  revolution,  so  to  speak,  had  oc- 
curred in  the  age  of  the  apostles  ;  with  the  full  import 
of  which  we  cannot,  without  calling  in  the  aid  of  a 
little  reflection,  be  adequately  impressed.    This  was 
no  other  than  the  abrogation  of  the  tuiacH  state  of 
the  Jews,   which  had  continued  for  so  many  ages. 
They  had  been  the  only  visibly  acknowledged  jieople 
of  God  in  all  the  nations  ot  the  earth  ;  lor  whatever 
pious  people  might  have  existed  in  other  nations,  they 
were  not,  in  the  sight  of  men  and  collectively,  acknow- 
ledged as  "  the  people   of  .lehovah."     They  had  no 
written  revelations,  no  appointed  ministry,  no  forms 
of  authorized  initiation  into  his  church  and  covenant, 
no  appointed  holy  days,  no  sanctioned  ritual.     All 
these  were  peculiar  to  the  Jews,  who  were,  therefore, 
an   elected  anil  peculiar  people.    This  distinguished 
honour  they  were  about  to  lose.     They  might  have  re- 
tained it,  had  they,  by  believing  the  Gospel,  admitted 
the  believing  Gentiles  of  all  nations  to  share  it  with 
them  ;   but   the  great  reason  of  their  peculiarity  and 
election,  as  a  nation,  was  terminated   by  the  coming 
of  the  Messiah,  who  was  to  be  "  a  light  to  lighten  the 
Gentiles,"  as  well  as  "  the  glory  of  his  people  Israel." 
Their  pride   and    consequent  unbelief  resented  this, 
which  will  explain  their  enmity  to  the  believing  part 
of  the  Gentiles,  who,  when  that  which  St.  Paul  calls 
"the  fellowship  of  the  mystery"  was  fully  explained, 
chiefly  by  the  glorious  ministry  of  that  apostle  himself, 
were  called  into  this  church  relation  and  state  of  vi- 
sible acknowledgment  as  the  people  of  God,  which  the 
Jews  had  Ibrmerly  enjoyed,  and  that  with  even  a  higher 
degree  of  glory,  in  proportion  to  the  superior  spirit- 
uality of  the  new  dispensation.    It  was  this  doctrine 
which  excited  that  strong  irritation  in  the  minds  of  the 
unbelieving  Jews,  and  in  some  partially  Christianized 
ones,  to  which  so  many  references  are  made  in  the 
New  Testament.    They  were  "  provoked,"  were  made 
"jealous,"  and  were  often  roused  to  the  madness  of 
persecuting  opposition  by  it.    There  was  then  a  new 
ELECTION  of  a  NEW  PEOPLE  of  God,  to  be  Composed 
of  .Tews,  not  by  virtue  of  their  nati'ral  descent,  but 
of  their  faith  in  Christ,  and  of  Gentiles  of  all  nations, 
also  believing,  and  put,  as  believers,  on  equal  ground 
with  the  believing  .lews;  and  there  was  iUso  a  re- 
jection, a  rei)robation,  it   the  term  please  any  one 
better;  but  not  an  absolute  one:  for  the  election 
was  offered  to  the  .lews  first,  in  every  [ilace,  by  ofier- 
ing  them  the   Gospel.     Some  embraced  it,  and  sub- 
mitted to  be  the  elect  people  of  God,  on  the  new  ground 
of  (aith,  instead  of  the  old  one  of  natural  descent ;  and 


328 


THEOLOGICAL   LNSTITUTES, 


[Part IL 


therefore  the  apostle,  Roni.  xi.  7,  calls  the  believing 
part  of  the  Jews  "the  election,"  in  opposition  to  those 
who  opposed  this  "election  of  grace,"  and  slill  clung 
to  their  former  and  now  repealed  election  as  Jews  and 
the  descendants  of  Abraham ; — "  but  the  election  hath 
obtained  it,  and  the  rest  were  blinded."  The  oll'cr  had 
been  made  to  the  whole  nation  ;  all  might  have  Joined 
the  one  body  of  believing  .lews  and  believing  (Jeiiliks  ; 
but  the  major  part  of  tliem  relused :  they  would  not 
"  come  in  to  the  supper ;"  they  made  "  light  of  it ;" 
light  of  an  election  founded  on  faith,  and  which  placed 
the  relation  of  "the  people  of  God"  upon  spiritual  at- 
tainments, and  offered  to  them  only  si)iritual  blessings. 
They  were  therefore  deprived  ofclection  and  church  rela- 
tionship of  every  kind  : — their  temple  was  burned ;  their 
political  slate  abolished  ;  their  genealogies  confounded; 
their  worship  annihilated ;  and  all  visible  acknowledg- 
ment of  them  by  God  as  a  church  withdrawn,  and 
transferred  to  a  church  henceforward  to  be  composed 
chiefly  of  Gentiles  :  and  thus,  says  St.  Paul,  Rom.  .\. 
19,  "  were  fulfilled  the  words  of  IVIoses,  I  will  provoke 
you  to  jealousy  by  them  that  are  ?to  people,  and  by  a 
Ibolish  (ignorant  and  idolatrous)  people  I  will  angeryou." 

It  is  easy  now  to  see  what  is  the  import  of  the  "  call- 
ing" and  "  election"  of  the  Christian  church,  as  spoken 
of  in  the  New  Testament.  It  was  not  the  calling  and 
the  electing  of  one  nation  in  jiarticular  to  succeed  the 
Jews ;  but  it  was  the  calling  and  the  electing  of  be- 
lievers in  all  nations,  wherever  the  Gospel  should  be 
preached,  to  be  in  reality  what  the  Jews  had  been  but 
typically,  and,  therefore,  in  an  inferior  degree,  the 
visible  church  of  God,  "  his  people,"  under  Christ  "  the 
Head ;"  with  an  authenticated  revelation  ;  with  an  a])- 
pointed  ministry,  never  to  be  lost ;  with  authorized  wor- 
ship; with  holy  days  and  festivals ;  with  instituted  forms 
of  initiation;  and  with  special  proteition  and  favour. 

This  second  kind  of  election  being  thus  explained, 
we  may  inquire,  whether  any  thing  arises  out  of  it, 
cither  as  it  respects  the  Jewish  church,  or  the  Chris- 
tian church,  which  obliges  us  in  any  degree  to  limit 
the  explicit  declarations  of  Scripture,  as  to  the  univer- 
sal extent  of  the  intentional  beneflt  of  the  atonement 
of  Christ. 

With  respect  to  the  ancient  election  of  the  Jews  to 
be  the  peculiar  people  and  visible  church  of  Goo,  we 
may  observe, 

1.  That  it  did  not  argue  such  a  limitation  of  the  sav- 
ing mercy  of  God  to  them,  as  that  their  election  se- 
cured the  salvation  of  every  Jew  individually.  This 
w\il  be  acknowledged  by  all ;  for,  as  the  foundation  of 
their  church  state  was  their  natural  relation  to  Abra- 
ham, and  our  Lord,  with  allusion  to  this,  says  to  Nico- 
demus  "  that  which  is  born  of  the  tiesh  is  Hesli,"  none 
of  them  could  be  saved  by  virtue  of  being  "  Jews  out- 
wardly." 

2.  That  it  did  not  argue,  that  siifficieiit,  though  not 
eijual  means  of  salvation,  were  not  led  to  tlie  non- 
elected  Gentile  nations.  These  were  still  a  "  law  unto 
themselves ;"  and  "  in  every  nation,"  says  St.  I'eter, 
"  he  that  feareth  God,  and  worketh  righteousness,  is 
accejued  with  him." 

3.  That,  so  far  from  the  election  of  the  Jewish  na- 
tion arguing  that  the  mercy  of  God  was  restrained 
from  the  Gentile  nations,  it  is  manilest  thai,  great  rea- 
son as  the  Almighty  had  to  be  provoked  by  their  idnla- 
tries,  the  election  of  the  .lews  was  intended  li>r  their 
benefit  also;  that  it  was  not  only  designed  to  preserve 
truth,  but  to  diiTuse  it,  and  to  counleniit  the  sjuHad  of 
su|)erstition  and  idolatry.  The  miracles  wrought  from 
age  to  age  among  them,  exalted  "Jeliovah"  above  the 
gods  of  the  heathen ;  raya  of  light  from  their  sacred 
books  and  institutions  spread  tiir  beyond  themselves  ; 
the  temple  of  Solomon  had  its  court  of  the  (feiitiles, 
and  the  "  stranger"  from  "  a  tar  country"  had  access  to 
it,  and  enjoyed  his  right  ol  praying  u>  the  true  (Jod; 
their  ea])tivities  and  dispersions  wondrously  fulfilled 
the  i)urposes  of  justice  as  to  them,  and  of  mercy  as  to 
the  nations  into  which  they  were  earned  ;  and  their 
whole  history  bore  an  illustrious  part  in  that  series  of 
the  Divine  dispensations  by  which  llie  (Jeiitih'  world 
was  prepared  for  (he  coming  of  Christ,  and  tlu^  esta- 
blishment of  his  religion.  Tliis  subject  has  already 
been  adverted  to  and  illustrated  in  the  first  part  of  this 
work.  Jerusalem  was,  in  an  inferior  sense,  hierally 
"  the  joy  of  the  whole  earth ;"  and  "  in  the  seed  of 
Abraham,"  all  the  nations  of  the  cartli  have,  in  all 
ages,  in  some  degree,  been  blessed. 


With  respect  to  the  "  election"  of  the  Christian 
church,  we  also  observe, 

1.  That  neither  does  its  election  suppose  such  a  epf^- 
cial  grace  of  God,  as  secures  infiillibly  the  salvation  of 
every  one  of  its  members  ;  that  is,  in  other  words,  of 
every  elected  person.  For  to  pass  over  the  case  of 
those  who  are  t;liristians  but  in  name,  even  true  Chris- 
tians are  exhorted  to  give  diligence  to  make  their  "  call- 
ing and  election  .sure ;"  and  are  warned  against "  turn- 
ing back  to  perdition."  We  have  also  seen,  in  the 
case  of  the  apastates  mentioned  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  that,  in  point  of  liict,  some  of  those  who  had 
thus  been  actually  elected,  and  brought  into  a  state  of 
salvation,  had  fallen  away  into  a  condition  of  extreme 
iiazard,  or  of  utter  hopelessness. 

2.  Tliat  the  election  of  Christians,  as  members  of 
the  church  of  (.Christ,  concludes  nolliing  against  the 
saving  mercy  of  God  being  slill  exercised  as  to  those 
who  are  not  of  the  church.  Even  the  Calvinists  can- 
not deny  this;  for  many  who  are  not  now  of  the  body 
of  the  visible  and  true  church  of  (Jlirist  may,  accord- 
ing to  their  scheme,  be  yet  called  and  chosen  into  that 
body,  and  thus  jiartake  of  an  election  which,  while 
they  are  notoriously  wicked  and  alien  Iroin  the  church 
of  Christ,  they  do  not  actually  partake  of,  whatever 
may  be  the  secret  purposes  of  God  concerning  them. 

3.  That  Christians  are  thus  elected,  and  made  the 
church  of  God,  not  in  consequence  of  others  being  ex- 
cluded from  the  compassions  and  redeenring  mercy  of 
Christ ;  but  for  their  benefit  and  salvation,  that  they 
also  may  be  called  into  the  fellowship  of  the  Gospel. 
"  Ye  arc  the  light  of  the  world ;"  "  ye  are  the  salt  of 
the  earth."  But  in  what  sense  could  the  church  be 
"  the  light  of  the  world,"  were  there  no  capacity  in  the 
world  to  receive  the  same  light  with  which  it  is  itself 
enlightened  1  or  "  the  salt  of  the  earth,"  if  it  did  not 
exist  lor  the  purifying  of  the  mass  beyond  itself,  with 
the  same  purity  !  Yet  if  such  a  capacity  exists  in  "  the 
world,"  it  is  from  the  grace  of  God  alone  that  it  de- 
rives it,  and  not  from  nature  ;  a  grace  which  could  be 
imparted  to  the  world  only  in  consequence  of  the  death 
of  Christ.  Thus  nothing  is  to  be  argued  from  the  ac- 
tual election  of  the  Christian  church,  as  God's  visible 
and  acknowledged  people  on  earth,  in  favour  of  the 
doctrine  that  election  limits  the  benefits  of  our  Lord's 
atonement ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  this  election  of  the 
church  has,  lor  one  of  its  final  causes,  the  illumination 
of  the  world.  Hut  as  Calvinistic  commentators  have 
so  generally  confounded  this  collective  election  with 
pergonal  election  (a  doctrine  lo  which,  in  its  jiropcr 
place,  we  shall  presently  advert),  and  have,  in  con,se- 
quence,  misunderstood  and  misinterpreted  the  argu- 
ment of  St.  Paul,  in  the  tx.  x.  and  xi.  chapters  of  his 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  :  this  celebrated  iliscourse  of  the 
ajiostle  requires  to  be  brielly  exaiiiiiied. 

Let  the  reader,  then,  take  the  episile  in  his  hand,  and 
follow  the  argument  in  these  chapters,  with  reference 
to  the  determining  of  the  two  mam  ipiestions  at  issue, 
namely,  whether  personal  or  collective  eleetion  be  the 
subject  of  the  ajioslle's  discourse ;  and  whether  the 
election,  of  which  he  speaks,  of  wliatever  kind  it  may 
be,  is,  in  the  sense  ol  the  Calvinists,  unconditional. 

Let  us  examine  tlie  discourse,  fii-sl,  with  reference  lo 
the  quesliou  of  personal  or  colleclive  elecliun. 

It  is  acknowledged  by  all,  that,  whatever  oilier  sub- 
jects tht^  apostle  may  or  may  not  connect  with  it,  he 
treats  01  the  casting  off  of  ihe  Jews,  as  the  visible 
cliurch  of  God,  and  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  into  that 
relation.  I'or  llit!  case  of  the  .lews  he  expresses  great 
"sorrow  ot  heart;"  not  indeed  hecan.se  God  bad  now 
determined  to  eonqiose  his  visilile  cliiireli  ujioii  a  new 
princijile,  llmt  ol  lintli,  and  to  constllute  it  no  longer 
upon  thai  oi  natiir.il  ileseent  from  Abraham;  fur  to  an- 
nounce tins  doctrine,  St.  Paul  was  chosen  lo  be  an 
ajiostle,  anil  to  call,  by  earnest  and  extensive  labours, 
not  only  the  (Untiles,  but  Ihe  Jews  ihiinkfully  lo  sub- 
mit to  it,  by  receiving  the  Gosjiel ;  but  he  had  great 
"sorrow  oi'  heart,"  both  on  account  ol  tlnir  having  re- 
jected this  gracious  olfer,  and  of  the  caliiniilies  which 
the  aiiproaching  destruction  of  their  nation  would 
bring  upon  them,  vcr.  I,  2.  'I'lie  enumeration  which 
he  makes  in  verses  4  and  5,  of  the  religious  honours 
and  privileges  of  the  Jewish  nation,  while  it  remained 
a  church  accomplishing  the  purposes  of  <;od,  shows 
that  he  did  not  intend,  by  proclaiming  thi>  new  lonnda- 
lion  on  which  God  would  now  construcl  Ins  church, 
and  elect  lo  himself  a  people  out  of  all  naiioiis,  lo 


;chap.  XXVI.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


329 


detract  at  all  from  the  divinity  or  glory  of  the  Mosaic 
dispensation. 

The  ohjection  made,  in  the  minds  of  the  Jews,  to  this 
doctrine  of  tlic  abolilion  of  the  Jewish  visible  church 
as  founded  upon  descent  from  Abraham,  in  the  line  of 
Isaac,  was,  as  we  may  collect  from  vcr.  6,  that  it  was 
contrary  to  the  word  and  promise  of  God  made  to  Abra- 
ham. This  objection  8t.  I'aul  first  refutes: — "  Not  as 
though  the  word  of  (Jod  hath  taken  none  elfect,"  lite- 
rally "  has  fallen,"  or  "  fallen  to  the  ground,"  that  is, 
lias  not  been  accomplished ;  or  as  though  this  election 
of  a  new  church,  composed  only  of  believing  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  was  contrary  to  the  promises  made  to  Abra- 
ham, Gen.  ,xvii.  7,  8,  "  I  will  establish  my  covenant  be- 
tween me  and  thee,  for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to  be 
a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee."  This  he 
proves,  from  several  events,  which  the  Jews  could  not 
deny,  as  being  in  the  records  of  their  own  history. 
liy  these  facts  he  shows,  that  the  e.xclusiou  of  a  part 
of  the  seed  of  Abraham,  at  various  times,  from  lieing 
the  visible  church  of  God,  was  not,  as  the  Jews  them- 
selves must  allow,  any  violation  of  the  covenant  with 
Abraham.  He  first  instances  the  case  of  the  descend- 
ants of  Jacob  himself,  although  he  was  the  son  of 
Isaac.  "All  are  not  Israel  (God's  visible  church  and 
acknowledged  people)  who  are  of  Israel,"  or  Jacob; 
for  a  great  part  of  tlie  ten  tribes  who  liad  been  carried 
into  captivity  before  the  Uabylonian  invasion  of  Judah, 
had  never  returned,  had  never  been  again  collected  into 
a  people,  and  had,  for  ages,  been  cast  out  of  their  ancient 
church  state  and  relation,  though,  by  natural  descent, 
they  were  "  of  Israel,"  that  is,  descendants  of  Jacob.  '; 

From  .Tacob  he  ascends  to  Abraham,  ver.  7  :  "  Nei- 
ther, because  they  are  the  seed  of  Abraham,  are  they 
all  children,"  that  is,  Abrahairi's  "  seed"  in  the  sense 
of  the  promise ;  "  but  in  Isaac,"  not  in  Ishmael,  "shall, 
thy  SEED  be  called;"  "that  is,  they  which  are  the 
children  of  the  flesh,"  Islmiael  by  Ilagar,  and  his  de- 
scendants, "these  are  not  the  children  of  God.  But 
the  children  of  the  promise,"  Isaac,  born  of  Sarah,  and 
his  descendants,  "  are  counted  for  the  seed,"  meaning, 
obviously,  for  that  seed  to  whom  the  promise  refers. 
He  gives  a  third  instance  of  this  election  and  exclusion 
taken  from  the  children  of  Isaac,  ver.  10 — 13,  "  And 
not  only  this  ;  but  when  Rebecca,  also,  had  conceived 
by  one,  even  by  our  father  Isaac  (for  the  children  be- 
ing not  yet  born,  neither  having  done  good  or  evil,  that 
the  purpose  of  God  according  to  election,"  the  election 
of  one  in  preference  to  the  other,  "  might  stand,  not  of 
works,  but  of  him  that  ealleth) ;  it  was  said  unto  her 
The  elder  shall  serve  the  younger.  As  it  is  written, 
Jacob  have  I  loved,  but  Esau  have  I  hated."  On  this 
last  passage,  so  often  perverted  to  serve  the  system  of 
tJalvinian  election  and  reprobation,  a  few  remarks  more 
at  large  may  be  allowed. 

1.  The  argument  of  the  apostle,  of  which  this  in- 
stance is  in  continuance,  re(iuires  us  to  understand 
that  he  is  still  speaking  of  "  the  seed"  intended  in  the 
promise,  which  did  not  comprise  all  the  descendants 
either  of  Abraham,  or  Isaac,  or  Jacob,  for  he  brings 
instances  of  exclusion  from  each ;  but  such  as  God 
elected  to  be  his  visible  church:  he  is  not  therefore 
speaking  of  the  personal  election  or  rejection  of  Isaac, 
or  Ishmael,  or  Jacob,  or  Esau  ;  but  of  their  descend- 
ants in  certain  lines,  as  elected  to  be  the  acknowledged 
church  of  God. 

2.  This  is  proved,  also,  from  those  passages  in  the 
history  of  Moses,  which  furnish  the  facts  on  which 
the  apostle  reasons,  and  which  he  quotes  briefly  as  be- 
ing well  known  to  the  Jews.  "  As  it  is  written.  The 
elder  shall  serve  the  younger."  Now  this  is  written, 
Gen.  XXV.  23,  "  Two  nations  are  in  thy  womb,  and 
two  manner  of  people  shall  be  separated  from  thy 
bowels  ;  and  the  one  pkople  shall  be  stronger  than 
the  other  people  ;  and  the  elder,"  the  descendants  of 
the  elder,  "  shall  serve  the  younger."  So  far,  indeed, 
was  this  prophecy  from  being  intended  of  Esau  person- 
ally, that  he  himself  did  never  serve  his  brother  Jacob, 
although  he  wantonly  surrendered  to  him  his  birthright. 
Another  passage  is  found  in  the  prophet  Malachi,  i.  2, 
3,  and  expresses  God's  dealings,  not  with  the  indi- 
viduals Jacob  and  Esau,  but  with  their  descendants, 
who,  according  to  frequent  usage  in  Scripture,  are 
called  by  the  names  of  their  first  ancestors.  "  Was 
not  Esau  Jacob's  brother  !  yet  I  loved  Jacob,  and  1  hated 
Esau,  and  laid  his  mountains  and  his  heritage  waste 
for  the  dragons  of  the  wilderness  ?"  judgineut^s  wlUch 


fell  not  uiwn  Esau  personally,  but  ui)on  the  Edomitos 
his  descendants. 

3.  If  the  apostle,  in  this  instance  of  Jacob  and  Esau, 
speaks  of  the  rejection  or  reprobation  of  individual.i, 
he  says  nothing  at  all  to  his  puqiose,  because  he  is 
discoursing  of  the  rejection  of  the  Jews,  as  a  nation, 
from  being  any  longer  the  visible  and  acknowledged 
church  of  God  in  the  world ;  so  that  instances  of  in- 
dividual reprobation  would  have  been  impertinent  to 
his  purpose.  But  to  proceed  with  the  apostle's  dis- 
course. 

Having  shown,  by  these  instances,  that  God  had 
limited  the  covenant  to  a  part  of  the  descendants  of 
Abraham,  at  different  periods,  he  puts  it  to  the  object- 
ing Jews  to  say,  whether  on  that  account  there  was  a 
failure  of  his  covenant  with  Abraham ;  "  What  shall 
we  say  then,  Is  there  unrighteousness  with  God  T 
God  forbid."  The  word  unrighteousness  is  usually 
taken  in  the  sense  of  injustice,  but  is  sometimes  used 
in  the  sense  of  falsehood  and  unfaithfulness,  by  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament,  as  well  as  by  the  LXX. ; 
and  in  this  sense  it  well  agrees  with  the  apostle's  reason- 
ing ;  "  Is  there  then  unfaithfulness  with  God,"  because  he 
has  so  frequently  limited  the  promise  made  to  the  seed 
of  Abraham,  to  particular  branches  of  that  seed  7  The 
apostle  denies  that  in  ttiis  there  was  any  unfaithful- 
ness, or,  in  the  sense  of  injustice,  which  perhaps  is  to 
be  preferred,  any  "  unrishieoiisness  in  God  ;"  and  the 
Jews  themselves  were  bound  to  agree  with  him,  since, 
as  the  apostle  adds,  it  was  a  general  principle  laid 
down  in  their  own  law,  by  the  Lawgiver  himself, 
when  speaking  to  Moses,  and  by  which,  therefore,  all 
such  promises  of  special  favour  must  be  interpreted, — 
"  I  wdl  have  mercy  on  whom  I  will  have  mercy,  and 
I  will  have  compassion  on  whom  I  will  have  compas- 
sion." The  connexion  of  these  words,  as  they  stand 
in  Exodus  xxxiii.  19,  shows  that  the  mercy  and  grace 
here  spoken  of,  refer  not,  as  Beza  would  have  it,  to 
that  mercy  exercised  to  individuals  wliich  supposes 
misery,  and  consists  in  the  exercise  of  pardon  ;  but  to 
the  granting  of  special  favours  and  privileges.  For 
the  words  are  spoken  to  Moses,  in  answer  to  his  prayer, 
"  I  beseech  thee,  show  me  thy  glory."  To  him  God 
had  before  said,  verse  17,  "  Thou  hast  found  grace  in 
my  sight,  and  I  know  thee  by  thy  name."  He  was  not, 
therefbre,  in  the  case  of  a  guilty,  miserable  man.  Nor 
do  the  words  refer  to  the  Ibrgiveness  of  the  people  at 
his  intercession.  This  had  been  done ;  the  transaction, 
as  to  them,  had  been  finished,  as  the  history  shows ; 
and  then  Moses,  encouraged  by  the  success  of  liis  in- 
tercessions for  them,  makes  a  bold  but  wholly  personal 
request  for  himself.  "  And  he  said,  I  beseech  thee, 
show  me  thy  glory.  And  he  said,  I  will  make  all  my 
goodness  pass  before  thee,  and  I  will  proclaim  the 
name  of  the  Lord  before  thee ;  and  will  be  gracious," 
in  showing  these  great  condescensions,  "  to  whom 
I  will  be  gracious,  and  will  show  mercy  on  whom  I 
will  show  mercy."  God  has  a  right  to  select  whom 
he  pleases  to  enjoy  special  privileges ;  in  this  there  is 
no  "  unrighteousness,"  and,  therefore,  in  limiting 
those  favours  to  such  branches  of  Abraham's  seed  as 
he  chose  to  elect,  neither  his  justice  nor  his  truth  was 
impeached.  Tius  is  obvious,  when  the  words  are  inter- 
preted of  the  election  of  collective  bodies  of  men,  and  of 
the  individuals  which  compose  them,  to  peculiar  favours 
and  religious  privileges ;  while  yet  all  others  have  still 
the  means  of  salvation.  The  onus  lies  only  upon  them 
who  interpret  this  part  of  Scripture  of  personal,  uncon- 
ditional election  and  reprobation,  to  show  how  it  can 
be  a  "  righteous"  proceeding  to  punish  men  for  not 
availing  themselves  of  means  of  salvation  which  are 
never  afforded  them.  This  is  manifestly  "  imright- 
eous ;"  but  in  the  election  and'rejection  spoken  of  by 
the  apostle,  he  expressly  denies  that  there  is  "  unright- 
eousness with  God  ;"  be  does  this  in  a  solemn  man- 
ner, "  God  forbid  :"  and,  therefore,  the  kind  of  election 
and  rejection  of  which  he  speaks,  is  not  the  uncondi- 
tional election  and  reprobation  of  individuals  to  or  from 
eternal  salvation. 

The  conclusion  of  the  apostle's  answer  to  the  objec- 
tion of  the  Jews,  that  the  casting  off  a  part  of  the 
Jewish  nation,  even  all  who  did  not  believe  in  Christ, 
was  contrary  to  the  promises  made  to  Abraham,  is, 
"  So  then  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  nor  of  him  that 
runneth,  but  of  Goil  that  showeth  mercy."  He  grants 
special  favours,  as  the  term  "  showing  mercy,"  in  the 
preceding  veree,  has  been  already  proved  to  mean ;  and 


330 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTIT5UTES. 


[Part  IL 


in  grantinc  these  special  favours  he  often  acts  con- 
trary to  the  designs  and  cflbrts  of  men,  and  frustrates 
both.  The  allusion  <'ontained  in  tlicsp  words  to  the 
ease  of  Isaac  and  Ksau,  is,  therefore,  liiiihiy  beautiful 
and  appropriate—"  it  is  not  of  him  that  HnUetli,  nor  of 
him  that  ruii.netli."  Isaac  uulltd  that  Esau,  the  lirst- 
born,  sliould  have  the  blessing ;  and  Esau  ran  for  the 
venison  as  the  means  of  obtaining  it ;  but  still  Jacob 
obtained  it.  The  blessing  was  not,  however,  a  per- 
sonal one,  but  referred  to  the  people  of  whom  .lacob 
was  to  be  the  progenitor,  as  the  history  given  by  Moses 
will  show.  Thus  this  case  also  affords  no  example 
of  personal  election. 

The  ajjostle,  having  proved  tliat  there  was  neither 
uiifaitlifulness  nor  unrighteousness  in  God,  in  selecting 
from  his  ov/n  good  pleasure,  from  his  sovereignty,  if  the 
term  please  better,  the  persons  to  be  endowed  with 
siiecial  religious  honours  and  privileges,  proceeds  to 
show,  with  reference  not  only  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
Jews,  as  a  nation,  from  the  visible  church,  but  also  to 
the  terrible  judginents  which  our  Lord  himself  had 
l)re(licted,  and  which  were  about  to  come  upon  them, 
tliat  he  exercises  also  the  prerogative  of  making  some 
notorious  sinners,  and  especially  when  they  set  them- 
selves to  oppo.se  his  purposes,  the  eminent  and  un- 
equivocal objects  of  his  displeasure.    Here  again  he 
uses  for  illustration  an  example  taken  from  the  .lewish 
Scriptures.    But  let  the  example  be  marked.     Had  it 
been  his  intention  to  show,  that  the  personal  election 
of  Isaac  and  Jacob  necessarily  implied  the  personal 
reprobation  of  Islnnael  and  Esau ;  and  that  their  not 
receiving  special  privileges  necessarily  cut  them  off 
from  salvation,  so  that  being  left;  to  themselves  they 
became  objects  of  wrath,  tlien  would  he  have  selected 
them  as  his  illustrative  examples,  for  this  would  have 
been  required  by  his  argument.    But  he  selects  Pha- 
raoh, not  a  descendant  of  Abraham  ;  a  person  not  in- 
volved in  the  cases  of  non-election  which  had  taken 
place  in  Abraham's  family,  but  a  notoriously  wicked 
prince,  and  one  who  resolved  to  oppose  himself  to  the 
designs  of  God  in  the  deliverance  of  Israel  from  bond- 
age.     Ills  doctrine,  then,  manifestly  is,  that  when 
these  two  characters  meet  in  individuals,  or  in  nations, 
notorious  vice  and  flagrant  opposition  to  God's  plans 
and  purposes,  he  often  makes  tliem  the  objects  of  his 
special  displeasure  ;  giving  them  up  to  the  hardness  of 
their  hearts,  and  postponing  tbeir  destruction;  to  make 
it  more  impressively  manifest  to  the  world.    In  every 
resjiect  Pharaoh  was  a  most  appropriate  example  to 
illtLstrate  the  case  of  the  body  of  the  unbelieving  Jews, 
who,  when  the  apostle  wrote,  wore  uniler  the  sentence 
of  a  terrible  excision.   Pharaoh  had  several  times  hard- 
ened his  own  lieart ;  now  God  hardens  it,  that  is,  in 
Scripture  language,  withdraws  his  all-gracious  inter- 
position, and  gives  him  up.    So  the  Jews  liad  hardened 
their  hearts  against  rci)eated  calls  of  Clirist  and  his 
apostles ;   now  God  was  about  to  give  them  up,  as  a 
nation,  to  destruction.    Pharaoh  was  not  suddenly  cut 
off,  but  was  spared  ;  "  for  this  same  purpose  have  I 
raised  thee  up"  from  the  ell'eca  of  so  many  plagues ; 
that  is,  I  li.ive  not  destroyed  thee  outright.    The  LXX. 
translate,  ^'thou  hast  been  preserved;"  for  the  Hebrew 
word  rendered  by  us    "  raised  up,"  never  signifies  to 
bring  a  person  or  thing  into  being,  but  to  jircserve, 
support,  establish,  or  make  to  stand.    Thus,  also,  the 
Jews  had  not  been  instantly  cut  off;  but  had  been 
"  endured  with  much  long-suflering,"  to  give  them  an 
opportunity   of   repentance,    ol    which  many   availed 
themselves;  and   the   remainder  were  still  endured, 
though  they  were  filling  up  the  measure  of  their  ini- 
<puties,  and  would,  in  the  end,  but  by  their  own  fault, 
display  more  eminently  the  justice  and   severity  of 
(;od.     Phanioh's  crowning  uflence  was  his  rebellious 
opposition  to  the  designs  ol  (iod  in  taking  Israel  out  of 
Egypt,  and  establishing  them  in  Canaan  as  an  inde- 
j)endent  nation,  and  as  the  church  of  (Jod  ;  ihi^  Jews 
filled  up  the  measure  of  their  iniquities  by  endeavour- 
ing to  withstand  the  purpose  of  God  a.s  to  the  tien- 
tilcs ;  his  purpose  to  elect  a  church,  composed  of  both 
Jews  and  Gentiles,  only  on  the  ground  of  faith,  and 
this  made  the  cases  parallel.    'I'hereliire,  says  the  apos- 
tle, it  follows  from  all  these  examples,  lliat  "  he  hath 
mercy  on  whom  he  will  have  mercy,"   gives  special 
religious  advantages  to  those  whom  he  wills  to  elect 
for  this  purpose;   "and   whom   he  will,"  .whom  he 
(•hooses  to  select  as  examples  from  among  tiotorious 
t-inners  who  rebclhously  oi)pose  liis  designs  '•  he  hurd- 


eneth,"  or  gives  up  to  a  hardness  which  they  them- 
selves have  cheri.shed.  In  verse  19,  the  Jew  is  again 
introduced  as  an  objector.  "  Thou  will  say  then  unto 
me.  Why  doth  he  yet  lind  fault !  for  who  hath  resisted 
his  will  1"  And  to  this  St.  Paul  answers,  "  Nay  but, 
<>  man,  who  art  thou  that  reiiliest  against  God  ?  Shall 
the  thing  formed  say  to  him  that  Ibrnied  it.  Why  hast 
thou  made  me  thus!"  verse  20.  The  usual  way  in 
which  the  objection  is  exjdained,  by  non-Calvinislic 
commentators,  is; — if  the  continuance  of  the  Jews  in 
a  state  of  disobedience  was  the  consequence  of  the 
determination  of  God  to  leave  them  to  themselves, 
why  should  God  still  find  fault '  If  they  had  become 
obdurate  by  the  judicial  withliuldiiig  of  his  grace,  why 
should  the  Jews  sliU  be  Ijlami-d,  since  his  will  had  not 
been  resisted,  but  acconqJislied  '  If  this  be  the  sense 
of  the  objection,  then  the  import  of  the  apostle's  an- 
swer will  be,  that  it  is  both  perverse  and  wicked  for  a 
nation  justly  given  up  to  obduracy,  "  to  reply  against 
God,"  or  "  debate"  the  case  with  him  ;  and  that  it  ought 
silently  at  least  to  submit  to  its  penal  dereliction,  re- 
collecting that  God  has  an  ab.solute  power  over  nations, 
not  only  to  raise  them  to  jieculiar  lionours  and  privi- 
leges, and  to  take  them  away,  as  "  the  potter  has 
power  over  the  clay  to  make  one  vessel  to  honour,  and 
another  to  dishonour ;"  but  to  leave  them  to  fill  up  the 
measure  of  their  sins,  that  his  judgments  may  be  the 
more  consjjicuous.  That  this  is  a  better  and  more  con- 
sistent sense  than  that  forced  upon  these  words  by 
Calvinistic  commentators,  may  be  freely  admitted, 
but  it  is  not  wholly  satisfactory. 

For,  I.  One  sees  not  what  can  be  expected  from  a 
people  judicially  given  up,  but  a  "  rejilying  against 
God ;"  or  what  end  is  to  be  answered  by  taking  any 
pains  to  teach  a  people,  in  this  hopeless  case,  not  "  to 
reply  against  God,"  but  to  suffer  his  judgments  in 
silence. 

2.  As  little  discoverable,  if  this  be  the  lueaning,  is 
the  appropriateness  of  the  apostle's  allusion  to  the  pa- 
rable of  the  potter,  in  Jeremiah,  chap,  xviii.  There  Al- 
mighty God  declares  Ills  absolute  [lowcr  over  nations 
to  give  tliem  what  form  and  coiulition  he  pleases ;  but 
still  under  these  rules,  that  he  repents  of  the  evil 
which  he  threatens  against  wicked  nations,  when  they 
repent,  and  withdraw's  liis  blessings  from  them  when 
they  are  abused.  But  this  illustration  is  surely  not 
approjiriate  to  the  case  of  a  nation  given  up  to  final  ob- 
duracy, because  the  ])arable  of  the  potter  supiioscs  the 
time  of  trial,  as  to  such  nations,  not  yet  passed.  "  O 
house  of  Israel,  cannot  I  do  with  jou  as  this  potter? 
saith  the  Lord.  Behold,  as  the  clay  is  in  the  potter's 
hand,  so  are  ye  in  mine  hand,  O  house  of  Israel.  At 
what  instant  I  shall  sjieak  concerning  a  nation,  and 
concerning  a  kingdom,  to  pluck  up,  and  to  pull  down, 
and  to  destroy  it:  if  that  nation,  against  whom  I  have 
pronounced,  turn  from  their  evil,  I  will  repent  of  the 
evil  that  I  thought  to  do  unto  them.  And  at  what  in- 
stant I  shall  speak  concerning  a  nation,  and  concern- 
ing a  kingdom,  to  build  and  to  plant  it;  if  it  do  evil 
in  my  sight,  that  it  obey  not  my  voice,  then  I  will  re- 
pent of  the  good  wherewith  I  said  I  wouhl  benefit 
them."  There  is  here  no  allusion  to  nations  being 
kept  in  a  state  of  judicial  dereliction  and  obduracy,  in. 
order  to  make  their  punishment  more  conspicuous. 

3.  When  the  apostle  speaks  of  the  potter  making  of 
the  "  same  lump,  one  vessel  to  honour  and  another  to 
dixhnnour,"  the  last  term  docs  not  fully  apply  to  the 
state  of  a  jicople  devoted  to  inevitable  destruction.  It 
is  true,  that  in  a  following  verse  he  speaks  of  "  nssels 
of  wrath  fitted  to  destruction;"  but  that  is  in  another 
view  of  the  case  of  the  Jews,  as  we  shall  immediately 
show ;  nor  does  he  anirni  that  they  were  "  fitted  to  de- 
struction" by  God.  There  he  sneaks  of  what  men  fit 
themselves  for  ;  or  that  fiiinss  liir  the  infliction  of  the 
Divine  wrath  upon  them,  winch  iliey  themselves,  by 
their  pcrvirsencss,  create.  Here  he  siH^aks  of  an  act 
of  God,  using  the  figure  of  a  potter  forming  some  ves- 
sels "  to  honour,  olhers  to  dishonour."  But  dishonour 
is  not  destruction.  No  potter  makes  vessels  to  destroy 
them  ;  and  we  may  be  certain,  that  when  Jeremiah 
went  down  lo  the  potter's  house,  to  sec  him  work  the 
clay  upon  "  the  wheel,"  that  the  poller  was  not  em- 
jiloycd  in  forming  vessels  to  drsiroy  ihciri.  On  the 
contrary,  says  the  prophet,  when  the  lump  of  clay  wa.s 
"  marred  in  his  hand,"  so  that  not  for  want  of  skill  in 
himsi:lf,  hut  of  proper  quality  in  the  clay,  it  took  not 
the  form  he  designed,  of  the  same  lump  he  made  "  an- 


Chap.  XXVI.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


331 


other  vessel,  as  it  seemed  good  to  the  potter  to  make 
it ;"— a  meaner  viisst^l,  as  tlie  inlerior  quality  or  temper 
of  the  clay  admitted,  instead  o!'  that  liner  and  more  or- 
namental form  winch  it  would  not  take.  The  apjilica- 
tion  of  this  was  natural  and  easy  to  the  house  of  Israel. 
It  had  become  a  lump  of  marred  clay  in  the  hands  of 
the  potter,  which  answered  not  to  his  design,  and 
yielded  not  to  his  will.  This  illustrated  the  ciuse  of 
the  Jews  previous  to  the  captivity  of  Babylon  :  they 
■were  marred  in  his  hand,  they  were  not  answering  the 
design  for  which  he  made  them  a  jieople;  but  then  the 
potter  gave  the  stubborn  clay  another,  though  a  baser 
form,  and  did  not  cast  it  away  from  him  ;  he  put  the 
Jews  into  the  condition  of  slaves  and  captives  in  a 
strange  land,  and  reduced  them  from  their  honourable 
rank  amoTig  the  nations.  This  might  have  been 
averted  by  their  repentance ;  but  when  the  clay  be- 
came utterly  "  marred,"  it  was  turned  into  this  inferior 
and  less  honourable  form  and  state,  liut  all  this  was 
not  excision,  not  destruction.  The  proceeding  was 
corrective,  as  well  as  punitive ;  it  brought  them  to  re- 
pentance in  Uabylon ;  and  God  "  repented  him  of  the 
evil."  The  potter  took  even  that  vessel  which  had  been 
made  unto  dishonour  for  seventy  years,  and  made  of  it 
again  "  a  vessel  unto  honour,"  by  restoring  the  polity 
and  church  relation  of  the  Jew.s. 
I  4.  The  interpretation  to  which  these  objections  are 
maile,  also  supposes  that  the  body  of  the  Jewish  na- 
tion had  arrived  at  a  state  of  dereliction  already.  But 
this  epistle  was  written  several  years  before  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem ;  and  although  the  threatening 
had  gone  forth  as  to  the  dereliction  and  "  hardening" 
of  the  perseveringly  impenitent,  it  is  plain,  from  the 
labours  of  the  apostle  himself  to  convert  the  Jews 
every  where,  and  from  his  "  prayers,  that  Israel 
might  be  saved,"  chap.  x.  1 ;  that  he  did  not  consider 
them,  as  yet  at  least,  in  this  condition ;  though  most 
of  them,  and  especially  those  in  Judea,  were  liasten- 
ing  to  it. 

Let  us,  then,  take  a  view  of  this  part  of  the  apostle's 
discourse,  in  some  respects  dilTerent.  The  objecting 
Jew,  upon  the  apostle  having  stated  that  God  shows 
mercy  or  special  favour  to  whom  he  will,  and  selects 
out  of  the  mass  of  sinners  whom  he  pleases,  for  marked 
and  eminent  punislmaent,  says,  "  Why  doth  he  yet  find 
fault ."'  "Why  does  he,  by  you,  his  messenger,  allow- 
ing you  your  apo.stolic  commission,  continue  to  reprove 
and  blame  the  Jews?  for  who  hath  resisted  his  Avill?" 
According  to  your  own  doctrine,  he  chooses  the  Gen- 
tiles, and  rejects  us ;  his  will  is  accom])lished,  not  re- 
sisted :  "  why  then  doth  he  still  find  fault  7"  We  may 
grant  that  the  objection  of  the  Jew  goes  upon  the  Cal- 
vinistic  view  of  sovereignty  and  predestination,  and 
the  shutting  out  of  all  conditions;  but  then  it  is  to  be 
remembered  that  it  is  the  objection  of  a  perverse  and 
unbelieving  Jew ;  and  that  it  is  refuted,  not  conceded,  by 
the  apostle ;  for  he  proceeds  wholly  to  cut  off  all  ground 
and  pretence  of  "  replying  against  God,"  by  his  refer- 
ence to  the  parable  of  the  potter  in  Jeremiah.  This 
reference,  according  to  the  view  we  have  already  given 
of  that  parable,  shows,  1.  That  "the  vessel"  was  not 
made  "  unto  dishonour,"  until  the  clay  of  which  it  was 
formed  had  been  "  marred  in  the  hand  of  the  potter;" 
that  is,  not  until  trial  being  made,  it  did  not  confonn  to 
his  design ;  did  not  work  according  to  the  pattern  in 
his  mind.  This  is  immediately  explained  by  the  pro- 
phet ;  the  nation  did  not  "  repent,"  and  "  turn  from  its 
wickedness,"  and  therefore  God  dealt  with  them  "  as 
seemed  good"  to  liim.  Thus,  in  the  time  of  the  apos- 
tle, the  Jewish  nation  was  the  clay  marred  in  the  hands 
of  God.  From  its  stubbornness  and  want  of  temper, 
it  had  not  conformed  to  his  design  of  bringing  it  to  the 
honourable  form  of  a  Christian  church,  in  association 
with  the  Gentiles.  It  was  therefore  made  "a  vessel 
unto  dishonour,"  unchurched,  and  disowned  of  God,  as 
its  forefathers  had  been  in  Babylon.  This  was  the  dis- 
honoured, degraded  condition  of  all  the  unbelieving 
Jews  in  the  apostle's  day,  although  the  destniction  of 
their  city,  and  temple,  and  polity,  had  not  taken  jilace. 
They  were  rejected  from  being  the  visible  church  of 
God  from  the  rending  of  the  veil  of  the  temple,  or  at 
least  from  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  God  visibly  took 
possession  of  his  new  spiritual  church,  by  the  descent 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  all  this  was  their  own  ^\fauU  ;" 
and  therefore,  notwithstanding  the  objection  of  the  per- 
verse Jew,  "  fault"  might  be  found  witli  them  who 
refused  the  glory  of  a  higher  churcii  estate  than  that 


which  their  circumcision  formerly  gave,  and  which 
had  been  so  long  and  so  alfcctionately  offered  to  them  : 
with  men  who  not  only  would  not  enter  "  the  kingdom 
of  God"  themselves,  but  attempted  to  hinder  even  the 
Gentiles  from  entering  in,  as  far  as  lay  in  Iheir  power. 

2.  The  reference  to  the  parable  of  the;  jioiti  r  servi'U 
to  silence  their  "  replying  against  God"  also  ;  because, 
in  the  interpretation  wliich  Jeremiah  gives  of  that  pa- 
rable, he  represents  even  the  vessel  formed  unto  dis- 
honour, out  of  the  mass  which  was  "  marred  in  the 
hand  of  the  potter,"  as  still  within  the  reach  of  the 
Divine  favour,  upon  repentance ;  and  so  the  conduct 
of  God  to  the  Jews,  instead  of  proceeding  as  the  Jew 
in  his  objection  supposes,  upon  rigid  predestinarian  and 
unconditional  grounds,  loft  their  state  still  in  their  own 
hands  :  they  h.id  no  need  to  remain  vessels  of  disho- 
nour, since  the  Christian  church  was  still  open  to 
them,  with  its  higher  than  Jewish  honours.  The  word 
of  the  Lord,  by  his  prophet,  immediately  on  his  having 
visited  the  potter's  house,  declares  that  if  a  nation 
"  repent,"  he  will  repent  of  the  evil  designed  against, 
or  brought  upon  it.  The  Jews  in  Babylon,  although 
they  were  there  in  the  form  of  dishonoured  vessels, 
did  repent ;  and  of  that  dishonoiu'ed  mass  "  vessels 
of  honour"  were  again  made,  at  their  restoration  to 
their  own  land.  Instead  of  replying  against  God, 
they  bowed  to  his  judgments  in  silence ;  and,  as  we 
read  in  the  prayer  of  Daniel,  confessed  them  just. 
Every  Jew  had  this  option  when  the  apostle  wrote, 
and  has  it  now  ;  and  therefore  St.  Paul  does  not  here 
call  upon  tlie  Jews  as  persons  hardened  and  derelict 
of  God,  to  be  silent  and  own  the  justice  of  God;  but 
as  persons  whose  silent  submission  would  be  the  first 
step  to  their  recovery.  Nor  will  they  always,  even  as 
a  people,  remain  vessels  of  dishonour ;  but  be  formed 
again  on  the  potter's  wheel  as  vessels  of  honour  and 
glory,  of  which  the  return  from  Bab3lon  was  probably 
a  type.  The  object  of  the  apostle  was,  therefore,  to 
silence  a  rebellious  and  perverse  replying  against  God, 
by  producing  a  conviction,  both  of  his  sovereign  right 
to  dispense  his  favours  as  he  pleases,  an<l  of  his  jus- 
tice in  inflicting  punishments  ujion  tho.se  who  set  them- 
selves against  his  designs,  and  thus  to  bring  the  Jews 
to  repentance. 

3.  What  follows  verse  22  serves  farther,  and  by  an- 
other view,  to  silence  the  objecting  Jew.  It  was  true, 
that  the  body  of  the  Jewish  peojile  in  Judea,  and  their 
polity,  woulil  be  destroyed ;  our  Lord  had  predicted  it ; 
and  the  apostles  frequently,  but  tenderly,  advert  to  it. 
This  prediction  did  not,  however,  prove  that  the  Jews 
were,  at  the  time  the  apostle  wrote,  generally,  in  a 
state  of  entire  and  hopeless  dereliction  ;  or  the  apostle 
would  not  so  earnestly  have  sought,  and  so  fervently 
have  prayed  for  their  salvation.  Nor  did  that  event 
itself  prove,  that  those  who  still  remained,  and  to  this 
day  remain,  were  given  up  entirely  by  God ;  for  if  so, 
why  should  tlie  church  have  been,  in  all  ages,  taught 
to  look  for  their  restoration  :  no  time  being  fixed,  and 
no  signs  established,  to  enable  us  to  conclude  that  the 
dereliction  had  been  taken  off?  The  temporal  punish- 
ment of  the  Jews  of  Judea  had  no  connexion  with  the 
question  of  their  salvability  as  a  people.  To  this  sad 
national  event,  however,  the  apostle  adverts,  in  the 
next  verses.  "  What,"  or  besides,  "  if  God,  willing  to 
show  his  wrath,  and  to  make  his  power  known,  en- 
dured with  much  long-suffering  the  vessels  of  wrath 
fitted  to  destruction :  and  that  he  might  make  known 
the  riches  of  his  glory  on  the  vessels  of  mercy,  which 
he  had  before  prepared  to  glory,  even  us,  whom  ho 
hath  called,  not  of  the  Jews  only,  but  also  of  tlie  Gen- 
tiles. As  he  saith  also  in  Osee,  I  will  call  them  my 
people  who  were  not  my  people,"  &c.,  ver.  22 — 25.  The 
apostle  does  not  state  his  conclusion,  but  leaves  it  to  be 
understood.  Ke  intended  it,  manifestly,  fiirther  to  si- 
lence the  perverse  objections  of  the  Jews ;  and  he  gives 
it  as  proof,  not  of  sovereignty  alone,  but  of  sovereignty 
and  justice ;  sovereign  mercy  to  the  Gentiles,  but  jus- 
tice to  the  Jews  :  as  though  he  had  said,  this  procedure 
is  also  righteous,  and  leaves  no  room  to  reply  against 
God. 

The  metaphor  of  "  vessels"  is  still  carried  on ;  but 
by  "  vessels  of  dishonour,  formed  by  the  potter,"  and 
"vessels  of  wrath,  fitted  for  destruction,"  he  does  not 
mean  vessels  in  the  same  condition,  but  in  different 
conditions.  This  is  plain,  from  the  difference  of  ex- 
pression adopted :  "  vessels  unto  dishonour,"  and  "  ves- 
sels of  wrath  ;"  but  as  the  apostle's  reasoning  is  cvi- 


332 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITJJTES. 


Jently  Influenced  by  the  reference  lie  Has  inaile  to  t))c 
parables  of  the  jiotter,  in  the  eighteenth  and  iiiiiftrc  nth 
chapterH  of  Jeremiah,  wo  must  aj<:iiii  re  (cr  to  lli.il  pni- 
pliecy  lor  illustration.  In  all  the  cxami)!!  s  whidi,  in 
this  iliscnurso,  St.  I'aul  takes  out  of  the  OM  Tistunieiit, 
it  lia.s  been  justly  observed  by  crilies,  tliat  he  (juotes 
lirielly,  and  only  so  as  to  give  to  the  Jews  who  were 
well  aequainted  with  their  Scriptnres  iIk;  key  to  the 
whole  cnnte.xt  in  which  the  iKissiU;;es  slaud  to  which 
he  directs  their  attention.  So  in  the  verses  before  u.s, 
by  referring  to  the  potter  forniinj;  the  vessels  on  the 
wheel,  he  directs  them  to  the  whole  section  of  jiro- 
phecy,  of  which  that  is  the  introduction.  l!y  exami- 
ning this  it  will  be  found,  that  the  prophet,  in  deliver- 
ing his  message,  makes  use  of  the  work  of  the  potter 
for  illustration,  in  two  states  and  for  two  purjioses. 
The  first  we  have  explained  :— the  giving  to  the  mass, 
marred  in  the  hands  of  the  potter,  another  fiirm  ;  which 
expressed  that  dishonoured  and  humbled  static,  in 
which  the  Jews,  both  lor  jHinishment  and  corTcction, 
were  placed  under  captivity  in  Uabylon.  But  connected 
with  the  humbling  of  tliis  proud  people,  by  rejecting 
them  for  seventy  years  asGod'H  visible  church,  was 
also  the  terrible  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the 
temple  it.sclf.  With  reference  to  this,  the  prophet,  in 
the  nineteenth  chapter,  which  is  a  continuation  of  the 
eighteenth,  receives  this  command,  "  Thus  saiih  the 
Lord,  Go  and  get  a  potter's  earthen  bottle,  and  take  of 
the  ancients  of  thepeople,  and  the  ancients  of  the  priests, 
and  go  forth  unto  the  valley  of  the  sons  of  Hinnom,  wliich 
is  by  the  entry  of  the  east  gale,  and  proclaim  there  the 
words  that  I  shall  tell  thee,  and  say,  Hear  ye  the 
word  of  the  Lord,  O  kings  of  Judah  anil  inhabitants  of 
Jerusalem ;  Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  the  God  of 
Israel ;  heboid  I  will  bring  evil  upon  tins  place,  the 
which  whosoever  heareth  his  ears  shall  tingle."  And 
then  having  delivered  liis  awful  message  in  various 
forms  of  malediction,  he  is  thus  commanded,  in  verse 
10,  "Then  shall  thou  break  the  bottle  in  the  sight  of 
the  men  that  go  with  thee,  and  shall  say  unto  them. 
Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts ;  even  so  will  I  break 
this  people  and  this  city,  as  one  brcaketh  a  putter's  ves- 
sel, that  cannot  be  made  whole  again."  As  this  stands 
in  the  same  section  of  prophecy  as  the  parable  of  the 
forming  of  vessels  out  of  clay  by  the  potter,  can  it  be 
doubted  to  what  the  apostle  refers  when  he  speaks,  not 
only  of  "  vessels  made  unto  dishonour,  but  also  of  "  ves- 
sels of  ivral.k  fitted  for  destruction  V  The  jioUer's 
earthen  bottle,  broken  by  Jeremiah,  was  '■  a  vessel  of 
wrath  fitted  for  destruction,"  though  not  in  the  inten- 
tion of  the  potter  who  formed  it ;  and  the  breaking  or 
destruction  of  it,  reprehenled,  as  the  prophet  himself 
says,  the  destruction  of  the  city,  temple,  and  polity  of 
the  Jews,  by  the  invasion  of  the  forces  of  the  king  of 
Babylon.  The  coming  destruction  of  the  temple,  city, 
and  polity  of  the  Jews  by  the  Romans  was  thereby 
fitly  represented  by  the  same  figure  in  words,  that  is, 
the  destruction  of  an  carthern  vessel  by  violent  frac- 
ture, as  the  former  calamity  had  been  represented  by 
it  in  action.  Farther,  the  circumstances  of  these  two 
great  national  punishments  signally  answer  to  each 
otiier.  In  the  Ibrmcr,  the  Jews  ceased  to  be  the  visible 
church  of  Cod  for  seventy  years ;  in  the  latter  they 
have  been  also  unchurched  for  many  ages.  Their 
temporary  rejection  as  the  visible  church  ol  (;od,  when 
they  were  taken  into  captivity  by  Nebuchadnezzar, 
was  marked  also  by  circumstances  ol'  severe  and  terri- 
ble vengeance,  by  invasion,  and  tlie  destruction  of  their 
political  slate.  Their  longer  rejection,  as  God's  church, 
was  also  accompanied  by  judgnienls  of  the  same  kind, 
aiul  by  their  more  terrilile  excision  and  disiiersion  as  a 
body  politic.  As  the  prophet  refers  to  both  circum- 
stances, so  in  his  usual  manner  of  teaching  by  action, 
he  illustrates  both  by  symbols.  The  first,  by  the  work 
of  the  potter  on  the  wheels ;  the  second,  by  taking  "  an 
earthen  bottle,  a  vessel  out  of  the  house  of  I  be  [lotter, 
and  destroying  it  before  the  eyes  of  the  ancienls  of  the 
peopb^,  and  the  ancients  of  the  priests."  The  apostle, 
in  like  manner,  refers  to  both  events,  and  makes  use 
of  the  .same  symbols  verbally.  The  "dishonoured" 
state  of  the  J(!Ws,  as  no  longer  acknowledged  by  God 
as  his  iieople,  sirici'  they  woulil  not  enter  the  new 
church,  the  new  Jerusalem  by  J'ailh,  is  shown  by  the 
vessel  formed  by  the  potter  unto  "  dishonour  ;"  the  col- 
lateral calamities  brought  upon  their  city,  temple,  and 
nation,  arising  out  of  their  enormous  sins,  is  shown  by 
allusion  to  tlie  prophet's  breaking  another  vessel,  an 


[Part  IL 

earthen  bottle.  This  temporal  destruction  of  the  Jews 
by  the  Koman  invasion,  was  also  figurative  of  the  fu- 
ture and  final  i]Umsbiijriu  of  all  persevering  unbeliev- 
ers. Ah  to  the  Jews  of  ileit  day  living  m  Judea,  the 
iiatiim  of  the  .Tews,  the  ijiinjshineiil  figured  by  the  broken 
vessel,  was  final,  forlhey  were  destroyed  by  the  sword, 
and  wastid  by  slavery  ;  and  as  to  all  who  jiersevered 
in  unbelief,  liie  future  puiii.shmeiit  in  eternity  would  be 
final  and  liO])eless,  "as  one  breaketh  a  potter's  vessel 
that  cannot  be  rnuilv  whole  u^ain :"  a  sutlieient  proof 
llial  St.  I'aul  is  not  sjieaking  of  the  vessel  in  its  state 
of  claxj,  on  the  potter's  wheel,  which  niiglit  be  made 
whole  again ;  and,  therefore,  the  punislimenl  figured 
by  that  was  not  final,  but  corrective ;  for  the  Jews, 
though  made  vessels  unto  dishonour  in  Babylon,  were 
again  made  vessels  of  honour  on  their  restoration  ;  and 
the  Jews  now,  though  for  a  much  longer  period  exist- 
ing as  "vessels  of  dishonour,"  shall  be  finally  restored, 
brought  into  the  church  of  Christ,  acknowledged  to  be 
his  people,  as  the  believing  Gentiles  are,  and  thus, 
unilei\  with  iliem,  again  be  made  "  vessels  unto  honour." 
The  application  of  the  ajiostle's  words  in  the  verses 
just  commented  upon,  as  intended  to  silence  the  "  re- 
))lying"  of  the  Jews  against  (iod,  is  now  obviou.s. 
They  could  urge  no  charge  upon  Goii  for  making  them 
vessels  of  dishonour,  by  taking  away  their  church 
state,  for  that  was  their  own  fault ;  they  were  "  mar- 
red in  his  hands,"  and  they  yielded  not  to  his  design. 
But  their  case  was  no  more  hopeless  than  that  of  the  Jews 
in  Babylon  ;  they  might  still  be  again  made  vessels  of 
honour.  And  then,  as  to  the  case  of  the  "  vessels  of 
wrath  fitted  tor  destruction,"  those  stubborn  Jews,  who 
were  bringing  upon  themselves  the  Roman  invasion, 
with  the  destruction  of  their  city  and  nation  ;  and  all 
perverse,  unbelieving  Jews,  who  continued  in  other 
parts  of  the  world  to  reject  the  Gospel,  although  their 
approaching  punishment  would  be  final  and  remedi- 
less ;  yet  was  there  no  ground  for  them  "  to  reply 
against  (;od"  on  that  account,  as  though  this  disjiensa- 
tion  of  wrath  were  the  result  of  unconditional  predes- 
tination and  rigid  sovereignly.  On  the  contrary,  it  w  as 
an  act  of  pure  and  umiiiestionable  justice,  which  the 
apostle  proves  by  its  beiiin  brmi^lil  U|ioii  Ibeinselves  by 
their  own  sins  ;  and  by  the  circunislanee  tliat  it  did  not 
take  place  until  after  God  had  "  endured  them  with 
much  long  suffering." 

1.  The  destruction  was  brought  upon  themselves  by 
their  own  sins.  This  is  manifest  from  all  the  instances 
in  the  New  Testament  in  which  their  sins  are  charged 
upon  them  as  the  cause  of  their  calamities,  and  which 
need  not  be  quoted  ;  and  also  from  the  expression  in  the 
text  before  us,  vessels  ^'■fitted  to  destruction."  The 
word  might  as  well  have  been  rendered  "  miopted  to 
destruction,"  which  filiicssorcongruity  for  punishment 
can  be  produced  only  by  sin ;  anil  this  sin  must  have 
been  their  own  choice  and  fault,  unless  we  should  blas- 
phemously make  (iod  the  author  (pf  sin,  which  but  a 
few  (;alviiiistic  divines  have  been  bold  enouuli  lo  atlirm. 
Nor  are  we  to  overlook  the  change  olsiieech  winch  the 
ajioslle  uses,(4)  when  speakmg  of  "the  vessels  of 
mercy."  Their  "preparation  viiito  glory"  is  ascribi^d 
expritssly  to  God, — "which  iik  bad  alorejirepared  unto 
glory  ;"  but  of  the  vessels  ol  wrath,  the  apostle  simply 
says  passively,  "  fined  to  destruction,"  leaving  the  agent 
to  be  inferred  from  tin  nature  of  the  thing,  and  from 
the  testimony  of  Scrijilure,  which  unilbrmly  ascribes 
the  sin»of  men  to  themselves,  and  their  punishment  to 
their  .sins. 

2.  The  justice  of  (!od's  proceeding  as  lo  the  incorri- 
gible Jews  is  still  more  strongly  marked  by  the  ilecla- 
ration,  that  these  vessels  of  wrath  fitted  or  ad.ipted 
to  destruction,  were  "endured  with  much  /iins-enl/i-r- 
in^."  To  say  that  their  punishment  was  delayed  to 
render  it  more  consiiicuous,  after  they  had  been  iell  or 
given  up  liy  God,  would  be  no  imiieachment  of  God's 
justice ;  but  it  is  much  more  consonant  to  the  tenor  of 
Scripture,  to  consider  the  "  long- suffering"  here  men- 
tioned, as  cxercisiMl  previously  lo  their  being  given  up 
to  the  hardness  of  their  hearts,  like  I'haraoh  ;  and  even 
af^er  they  were,  in  a  rigid  constrnelion  ol  jnst  severity, 
"  fitted  for  destruction  ;"  the  puiiisbnient  being  delayed 
to  airordlhem  still  larllicropportiinilies  liir  repenlancc. 
The  barren  tree,  in  our  Lord's  parable,  was  the  emblem 
of  the  Jewish  nation  ;  and  no  one  can  deny,  that  after 
the  Lord  had  come  for  many  years  "  si.'eking  fruit  and 

(1)  WoLKtus,  in  loc. 


Chap.  XXVI.] 


THEOLOGICAL   LVSTITUTES. 


333 


finding  none,"  this  fruiiloss  tree  was  "  fitted"  to  be  cut 
down ;  and  yet  it  was  "  endured  witti  much  long-suf- 
fering." Tliis  view  is  also  fiirther  supported  hy  the  iin- 
jjort  of  the  word  "  long-sufl'rrini,"  and  its  use  in  the 
iS'ew Testament.  Long-sulllrni;;  is  a  mode  of  mercy, 
and  the  reason  of  its  exercise  is  only  to  he  found  in  a 
mereiful  intention..  Ilenc-e,  '•  {joodness,  and  forbear- 
ance, and  long-suflering,"  are  united  by  the  apostle  in 
another  part  of  this  epistle,  when  speaking  of  these 
very  Jews,  in  a  passage  which  may  be  considered  as 
strictly  parallel  with  that  before  us.  "Or  despisest 
thou  the  riches  of  his  ifoudnts^,  m\A  forbearance,  m\A 
lonff-sulf'ering ;  not  knowing  that  the  goodne.'iS  of  God 
leadetli  thee  to  repentance?  Hut  afler  thy  hardness 
and  impenitent  heart  treasurest  up  unto  thyself  wrath 
against  the  day  of  wrath,  and  revelation  of  the  right- 
eous judgment  of  God ;"  which  "  wrath"  the  long-suf- 
fering of  God  was  exercised  to  prevent,  by  leading 
them  "  to  repentance,"  Rom.  ii.  4,  5.  So  also  St.  Peter 
teaches  us,  that  the  end  of  God's  long-suffering  to  men 
is  a  merciful  one :  he  is  "  long-suffering  to  us-ward, 
not  wdling  that  any  should  perish,  but  that  all  shoidd 
come  to  repentance."  The  passage  in  question,  there- 
fore, cannot  be  understood  of  persons  derelict  and  for- 
saken of  God,  as  though  the  long-suffering  of  God,  in 
enduring  them,  were  a  part  of  the  process  of  "  show- 
ing his  wrath  and  making  his  power  known."  Dod- 
dridge, a  moderate  Calvinist,  paraphrases  it :  "  What 
if  God,  resolving"  at  last  "  to  manifest  his  wrath,  and 
makeliis  power  known,  hath,"  in  the  mean  time,  "en- 
dured with  much  long-suffering"  those  who  shalljinallij 
appear  tobe^'  the  vessels  of  wrath  fitted  to  destruction  ? " 
To  which  there  is  no  objection,  provided  it  be  allowed 
that  in  this  "  7nean  time"  they  might  have  repented 
and  obtained  mercy. 

Thus  the  proceedings  of  God  as  to  the  Jews  shut  out 
all  "  reply"  and  "  debate"  with  God.  Nothing  was  un- 
just in  his  conduct  to  the  impenitent  among  them,  for 
they  were  "  vessels  of  wrath  fitted  for  destruction," 
wicked  men  justly  liable  to  it,  and  yet,  before  God  pro- 
reeded  to  his  work  of  judgment,  he  endured  them  with 
forbearance,  and  gave  them  many  opportunities  of 
tominginto  his  church  on  the  new  election  of  believers, 
both  of  Jews  and  Gentiles.  And  as  to  this  election, 
the  whole  was  a  question,  not  of  justice,  but  of  grace ; 
and  God  had  the  unquestionable  right  of  forming  a  new 
believing  people,  "  not  of  the  Jews  only,  but  also  of  the 
Gentiles,"  and  of  filling  them,  as  "  vessels  of  honour," 
with  those  riches,  that  fulness  of  glory,  as  his  now  ac- 
knowledged church,  for  which  he  had  "afore  prepared 
them"  by  faith,  the  only  ground  of  their  admission  into 
his  covenant.  The  remainder  of  the  chapter,  on  which 
we  have  commented,  contains  citations  from  the  pro- 
phecies with  respect  to  the  salvation  of  the  "  remnant" 
of  the  believing  Jews,  and  the  calling  of  the  GentUes. 

The  tenth  and  eleventh  chapters,  which  continue  the 
discourse,  need  no  particular  examination ;  but  will  be 
found  to  contain  nothing  but  what  most  obviously  re- 
fers to  the  collective  rejection  of  (he  Jewish  nation,  and 
the  collective  election  of  the  "  remnant"  of  believing 
Jews,  along  with  all  believing  Gentiles,  into  the  visible 
church  of  God. 

We  have  now  considered  this  discourse  of  the  apostle 
Paul,  with  reference  to  the  question  of  personal  or  col- 
lective election,  and  find  that  it  can  be  interpreted  only 
of  the  latter.  Let  us  consider  it,  secondly,  with  refer- 
ence to  the  question  of  unconditional  election,  a  doc- 
trine which  we  shall  certainly  find  in  it;  but  in  a 
sense  very  different  from  that  in  which  it  is  held  by 
CalvinLsts. 

By  unconditional  election,  divines  of  this  class  un- 
derstand an  election  of  persons  to  eternal  life  without 
respect  to  their  faith  or  obedience,  these  qualities  in 
them  being  supposed  necessarily  to  follow  as  conse- 
quences of  their  election ;  by  unconditional  reproba- 
tion, the  counterpart  of  the  former  doctrine,  is  meant  a 
non-election  or  rejection  of  certain  persons  from  eternal 
salvation;  unbelief  and  disobedience  foUowiiia  this 
rejection  as  necessary  consequences.  Such  kind  of 
election  and  rejection  has  no  ])lace  in  tliis  chapter,  al- 
though the  subject  of  it  is  the  election  and  rejection  of 
bodies  of  men,  which  is  a  case  more  unfettered  with 
conditions  than  any  other.  We  have,  indeed,  in  it 
several  instances  of  unconditional  election.  Such  was 
that  of  the  descendants  of  Isaac  to  be  <;od's  visible 
church,  in  preference  to  those  of  Ishinael ;  such  was 
that  of  Jacob,  to  the  cvlnsion  of  E.iau  ;  which  elec- 


tion was  (h'clared  when  the  children  were  yet  in  the 
woml),  bcliire  tlicy  had  done  "  good  or  evil ;"  .so  that 
the  bl(!ssing  of  the  spcu:ial  covenant  did  not  descend 
upon  the  iioslcrily  of  Jacob  because  of  any  righteous- 
ness in  Jacob,  nor  was  it  lalii  ii  awiiy  from  the  descend- 
ants of  lilsau  l)i;c;mse  of  any  wickedness  in  their  pro- 
genitor. In  like  manner,  when  Alniigluy  Cod  dcler- 
rnined  no  longer  to  found  his  visible  clmrch  upon  na- 
tural descent  from  Abraham  in  the  line;  of  Isaac  and 
Jacob,  nor  in  any  line  according  to  the  llesli ;  but  to 
make  faith  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ  the  gate  of  admi.s- 
sion  into  this  privilege,  he  acted  according  to  the  same 
sovereign  pleasure.  It  is  not  impossible  to  conceive 
that  he  might  have  carried  on  his  saving  imrposes 
among  the  Gentiles  through  Christ,  without  setting  uji 
a  visible  church  among  them ;  as  before  the  coming  of 
Christ,  he  carried  on  such  purposes  hi  the  Gentile  na- 
tions (unless  we  suppose  that  all  but  the  Jews  perished), 
without  collecting  them  into  a  body,  and  making  him- 
self their  head  as  his  church,  and  calling  himself 
"  their  God"  by  special  covenant,  and  by  visible  and 
constant  signs  acknowledging  them  to  be  "  liis  people." 
Greatly  inferior  would  have  been  the  mercy  to  the 
Gentile  world  had  this  plan  been  adopted  ;  and  as  far 
as  it  appears  to  us,  the  system  of  Christianity  would 
have  been  much  less  efiicient»  We  are  indeed  bound 
to  believe  this,  since  Divine  wisdom  and  goodness  have 
determined  on  another  mode  of  jirocedure ;  but  still  it 
is  conceivable.  On  the  contrary,  the  purpose  of  God 
was  now  not  only  to  continue  a  visible  church  in  the 
world,  but  to  extend  it  in  its  visible,  collective,  and  or- 
ganized form  into  all  nations.  Yet  this  resolve  rested 
on  no  goodness  in  those  who  were  to  be  subjects  of  it : 
both  Jews  and  Gentiles  were  "  concluded  under  sin," 
and  "  the  whole  world  was  guilty  before  God."  As 
this  plan  is  carried  into  efl'ect  by  extending  itself  into 
difl'erent  nations,  we  see  the  same  sovereign  pleasure. 
A  man  of  Macedonia  appears  to  Paul  in  a  vision  by 
night,  and  cries,  "  Come  over  and  help  us ;"  but  wo 
have  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  Macedonians  were 
belter  than  other  Gentiles,  although  they  were  elected 
to  the  enjoyment  of  the  jirivileges  and  advantages  of 
evangelical  ordinances.  So  in  modern  times,  parts  of 
Hindostan  have  been  elected  to  receive  Ihe  Gospel,  and 
yet  its  inhabitants  presented  nothing  more  worthy  of 
this  election  than  the  people  of  Thibet,  or  California, 
who  have  not  yet  been  elected.  We  call  this  sove- 
reignty ;  not  indeed  in  the  sense  of  many  Calvinistic 
writers,  who  appear  to  understand  by  the  sovereign 
acts  of  God  those  procedures,  wliich  he  adopts  only  to 
show  that  he  has  the  power  to  execute  them ;  but  be- 
cause the  reasons  of  them,  whether  they  are  reasons 
of  judgment,  or  wisdom,  or  mercy,  are  hidden  from  us ; 
either  that  we  have  no  immediate  interest  in  them,  or 
that  they  are  too  deep  and  ample  for  our  comprehen- 
sion, or  because  it  is  an  important  lesson  for  men  to  be 
taught  to  bow  with  reverent  submission  to  his  regal 
prerogatives.  This  is  the  unconditional  election  and 
non-election  taught  by  the  aiiostle  in  this  chapter  ;  but 
what  we  deny  is,  that  either  the  spiritual  blessings 
connected  with  religious  privileges  follow  as  necessary 
consequences  from  this  election ;  or  that  unbelief,  dis- 
obedience, and  eternal  ruin  follow  in  the  same  manner 
from  non-election.  Of  both  these  opinions,  the  apostle's 
discourse  itself  furnishes  abundant  refutation. 

Let  us  take  the  instances  of  election.  The  descend- 
ants of  Abraham,  in  the  line  of  Isaac  and  Jacob,  were 
elected ;  but  true  liiith,  and  obedience,  and  salvation, 
did  not  follow  as  infallible  consequents  of  that  election. 
On  the  contrary,  the  "Jew  outwardly,"  and  the  ".(ew 
inwardly,"  were  always  distinguished  in  the  sight  of 
God  ;  and  the  children  of  Abraham's  faith,  not  the  chil- 
dren of  Abraham's  body,  were  the  true  "  Israel  of  God." 
Again,  the  Gentiles  were  at  length  elected  to  be  the 
visible  church  of  God;  but  obedience  and  salvation  did 
not  follow  as  necessary  consequents  of  this  election. 
On  the  contrary,  many  Gentiles,  chosen  to  special  reli- 
gious privileges,  have  in  all  ages  neglected  the  great 
salvation,  and  have  perished,  though  professing  the 
name  of  Christ ;  and  in  that  pure  age  in  which  St. 
Paul  wrote,  when  comparatively  few  (Jentiles  entered 
the  church  but  with  a  sincere  luilli  in  Christ,  he  warns 
all  of  the  danger  of  excision  lor  unbelief  and  disobedi- 
ence : — "Thou  slinidcst  by  faith:  be  not  high-minded, 
but  tear."  "  For  if  (!od  sjiared  not  the  natural  branches, 
take  heed  Icsl  he  also  spare  not  thee."—"  Toward  thee 
goodness,  if  thou  continue  in  Iiis  goodness;  otherwise 


334 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


thou  also  shall  be  cut  ofT."'  C'trtain,  tlicrcliirc,  it  is, 
that  aUh(>U!,'h  this  colloctive  cluitiou  of  boihes  ol  inuii 
to  religious  (irivili'ijcs,  ami  to  Iili-uimc  the  visible  cliurc-|i 
of  (;oii,  be  unconditional,  the  salvaliuii  to  which  these 
priviieaes  were  dtsigiied  to  lead  depends  upon  personal 
faith  and  obedience. 

Let  us  turn,  then,  to  the  instances  of  non-election  or 
rejection  ;  and  here  it  will  be  found  that  unbelief,  dis- 
obedience, and  punishment,  do  not  Ibllow  its  inlallible 
consequents  of  this  dispensation.  Abraham  was 
greatly  interested  for  Ishiiiael,  and  obtained,  in  answer 
to  his  prayer,  at  least  temporal  iiroiiiiscs  in  his  behalf, 
and  in  that  of  his  posterity ;  and  (here  is  no  reason  to 
conclude  from  any  thins;  which  Dcnirs  in  the  sacred 
writers,  that  liis  Arabian  descendants  were  slint  out, 
e.\cept  by  their  own  choice  and  limit,  at  any  time,  from 
the  hopes  of  salvalion  ;  at  least  previous  to  iheir  em- 
bracing tlie  ini|iosture  of  Mohammed ;  for  if  so,  we 
must  give  up  Job  and  his  friends  as  rci)robates.  The 
knowledge  of  the  true  (iod  existed  long  in  Arabia  ;  and 
"  Arabians"  were  among  the  fruits  of  ])rimitive  Chris- 
tianity, as  we  learn  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

Nor  have  we  any  ground  to  conclude  that  the  Edom- 
ites,  as  such,  were  e.\cluded  from  the  mercies  of  fiod, 
because  of  their  non-election  as  his  visible  church. 
Their  pro.ximity  to  the  Jewish  nation  must  have  served 
to  jireserve  among  them  a  considerable  degree  ol'  reli- 
gious knowledge ;  and  their  continuance  as  a  people  for 
many  ages  :nay  argue  at  least  no  great  enomtity  of 
wickedness  among  them;  which  is  confirmed  by  the 
reasons  given  for  their  ultimate  destruction.  The  final 
malediction  against  this  jieople  is  uttered  by  the  pro- 
phet Malachi.  "  Wliereas  Edom  saith.  We  are  imjio- 
verished,  but  we  will  return  and  build  the  desolate 
places  ;  thus  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  They  shall  build, 
but  I  will  throw  down  ;  and  they  shall  call  them  the 
UORDER  OF  WICKEDNESS,  and  llic  pcople  against  whom 
the  Lord  hath  indignation  lor  ever,"  i.  4.  Thus  their 
destruction  was  the  result  of  their  "  wickedness"  in 
the  later  periods  of  their  history;  nor  have  we  any 
reason  to  conclude  that  this  was  more  inevitable  than 
that  of  other  ancient  nations,  whom  liod,  as  in  the 
ease  of  Assyria,  called  to  repentanc^e ;  but  who,  not 
regarding  the  call,  were  finally  (lestro>ed.  That  the 
Kdomites  were  not  in  more  ancient  times  the  objects  of 
the  Divine  displeasure,  is  manifest  from  Deut.  ii.  5, 
where  it  is  recorded  that  God  commanded  the  Israelites, 
"  Meddle  not  with  them  ;  for  I  will  not  give  you  of  their 
land,  no,  not  so  much  as  a  foot  breadth  ;  because  I  have 
given  Mount  Seir  unto  Esau  for  a  jiossession."  They 
also  outlived,  as  a  people,  the  ten  tribes  of  Israel ;  they 
continued  to  e.xist  when  the  two  tribes  were  carried 
into  captivity  to  Babylon ;  and  about  the  year  of  the 
world  3875,  or  121)  before  the  Christian  era,  John  Ilir- 
c;anus  entirely  subdued  them,  and  obliged  them  to  in- 
corporate with  the  Jewish  nation,  and  to  receive  reli- 
gion. They  professed  consequently  the  same  faith, 
and  were  thus  connected  with  the  visible  church  of 
God. (5) 

Wo  come,  finally,  to  tliecase  of  the  rcjeclcil  Jews  in 
the  very  age  of  the  apostles.  The  jmrpose  of  <;oil,  as 
wc  have  seen,  was  to  abolish  the  Ibrmer  ground  on 
wliich  his  visible  church  had  lor  so  many  ages  been 
built,  that  of  natural  descent  from  Abraham  by  Isaac 
.ind  Jacob;  but  this  was  so  far  from  shuUing  out  the 
Jews  fVom  spiritual  blessings,  that  Itiough  as  Ji-ws 
they  were  now  denied  to  be  (iod's  church,  yet  they 
were  all  invited  to  cotnc  in  with  the  Gentiles,  or  rather 
to  lead  the  way  iiilo  the  new  church  istahlislied  on  the 
new  principle  of  faith  in  Jesus,  as  the  Christ.  Hence 
the  apostles  were  commanded  lo  "  begin  al  .lerusalem" 
to  preach  the  Gospel ;  hence  Ihey  made  the  Jews  the 
first  ofl'er  in  every  place  in  Asia  Minor,  and  other  parts 
of  the  Koman  empire,  into  which  lliey  travelled  on  the 
same  blessed  errand.  Many  of  the  Jews  accejited  the 
call,  entered  into  the  church  stale  on  the  new  principle 
on  which  the  church  of  (.'hrist  was  now  to  be  elected, 
and  hence  thuy  are  called  by  St.  Paul,  "  the  rniumnt 
according  to  the  election  of  grace,"  Rom.  .xi.  5,  and 


(5)  " Having  conquered  the  Edomitis, or  idumeans," 
says  I'rideaux,  "  he  reduccirt  them  lo  this  necessity, 
either  to  cmhraci  the  Jewish  rriiX'tan.  or  else  to  leave 
the  country,  and  seek  new  dwellings  clHewhere ; 
whereon,  choosing  rather  lo  leave  their  idolatry  llian 
iheir  country,  they  all  became  (iroselyles  lo  llic  Jewish 
i>li"iuii,"  .Vi-  — Conue.v,  vol.  lu   p.  .'il/i.;tti(i. 


"  the  eU-ctiiin."  The  rest,  it  is  true,  are  said  to  have 
been  "  blinded ;"  ju.st  in  the  same  sense  as  I'har.ioU 
was  hardened.  He  hardened  his  own  heart,  and  was 
judicially  lell  to  his  obduracy  ;  they  blinded  thcmselvi^s 
by  their  jirejudiccs,  and  worldliness,  and  sjiiritual  pride, 
and  were  at  length  judicially  given  up  to  blindness. 
But  then  might  they  not  all  have  had  a  share  in  this 
new  election  into  this  new  church  of  God?  Truly, 
every  one  of  them ;  for  thus  the  aiiosile  argues,  Kom. 
ix.  30—32,  "  What  shall  we  say,  then  ?  'I'lial  the  Gen- 
tiles, which  followed  not  alter  righteousness,  have  at- 
tained to  righteousness,  ev(  n  I  lie  righteousness  which 
is  of  faith  ;  but  Israel,  which  lullowed after  the  law  of 
righteousness,  hath  not  attained  to  the  law  of  right- 
eousness. Wherefore?  Bkcalsk  thkv  sought  it 
NOT  BY  FAITH,  but,  as  it  were,  by  the  works  of  the 
law."  And  thus  we  have  it  plainly  declared  that  they 
were  excluded  from  the  new  siiintual  church  of  God, 
not  by  any  act  of  sovereignty,  not  by  any  decree  of  re- 
probation, but  by  an  act  of  their  own  :  they  rejected 
the  doctrine  and  way  of  laith ;  they  attained  not  unto 
righteimsness,  because  iXx&j  sought  it  not  by  faith. 

The  collective  election  and  rejection  taught  in  this 
chapter  is  not  then  unconditional,  in  the  sense  of  the 
Calviiiists;  and  neither  the  salvation  of  the  peojile 
elected,  nor  the  condemnation  of  the  lieo])le  rejected, 
tlows  as  necessary  consequents  from  these  acts  of  tho 
Divine  sovereignty.  They  are  indeed  mysterious  pro- 
cedures ;  lor  (loubtless  it  must  be  allowed  that  they 
place  some  portions  of  men  in  circumstances  more  fa- 
voured than  others ;  but  even  in  such  cases  God  has 
shut  out  the  charge  of  "  unrii^htcousness"  by  requir- 
ing from  men  according  "  to  what  they  have,  and  not 
according  to  what  they  have  not,"  as  we  learn  from 
many  parts  of  Scripture  which  reveal  the  jirinciples  of 
the  Divine  administration,  both  as  to  this  life  and  an- 
other; for  no  man  is  shut  out  from  the  mercy  of  God, 
but  by  his  own  fault.  He  has  connected  these  events 
also  with  wise  and  gracurns  general  iilans,  as  to  the 
human  race.  They  are  not  acts  of  arbitrary  will  or  of 
caprice  ;  they  are  acts  of  "  wisdom  and  knowledge,"  the 
mysterious  bearings  of  which  are  to  be  in  l\iture  times 
develojied.  "O  the  dejith,  both  of  the  wisdom  and 
knowledge  ol  God  !  how  unsearchable  are  his  judg- 
ments, and  his  ways  past  finding  out  I"  These  are  the 
devout  e.xpressions  with  which  St.  Paul  concludes  ttiia 
discourse  ;  but  they  would  ill  apjily  to  the  sovereign, 
arbitrary,  and  unconditional  reprobation  of  men  from 
God's  mercies  in  time  and  eternity,  on  the  principle  of 
taking  some  and  leaving  others  without  any  reason  in 
themselves.  There  is  no ;»/«/(,  in  this  ;  no  wisdom;  no 
mystery  ;  and  it  is  capable  of  no  farther  developement 
for  the  instruction  and  benefit  of  the  world ;  lor  that 
which  rests  orighially  on  no  reason,  but  solely  on  ar- 
bitrary will,  is  incapable,  from  its  very  nature,  of  be- 
coming the  component  part  of  a  deeply  laid,  and  for  a 
lime  mysterious  plan,  which  is  to  be  brightened  into 
manifest  wisdom,  and  to  terminate  in  the  good  of  man- 
kind and  the  glory  of  God. 

'i'lie  only  argument  of  any  weight  which  is  urged  to 
prove  that,  in  the  election  spoken  of  in  this  discourse 
of  St.  I'aul,  individuals  are  intended,  is,  that  though  it 
should  be  allowed  that  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  tho 
election  of  bodies  of  men  to  be  the  visible  cliun-h  of 
God;  yet  as  none  are  acknowledged  by  liim  to  be  ills 
true  church,  e.xcept  true  believers  ;  tlierefbrc,  the  elec- 
tion of  men  lo  faith  and  eternal  life,  as  individuals, 
must  necessarily  be  included;  or  rather,  is  the  main 
thing  sjioUen  of.  For  as  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham 
were  the  only  persons  alloweil  to  be  "  the  Israel  ol  (.'od'' 
under  the  Old  Testament  dis|ieiisation  ;  and  as,  upon 
the  rejection  of  the  .Jews,  true  believers  only,  both  of 
Jews  and  Gentiles,  were  allowed  to  coiislilute  the 
church  of  Christ,  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham,  under 
the  law ;  and  genuine  Christians,  botli  of  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  under  the  Gospel,  are  "  the  election"  and 
"  the  remnant  according  to  the  election  n/prace,^'  men- 
tioned by  the  apostle. 

In  this,  argument  truth  is  greatly  mixed  up  with 
error,  which  a  lew  observations  will  disentangle. 

i.  It  is  a  mere  assumiition,  that  the  spiritual  Israel- 
ites, under  the  law,  in  opposition  to  the  Israelites  by 
birth,  are  any  where  called  "  the  election  ;"  and  "  the 
remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace ;"  or  even 
alluded  to  under  lliese  titles.  The  first  phrase  occurs 
III  Kom.  xi.  7,"  What  then'  Israel  hath  not  obtained 
that  which  he  seeketli  for;  but  the  t/tc^wi  hath  ob- 


Chap.  XXVI. 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


336 


tained  it,'iin<I  the  rest  were  Ijlinded."  Here  it  is  evi- 
dent that  "  the  election"  means  the  Jews  of  that  day, 
wlio  believed  in  (Mirist,  in  opiiosilion  to  "the  rest," 
who  believed  not ;  in  other  words,  "  the  election"  was 
that  part  of  the  Jews,  who  had  been  chosen  into  the 
Christian  church,  by  faith.  The  second  jihrase  occurs 
in  ver.  5,  of  the  same  chapter,  "  Even  so,  then,  at  this 
present  time,  also,  there  is  a  remnant  accordiiij:  to  the 
election  of  grace ;"  where  the  same  class  ol' jiersoiis, 
the  believing  .lews,  who  submitted  to  the  [)laii  ol  elec- 
tion into  the  church  by  "  ^rucc,"  through  faith,  are  the 
only  persons  spoken  of.  Nor  arc  these  terms  used  to 
designate  the  believing  tientiles ;  they  belong  exclu- 
sively to  the  Christianized  portion  of  the  J(!wish  na- 
tion, and  as  the  contrary  assumption  is  without  any 
foundation,  the  inferences  drawn  from  it  are  imagin- 
ary. 

2.  It  is  true  that,  under  the  Old  Testament  dispen- 
sation, the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham  were  the  only 
part  of  the  Israelites  who  were,  with  reference  to  their 
spiritual  and  eternal  state,  accepted  of  God ;  but  it  is 
not  true,  that  the  election  of  which  the  apostle  speaks 
was  confined  to  them.  With  reference  to  Esau  and 
Jacob,  the  apostle  says,  Rom.  i.\.  II,  13,  "  For  the  chil- 
dren being  not  yet  born,  neitlier  having  done  good  or 
evil,  that  the  purpose  of  Cod,  according  to  election, 
might  stand,  not  of  works,  hut  of  him  that  calleth ;  it 
was  said  unto  her,  the  elder  shall  serve  the  younger;  as 
it  is  written,  Jacob  have  I  loved,  but  Esau  have  I  hated." 
The  "  election"  here  spoken  of,  or  God's  jmrposc  to 
elect,  relates  to  Jacob  being  chosen  in  preference  to 
Esau;  wliich  election,  as  we  have  seen,  respected  the 
descendants  of  Jacob.  Now,  if  this  meant  the  election 
of  the  pious  descendants  of  Jacob  only,  and  not  his  na- 
tural descendants ;  then  the  opposition  between  the 
election  of  the  progeny  of  .Jacob,  and  the  non-election 
of  the  progeny  of  Esau,  is  destroyed ;  and  there  was 
no  reason  to  say  "  Jacob  have  I  loved,  but  Esau  have 
I  hated,"  or  loved  less;  but  the  pious  descendants  of 
Jacob  have  I  loved  and  elected  ;  and  the  rest  I  have  not 
loved,  and  therefore  have  not  elected.  Some  of  the 
Calvinislic  commentators  have  felt  this  difficulty,  and 
therefore  say,  that  these  cases  are  not  given  as  exatn- 
ptcs  of  the  election  and  reprobation  of  which  the  apos- 
tle speaks;  bm  as  illustrations  of  it.  If  considered  as 
illustrations,  they  must  be  felt  to  be  of  a  very  perplex- 
ing kind ;  ibr  how  the  preference  of  one  nation  to  ano- 
ther, when, as  we  have  seen,  this  did  not  infallibly  se- 
cure the  .salvation  of  the  more  favoured  nation,  nor  the 
eternal  destruction  of  the  less  favoured,  can  illustrate 
the  election  of  individuals  to  eternal  life,  and  the  re- 
probation of  other  individuals  to  eternal  death,  is  diffi- 
cult to  conceive.  But  they  are  manifestly  exa?nples  of 
that  one  election,  of  which  the  apostle  speaks  through- 
out ;  and  not  illustrations  of  one  kind  of  election  by 
another.  They  are  the  instances  which  he  gives  in 
proof  that  the  election  of  the  believing  Jews  of  his  day 
to  be,  along  with  the  believing  Gentiles,  the  visible 
church  of  God,  and  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  after  the 
flesh,  was  not  contrary  to  the  promises  of  God  made  to 
Abraham ;  because  God  had,  in  former  times,  made 
distinctions  between  the  natural  descendants  of  Abra- 
ham as  to  church  privileges,  without  any  impeach- 
ment of  his  faithfulness  to  his  word.  Again,  if  the 
election  of  which  the  apostle  speaks  were  that  of  pious 
Jews  in  all  ages,  so  that  they  alone  stood  in  a  church 
relation  to  God,  and  were  thus  the  only  Jews  in  cove- 
nant with  him  ;  how  could  he  speak  of  the  rejection 
of  the  other  portion  of  the  Jews '  Of  their  being  cut  off] 
Of  the  covenants  "  pertaining"  to  them  ?  They  could 
not  be  rejected  who  were  never  received;  nor  cut  off, 
who  were  never  branches  in  the  stock ;  nor  have  co- 
venants pertaining  to  them,  if  in  these  covenants  they 
had  never  been  included. 

3.  This  notion,  that  the  ancient  election  of  a  part  of 
the  descendants  of  Abraham  spoken  of  by  the  apostle 
was  of  the  jiious  Jews  only,  and,  therefore,  a  personal 
election  is,  in  part,  grounded  by  these  commentators 
upon  a  mistaken  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  sixth,  se- 
venth, eighth,  and  niiiili  v<tsos  of  this  chapter ;  in  which 
they  have  been  soiEictiuirs  incautiously  Ibllowed  by 
those  of  very  difrercu!  s( uliinrms,  and  who  have  thus 
somewhat  entangled  lhciii.s<Jvijw.  "  I\ot  as  though  the 
word  of  God  hath  taken  none  elfect.  I'or  they  are  not 
all  Israel  which  are  of  Israel  :  neither,  because  they 
arc  the  seed  of  Abraham  are  they  all  children  :  but,  in 
Isaac  shall  thy  .-jeed  be  called.    That  is,  lliey  which 


are  the  children  of  the  llesli,  these  arc  not  the  children 
of  (iod  :  but  the  children  of  the  promise  are  counted  lor 
the  seed.  For  this  is  the  word  of  promise.  At  this 
time  will  1  come,  and  iSarah  shall  have  a  son."  In 
this  iiassage,  the  iiiler|)reters  in  (juestion  suppose  that 
iSt.  Paul  distinguishes  between  the  spiritual  Israelites, 
and  those  of  natural  descent;  betwi«n  the  spiritual 
seeil  of  Abraham,  and  his  seed  according  to  the  llcsh. 
Vet  the  passage  not  only  allords  no  evidence  that  this 
was  his  intention  ;  but  implies  just  the  contrary.  Our 
view  of  its  meaning  is  given  above ;  but  it  may  be  ne- 
cessary to  support  it  more  fully. 

Let  it  then  be  recollected,  that  the  apostle  is  speaking 
of  that  great  event,  the  rejection  ol  the  Jews  from  being 
any  longer  the  visible  church  of  God,  on  account  of 
natural  descent ;  and  tliat  in  this  passage  he  shows 
that  the  purpose  of  God  to  construct  his  church  upon 
a  new  basis,  that  of  faith  in  Christ,  although  it  would 
exclude  the  body  of  the  Jewish  people  from  this  church, 
since  they  refused  "  the  election  of  grace"  through  faith, 
would  not  prove  that  "  the  word  of  God  had  fallen"  to 
the  ground,  or  as  the  literal  meaning  of  the  original  is 
rendered  in  our  version,  "  has  taken  none  ell(;ct."' 
The  word  of  (Jod  referred  to  can  only  be  God's  orgiiial 
promise  to  Abraham,  to  be  "  a  God  to  him  and  to  his 
seed  after  him  ;"  which  was  often  repeated  to  the  Jew ; 
in  afler  ages,  in  the  covenant  engagement,  "  I  will  be 
to  you  a  God,  and  ye  shall  be  to  nie  a  people  ;"  a  mode 
of  expression  which  signifies,  in  all  the  connexions  in 
wliich  it  stand.s,  an  engagement  to  acknowledge  them 
as  his  visible  church  :  he  being  publicly  acknowledged 
on  their  part  as  "  their  God,"  or  object  of  worship  and 
trust;  and  they,  on  the  other,  being  acknowledged  by 
him  as  his  peculiar  "  people."  This,  therefore,  we  are 
to  lake  to  be  the  sense  of  the  promise  to  Abraham  and 
to  his  seed.  How  then  does  the  apostle  prove  that  tho 
"  word  of  God  had  not  fallen  to  the  ground,"  although 
the  natural  seed  of  Abraham,  the  .Tews  of  that  day,  had 
been  rejected  as  his  church  \  lie  proves  it  by  showmg 
that  all  the  children  of  Abraham  by  natural  descent 
had  not,  in  the  original  intention  of  the  promise,  been 
"counted,"  or  reckoned,  as  "  the  seed"  to  which  these 
promises  liad  been  made ;  and  this  he  establishes  by 
referring  to  those  acts  of  God  by  which  he  had,  in  hi.s 
sovereign  pleasure,  conferred  the  church  relation  upon 
the  descendants  of  Abraham  only  in  certain  lines,  as  in 
those  of  Isaac  and  Jacob,  and  excluded  the  others.  In 
this  view,  the  argument  is  cogent  to  his  purpose.  By 
the  exercise  of  the  same  sovereignty  God  had  now  re- 
solved not  to  connect  the  church  relation  with  natural 
descent,  even  in  the  line  of  Isaac  and  .lacob;  but  to  es- 
tablish it  on  a  ground  which  might  comprehend  the 
Gentile  nations  also,  the  common  ground  of  faith  in 
Christ.  The  mere  children  of  the  flesh  were,  there- 
fore, in  tliis  instance  e.xcluded ;  and  "  the  children  of 
the  promise,"  the  promise  now  made  to  believing  Jews 
and  Gentiles,  those  begotten  by  the  word  of  the  Gospel, 
were  "  counted  for  the  seed."  But  though  it  is  a  great 
truth,  that  only  the  children  of  the  Gospel  promise  are 
now  "  counted  for  tlie  seed ;"  it  does  not  follow  that 
the  children  of  the  promise  made  to  Sarah  were  all  spi- 
ritual persons  ;  and,  as  such,  the  only  subjects  of  that 
church  relation  which  was  connected  with  that  cir- 
cumstance. That  the  Gentiles  who  believed  upon  tho 
publication  of  the  Gospel  were  always  contemplated  as 
a  part  of  that  seed  to  which  the  promises  were  made, 
the  apostle  shows  in  a  former  part  of  the  same  epistle ; 
but  that  "  mystery"  was  not  in  early  times  revealed. 
God  had  not  then  formed,  nor  did  he  till  the  apostle's 
age  form  liis  visible  church  solely  on  the  principle  of 
faith  and  a  moral  relation.  Tliis  is  the  character  of  the 
new,  not  of  the  old  dispensation;  and  the  diflerent 
grounds  of  the  church  relation  were  suited  to  the  de- 
sign of  each.  One  was  to  preserve  truth  from  extinc- 
tion; the  other  to  extend  it  into  all  nations:  in  one, 
therefore,  a  single  people,  taken  as  a  nation  into  politi- 
cal as  well  as  religious  relations  with  God,  was  made 
the  deposite  of  the  truth  to  be  preserved  ;  in  the  other, 
a  national  distinction,  and  lines  of  natural  descent, 
could  not  be  recognised,  because  the  object  was  to  call 
all  nations  to  the  ohcdicncc  ot  tlie  .same  faith,  .and  to 
place  all  on  an  eciuality  bclijrc  God.  As  itip  very  ground 
of  the  church  relation,  tluii,  under  the  t>ld  Testament, 
was  natural  descent  from  Abraham;  and  as  it  was 
mi.xed  up  and  even  identified  with  a  political  rela- 
tion also,  the  ancient  election  of  which  the  apostle 
speaks  could  not  b»!  conliiicd  to  spiritual  Jews  ■  and 


336 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


oven  il'  it  coul J  tie  proved,  that  tlic  cliiircli  ol' fioil,  mnkr 
the  new  dispensation,  is  to  l)c  tonlined  to  trne  licliovcrs 
only,  yet  that  wonld  not  prove  that  the  ancient  <  liureli 
of  God  liad  that  t)asis  alone,  since  we  know  it  had 
another,  and  a  more  general  one.  When,  therefore, 
(he  apostle  says,  "  for  they  are  not  all  Israel  which 
arc  of  Israel,"  the  distinction  is  not  between  the  spi- 
rltnal  and  the  natural  Israelites;  but  betwi^eii  lliatpnrt 
of  the  Israelites  who  continued  to  enjoy  church  pnvi- 
leges,  and  those  who  were  "  of  Lsrael,"  or  descemlants 
of  Jacob,  surnamed  Israel,  as  the  ten  tribes  and  parts 
of  the  two,  who,  bein^  dispersed  among  the  heathen, 
lor  their  sins,  were  no  longer  a  part  of  God's  visible 
church.  This  is  the  first  instance  which  the  ajiostle 
gives  of  the  rejection  of  a  part  of  the  natural  seed  of 
Abraham  from  the  promise.  He  strengthens  the  argu- 
ment by  going  up  higher,  even  to  those  who  had  imme- 
diately been  born  to  Abraliam,  the  very  children  of  his 
body,  Ishmael  and  Isaac.  "  The  children  ofthcjlcsh;" 
that  is,  Ishmael  and  his  descendants  (so  called,  be- 
cause he  was  bom  naturally,  not  supernaturally,  as 
Isaac  was,  according  to  "  the  jiromise"  made  to  Abra- 
ham and  Sarah) ;— they,  says  the  apostle,  are  not  the 
"  children  of  f!od  ;"  that  is,  iis  the  context  still  shows, 
not  "  the  seed"  to  whom  the  promise  that  he  would  be 
'•  a  God  to  Abraham  and  his  seed"  was  made:  "  but 
the  children  of  the  promise,"  that  is,  Isaa(^  and  his  de- 
scendants were  "  counted  for  the  seed."  And  that  we 
might  not  mistake  this,  "  the  promise"  referred  to  is 
added  by  the  apostle  ; — "  for  this  is  the  word  of  the  pro- 
mise. At  this  time  will  I  come,  and  Sarah  shall  have  a 
son."  Oflhis  promise,  the  Israelites  by  natural  descent, 
were  as  much  "  the  childrerC  as  the  spiritual  Israel- 
ites ;  and,  therefore,  to  confine  it  to  the  latter  is  wholly 
gratuitous,  and  contrary  to  the  words  of  the  apostle. 
It  is  indeed  an  interesting  truth,  that  a  deep  and  spirit- 
ual mystery  ran  through  that  part  of  the  history  of 
Abraham  here  referred  to,  wliich  the  apostle  opens  m 
his  Epi.stle  to  the  Galatians :  "  The  children  of  the 
bondwoman  and  her  son,"  symbolized  the  .lews'  who 
sought  justification  by  the  law  ;  and  "  the  children  of 
the  promise,"  "  the  ehildren  of  the  free- woman,"  tlio-^ie 
who  were  justified  by  faith,  and  born  supernaturally, 
that  is  "  born  again,"  and  made  heirs  of  the  heavenly 
inheritance.  But  these  things,  says  St.  Paul,  are  an 
"  ALLEOORv  ;"  and  therefore  could  not  be  the  thing 
allegorized,  any  more  than  a  type  can  be  the  thing 
typified;  for  a  type  is  always  of  an  inferior  nature  to 
tiic  antitype,  and  is  indeed  something  earthly,  adum- 
brating that  which  is  spiritual  and  heavenly.  It  fol- 
lows, therefore,  that  although  the  choosing  of  Isaac  and 
Ills  descendants  prefigured  the  choosing  of  true  be- 
lievers (persons  born  supernaturally  under  the  (Gospel 
dispen.sation),  to  be  "  the  children  of  God ;"  and  that  the 
rejection  of  the  "  chiUlren  of  the  llesli"  tyiiilied  the  re- 
jection of  the  unbelieving  .lews  from  (.'od's  church,  be- 
cause they  had  nothiim  but  natural  descent  to  (ilcad  : 
nay,  though  we  allow  that  these  events  might  be  alle- 
gorical, on  one  part,  of  the  truly  believing  Israelites  in 
all  ages ;  and  on  the  other,  of  those  who  were  .lews 
only  "  outwardly,"  and  therefore,  as  to  the  heavenly 
inheritance,  were  not  "  heirs;"  yet  still  that  which  ty- 
pified and  ripre.sented  in  allegory  these  spiritual  mys- 
teries was  iicit  i  lie  spiritual  mystery  itself  II  was  a  com- 
paratively griiss  and  earthly  representation  of  it ;  and  the 
passage  is,  therefore,  to  be  understood  of  the  election 
of  the  natural  descendants  of  Isaac,  as  the  children  of 
the  promise  made  to  Sarah,  to  be  "  the  seed"  to  which 
the  promises  of  church  privileges  and  a  clinrrli  relaljun 
were  inlfiidcdto  be  in  force,  though  siill  Kubjcil  lo  tin; 
election  olllic  line  of  Jacob  in  preference  lo  thai  oflOsuu  ; 
and  subject  again,  at  a  still  greater  distance  of  time,  to 
the  election  of  the  tribe  of  .luilah,  to  continue  (hid's  vi- 
sible church  till  the  coming  of  Messiah,  whiU;  the  ten 
tribes,  who  were  etiually  "  of  Israel,"  were  rejected. 

4.  That  this  election  of  bodies  of  men  to  be  the  visi- 
ble church  of  (Jod  involved  the  election  of  individuals 
into  the  true  church  of  God,  and  conseiiucnlly  their 
(lection  to  eternal  Ufe,  is  readily  aiknowlcd^ed;  but 
this  weakens  not  in  the  least  the  arsiunn  nis  by  which 
we  have  shown  that  the  apostle,  in  this  chapter,  speaks 
of  collective,  and  not  of  individual  election :  on  the 
contrary,  it  eslablislu'S  them.  I,et  uh,  to  illusirale  this, 
first  take  the  case  of  the  ancient  Jewish  church. 

The  end  of  God's  eUiclion  of  bodies  of  men  to  peculiar 
religious  advantages  is,  doubtless,  as  to  the  indiviiluais 
of  which  iheac  boUies  are  connwsuU,  their  recovery 


from  Kin,  and  their  eternal  salvation.  Hence,  to  all 
such  individuals  superior  means  of  instruction,  and 
more  ellicient  means  of  salvation  are  allbrded,  along 
with  a  deeper  responsibility.  The  election  of  an  indi- 
vidual into  the  true  church  by  writing  his  name  in 
heaven  is,  however,  an  efiect  dependent  upon  the  elec- 
tion of  the  body  to  which  he  belongs.  It  follows  only 
froni  his  pcrsMii;d  repentance  and  justifying  faith;  or 
else  we  iiiusi  .say,  that  men  are  members  of  the  trtie 
spiritual  church  befiire  thiy  repent  and  have  justifying 
lUith,  liir  which,  assuredly,  we  have  no  warrant  in 
iscriiiture.  Individual  election  is  then  another  act  of 
(iod,  subsequent  to  the  former.  'I'he  former  is  sove- 
reign and  unconditional ;  the  latter  rests  upon  revealed 
reasons ;  and  is  not,  a.s  we  shall  just  now  more  fully 
show,  unconditional.  These  two  kinds  of  election, 
therefore,  are  not  to  be  confounded ;  and  it  is  absurd 
to  argue  that  collective  election  has  no  existence,  be- 
cause there  is  an  individual  election ;  since  the  latter, 
on  the  contrary,  necessarily  supiioses  the  fi)rmer.  The 
.lews,  as  a  body,  had  their  visible  church  state,  and 
outwaril  privileges,  although  the  pious  Jews  alone 
availed  themselves  of  them  to  their  own  personal  sal- 
vation. As  to  the  Christian  church,  there  is  a  great 
difl'erence  in  its  circumstances ;  but  the  jirinciple,  though 
modified,  is  siill  there. 

The  basis  of  this  church  was  to  be,  not  nattiral  de- 
scent from  a  common  head ;  marking  out,  as  that 
church,  some  distinct  family,  tribe,  and,  as  it  increased 
in  numbers,  some  one  nation,  invested  too,  as  a  nation 
must  be,  with  a  political  character  and  state  ;  but  faith 
in  Christ.  Yet  even  this  faith  supposes  a  previous 
sovereign  and  xincouditional  collective  election.  For, 
as  the  apostle  argues,  "  faith  cometh  by  hearing,  and 
hearing  by  the  word  of  God  :  but  how  shall  they  hear 
without  a  preacher?  and  how  shall  they  preach  except 
they  be  sent  ?"  Now  this  sending  to  one  Gentile  nation 
before  another  Gentile  nation,  a  distinction  wliich  con- 
tinues to  be  made  in  the  administration  of  the  Divine 
Government  to  this  day,  is  that  sovereign  unconditional 
election  of  the  jieoplc  constituting  that  nation,  to  the 
means  of  becoming  God's  church  by  the  preaching  of 
the  Gosjiel,  through  the  men  '^sitiV  to  them  for  this 
purpose.  The  persons  who  first  believed  were,  lor  the 
most  part,  real  Christians,  in  the  sense  of  being  truly 
and  in  heart  turnecl  to  God.  They  could  not  generally 
go  so  far  as  to  be  baptized  into  the  name  of  Christ,  in 
the  face  of  persecution,  and  in  oiiposiijon  lo  their  own 
former  prejudices,  without  a  considerable  previous 
ripeness  of  experience,  and  decision  of  character.  Un- 
der the  character  of  "  saints"  in  the  highest  sense,  the 
primitive  churches  are  addressed  in  the  apostolical 
epistles ;  and  such  we  are  bound  lo  conclude  they 
were,  or  they  would  not  have  been  so  called  by  men 
who  had  the  "  discernment  of  spirits."  Whatever, 
then,  the  number  was,  whether  small  or  great,  who  first 
received  the  word  of  the  Gospel  m  every  place,  they 
openly  i^oiilesscd  Christ,  assembled  for  public  worship; 
and  tlnis  the  jiromise  was  fulfilled  in  them:  "I  will 
bo  to  them  a  (Jod,"  the  object  of  worship  and  trust; 
"and  they  shall  be  to  me  a  people."  They  became 
God's  visible  church ;  and  for  (he  most  part  entered 
into  that  and  into  the  true  and  spiritual  church  at  the 
same  time.  But  this  was  not  the  case  with  all  the 
members ;  and  we  have  therefore  still  an  election  of 
bodies  of  men  to  a  visible  church  state,  independent  of 
their  election  as  "  heirs  of  eternal  life."  The  children 
of  believers,  even  as  children,  and  therefore  inca))ablc 
of  fiiilh,  ilid  not  remain  in  the  same  stale  of  alienation 
Ihiiii  (.'lid  as  Ibe  children  of  unbelievers;  nay,  though 
bill  oni!  jiareiit  lu^lii'vcd,  yet  the  children  ar(^  pronounced 
by  .St.  I'aul  to  be  "holy."  "  For  the  unbelieving  hus- 
band is  sanctified  by  the  wile,  and  the  unbelieving 
wife  by  the  husband  ;  else,  were  your  children  unclean, 
but  now  they  are  holy."  When  both  parents  believed, 
and  trained  up  their  families  to  believe  hi  Christ,  and 
to  worship  the  true  God,  the  case  was  stronger :  the 
liimily  WHS  then  "a  church  in  the  house,"  though  all 
the  meiiiliers  of  It  miiiht  not  have  saving  faith.  Sincere 
faith  oriissiiii  lo  Ihe  (;ospel,  with  desires  of  instruction 
and  salvation,  appear  lo  have  umfiirmly  entitled  the 
per.son  to  baptism  ;  and  Iho  use  ol'Christiiiii  cirdiiiances 
followed.  The  numbers  of  the  viNiblc  chiinli  swelled 
nil  it  comiireheiided  cities,  and  at  last  iiinnlries;  whose 
inhabitants  were  llius  elciied  In  spicial  religious  privi- 
leges, and,  forsaking  iilols  and  worshipping:  G'od,  con- 
stituted his  visible  church  uinoiig  Gentile  nations.    And 


Chap.  XXVI.] 


TPIEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


337 


that  the  apostle  Paul  rcgardeil  all  who  ■'  called  upon  tlie 
name  oC  tlie  Lonl"  as  Clirisiian  churches,  is  evident 
I'roni  Ills  asscrtini;  his  authority  of  reproof  and  counsel, 
and  even  excision,  over  theiiij  as  to  their  unworthy 
members;  and  also  from  his  threatening  the  (ientile 
churches  with  the  fate  of  the  .lewish  church ;  unless 
Ihey  stood  by  faith,  they  also  should  be  "cut  olT;"  that 
is,  be  unchurched.  Of  his  full  meaning  subsequent 
history  gives  the  elucidation  in  the  case  of  those  very 
churches  in  Asia  Minor  which  he  himself  planted  ;  and 
which,  departing  from  the  faith  of  Christ,  his  true  doc- 
trine, have  been,  in  many  instances,  "cut  o/T,"  and 
swallowed  up  in  the  Mohammedan  delusion  ;  so  that 
Christ  iti  there  no  longer  worshipped.  The  whole 
proves  a  sovereign  unconditional  election  independent 
of  j)ersoiial  election  ;  unconditional  as  to  the  people  to 
wliom  the  Gospel  was  first  .sent;  unconditional  as  tr) 
the  children  born  of  believing  parents ;  unconditional 
as  to  the  iidiabitants  of  those  countries  who,  when  a 
Christian  church  was  first  established  among  them, 
came,  without  seeking  it,  into  the  possession  of  inva- 
luable and  efficacious  means  and  ordinances  of  Chris- 
tian iiistniction  and  salvation ;  and  who  all  finally,  by 
education,  became  professors  of  the  true  faith,  and,  as 
far  as  assent  goes,  sincere  believer.^.  This  election, 
too,  as  in  the  Jewish  church,  was  made  with  reference 
to  a  personal  election  into  the  true  spiritual  church  of 
(Jod  ;  but  personal  election  was  conditional.  It  rested, 
as  we  have  seen,  upon  personal  repentance  and  justify- 
ing faith ;  or  else  we  must  hold  that  men  could  be 
members  of  the  true  church  without  either.  This  elec- 
tion was  then  dependent  upon  the  other;  and,  instead 
of  disproving,  abundantly  confirms  it.  The  tenor  of 
the  apostle's  argument  .sufiiciently  shows  that  the 
transfer  of  the  church  state  and  relation  from  one  body 
of  men  to  others,  is  that  which  in  this  discourse  he  has 
in  view — in  other  words,  he  speaks  of  the  election  of 
bodies  of  men  to  religious  advantages,  not  of  individuals 
to  eternal  life;  and  however  inlnnately  the  one  may 
be  connected  with  the  other,  the  latter  is  not  necessarily 
involved  in  the  former;  since  superior  religious  privi- 
leges, in  all  ages,  have,  to  many,  proved  but  an  aggra- 
vation of  their  condenmation. 

The  THIRD  kind  of  election  is  personal  election;  or 
the  election  of  individuals  to  be  the  cliildren  of  God, 
and  the  heirs  of  eternal  life. 

It  is  not  at  all  disputed  between  us  and  those  who 
liold  the  Calvinistic  view  of  election,  whether  believers 
in  Christ  are  called  the  klicigt  of  God  with  reference 
10  their  individual  state  and  individual  relation  to  God 
as  his  "  people,"  in  the  highest  sense  of  that  phrase. 
Such  passages  as  "the  elect  of  God;"  "chosen  of 
CJod  ;■'  "  chosen  in  Christ ;"  "  elect  according  to  the 
foreknowledge  of  (;od  the  Father;"  and  many  others, 
we  allow,  therefore,  although  borrowed  from  that  col- 
lective election  of  which  we  have  spoken,  to  be  descrip- 
tive of  an  act  of  grace  in  favour  of  certain  persons  con- 
sidered individually. 

The  first  question,  then,  which  naturally  arises, 
respects  the  import  of  that  act  of  grace  which  is  termed 
ciioosing,  or  an  election.  It  is  not  a  choosing  to  par- 
ticular offices  and  service,  which  is  the  first'  kind  of 
election  we  have  mentioned ;  nor  is  it  that  collective 
election  to  religious  privileges  and  a  visible  church 
state,  on  which  we  have  more  largely  dwelt.  For 
although  "  the  elect"  have  an  individual  interest  in 
.such  an  election  as  parts  of  the  collective  body,  thus 
jilaced  in  possession  of  the  ordinances  of  Christianity ; 
yet  many  others  have  the  same  advantages,  who  still 
remain  under  the  guilt  and  condemnation  of  sin  and 
practical  unbelief.  The  individuals  projierly  called 
"  the  elect"  are  they  who  have  been  made  partakers  of 
the  grace  and  saving  eilicacy  of  the  Gospel.  "  Many," 
says  our  Lord,  "  are  called,  but  few  chosen." 

What  true  personal  election  is  we  shall  find  explained 
in  two  clear  jiassages  of  Scripture.  It  is  explained 
negatively  by  our  Lord  where  he  says  to  his  disciiiles, 
"  I  have  chosen  you  out  of  the  world:"  it  is  explained 
positively  by  St.  I'eter  when  he  addresses  his  lirst 
e|>istle  to  the  "elect,  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of 
(Jod  the  Father,  throush  sanctification  of  the  Siiirit, 
unto  obedience  and  spriiiUliag  of  the  blood  of  .lesus." 
To  he  elected,  therefore,  is  to  be  separated  from  "  the 
world,"  and  to  be  sanctified  by  the  Si)irit  and  by  tJie 
blood  of  Christ. 

It  follows,  then,  that  election  is  not  only  an  act  of 
God  done  in  (iinc  ;  but  also  that  it  is  subsequent  to  the 


administration  ofthc  means  of  salvation.  The  "calling" 
goes  before  the  "election  ;"  the  |iubUcatiou  of  the  doc- 
trine of  "  the  Spirit"  and  the  atonement,  called  by  reter 
"the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ,"  before  that 
"sanctification"  through  which  they  become  "the 
elect"  of  God.  The  doctrine  of  eternal  election  is  thus 
brought  down  to  its  true  meaning.  Actual  election 
cannot  be  eternal;  for,  from  eternity,  the  elect  were 
not  actually  chosen  out  of  the  world,  and  from  etcniity 
they  could  not  be  "sanctified  unto  obedience."  The 
plirases  "eternal  election,"  and  "eternal  decree  of 
elei:tion,"  so  often  in  the  lips  of  Calvinists,  can,  in 
common  sense,  therefore,  mean  only  an  eternal  jnirpose 
to  elect ;  or  a  purpose  Ibrmed  in  eternity  to  elect,  or 
choose  out  of  the  world,  and  sanctify  in  time  by  "  the 
Spirit  and  the  blood  of  Jesus."  This  is  a  doctrine 
which  no  one  will  contend  with  them  ;  but  when  they 
graft  upon  it  another,  that  God  hath,  from  eternity, 
"chosen  in  Christ  unto  salvation"  a  set  number  of 
men,  "  certam  quorundam  ho/iiinum  ynidtitudinem  ;" 
not  upon  foresight  of  faith  and  the  obedience  of  faith, 
holiness,  or  of  any  other  good  quality  or  disposition  (a.s 
a  cause  or  condition  before  required  in  man  to  be 
chosen) ;  but  unto  faith,  and  the  obedience  of  faith,  ho- 
liness, (fee,  "non  ex  prasvisn  Jide,  Jideique  obedientia, 
sanctitate,  avt  alia  alii/iia  bona  qualitate  et  disjtosi- 
tione,"  &c.,(fi)  it  presents  itself  under  a  different  aspect, 
and  requires  an  ap]ieal  to  the  Word  of  God. 

This  view  of  election  has  two  parts :  it  is  the  choos- 
ing of  a  set  or  determinate  number  of  men,  who  cannot 
be  increa.sed  or  diminished;  and  it  is  unconditional. 
Let  us  consider  each. 

With  respect  to  the  first,  there  is  no  text  of  Scripture 
which  teaches  that  a  fixed  and  determinate  number  of 
men  are  elected  to  eternal  life  ;  and  the  passages  which 
the  Synod  of  Uort  adduce  in  proof  being  such  as  they 
only  infer  the  doctrine  froin,  the  Synod  themselves 
allow  that  they  have  no  express  scriptural  evidence  for 
this  tenet.  But  if  there  is  no  explicit  Scripture  in  favour 
of  the  opinion,  there  is  much  against  it ;  and  to  this 
test  it  must,  therefore,  be  brought. 

The  election  here  spoken  of  must  either  be  election  in 
eternity,  or  election  in  time.  If  the  former,  it  can  only 
mean  a  purpose  of  electing  in  time  :  if  the  latter,  it  is 
actual  election,  or  choosing  out  of  the  world. 

Now,  as  to  God's  eternal  purpose  to  elect,  it  is  clear, 
that  is  a  subject  on  which  we  can  know  nothing  hut 
from  his  own  revelation.  We  take,  then,  the  matter 
on  this  ground.  A  purjiose  to  elect  is  a  purpose  to 
save  ;  and  when  it  is  explicitly  declared  in  this  revela- 
tion that  God  "willeth  all  men  to  be  saved,"  and  that 
"  he  willeth  not  the  death  of  a  sinner,"  either  we  mu.st 
say,  that  his  will  is  contrary  to  his  purpose,  which 
would  be  to  charge  God  foolishly,  and  indeed  has  no 
meaning  at  all ;  or  it  agrees  with  his  purpose.  If  then 
his  will  agrees  with  his  purpose,  that  purpose  was  not 
confined  to  a  "certain  determinate  number  of  men;" 
but  extended  to  all  ^'vliosnever"  should  believe,  that 
they  might  be  elected  and  saved. 

Again,  we  have  established  it  as  the  doctrine  of 
Scripture,  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  died  for  all  men, 
that  all  men  through  him  might  be  saved  ;  but  if  he 
died  in  order  to  their  salvation  through  faith,  he  died 
in  order  to  their  election  through  faith ;  and  God  mu.st 
have  purposed  this  from  eternity. 

Farther,  we  have  his  own  message  to  all  to  whom 
his  servants  preach  the  Gospel.  They  are  commanded 
to  preach  "  to  every  creature," — "  He  that  believeth 
shall  be  saved ;  and  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned."  This  is  an  unquestionable  decree  of  God  in 
time;  and,  if  God  be  unchangeable,  it  was  his  decree, 
as  touching  this  matter,  from  all  eternity.  But  this 
dc'cree  or  purpose  can  in  no  way  be  reconciled  to  the 
doctrine  of  an  eternal  purpose  to  elect  only  "a  set  and 
determinate  number."  For  the  Gospel  could  not  be 
good  neiDs  to  "  every  creature"  to  wliom  it  should  be 
as  such  proclaimed,  whicli  is  the  first  contradiction  to 
the  text.  Nor  would  those  who  believe  it  not,  but  who 
are  nevertheless  commanded  to  believe  it,  have  any 
power  to  believe  it,  which  is  the  second  contradiction : 
for  since  they  are  to  be  "damned"  for  not  believing, 
they  must  have  had  the  power  to  believe,  or  they  could 
not  have  come  into  condemnation  for  an  act  imjiossible 
to  them  to  perform,  or  else  we  must  admit  it  as  a  prin- 
ciple of  the  Divine  government,  that  God  commands 


(Ci)  Judgineiit  of  the  Synoii  of  Uort. 


338 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


his  creatures  to  do  what  under  no  circuinstaines  tliey 
can  do  ;  and  then  punishes  tlieni  for  not  doin);  wliat  he 
thus  commands.  Finally,  lie  commands  those  that 
believe  not,  and  who  are  alleged  not  to  be  included  in 
this  "  fixed  number"  of  elected  persons,  to  believe  the 
good  tidinf.'s,  as  a  matter  in  which  they  are  iiUerested  : 
Ihey  are  cuMimanded  to  believe  the  (iospel  as  a  truth; 
bui  if  they  are  not  interested  in  it,  they  arc  conunandi^d  to 
believe  a  Ihlselmod.  which  is  the  third  contradiction  ;  and 
thus  the  text  and  the  doctrine  cannot  consist  together. 
A.s  the  whole  argument  on  tlus  point  is  involved  in 
what  we  have  already  established  concerning  the  uni- 
versal extent  of  the  benellts  of  Christ's  death,  we  may 
leave  it  to  be  determined  by  what  has  been  advanced  on 
that  topic  ;  observing  only  that  two  of  the  ])oints  there 
confirmed  bear  directly  upon  the  doctrine,  that  election 
is  confined  to  a  "  fi.xed  numlier  of  men."  If  we  have 
])roved  from  Scripture,  that  the  reason  of  the  condem- 
nation of  men  lies  in  themselves,  and  not  in  the  want 
of  a  sufficient  and  effectual  provision  having  been  made 
in  (Jhrist  (or  their  salvation,  then  the  number  of  the 
actually  elect  might  be  increased;  and  if  it  has  been  es- 
tablished that  those  for  whom  Christ  died  might 
"  perish ;"  and  that  true  believers  may  "  turn  back  unto 
perdition,"  and  be  "  cast  away,"  and  fall  into  a  stale  in 
which  it  were  better  for  them  "  never  to  have  known 
the  way  of  righteousness,"  then  the  number  of  the 
elect  may  be  diminished.  To  what  has  already  been 
said  on  these  subjects  the  reader  is  referred ;  and  we 
shall  now  only  mention  a  few  of  the  difficulties  with 
which  the  doctrine  of  an  election  from  eternity  of  a  de- 
terminate number  of  men  to  be  made  heirs  of  eternal 
life  is  attended. 

Whether  men  will  look  to  the  dark  and  repug- 
nant side  of  this  doctrine  of  the  eternal  election  of  a 
certain  number  of  men  unto  salvation,  or  not,  it  una- 
voidably follows  from  it,  that  all  but  the  persons  so 
chosen  in  Christ  are  placed  utterly  and  absolutely,  from 
their  very  birth,  out  of  the  reach  of  salvation  ;  and  have 
no  share  at  all  In  the  saving  mercies  of  God,  who  from 
eternity  purposed  to  reject  them,  and  that  not  for  their 
fault  as  sinners.  For  all,  except  Adam  and  Eve,  have 
come  into  the  world  with  a  nature  which,  left  to  itself, 
could  not  but  sin ;  and  as  the  determination  of  God 
never  to  give  the  reprobate  the  means  of  avoiding  sin, 
coidd  not  rest  upon  their  fault,  for  what  is  absolutely 
inevitable  cannot  be  charged  on  man  as  his  fault,  so  it 
must  rest  where  all  the  high  Calvinislic  divines  place 
it, — upon  the  mere  will  and  sovereign  pleasure  of  God. 
The  difficulties  of  reconciling  such  a  scheme  as  this 
to  the  nature  of  God,  not  as  it  is  fancied  by  man,  but  as 
it  is  revealed  in  his  own  word  ;  and  to  many  otlier  de- 
clarations of  Scripture  as  to  the  principles  of  the  ad- 
ministration both  of  his  law  and  of  his  grace ;  one 
would  suppose  insuperable  by  any  mind,  and  indeed  are 
so  revolting,  that  few  of  those  who  cling  to  the  doc- 
trine of  election  will  be  found  bold  enough  to  keep 
them  steadily  in  sight.  They  even  think  it  uncandid 
for  us  who  oi)iio.se  these  views  to  pursue  them  to  their 
legitimate  logical  conseiiuences.  But  in  discussion  this 
is  inevitable  ;  and  if  it  be  done  in  fairness,  and  in  the 
spirit  of  (candour,  without  pushing  hanl  arguments  into 
hard  wonls,  the  cause  of  truth,  and  a  right  understand- 
ing of  the  Word  of  <;od,  will  thereby  be  promoted. 

The  doctrine  of  the  election  to  eternal  life  only  of  a 
certain  determinate  iiuml)er  of  men  to  salvation,  involv- 
ing, as  it  necessarily  does,  the  doctrine  of  the  absolute 
and  unconditional  reprobation  of  all  the  rest  of  man- 
kind, cannot,  we  may  confidently  alhnn,  be  reconciled, 

1.  To  the  i,(pvK  of  God.  "God  is  Love."  "He  is 
loving  to  every  man :  and  his  tender  mercies  are  over 
all  his  works." 

2.  Nor  to  the  wisnoM  of  God  ;  for  the  bringing  into 
being  a  vast  number  of  intelligent  creatures  under  a 
necessity  of  sinning,  and  of  being  eternally  lost,  teaihes 
no  moral  lesson  to'the  world  ;  and  contradirts  all  those 
notions  of  wisdom  in  the  ends  and  processes  of  govern- 
ment which  we  are  taught  to  bok  liir,  not  only  from 
natural  reason,  but  from  the  Scriiiinns. 

'.i.  Nor  to  the  oiiACKOf  God,  whuli  is  so  often  mag- 
nified in  the  Scriptures:  "for  doth  it  argue  any  sove- 
reign or  high  strain,  any  supcrabounding  richness  of 
grace  or  mercy  In  any  man,  whi^n  nn  tliou.sand  have 
tHjually  otfciided  him,  only  lo  pardon  one  or  two  of 
them  ?"(7)    And  on  such  a  scheme  can  there  be  any  in- 

(7)  Gooi>wi'n's  Agreement  and  DiU'crciicf. 


[Part  11. 

terprctation  given  of  the  passage,  "  that  where  sin  had 
abounded,  grace  might  much  more  abound  V'  or  in 
what  sense  has  "  the  grace  of  Gorl  appeared  unto  all 
men ;"  or  even  to  one  millionth  jjart  of  them  ? 

4.  Nor  can  this  merciless  reprobation  be  reconciled 
to  any  of  those  numerous  passages  in  which  Almighty 
God  is  represented  as  tenderly  compassionate,  and  piti- 
ful to  the  worst  and  most  unworthy  of  his  creatures, 
even  them  who  finally  perish.  "1  have  no  pleasure  in 
the  death  of  him  that  dieth:"  " Being  grieved  at  the 
hardness  of  their  hearts."  "  How  often  would  I  have 
gathered  thy  children  together,  as  a  hen  gathcretli  her 
chickens  under  her  wings,  and  ye  would  not."  "  The 
Lord  is  long-suffering  to  us-ward,  not  willing  that  any 
.should  perish."  "  Or  despisest  thou  the  riches  of  his 
goodness,  and  forbearance,  and  long-sulTering ;  not 
knowing  that  the  goodness  of  God  leadeth  thee  to  re- 
pentance. 

5.  It  is  as  manifestly  contrary  to  his  justice.  Here, 
indeed,  we  would  not  assume  to  mt-asure  this  attribute 
of  (iod,  by  unauthorr/ed  human  conceptions  ;  but  when 
God  him.self  has  appealed  to  those  established  notions 
of  justice  and  equity  which  have  been  received  among 
all  enlightened  persons,  in  all  ages,  as  the  measure  and 
rule  of  his  own,  we  cannot  be  charged  with  this  pre- 
sunii)tion.  "  Shall  not  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth  do 
ri:;lur  "Are  not  my  ways  equal?  saith  the  Lord." — 
We  may  then  be  bold  to  aflirm,  that  justice  and  equity 
in  God  are  what  they  are  laki'u  to  be  among  reasonable 
men;  and  if  all  men  everywhere  would  condemn  it,  aa 
most  contrary  to  justice  and  nght,  that  a  sovereign 
should  condemn  to  death  one  or  more  of  his  subjects, 
for  not  obeying  laws  which  it  is  absolutely  impossible 
for  them,  under  any  circumstances  which  they  can 
possibly  avail  themselves  of,  to  obey,  and  much  more 
the  greater  part  of  his  subjects  ;  and  to  require  them, 
on  pain  of  aggravated  punishment,  to  do  something  iu 
order  to  the  pardon  and  remission  of  their  offences, 
which  he  knows  they  cannot  do,  say  to  stop  the  tide,  or 
to  remove  a  mountain :  it  implies  a  charge  as  awfully 
and  obviously  unjust  against  (Jod,  who  is  so  "  holy  and 
just  in  all  his  doings,"  so  exactly  "just  in  the  judgments 
which  he  executeth,  as  to  silence  all  his  creatures,  to 
suppose  him  to  act  precisely  in  the  same  manner  as  to 
those  whom  he  has  jiassed  by  and  rejectid,  without  any 
avoidable  fault  of  their  own ;  to  destroy  them  by  the 
simple  rule  of  his  own  sovereignty,  or,  in  other  words, 
to  show  that  he  has  power  to  do  it.  In  whatever  light 
the  subject  be  viewed,  no  fault,  in  any  right  construc- 
tion, can  be  chargeable  upon  the  persons  so  punished, 
or,  as  we  may  rather  say,  dcslrmjcd,  since  punishment 
supposes  a  judicial  proceeding,  which  this  act  shuts  out. 
For  either  the  reprobates  are  destroyed  for  a  pure  rea- 
son of  sovereignty,  without  any  reference  to  their  sin- 
fulness, and  thus  all  crimhiality  Is  left  out  of  the  con- 
sideration ;  or  they  are  destro\ cd  for  the  sin  of  Adam, 
to  which  they  were  not  consenting;  or  lor  personal 
faults  resulting  from  a  corruj)iioii  of  nature  which  they 
brought  into  the  world  with  them,  and  which  God  wills 
not  to  correct,  and  they  have  no  power  to  correct  them- 
selves. Every  received  notion  of  justice  is  thus  vio- 
lated. We  grant,  indeed,  that  some  jiroceedings  of  the 
Almighty  may  appear  at  first  irreconcilable  with  justice, 
which  are  not  so;  as  that  we  should  siifler  pain  and 
death,  and  be  infected  with  a  morally  corrupt  nature, 
hi  conse(|uence  of  the  transgression  of  our  first  proge- 
nitors ;  that  children  should  sutler  for  their  parents' 
faults  in  the  ordinary  course  of  providence;  and  that  in 
general  calamities,  the  comparatively  innocent  should 
suffer  the  same  evils  as  the  guilty.  But  none  of  these  are 
parallel  cases.  For  the  "  free  gil\"  has  come  ujion  all 
men,  in  order  to  justification  of  life,"  through  "  the 
righteousness"  of  the  -second  Adam,  so  that  the  terms  of 
our  probation  an-  but  changed.  None  are  doomed  to  ine- 
vitable ruin,  or  llie  above  wonls  of  the  apostle  would  have 
no  meaning;  and  jiani  and  death,  as  toal  I  who  avail  them- 
selves ol'ttie  remedy,  are  made  the  instruiiiciitsol'a  high- 
er lili',  and  of  a  snpcralioundiiig  ofgrace  through  Christ. 
The  same  observ.iiion  may  be  made  as  to  children  who 
suffer  evils  for  their  parent's  faults.  This  circumstance 
alterslhelermsofilicir  probation  ;  but  ifcvcry  condition 
of  probation  leaves  to  men  the  possibility  and  the  hope 
of  eleriial  life,  and  the  circumstances  of  all  ari^  balanced 
and  weighed  by  him  who  admiiiisiers  the  affairs  of  indi- 
viduals on  principles,  the  einl  of  winch  is  to  turn  all  tho 
evils  olhf'e  inlo  spirilnal  and  higher  blessings,  there  w, 
obviously,  no  inipeaclunciit  of  justice  in  tiic  circum- 


Chap.  XXVI.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


339 


stances  of  the  probation  assigned  to  any  person  what- 
ever. As  to  the  innocent  suflering  equally  with  the 
puilty  in  general  calamities,  ihe  persons  so  suflering 
arc  but  comparatively  innocent,  and  their  personal 
transgressions  asainst  Ood  deserve  a  higher  punish- 
ment than  any  which  this  life  witnesses ;  this  may  also, 
as  to  them,  be  overruled  for  merciful  purposes,  and  a 
future  life  presents  its  manifold  compensations.  But 
as  to  the  non-elect,  the  whole  case,  in  this  scheme  of 
sovereign  reprobation,  or  sovereign  preterition,  is  sup- 
posed to  be  before  us.  Their  state  is  fixed,  their  afflic- 
tions in  this  life  will  not  in  any  instance  be  overruled 
for  ends  of  edification  and  salvation ;  they  are  left  un- 
der a  necessity  of  sinning  in  every  condition  ;  and  a  fu- 
ture life  presents  no  compensation,  but  a  fearful  looking 
for  (if  fiery  and  quenchlessindignation.  It  is  surely  not 
possible  for  the  ingenuity  of  man  to  reconcile  this  to  any 
notionof  just  government  which  has  ever  obtained  ;  and 
by  tlie  established  notions  of  justice  and  equity  in  hu- 
man affairs,  ice  are  taught  by  the  Scriptures  thtmsdres 
to  judge  of  the  Divine  proceedings  in  all  cumpUtdy 
stated  and  comprehensible  cases. 

6.  Equally  impossible  is  it  to  reconcile  this  notion  to 
tlie  siNcKRiTv  of^CJod  in  offering  salvation  by  Christ  to 
all  who  hear  the  Gospel,  of  whom  this  scheme  supposes 
the  majority,  or  at  least  great  numbers,  to  be  among 
the  reprobate.  The  gospel,  as  we  have  seen,  is  com- 
manded to  be  preached  to  "every  creature;"  which 
publication  of  "  good  news  to  every  creature,"  is  an  of- 
fer of  salvation  "  to  every  creature,"  accompanied  with 
earnest  invitations  to  embrace  it,  and  admonitory  com- 
niinations,  lest  any  should  neglect  and  despise  it.  But 
does  it  not  involve  a  serious  reflection  upon  the  truth 
and  sincerity  of  God  which  men  ought  to  shudder  at,  to 
assume,  at  the  very  time  the  Gospel  is  thus  preached,  that 
no  part  of  this  good  news  was  ever  designed  to  bene- 
fit tlie  majority,  or  any  great  part  of  those  to  whom  it  is 
addressed  ?  that  they  to  whom  this  love  of  God  in  Christ 
is  proclaimed  were  never  loved  by  God  ]  that  he  has  de- 
creed that  many  to  whom  he  offers  salvation,  and  whom 
he  invites  to  receive  it,  shal'  never  be  saved;  and  that 
he  will  consider  their  sins  aggravated  by  rejecting  that 
which  they  never  could  receive,  and  which  he  never 
designed  them  to  receive  ?  It  is  no  answer  to  this  to 
say,  that  we  also  admit  that  the  offers  of  rnercy  are 
made  by  God  to  many  whom  he,  by  virtue  of  his  pre- 
science, knows  will  never  receive  them.  We  grant  this ; 
but,  not  now  to  enter  upon  the  question  of  foreknow- 
ledge, it  is  enough  to  reply,  that  here  there  is  no  insin- 
cerity. On  the  Calvinian  scheme,  the  offer  of  salvation 
is  made  to  those  for  whose  sins  Christ  made  no  atone- 
ment ;  on  ours,  he  made  atonement  for  the  sins  of  all. 
On  the  former,  the  olfer  is  made  to  those  whom  G')d 
never  designed  to  embrace  it ;  on  ours,  to  none  but  those 
whom  God  seriously  and  in  truth  wills  that  they  should 
avail  themselves  of  it ;  on  their  theory,  the  bar  to  the 
salvation  of  the  non-elect  lies  in  the  want  of  a  provided 
sacrifice  for  sin  ;  on  ours,  it  rests  solely  in  men  them- 
selves; one  consists,  therefore,  with  a  perfect  sincerity 
of  offer,  the  other  cannot  be  maintained  without  bring- 
ing the  sincerity  of  God  into  question,  and  fixing  a  stig- 
ma upon  his  moral  truth. 

T.  Ifnconditional  reprobation  cannot  be  reconciled 
with  that  fre(juent  declaration  of  Scrijiture,  that  God  is 
NO  RESPECTKR  OF  PERSONS.  Tliis  plirase.  We  grant, 
is  not  to  be  interpreted  as  though  the  bounties  of  the 
Almighty  were  dispensed  in  equal  measures  to  his  crea- 
tures. In  the  administration  of  favour,  there  is  place 
for  the  exercise  of  that  prerogative  which,  in  a  just 
sense,  is  called  the  sovereignty  of  God ;  but  justice 
knows  hut  of  one  rule;  it  is,  in  its  nature,  settled  and 
fixed,  and  respects  not  the  person,  but  the  case.  ''  To 
have  respei-t  of  persons"  is  a  phrase,  th.a-efore,  in  Scrij)- 
ture,  which  sometimes  refers  to  judicial  proceeding.s, 
and  signifies  to  judge  from  partiality  and  aflijclion,  and 
not  upon  the  merits  of  the  question.  It  is  also  used  by 
St.  Peter  with  reference  to  the  acceptance  of  Cornelius: 
"  Of  a  truth  I  perceive  that  God  is  no  respecter  of  per- 
sons ;  but  in  every  nation  he  that  feareth  him,  and  work- 
eth  righteousness,  is  accepted  with  him."  Here  it  is 
clear,  that  to  respect  persons,  would  be  to  reject  or  accept 
them  without  regard  totheirmoral  qualities, and  on  some 
national  or  other  prejudice  or  partiality  which  forms  no 
moral  rule  of  any  kiml.  But  if  the  doctrine  of  absolute 
election  and  reprobation  be  true  ;  if  we  arc  to  understand 
thdt  ni(Mi  like  Jacob  and  Esau,  in  the  Calvinistio  coii- 
Btruction  of  the  passaye,  while   lu  the  womb  of  (heir 


mothcT,  nay  from  eternity,  arc  loved  and  hated,  elected 
or  reprobated,  before  they  have  done  "good  or  evil," 
then  it  necessarily  fbllovv.s,  that  there  is  precisely  this 
kind  of  respect  of  persons  with  God ;  for  his  ai  (•eptani:e 
or  njection  of  men  stands  on  some  ground  of'  aversion 
or  dislike,  which  cannot  be  resolved  into  any  mora}  rule, 
and  has  no  respect  to  the  minis  of  the  case  itself';  and 
if  the  Scripture  affirms  that  thcre'is  no  such  respect  of 
persons  with  God,  then  the  doctrine  wliich  implies  it  is 
contradicted  by  inspired  authority. 

8.  The  doctrine  of  which  we  are  showing  the  diffi- 
culties, brings  with  it  the  repulsive  and  shocking  opi- 
nion ol^  the  eternal  punishment  of  INFANTS.  Some 
Calvinists  have,  indeed,  to  get  rid  of  the  dilliculty,  or 
rather  to  put  it  out  of  sight,  consigned  them  to  annihi- 
lation ;  but  of  the  annihilation  of  any  human  being 
there  is  no  intimation  in  the  word  of  God.  In  order, 
therefore,  to  avoid  the  fearful  consequence  of  admitting 
the  punishment  of  beings  innocent  as  to  all  aciual  sin, 
there  is  no  other  way  than  to  suppose  all  children,  dy- 
ing in  infancy,  to  be  an  elected  portion  of  mankind, 
which,  however,  would  be  a  mere  hypothesis  brought 
in  to  serve  a  theory  without  any  evidence.  That  some 
of  those  who,  as  they  suppose,  are  under  this  sentence 
of  reprobation,  die  in  their  infancy  is,  probably,  what 
most  Calvinists  allow  ;  and  if  their  doctrine  be  received, 
cannot  be  denied ;  and  it  follows,  therefore,  that  all 
such  infants  are  eternally  lost.  Now  we  Iciiow  that  in- 
fants are  not  lost,  because  our  Lord  gave  it  as  a  reason 
why  little  children  ought  not  to  be  hindered  from  com- 
ing unto  him,  that  "  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven." On  which  Calvin  himself  ren:arks,(8)  "  in  this 
word, '  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,'  Christ 
comjirehends  as  well  little  children  tliemselves^asiiiose 
who  in  disjiosition  resemble  them.  Hac  voce,  tarn  jiar- 
vulos,  quam  eoruin  similes,  comprehendit."  We  are 
assured  of  the  salvation  of  infants,  also,  because  "  the 
free  gift  has  come  upon  all  men  to  [in  order  to]  justifi- 
cation of  life,"  and  because  children  are  not  capable  of 
rejecting  that  blessing,  and  must,  therefore,  derive  be- 
nefit from  it.  The  point,  also,  on  which  we  have  just 
now  touched,  "  that  there  is  no  respect  of  persons  with 
God,"  demonstrates  it.  For,  as  it  will  be  acknowledged, 
that  some  children,  dying  in  infancj',  are  saved,  it  must 
follow,  from  this  principle  and  axiom  in  the  Divine  go- 
vernment, that  all  infants  are  saved  :  for  the  case  of 
all  infants,  as  to  innocence  or  guilt,  sin  or  righteous- 
ness, being  the  same,  and  God,  as  a  judge,  being  "no 
respecter  of  persons,"  but  regarding  only  the  merits  of 
the  case  :  he  cannot  make  this  awful  distinction  as  to 
them,  that  one  part  shall  be  eternally  saved,  and  the 
other  eternally  lost.  That  doctrine,  therefore,  which 
implies  the  perdition  of  infants,  cannot  be  congruous  to 
the  Scriptures  of  truth,  but  is  utterly  abhorrent  to 
them.(9) 

Finally,  not  to  multiply  these  instances  of  the  diffi- 
culties which  accompany  the  doctrine  of  absolute  re- 
probation, or  of  preterition  (to  use  the  milder  term, 
though  the  argument  is  not  in  the  least  changed  by  it), 
it  destroys  the  end  of  punitive  justice.  That  end  can 
only  be  to  deter  men  from  offence,  and  to  add  strength 
to  the  law  of  God.  But  if  the  whole  body  of  the  re- 
probate are  left  to  the  influence  of  their  fallen  iialuro 
without  remedy,  they  cannot  be  deterred  from  sin  by 
threats  of  inevitable  punishment ;  nor  can  they  eviT 
submit  to  the  dominion  of  the  law  of  God  :  their  doom 
is  fixed,  and  threats  and  examples  can  avail  nothing. 

We  may  leave  every  candid  mind  to  the  discussion 
of  these  and  many  other  difficulties,  suggested  by  the 
doctrine  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  as  to  the  election  of  "a 
set  and  determinate  number  of  men"  to  eternal  life ; 
and  proceed  to  consider  the  second  branch  of  this  opi- 
nion—that election  is  unconditional.  "  It  was  made," 
says  the  Synod,  "not  upon  foresight  of  faith,  and  the 
obedience  of  faith,  holiness,  or  any  other  good  quality 
or  disposition  (as  a  cause  or  condition  before  required 
in  men  to  be  chosen),  but  unto  faith,  and  the  obedience 
of  faith,  holiness,  itc." 

Election,  we  have  already  said,  must  be  either  God's 
purpose  in  eternity  to  elect  actually,  or  it  must  be  actual 
election  itself  in  time;  for  as  election  is  choosing  men 
"  out  of  the  world"  into  the  true  church  of  <;hrist,  ac- 
tual election  from  eternity  is  not  [jossiblc,  because  the 
subjects  of  election  had  no  existence ;  there  was  no 


(S)  Harm,  in  Matt.  xix.  13. 

(9)  On  the  case  of  uilitnts  SCO  page  aJ4 


340 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


world  to  clioosi;  (hem  "  out  of,"  and  no  cliun-li  into 
whi(!h  to  bring  thoin.  To  alTlrni  that  any  part  of  ttutn- 
kind  were  chosen  from  eternity,  in  purpose  (I'or  in  no 
other  way  rouUl  tliey  be  chosen)  to  become  mem- 
bers of  the  church  without  "  fi)re.si','ht  of  faith,  and  the 
obedience  of  faith,"  is  therefore  to  say,  that  Cod  pur- 
posed from  all  eternity  to  establish  a  distinction  be- 
tween THic  WDRi.n,  "out"  of  which  the  elect  are  actu- 
ally chosen,  and  the  ruiiRt^it,  which  has  no  Ibnndation 
in,  or  respiMt  to,  faith  and  obedience;  in  other  words, 
to  .-onsiitute  his  church  of  persons  to  whose  faith  and 
obedience  he  had  no  respect.  For  how  is  this  conclu- 
sion to  be  avoided  ?  Tlie  subject  of  this  election,  it 
soeins,  are  chosen  as  mm,  as  I'eter,  James,  and  John, 
not  as  believers.  God  eternally  jiroposed  to  make  Pe- 
ter, .hiiiies,  and  .lohn  members  of  his  church,  without 
r(s|iiii  111  tlirir  faith  or  obedience  ;  his  church  is  there- 
lore  constituted  on  the  sole  principle  of  this  purjio.se, 
not  upon  the  basis  of  faith  and  obedience ;  and  the  per- 
.soiis  chosen  into  it  in  tiitie  are  chosen  because  they  are 
of  the  number  included  in  this  eternal  purpose,  and 
with  no  regard  to  their  being  believers  anil  obedient,  or 
the  contrary.  How  manifestly  this  opposes  the  Word 
of  (lod  we  need  scarcely  stay  to  point  out.  It  contra- 
dicts that  s|>ecilic  distinction  constantly  made  in  Scrip- 
ture between  the  true  church  and  the  world,  the  only 
marks  of  distinction  being,  as  to  the  former,  faith  and 
obedience;  and  as  to  the  latter,  unbelief  and  disobedi- 
ence— in  other  words,  the  church  is  composed  not 
merely  of  men,  as  I'eter,  .lames,  and  John,  but  of  Pe- 
ter, James,  and  John  believing  and  obeying:  while  all 
who  believe  not,  and  obey  not,  are  "  the  world."  The 
Scriptures  make  the  essential  elements  of  thechurch  to 
be  believing  and  obeying  men  ;  the  Synod  of  Dort 
makes  them  to  be  men  in  the  simple  condition  of  being 
included  in  a  set  and  determinate  nuiriber,  cho.sen  with 
no  respect  to  faith  and  obedience.  Thus  we  have  laid 
two  very  (hlTerent  foundations  upon  which  to  place  the 
superstructure  of  the  church  of  Christ ;  one  of  them 
indeed  is  to  be  found  in  the  Scriptures,  but  the  other 
only  in  the  theories  of  men  ;  and  as  they  agree  not  to- 
gether, one  of  them  must  be  renounced. 

Hut  election,  without  respect  to  faith,  is  contrary  also 
to  the  history  olt  lie  commencement  and  first  constitution 
of  the  churrli  of  Christ.  Peter,  James,  and  John  did 
not  become  disciples  of  (Jhrist  in  unbelief  and  disobedi- 
ence. The  very  act  of  their  becinning  disciples  of 
(Jhrist  uneiptivocally  implied  some  degree  both  of  faith 
and  obedience.  They  were  chosen,  not  as  men,  but  as 
believing  men.  This  is  indicated  also  by  the  grand  rite 
of  baptism,  instituted  by  Christ  when  he  commissioned 
his  disciples  to  jireach  the  Gospel,  and  call  men  into  his 
church.  That  baptism  was  the  gate  into  this  church 
cannot  bo  denied  ;  but  faith  was  reipiired  in  order  to 
baptism  ;  and,  where  true  faith  existed,  this  open  eon- 
fessKiii  of  Christ  would  necessarily  liillow,  without 
dcliiy.  Here,  then,  we  see  on  uiiat  (.'rounds  men  were 
actually  elected  into  the  church  of  Christ ;  it  was  with 
respect  to  their  faith  that  they  were  thus  chosen  out  of 
(he  world,  and  thus  chosen  into  the  church.  The  rule, 
loo,  is  universal,  and  if  so,  if  it  universally  holds  good 
that  actual  elci'iimi  li;is  re^iiei-t  to  tiiitli  ;  then,  unless 
(ioil's  eternal  /i/h/'mvi  in  el. ct  be  at  variance  with  his 
electing,  (hat  is,  unless  he  purposes  one  thing  and  does 
another  dillering  from  his  purpose ;  jiurposes  to  elect 
without  respect  (o  faith,  and  only  actually  elects  with 
respect  to  laith ;  his  eternal  purpose  to  elect  had  re- 
spect both  to  faith  and  obedienc^e. 

It  is  true,  that  the  Synod  of  Dort  says,  that  election  is 
'■  ?/7t<o  faith,  and  the  obedience  of  faith,"  &c.,  thereby 
malang  the  end  of  election  to  be  faith  :  in  other  words, 
ihcir  doctrine  is,  that  some  men  were  personally  chosen 
to  believe  and  obey,  even  before  they  exi.sted.  lint 
we  have  no  such  doctrine  in  Scripture  as  the  election 
of  individuals  nrtio  faith;  and  it  is  inconsistent  with 
several  passages  which  e.xpressly  speak  of  personal 
election. 

"  Many  are  called  and  few  chosen."  In  this  passage 
we  must  understand,  that  the  many  who  are  cuLlid, 
are  called  to  believe  and  obey  the  (Jospel,  or  the  calling 
means  nothing ;  in  other  words  tlw^y  are  not  called. 
But  if  the  end  of  this  calling  be  faith  and  obedience, 
and  the  end  of  election  also  be  faith  and  obedience,  then 
have  we  in  the  text  a  senseless  tautology;  lor  if  the 
many  are  calleil  to  believe  and  obey,  then,  ol  course, 
we  need  not  have  been  (old  that  (he  few  are  chosen  to 
believe  aaU  obey,  uiucc  the  low  uru  included  in  (he 


many.  But  if  the  "  choosing"  of  the  "  few"  means,  as 
it  must,  somediing  difi'erent  to  the  "  calling"  of  the 
"  many,"  then  is  the  end  of  election  dilferent  (o  (he  end 
of  calling  ;  and  if  the  eleiiion  bc^,  as  is  plain  from  the 
pass.age,  conseiiuent  upon  the  calling,  then  it  can  mean 
nothing  else  than  the  choosing  of  (hose  "  few"  of  (ho 
"  many,"  who  being  obedient  to  (Iw  "  calling,"  had  ]ire- 
viously  believed  and  obeyed,  into  the  true  church  and 
family  of  God,  which  is  the  proper  and  direct  objec(  ol" 
personal  elecdon.  This  passage,  (hercfore,  which  un- 
questionably speaks  of  personal  election,  con(radic(a 
the  notion  of  an  election  imtd  faith  and  obedience,  and 
makes  our  election  conyi'/unit.  upon  our  obedience  t« 
the  calling,  or  evangelical  invitation. 

Let  this  notion  of  jicrsoiial  election  vntn  faith  bo 
(csted  also  by  another  passage,  in  wliich,  like  the  for- 
mer, ])er.sonal  clietion  is  spoken  of.  "  I  have  chosen 
you  out  of  (he  world,"  John  .xv.  It).  According  (o  (he 
notion  of  the  Synod  of  Uort,  the  act  of  election  consists 
in  appointing  or  ordaining  a  certain  number  of  tlie  hu- 
man race  to  believe  and  obey  ;  here  the  personal  elect- 
ing act  is  a  choosing  out  of  the  world,  a  choosing,  mani- 
festly, into  the  number  of  Christ's  disciples,  which  no 
man  is  capable  of  w'ithout  a  jirevious  faith  ;  for  th« 
very  act  of  becoming  Christ's  disciple  was  a  confession 
of  (aith  in  him. 

A  third  passage  in  which  elecdon  is  spoken  of  as  per- 
sonal, or  a(  least  with  more  direct  reference  to  individual 
experience,  than  to  (Jhristians  in  their  collective  capa- 
city as  the  church  of  (Jhrist,  is  1  Peter  i.  2,  "  Elect  ac- 
cording to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father,  through 
sanctihcalion  of  the  Spirit  unto  obedience,  and  sprin- 
kling of  the  blood  of  Jesus  1"  Here  obedience  is  not  the 
end  of  election,  but  of  the  sanctification  of  the  Spirit; 
and  both  are  joined  "with  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood 
of  Jesus"  (which,  in  all  cases  is  apprehended  by  faith), 
as  the  media  through  which  our  election  is  effected — 
"  elect  tlirmii^h  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,"  <kc.  These 
cannot,  therefore,  be  the  cuds  of  our  personal  election  ; 
for  if  we  are  elected  "«/*?•()«  »/i"  tha(  sanctification  of 
the  Spirit  which  produces  obedience,  we  are  not  elected, 
being  unsanctified  and  disobedient,  in  order  to  be  sanc- 
tified by  the  Spirit  that  we  may  obey:  it  is  the  work 
of  the  Spirit  which  produces  obedient  faith,  and  through 
both  we  are  "  elected"  into  the  church  of  God. 

Very  similar  to  the  passage  just  explained  is  2  Thess. 
ii.  13,  14,  "  But  we  are  liuiuiil  in  gixeihaiiks  alway  to 
God  for  you,  brethren,  because  tJod  lialli  from  (he  be- 
ginning chosen  you  unto  salvation,  tliKiugli  sanctifica- 
tion of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth  ;  whereunto  he 
called  you  by  our  (Jospel  to  the  obtaining  of  the  glory 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  As  the  aiiosllc  had  been 
liredicting  the  future  ajjostacy  of  persons  professing 
Christianity,  he  recollects  with  gratitude,  that  from 
"/Ac  lirsiiiiiins"  from  the  very  first  reception  of  the 
Go.spel  in  Thessiiloiiiea,  which  was  preached  there  by 
St.  Paul  hiiiiself  Willi  great  success,  the  Thessalo- 
nians  had  manifested  no  symploins  of  this  ajiostacy, 
but  had  been  honourably  steadfast  in  the  faith.  For 
this  he  gives  thanks  to  liod  in  (he  verses  above  (iuo(ed, 
and  in  (he  15lli,  exhorts  (hem  still  "to  stand  fast." 
When,  tlirreliire,  Calviiiistic  commentators  interpret 
(he  elan  (■  ••  lialh  cluisen  NoulVom  (he  beginning,"  to 
mean  electinii  Inini  cternily,  they  make  a  gratuitous  a.s- 
sumption  which  has  nothing  in  the  scope  of  (he  pas- 
sage (0  warraiU  i(.  Mr.  Sco((,  indeed,(l)  radier  de- 
pends u)ion  the  "  calling"  of  (he  The.ssalonians  being, 
as  he  states,  siibseijiinit  to  their  elecdon,  (hen,  upon  an 
arbitrary  interpretation  of  (he  clause  "from  the  lifxiii- 
/((«:;,"  anil  says,  "  if  the  calliiijf  of  the  Thessalonians 
was  I  lie  edcct  of  any  preceding  choice  of  thcni,  it  come.s 
to  the  same  (lung  whe(her  the  choice  was  made  the 
jireceding  day,  or  from  the  (bundadon  of  (he  world." 
But  (he  calling  of  (he  members  of  Ibis  church  is  not 
repriseiUed  by  (he  a])o.stlc  as  the  i/fhl  of  ilieir  having 
been  cho.sen,  but  on  the  contrary,  (heir  ilcetion  is  spoken 
of  as  the  effect  of  "  the  saiK-lillcalion  of  (he  Spirit,  and 
belief  of  the  truth ;"  and  these,  as  the  ellccts  of  (he 
calling  of  (he  Thessalonians  by  the  (lospel,— "  where- 
nntii,"  (o  wliiih  saiiilini  iilion  and  faidi,  "  he  called  you 
by  our  (.'i)s|M-l,"  Or  ilic  wliolc  may  be  considered  as  (be 
antecedent  to  the  iiexl  clause  "  (o  which"  election  (Vom 
(he  beginning,  dirough  saiicllfication  of  (he  SpirK,  and 
belief  of  (he  (ruth,  "lie  called  you  by  our  (iospel." 
Cerlain  i(  us,  (ha(  saiiciiticatioii  and  belief  of  the  tru(h 


(1)  Nulcsiitloc. 


Chap,  XXVI.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


34| 


cannot  be  the  ends  of  election  if  they  are  the  mmns  of 
it,  as  they  are  liere  said  to  be ;  and  we  may  therefore 
conclude  from  this,  as  well  as  from  the  other  passages 
we  have  quoted  as  speaking  of  the  personal  «lection  of 
believers,  that  this  kind  of  election  is  not  "  unto  faith 
and  obedicme,"  as  slated  in  "  the  Judgment  of  the 
Synod  of  Uort,"  that  is,  a  choice  of  individuals  to  be 
made  believers  and  obedient  persons  ;  but  an  election, 
as  it  is  expressed  both  by  SL  Peter  and  8t.  Paul,  tlirrmgh 
feith  and  obedience  ;  or,  in  other  words,  a  choice  of 
persons  already  believing  and  obedient  into  the  family 
of  God. 

There  are  scarcely  any  other  passages  in  the  New 
Testament  which  speak  expressly  of  personal  elec- 
tion, but  there  is  another  class  of  texts  in  which  the 
term  election  occurs,  which  refer  to  believers,  not  dis- 
tributively,  but  collectively ;  not  personally,  but  as  a 
body,  eitlier  existing  as  particular  churches,  or  as  the 
universal  church;  and,  by  entirely  overlooking,  or  in- 
geniously confounding  this  obvious  distinction,  the  ad- 
vocates of  unconditional  personal  election  bring  for- 
ward such  passages  with  confidence,  as  proofs  of  the 
doctrine  of  election  ii/ito  faith  furnished  by  the  word 
of  God.  Thus  the  Synod  of  Uort  quotes,  as  the  lead- 
ing proof  of  its  doctrine  of  personal  election,  Eph.  i. 
4,  5,  fi,  "  According  as  he  hath  chosen  us  in  him  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world,  that  we  should  be  holy 
and  without  blame  before  him  in  love :  having  predesti- 
uated  us  unto  the  adoption  of  children  by  Jesus  Christ, 
to  himself,  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  his  will, 
to  the  praise  of  the  glory  of  his  grace,  wherein  he  hath 
made  us  accepted  in  the  beloved."  This,  indeed,  is  the 
only  passage  quoted  by  the  Synod  of  Don,  in  which  the 
terms  chosen  and  election  occur;  and,  we  may  ask, 
why  none  of  those  on  which  we  have  above  offered 
some  remarks,  were  quoted  also,  since  the  subject  of 
personal  election  is  much  more  obviously  contained  in 
them  than  in  that  which  they  have  adduced  ?  The  only 
answer  is,  that  the  others  were  perceived  not  to  accord 
with  the  doctrine  of  "election  vnto  faith  and  obedi- 
ence ;"  while  this,  in  which  the  personal  election  of 
individual  believers  is  not  referred  to,  but  the  collective 
election  of  the  whole  body  of  Christians  was  better 
suited  to  give  a  colour  to  their  doctrine,  becauseit  speaks, 
of  course,  and  as  the  subject  required,  of  election  as 
the  means  of  faith,  and  of  faith  as  the  end  of  election, 
an  order  which  is  reversed  wlieii  the  election  of  indi- 
viduals, or  the  election  of  any  body  of  believers,  con- 
sidered d(strihiitireli)  and  personally,  is  the  subject  of 
the  apostle's  discourse.  If,  indeed,  the  election  spoken 
of  in  this  passage  were  personal  election,  the  Calviiiistic 
doctrine  would  not  follow  from  it;  becau.se  it  would 
admit  of  being  questioned,  whether  the  choosing  in 
Christ  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  here  men- 
tioned, was  a  choice  of  certain  persons,  as  men  merely, 
or  as  believing  men,  which  is  surely  the  most  rational. 
For  all  choice  necessarily  suppo.ses  some  reason;  but, 
as  ?nen,  all  things  were  equal  between  those  who,  ac- 
cording to  tills  scheme,  were  chosen,  and  those  who 
were  passed  by.  But,  according  to  the  Calvinists,  this 
election  was  made  arbitrarily,  that  is,  without  any 
reason,  but  that  God  would  have  it  so  ;  and  to  this  sense 
they  bend  the  clause  in  the  passage  under  considera- 
tion, "  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  his  will."  This 
phrase  has,  however,  no  such  arbitrary  sense.  "  The 
good  pleasure  of  his  will"  means  the  benevolent  and 
full  acquiescence  of  the  will  of  God  with  a  wise  and 
gracious  act ;  and,  accordingly,  in  verse  11,  the  phrase 
is  varied  "  according  to  the  counsel  of  his  own  will," 
an  expression  which  is  at  utter  variance  with  the  re- 
pulsive notion  that  mere  will  is  in  any  case  the  rule  of 
the  Divine  conduct,  or,  in  other  words,  that  he  does 
any  thing  merely  because  he  will  do  it,  wliich  excludes 
all  "  counsel."  To  choose  men  to  salvation  considered 
as  believers,  gives  a  rea.son  for  election  which  not  only 
manifests  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God,  but  has 
the  advantage  of  being  entirely  consistent  with  his  own 
published  and  expressed  decree :  "  he  that  believeth 
shall  be  saved ;  and  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned."  This  revealed  and  promulgated  decree,  we 
must  believe,  was  according  to  his  eternal  purpose ; 
and  if  from  eternity  he  determined  that  believers,  and 
only  believers  in  Christ,  among  the  fallen  race,  should 
be  saved,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable  that  those  whom 
he  chose  in  Christ  "  before  the  foundation  of  the  world," 
were  considered,  not  as  mra  merely,  which  gives  no 
reason  of  choice  wortln-  of  any  rational  being,  much 


less  of  the  ever  blessed  God ;  but  as  believing  men, 
whicJi  harmonizes  the  doctrine  of  election  with  the 
other  doctrines  of  Scripture,  instead  of  placing  it,  as  in 
the  Calviiiistic  scheme,  in  opposition  to  them.  For  the 
choice  not  being  of  certain  men,  as  such,  but  of  all  per 
sons  believing ;  and  all  men  to  whom  the  Gospel  is 
preached  being  called  to  believe,  every  one  may  place 
himself  in  the  number  of  the  person.s  so  elected.  Thus 
we  get  rid  of  the  doctrine  of  the  election  of  a  set  and 
determinate  number  of  men;  and  with  that,  of  the 
fearful  consequence,  the  absolute  reprobation  of  all  the 
rest,  which  so  few  Calvinists  themselves  have  the  cou- 
rage to  avow  and  maintain. 

But  though  this  argument  might  be  very  success- 
fully urged  against  those  who  interpret  the  passage 
above  quoted  of  personal  election,  the  context  bears 
unequivocal  proofs  that  it  is  not  of  an  election  or  pre- 
destination of  this  kind  of  which  the  apostle  speaks ; 
but  of  the  election  of  believing  Jews  and  Gentiles  into 
the  church  of  (iod ;  in  other  words,  of  the  eternal  pur- 
pose oftiod,  u]ion  the  publicationof  the  Gospel,  to  con- 
stitute his  visible  church  no  longer  upon  the  ground  of 
natural  descent  from  Abraham,  but  upon  the  founda- 
tion of  faith  in  Christ.  For  ujion  no  other  hypoihc-.sis 
can  that  distinction  which  the  apostle  makes  between 
the  Jews  who  first  believed,  and  the  Gentile  Ephesians, 
who  afterward  believed,  be  at  all  explained.  lie  speaks 
first  of  the  election  of  Christians  in  general,  whether 
Jews  or  Gentiles;  using  the  pronouns  "us"  and  "we" 
as  compreheniUng  himself  and  all  others.  He  then 
proceeds  to  the  "  predestination"  of  those  "  who  Jirst 
trusted  in  Christ:"  plainly  meaning  himself  and  other 
believing  Jews.  He  goes  on  to  .say,  that  the  Ephesians 
were  made  partakers  of  the  same  faith,  and  therelbre 
were  the  subjects  of  the  same  election  and  predestina- 
tion :  "  in  whom  ye  also  trusted  after  that  ye  heard  the 
word  of  truth  ;"  the  preaching  of  which  truth  to  them 
as  (ientiles,  by  the  apostle  and  his  coadjutors,  was  in 
conse<iuence  of  God  "  having  made  known  unto  them 
the  mystery  of  his  will,  that  in  the  dispensation  of  the 
fulness  of  times  he  might  gather  together  in  one  all 
things  in  Christ ;"  which,  in  the  next  chapter,  a  mani- 
fest continuance  of  the  same  head  of  discourse,  is  ex- 
plained to  mean  the  calling  in  of  the  Gentiles  with  the 
believing  Jews,  reconciling  "  both  unto  God  in  one 
body  by  the  cross,  having  slain  the  enmity  thereby." 
The  same  subject  he  pursues  in  the  third  chapter,  re- 
presenting this  union  of  believing  .lews  and  (Jentiles 
in  one  church  as  the  revelation  of  the  mystery  which 
had  been  hid  "  from  the  beginning  of  the  world ;"  but 
was  now  manifested  "  according  to  the  eternal  purpose 
which  he  purposed  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord,"  verses 
8 — U.  Here,  then,  we  have  the  true  meaning  of  the 
election  and  predestination  of  the  Ejihesians  spoken  of 
hi  the  opening  of  the  epi-stle  :  it  was  their  election,  as 
Gentiles,  to  be,  along  with  the  believing  Jews,  the 
church  of  God,  his  acknowledged  people  on  earth  ; 
which  election  was  according  to  God's  "  eternal  pur- 
pose," to  change  the  constitution  of  his  church  ;  to  es- 
tablish it  on  the  ground  of  faith  in  Christ ;  and  thus  to 
extend  it  into  all  nations.  So  far  as  this  respected  the 
Ephesians  in  general,  their  election  to  hear  Ihe  Gos|)el 
sooner  than  many  other  Gentiles  was  unconditiun.il 
and  .sovereign,  and  was  an  election  ^^  unto  fuiili  .iihI 
obedience  of  laith  ;"  that  is  to  say,  these  were  the  ends 
of  that  election ;  but  so  far  as  the  Ephesians  were  con- 
cerned as  individuals,  they  were  actually  chosen  into 
the  church  of  Christ  as  its  vital  members,  on  their  be- 
lieving;  and  so  the  election  to  tl'e  saving  benctits  of 
the  Gospel  was  a  consequence  of  tiicir  faith,  and  not 
the  end  of  it,  and  was  therefore  conditional — "in  whom 
also  ye  trusted,  after  that  ye  heard  the  Word  of  Truth, 
the  Gospel  of  your  salvation ;  in  whom  also,  after  that 
ye  believed,  ye  were  sealed  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  jiro- 
mise." 

The  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  election  7into  faith  has  no 
stronger  passage  than  this  to  lean  upon  for  support ; 
and  this  manilbstly  fails  them  :  while  other  passages 
in  which  the  terms  election  or  chosen  occur,  all  favour 
a  very  diflerent  view  of  tlie  Scripture  doctrine.  When 
we  are  commanded  to  be  diligent,  "  to  make  our  calling 
and  election  sure,"  or  firm,  tiiis  supposes  that  it  may  be 
rendered  nugatory  by  want  of  diligence  ;  a  doctrine 
which  cannot  comport  with  the  absolute  certainty  of 
our  salvation  as  founded  upon  a  decree  determining, 
infallibly,  our  personal  election  to  eternal  life,  and  oiir 
faith  and  obedience  in  order  to  it.     When  believers  are 


342 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


called  a  "  chosm  gnncralion,"  they  arc  also  called  "  a 
royal  priestliood,  a  holy  peoplo  ;"  and  if  the  latter 
characteristics  dopeiid  upon,  and  arc  consequences  of 
faith,  so  the  former  depends  upon  a  previous  faith, 
and  is  the  consequence  of  it.  Finally,  although  tiiese 
terms  themselves  occur  in  but  few  passages,  and  in  all 
of  them  which  respect  the  personal  experience  of  indi- 
viduals express,  or  necessarily  im))ly,  the  ])revious  con- 
dition of  faith,  there  are  many  others,  wliu-h,  in  difler- 
ent  terms,  imbody  the  same  doctrine.  The  jdirases  to 
be  "  IN  Christ,"  and  to  be  "  Christ's,"  are,  doubtless, 
equivalent  to  the  personal  election  of  believers :  and 
these  and  similar  modes  of  expression  are  constantly 
occurring  in  the  New  Testament  ;  but  no  man  is  ever 
represented  as  "  (Christ's,"  or  as  "  in  Christ,"  by  an 
eternal  election  unto  faith  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  as 
cnterin;;  into  that  relation  which  is  termed  being  "in 
f^'hrist ;"  or  being  "  Christ's"  through  personal  faith 
alone.  The  Scripture  knows  no  such  distinctions  as 
fleet  wibelievers,  and  elect  believers ;  but  all  unbe- 
lievers are  represented  as  "  of  the  world  ;"  under  "  con- 
demnation," so  that  "  the  \vrath  of  God  abideth  upon 
them,"  and  as  liable  to  eternal  ruin.  But  if  Calvjnis- 
tic  election  be  true,  then  there  are  elect  unbelievers ; 
and  with  respect  to  these,  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  is 
contradicted:  for  they  are  not  "  of  the  world,"  though 
in  a  state  of  unbelief,  since  God  from  eternity  "  chose 
Ihem  out  of  the  world  ;"  they  are  not  under  condemna- 
tion, "but  were  justified  from  eternity;"  "the  wrath 
of  God  does  not  abide  upon  tliem,"  for  they  are  objects 
of  an  unchangeable  love  which  has  decreed  their  salva- 
tion :  subject  to  no  conditions  whatever ;  and  thenfore 
no  state  of  unbelief  can  make  them  objects  of  wrath, 
as  no  condition  of  faith  can  make  them  objects  of  a 
love  which  was  moved  by  no  such  consideration.  Nor 
are  they  liable  to  ruin.  They  never  were,  nor  can  be 
liable  to  it :  the  very  threats  of  God  are  without  mean- 
ing as  to  them,  and  their  consciousness  of  guilt  and 
danger  under  the  awakenings  of  the  Spirit  are  dcce|i- 
tious,  and  unreal ;  contradicting  the  work  of  the  Spirit 
in  the  heart  of  man,  as  the  Si-irit  of  Truth.  For  if 
he  "  convinces  them  of  sin,"  he  convinces  them  of  dan- 
ger; but  they  are,  in  fact,  in  no  danger;  and  the  mon- 
strous conclusion  follows  inevitably,  that  the  Spirit 
is  employed  in  exciting  fears  which  liave  no  founda- 
tion. 

We  have  thus  considered  tie;  Scriptural  doctrine  of 
election  ;  and  as  we  find  nothing  in  it  which  can  war- 
rant any  one  to  limit  the  meaning  of  the  texts  we  have 
adduced  to  prove  that  Christ  made  an  actual  atone- 
ment for  the  sins  of  all  mankind,  we  may  proceed  'o 
examine  another  class  of  Scripture  proofs  quoted  by 
C'alvinists  to  strengthen  their  argument : — those  which 
speak  of  the  '■^  calUng"  and  '•^predestination"  of  be- 
lievers. 

The  terms  "to  call,"  "called,"  and  "calling,"  very 
frequently  occur  in  the  New  Testament,  and  especially 
in  the  Epistles.  Sometimes  "  to  call"  signifies  to  in- 
vite to  the  blessings  of  the  Gospel,  to  offer  salvation 
through  (Jhrist,  either  by  God  himself,  or  under  his  ap- 
pointment, by  his  servants  ;  and  in  the  parable  of  the 
niarriage  of  the  king's  son,  Matt.  xxii.  1 — 14,  which 
a|)pears  to  have  given  rise  to  many  instances  of  the 
use  of  this  term  in  the  Epistles,  we  have  three  descrip- 
tions of  "called,"  or  invited  i)ersons.  First,  the  diso- 
bedient who  would  not  come  in  at  the  call ;  but  made 
light  of  it.  Second,  the  idass  of  persons  represented 
by  the  man  who,  when  the  king  came  in  to  see  his 
guests,  had  not  on  the  wediliiig  garment ;  and  with 
respect  to  whom  our  Lord  makes  the  general  remark, 
"for  many  are  called,  but  few  are  chosen."  The  per- 
sons thus  represented  by  this  individual  culprit,  were 
not  only  "called,"  but  actually  canio  iiiio  the  company. 
Third,  the  approved  guests  ;  those  who  were  both 
called  and  chosen.  As  fiir  as  the  simple  calling  or  in- 
vitation is  concerned,  all  these  three  classes  stand  upon 
eipial  ground  ;  all  were  invited  ;  and  it  depended  upon 
their  choice  and  conduct  whether  they  embraced  the 
invitation,  and  were  admitted  as  guests.  We  have 
nothing  here  to  countenance  the  (^alvinisiic  fiction, 
which  is  termed  "effectual  calling."  This  implies  aii 
irresistible  influen(-e  exerted  upon  all  the  approved 
guests,  hut  withheld  from  the  disobedii-nt,  who  could 
not,  ther(^fore,  be  otiicrvvisc  than  disobidKiit  ;  or  at 
most  could  only  come  in  without  that  wedding  gar- 
ment which  it  was  never  put  into  their  power  to  take 
out  of  tUc  king's  wardrobe ;  the  waul  of  which  would 


necessarily  exclude  them,  If  not  from  tlie  church  on 
earth,  yet  from  the  church  in  heaven.  The  doctrine 
of  the  parable  is  in  entire  contradiction  totbis;  liirthcy 
who  refused,  and  they  who  complied  but  partially  with 
the  calling,  are  rei>rc.sented,  not  merely  as  being  lell 
without  the  benefit  of  the  feast,  but  as  incurring  addi- 
tional guilt  and  condemnation  for  refusing  the  invita- 
tion. It  IS  to  this  ofler  of  .salvation  by  the  Gospel,  this 
invitation  to  spiritual  and  eternal  benelits,  that  St. 
Peter  ajipears  to  refer,  when  he  says.  Acts  ii.  39,  "  For 
the  promise  is  unto  you,  and  to  your  children,  and  to 
all  that  arc  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God 
shall  CALL :"  a  passage  which,  we  may  observe,  in 
passing,  declares  "  the  promise"  to  be  as  extensive  as 
the  "  calling  ;"  in  other  words,  as  the  offer  or  invita- 
tion. To  this  also,  St.  Paul  refi^rs,  Uorri.  i.  5,  6,  "  By 
whom  we  have  received  grace  and  apostleship  for  obe- 
dience to  the  faith  among  all  nations,  for  his  name :" 
that  is,  to  publish  his  Gosiiel,  in  order  to  bring  all  na- 
tions to  the  obedience  of  (iiith  ;  "  among  whom  are  ye 
also  the  callkd  of  .lesus  Christ ;"  you  at  lloine  have 
heard  thcGo-sjiid,  and  have  been  invited  to  salvation  in 
conseiiuence  of  this  design.  This  iirciinulgalion  of  the 
Gospel,  by  the  ministry  of  the  apostle,  personally,  under 
the  nanienfc«//!7? if,  is  also  referred  to  in  Galalians,  i.  (i, 
"  I  marvel  that  ye  are  so  soon  removed  from  him  that 
called  ijiiii  into  the  grace  of  Chri.st"  (obviously  mean- 
ing that  it  was  the  apostle  himself  who  had  called 
them  by  his  preaching  to  the  grace  of  Christ),  "unto 
another  Gospel."  So  also  in  chap.  v.  13,  "  For,  breth- 
ren, ye  have  been  called  unto  liberty."  Again,  1  Thess. 
ii.  12,  "  That  ye  would  walk  worthy  of  God,  who 
hath  CALLED  you  [invited  you]  to  his  kingdom  and 
glory." 

In  our  Lord's  parable  it  will  also  be  observed,  that 
the  persons  called  are  not  invited  as  separate  indivi- 
duals to  jiartake  of  solitary  blessings ;  but  they  are 
called  to  "a  feast,"  mio  a  company,  ox  society,  hvfore 
whom  the  banquet  is  spread.  The  full  revelation  of 
the  transfer  of  the  visible  church  of  (Christ  from  Jews 
by  birth,  to  believers  of  all  nations,  was  not,  however, 
then  made.  When  this  branch  of  the  evangelic  sys- 
tem was  fully  revealed  to  the  apostles,  and  taught  by 
them  to  others,  that  part  of  our  Lord's  parable  which 
was  not  at  first  developed,  was  more  particularly  in- 
culcated by  his  inspired  (bllowers.  The  calling  of 
guests  to  the  evangelical  feast,  we  now  more  fully 
learn,  was  uot  the  mere  calling  of  men  to  partake  of 
spiritual  'jenefits  ;  but  calling  them  also  to  form  a  spiri- 
tual .society  composed  of  .lews  and  Gentiles,  the  be- 
lieving men  of  all  nations  ;  to  have  a  common  fellow- 
ship in  these  blessing.s,  and  to  be  Ibrmed  into  this  fel- 
lowship for  the  purpose  of  increasing  their  number, 
and  diflusing  the  benefits  of  salvation  among  the  people 
or  nation  to  which  they  respectively  belonged.  The 
invitation,  "  the  calling"  of  the  first  preachers,  was  to 
all  who  heard  them  in  Rome,  in  Ephcsus,  in  (Corinth, 
in  all  other  places;  and  those  who  embraced  it,  and 
joined  themselves  to  the  church  by  faith,  baptism,  and 
continued  public  profession,  were  named  especially  and 
eminently  "  THK  called;"  becau.se  of  their  obedience 
to  the  invitation.  They  not  only  put  in  their  claim  to 
the  blessings  of  Christianity  individually ;  but  became 
members  of  the  new  church,  that  spiritual  society  of 
believers  which  V,oi\  now  visibly  owned  as  his  people. 
As  they  were  thus  called  into  a  common  fellowship  by 
the  (lospel,  this  is  sometimes  termed  their  "vocation:" 
as  the  object  of  this  church  state  was  to  promote  "  ho- 
liness," it  is  termed  a  "holy  vocation:"  as  sanctity 
was  required  of  the  members,  they  are  said  to  have 
been  "  called  to  be  saints  :"  as  the  final  result  was, 
through  the  mercy  of  God,  to  be  eternal  life,  we  hear 
of  "  the  hope  of  their  calling ;"  and  of  their  being 
"  called  to  his  eternal  glory  by  Christ  Jesus." 

The.se  views  will  abundantly  explain,  the  various 
passages  in  which  the  term  "calling"  occurs  in  the 
Epistles,  Rom.  ix.  24,  "  Even  us  whom  he  hath  callkd, 
not  of  the  Jews  only,  but  also  of  the  Gentiles  :"  that 
is,  whom  he  hath  made  members  of  his  church  through 
faith.  1  Cor.  i.  24,  "  Hut  unto  them  which  are  callkd, 
both  Jews  and  (Jreeks,  Christ  the  power  of  God,  and 
the  wisdom  of  God  ;"  the  wisdom  and  eflicacy  of  the 
(Josiicl  being,  of  course,  acknowledged  in  their  very 
prolbssioii  of  (.Christ,  in  opposition  to  those  to  whom 
the  preaching  of  "  Christ  crucified"  was  "  a  stumbling 
block"  and  "  Ibolishness."  1  Cor.  vii.  18,  "  Is  any  man 
CALLEu"  (brought  to  acknowledge  Cliriat,  and  to  be- 


Chap.  XXVL] 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTP:S. 


343 


come  a  member of'liis  church) :  "  beiii^  circumcised,  let 
him  not  become  uncircumcised  :  is  any  called  in  un- 
circumcision,  let  him  not  be  circumcised."  Eph.  iv. 
1 — 4,  "  That  ye  walk  worthy  of  the  vocation,  where- 
with ye  are  called.  There  is  one  brnUj,  and  one  spirit, 
even  as  ye  are  called  in  one  hope  of  your  calling." 

1  Thess.  ii.  12,  "That  ye  would  walk  worthy  of  tiod, 
who  hath  callkd  you  to  his  kingdom  and  glory." 

2  Thess.  ii.  13, 14,  •'  Through  sanctificatioii  of  the  Spirit 
and  belief  of  the  truth,  whereunto  lie  called  you  by 
our  Go.spel,  to  the  olilaining  of  the  glory  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ."  2  Tim.  i.  'J,  10,  "Wlio  hath  saved  us 
and  CALLED  us  with  a  holy  calling;  not  according  to 
our  works,  but  according  to  his  own  purpose  and 
grace,  which  was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesu.s,  before  the 
world  began  ;  but  is  now  made  manifest  by  the  appear- 
ing of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ :"  on  which  passage  we 
may  remark,  that  the  object  of  the  "  calling,"  and  the 
"  puriiose"  mentioned  in  it,  must  of  necessity  be  inter- 
preted to  mean  the  estabhshmenl  of  the  church  on  the 
principle  of  faith ;  and  not,  as  fonnerly,  on  natural 
descent.  For  personal  election,  and  a  purpose  of 
effectual  personal  calling  could  not  have  been  hid- 
den till  manifested  by  the  appearing  of  Christ,  since 
every  instance  of  true  conversion  to  God  in  any  age 
prior  to  the  appearing  of  Christ,  would  be  as  much  a 
manifestation  of  eternal  election,  and  an  instance  of 
personal  effectual  calling,  according  to  the  Calvinistic 
scheme,  as  it  was  after  the  appearance  of  Christ.  The 
apostle  is  speaking  of  a  purpose  of  God,  which  was 
kept  secret  till  revealed  by  the  Christian  system  ;  and, 
from  various  other  parallel  passages,  we  learn  that 
this  secret,  this  "  mystery,"  as  he  often  calls  it,  was 
the  union  of  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  in  "  one  body,"  or 
church,  by  faith. 

In  none  of  these  passages  is  the  doctrine  of  the  ex- 
clusive calling  of  any  set  number  of  men  contained; 
and  the  Synod  of  Dort,  as  though  they  felt  this,  only 
attempt  to  reason  the  doctrine  from  a  text  not  yet 
quoted,  but  which  we  will  now  examine.  It  is  Rom. 
viii.  30 :  "  Whom  he  did  predestinate,  them  he  also 
called ;  and  whom  he  called,  them  he  also  justified ; 
and  whom  he  justified,  them  he  also  glorified."  This 
is  the  text  on  which  Calvinists  chiefly  rest  their  doc- 
trine of  effectual  calling  ;  and  tracing  it,  as  they  say, 
through  its  steps  and  links,  they  conclude,  that  a  set 
and  determinate  number  of  persons  having  been  pre- 
destinated unto  salvation,  this  set  number  only  are 
called  effictually,  then  justified,  and  finally  glorified. 
The  words  of  the  Synod  of  Bort  are,  "  he  hath  chosen 
a  set  number  of  certain  men,  neither  better  nor  more 
worthy  than  others,  but  lying  in  the  common  misery 
with  others,  to  salvation  in  Christ,  whom  he  had  also 
appointed  the  Mediator  and  Head  of  the  elect,  and  the 
foundation  of  salvation  from  all  eternity ;  and  so  he 
decreed  to  give  them  to  him  to  be  saved,  and  efl'ectu- 
ally  to  call  and  draw  them  to  a  communion  with  him 
by  his  word  and  Spirit,  or  to  give  them  a  true  faith  in 
him:  to  justify,  sanctify,  and  finally  glorify  them  : 
having  been  kept  in  the  communion  of  his  Son,  to  the 
demonstration  of  his  mercy,  and  the  praise  of  the 
riches  of  his  glorious  grace."(2) 

The  text  under  consideration  is  added  by  the  Synod, 
in  proof  of  the  doctrine  of  this  article ;  but  it  was  evi- 
dently nothing  to  the  puriiose,  unless  it  had  spoken  of 
a  set  and  determinate  number  of  men  as  predestinated 
and  called,  independent  of  any  consideration  of  their 
faith  and  obedience  ;  which  number,  as  being  deter- 
minate, would,  by  consequence,  exclude  the  rest.  As 
these  are  points  on  which  the  text  is  at  least  silent, 
there  is  nothing  in  it  unfriendly  to  those  arguments 
founded  on  explicit  texts  of  Holy  Writ  which  have 
been  already  urged  against  this  view  of  election  ;  and 
with  this  notion  of  election  is  refuted,  also,  the  cognate 
doctrine  of  effectual  calling,  considered  as  a  work  of 
God  in  the  heart  of  which  the  elect  only  can  be  the 
subjects.  But  the  passage,  having  been  pressed  into 
so  ahen  a  service,  deserves  consideration;  audit  will 
be  found  that  it  indeed  speaks  of  the  privileges  and 
hopes  of  true  believers ;  but  not  of  those  privileges 
and  hopes  as  secured  to  them  by  any  such  decree  of 
election  as  the  Synod  has  advocated.  To  prove  this, 
we  remark,  1.  That  the  chapter  in  which  the  text  is 
found,  is  the  lofty  and  animating  conclusion  of  St. 


(2)  Sentcntia  de  Divina  Prcedest.  Art.  7.   Est  antem 
Electioimmutabile  Dei  propositum,  &c.  '  ' 


raul'a  argument  on  justification  by  fhilh:  it  is  a  dis- 
course of  iliat  jiresent  state  of  pardon  and  sanctity,  and 
of  tliat  future  hope  of  felicity,  u'.to  which  justification 
introduces  believers,  notwithstanding  those  suffering.s 
and  persecutions  of  the  present  life  to  which  those  to 
whom  he  wrote  were  exposed,  and  under  which  they 
liad  need  of  encouragement.  It  was  obviously  not  in 
his  design  here  to  s[ieak  of  the  doctrines  of  eliclion 
and  non-election,  however  these  doctrines  may  he  un- 
derstood. There  is  nothing  in  the  course  of  liis  argu- 
ment wiiich  leads  to  them ;  and  those  who  make  use 
of  the  text  in  question  for  this  purpose,  are  obliged, 
therefore,  to  press  it,  by  circuitous  inference,  into  their 
service. 

2.  As  the  passage  stands  in  intimate  connexion  with 
an  important  and  elucidatory  context,  it  ought  not  to 
be  considered  as  insulated  and  complete  in  itself; 
which  has  been  the  great  source  of  erroneous  inter- 
pretations. Under  the  sufferings  of  the  present  time, 
the  apostle  encourages  those  who  had  believed  with  the 
hope  of  glorious  resurrection  :  this  forms  the  subject 
of  his  consolatory  remarks  from  verse  17  to  25.  The 
assistance  and  "  intercession"  of  the  Spirit ;  and  the 
working  of  "  all  things  together  for  good  to  them  that 
love  God,  to  them  who  are  the  called  according  to  his 
purpose;''''  clearly  meaning  those  who,  according  to  the 
Divine  design,  had  received  and  embraced  the  Gospel 
in  truth,  form  two  additional  topics  of  consolatory  sug- 
gestion. The  passage  under  consideration  immediately 
follows,  and  is  in  full,  for  the  Synod  has  quoted  it 
short :  "And  we  know  that  all  tilings  work  together 
for  good  to  them  that  love  God,  to  them  who  are  the 
called  (who  are  called)  according  to  his  purpose.  For 
whom  he  did  foreknow,  he  also  did  predestinate  to  be 
conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son,  that  he  might 
be  the  first-born  among  many  brethren.  Moreover, 
whom  he  did  jiredestinate,  them  he  also  called ;  and 
whom  he  called,  them  he  also  justified ;  and  whom 
he  justified,  them  he  also  glorified."  The  connex- 
ion is  here  manifest.  "The  sufferings  of  the  pre- 
sent time  could  only  work  together  for  the  good" 
of  them  that  "  love  God,"  by  being  connected  viith,  and 
compensated  in  a  future  state  by,  a  glorious  resurrec- 
tion from  the  dead ;  and  therefore  the  apostle  show.s 
that  this  was  the  design  of  God,  the  ultimate  and  tri- 
umphant result  of  the  administration  of  his  grace, 
that  they  who  love  God  here  should  be  conlbnned  to 
the  image  of  his  Son,  in  his  glorified  state,  that  he 
might  be  "the  first-born  among  brethren;"  the  head 
and  chief  of  the  redeemed,  who  shall  be  acknowledged 
as  his  '•  brethren,"  and  co-heirs  of  his  glory.  Thus  the 
whole  of  the  29th  verse  is  a  reason  given  to  show 
wuy  "  all  things,  however  painful  in  the  present  life, 
work  together  for  good  to  them  that  love  God  ;"  ainl 
it  is  therefore  introduced  by  the  connective  particle, 
6ri,  which  has  here,  obviously,  a  casual  signification, 
"/or  (because)  whom  he  did  foreknow,  he  also  did  pre- 
destinate." 

3.  The  apostle  is  here  speaking,  we  grant,  not  of  the 
foreknowledge  or  predestination  of  bodies  of  men  to 
church  privileges;  but  of  the  experience  of  believers, 
taken  distributively  and  personally.  This  will,  how- 
ever, be  found  to  strengthen  our  argument  against  the 
use  made  of  the  latter  jiart  of  the  passage  by  the  Synod 
of  Dort. 

It  is  affirmed  of  believers,  that  they  were  "/orr- 
hiou-n."  Tliis  term  may  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  fore- 
approved.  For  not  only  is  it  common  with  tlie  sacred 
writers  to  express  approval  by  tiie  phrase  "  to  know ;" 
of  which  Hebraism  the  instances  are  many  in  the 
New  Testament ;  but  in  Rom.  xi.  2,  "  to  foreknow,"  is 
best  interpreted  into  this  meaning.  "  God  hath  not 
cast  away  his  people  which  he  foreknew."  It  is  not 
of  the  whole  people  of  Israel  of  which  the  apostle  here 
speaks,  as  the  context  shows ;  but  of  tlie  believing 
part  of  them,  called  sub,sequeiitly  "the  remnant  ac- 
cording to  the  election  of  grace  :"  a  clause  which  has 
been  before  explained.  The  question  put  by  the  apos- 
tle into  the  mouth  of  an  objecting  Jew,  is,  "  Hath  Go<l 
oast  away  his  iieople  !"  This  is  denied  ;  hut  the  illu.s- 
tration  taken  from  the  reservation  of  .seven  thousand 
men,  in  the  time  of  Elijah,  who  had  not  bowed  the 
knee  to  Baal,  prove.s  that  St.  Paul  meant  to  say,  that 
God  had  cast  olf  from  being  members  of  his  church, 
all  but  the  remnant;  all  but  hisix:ofile  whomhe  "fore- 
k-new;"  those  who  had  laid  iiside  the  inveterate  preju- 
dices of  their  nation,  and  liad  entered  into  the  new 


344 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[r.MiT  II. 


Christian  church  by  faith.  These  he  foreknew,  ilmt  is 
approved;  and  fjo  received  them  into  his  cliurch.  In 
this  sense  of  the  tenn  Ibreknew,  the  text  in  question 
harmonizes  well  with  the  context.  "All  things  work 
together  for  nood  to  them  that  love  (Jod,"  Sec.  "  For, 
wlioin  he  did  (breknow"  (approve  as  lovers  of  liiui), 
"  he  predestinated  to  be  coiifornied  to  the  image  of  liis 
Son,"  in  mind  and  temper  here,  and  esjiecially  in  glory 
hereafter. 

The  second  sense  of  foreknowing  is  that  of  simple 
prescience  ;  and  if  any  prefer  this  we  shall  not  dispute 
with  him,  since  it  will  come  to  the  same  issue.  The 
foreknowledge  of  men  must  have  respect  cither  simply 
to  their  existence  as  persons,  or  as  existing  under  some 
particular  circumstances  and  characters.  If  persons 
only  be  the  objects  of  this  foreknowledge,  then  lias 
God's  i)rescience  no  more  to  do  with  tiie  salvation  of 
the  elect,  than  of  the  non-elect,  since  all  are  equally 
foreknown  as  ])ersn}is  in  a  state  of  existence  ;  and  we 
might  as  well  argue  the  gloritication  of  the  reprobate 
from  God's  foreknowing  tliem,  in  this  sense,  as  tliat  of 
the  elect.  The  objects  of  this  (breknowledge,  then, 
must  be  men  under  certain  circumstances  and  charac- 
ters ;  not  in  their  simple  existence  as  rational  beings. 
If,  therefore,  the  term  "  foreknow,"  in  the  passage 
above  cited,  "  God  hath  not  cast  away  his  people  whom 
he/orekneiu"  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  prescience, 
those  of  the  general  mass  of  .lows,  who  were  not  "  cast 
away,"  were  foreknown  under  some  circumstance 
and  character  which  distinguished  them  from  the 
others ;  and  what  this  was,  is  made  suthciently  plain 
from  the  context, — the  persons  foreknown  were  the 
then  believing  part  of  the  Jews,  "even  so  then,  at.  tins 
present  time  also,  there  is  a  remnant  according  to  the 
election  of  grace."  Equally  clear  are  the  circum- 
stances and  character  under  which,  more  generally,  the 
apostle  represents  believers  as  having  been  foreknown  in 
the  text  more  immediately  under  examination.  Tho.se 
"whom  he  did  foreknow,"  are  manifestly  the  be- 
lievers of  whom  he  speaks  in  the  discourse;  and  who 
are  called  in  chap.  viii.  28,  "them  that  love  God." 
Under  some  character  he  must  have  foreknown  them, 
or  his  foreknowledge  of  I  hem  would  not  be  special  and 
distinctive ;  it  would  afford  no  ground  from  which  to 
argue  any  thing  respecting  them  ;  it  could  make  no 
dilfercnce  between  them  and  others.  This  specilic 
character  is  given  by  the  apostle ;  but  it  is  not  that 
which  is  gratuitously  assumed  by  the  Synod  of  Uort,  a 
selection  of  them  from  the  mass,  vvithout  respect  to 
their  faith.  It  is  their  faith  itself :  for  of  believers  only 
is  St.  Paul  si)eaking  as  the  subjects  of  this  Ibreknow- 
ledge  ;  and  such  believers  too  as  "  love  God,"  and  who, 
having  actually  embraced  the  heavenly  invitation,  are 
emphatically  said  to  be,  as  before  explained,  "called 
according  to  his  purpose." 

To  ]iredestinate,  or  to  determine  beforehand,  is  the 
next  term  in  the  text ;  but  here  it  is  also  to  be  re- 
marked, that  the  persons  predestinated,  or  before  deter- 
mined to  be  glorified  with  (;hrist,  are  the  same  persons, 
under  the  same  circumstances  and  character,  as  those 
who  are  said  to  have  been  foniknovvn  of  God;  and 
what  has  bic  n  said  under  the  former  term  applies, 
therefore,  in  pirl,  lo  this.  The  subjects  of  predestina- 
tion are  the  pirscius  lincknown,  and  the  persons  fore- 
known are  lru('  bcliivcrs:  foreknown  as  such,  or  they 
could  not  have  been  specially  or  distinctively  fore- 
known according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  apostle.  This 
predestination,  then,  is  not  of  jiersons  "  t  nto  faith  and 
obedience,"  but  of  believiiiL'  and  obedient  persons  I'Nrn 
eternal  glory.  Nor  are  faiih  and  oln-dience  mentioned 
any  where  as  the  emlol'  predestination,  except  in  lOph. 
chap,  i.,  whore  we  have  already  proved,  when  treating 
of  election,  that  the  predestination  spoken  of  in  that 
chapter  is  the  eternal  purpose  of  God  to  choose  the 
Gentile  Epliesians  into  his  church,  along  with  the  be- 
lieving .lews ;  and  that  what  is  there  said,  is  nor 
intended  of  personal,  but  of  collective  election  and  pre- 
destination, and  that  to  the  means  and  ordinances  of 
salvation.  For  the  argument  by  whnli  this  is  esta- 
blished let  the  reader,  to  jireveiit  rejiiiition,  turn 
back. 

'i'lie  passage  before  us,  then,  declares,  that  true  be- 
lievers were  foreknown,  and  predestinated  to  eternal 
glory  ;  and  when  the  apostle  adds,  "  moreover,  whom 
he  did  predestinate,  them  he  also  called ;  and  whom 
he  called,  them  he  also  justified  ;  and  whom  he  jus- 
tified, them  he  also  glorified  :"   he  shows  in  i)artii,ular 


how  the  Divine  jiurpose  to  glorify  believers  is  carried 
into  efl'ect,  through  all  its  stages.  The  great  instru- 
ment of  bringing  men  to  "  love  God"  is  the  Gospel ; 
they  are  tlierelbre  callkd,  invited  by  it,  to  this  state 
and  benefit:  the  calling  being  obeyed,  they  are  jus- 
tified ;  and  being  justified,  and  continuing  in  that 
state  of  grace,  they  are  ct.oRiKiKn.  This  is  the  plain 
and  obvious  cour.se  of  the  amplification  pursued  by 
the  apostle  ;  but  let  us  remark  how  many  unscriptural 
notions  the  Synod  of  Don  engrails  ujion  it.  First,  a 
"  certain  number"  of  persons,  not  as  hdievers,  but  as 
me?i,  are  foreknown  ;  then  a  decree  of  predestination 
to  eternal  life  goes  forth  in  their  favour ;  but  stiil  with- 
out respect  to  thein  as  believing  men  as  the  subjects  of 
that  decree; — then  we  suppose,  by  another  decree  (for 
the  first  cannot  look  at  quaUties  at  all),  and  by  a  se- 
cond predestination  they  arc  to  be  made  believers ; — 
then  they  are  exclusively  "called:"  then  infallibly  jus- 
tified ;  and  being  justified,  are  infallibly  glorified.  Tn 
opposition  to  these  notions,  we  have  already  shown, 
that  the  persons  spoken  of  are  foreknown  and  predes- 
tinated as  believers,  not  as  men,  or  persons  ;  and  we 
may  also  ojijiose  scriptural  objections  to  every  other 
part  of  the  interpretation. 

As  to  calling,  we  allow  that  all  of  whom  the  apostle 
speaks  are  necessarily  "  called ;"  for  since  he  is  dis- 
coursing of  the  predestination  of  believers  in  Christ  to 
eternal  glory,  and  does  not  touch  the  question  of  the 
salvation,  or  oiherwi.se,  of  those  who  have  not  the 
means  of  becoming  such,  the  calling  of  the  Gospel  is 
necessarily  supposed,  as  it  is  only  upon  that  Divine 
system  being  proposed  to  their  faith,  that  they  could 
become  believers  in  Christ.  I!ut  though  all  such  as 
the  apostle  speaks  of  are  "called;"  they  are  not  the 
only  persons  called:  on  the  contrary,  our  Lord  de- 
clares, that  "7«aJiJ/are  called,  but /eic  chosen."  To 
confine  the  calling  here  spoken  of  to  those  who  are 
actually  saved,  it  was  necessary  to  invent  the  fiction 
of  "  elfectual  calling,"  which  is  made  peculiar  to  the 
elect ;  but  calling  is  the  invitation,  and  offer,  and  pub- 
lication of  the  Gospel :  a  bringing  men  into  a  state  of 
Christian  privilege  to  he  improved  unto  salvation,  and 
not  an  ojieration  in  them.  Effectual  invitation,  ef- 
fectual offer,  and  effectual  publication,  are  turns  of 
the  phrase  which  sufficiently  expose  the  delusiveness 
of  their  comment.  Hy  effectual  calling,  they  mean  an 
inward  compelling  of  the  mind  to  embrace  the  outward 
invitation  of  the  (Jospel,  and  to  yield  to  the  inward  so- 
licitations of  the  Spirit  which  ai-eonii>anies  it ;  but  this, 
wlielher  true  or  false,  is  a  totally  diflcrent  thing  from 
all  that  the  New  Testament  terms  "  calling."  It  is 
true,  that  some  embrace  the  call,  and  others  reject  it, 
yet  is  there  in  the  "calling"  of  the  Scripture  nothing 
exclusively  appropriate  to  ttio.se  who  are  finally  saved  ; 
and  though  the  ajiostle  supposes  those  whom  he  speaks 
of  in  the  text  as  "  called,"  to  have  been  obedient,  ho 
confines  not  the  calling  itself  to  them  so  as  to  exclude 
others, — still  "many  are  called."  Nor  is  the  Synod 
more  sound  in  assuming  thiit  all  who  are  called  are 
"justified."  If  "many  are  called,  and  few  chosen," 
this  a.ssuinption  is  unfounded :  nay,  all  compliances 
with  the  call,  do  not  issue  in  justification ;  lor  the  man 
who  not  only  heard  the  call,  but  came  in  to  the  feast, 
put  not  on  the  wedding  garment,  and  was  therefore 
finally  cast  out.  Equally  contradictory  to  the  Scrip- 
ture is  it  so  to  explain  St.  Paul  here,  as  to  make  him 
say,  that  all  who  are  justified  are  also  glorified.  The 
justified  are  glorified :  but  not,  as  we  have  seen  from 
various  texts  of  Scriptures  already,  all  who  are  jus- 
tilled.  For  if  we  have  established  it,  that  the  persons 
who  "  turn  back  to  perdition  ;"  "  make  shipwreck  of 
fai/h.  and  of  a  good  conscience ;"  who  turn  oiU  of  the 
''^Wd\  of  rmhfeoii.iries.t ;"  who  forget  that  they  were 
"purged  from  their  old  .sins  ;"  who  have  '■  taxted  the 
good  word  of  (;od,  and  the  jiowers  of  the  world  lo 
come;  and  were  made  partakers  ol' l\ie  Holy  (;host," 
and  were,  "  .sanctified"  with  the  bhx)d,  they  allcrward 
"  counted  an  uiiiioly  tiling ;"  are  represented  by  the 
apostles  to  have  been  in  a  state  of  grace  and  accept- 
ance with  (Joel,  through  Christ;  then  all  i«;rsons  jus- 
tified are  not  iiifallibry  glorified  ;  but  only  such  arc 
saved  as  "endure  to  the  end  ;"  and  they  only  receive 
that  "  crown  of  life,"  who  are  "  faithful  unto  death." 

The  clear  reason  why  the  apostle,  having  stated  that 
true  believers  were  foreknown  and  jneilesiinated,  in- 
troduces also  the  order  imi\  nut lii'd  ot  tlieir  salvation, 
was,  to  connect  that  salvation  with  the  tkispcl,  uiid 


Chip.  XXVII.  ] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


345 


tUe  work  of  Christ ;  and  to  secure  to  him  the  glory  of 
it.  Tne  fiospel  reveals  it,  that  tho>;e  who  "  love  God," 
shall  3nd  that  "all  things  work  together  for  their 
good,"  l)ei;a»,se  (&r()  they  are  "predestinated  to  be  con- 
formed '.o  the  image  of  the  Son  of  God,  in  his  glory ; 
yet  the  Gospel  did  not  Ihid  them  loners  of  God,  but 
made  them  so.  Since,  therefore,  none  but  such  per- 
sons wcK  so  foreknown  and  predestinated  to  be 
heirs  of  glory,  the  Gospel  calling  was  issued  according 
to  "  his  purpose"  or  plan  of  bringing  them  that  love 
him  to  glory,  in  order  to  produce  this  love  in  them. 
"  Whom"  he  thus  called,  assuming  them  to  be  obedient 
to  the  call,  he  justified;  "aiid  whom  he  justified,"  as- 
suming theiri  to  be  faithful  unto  death,  he  "  glorified." 
But  since  the  per-sons  predestinated  were  contemplated 
as  believers,  not  as  a  certain  number  of  perso^is ;  then 
all  to  whom  the  invitation  was  issued  might  obey  that 
call,  and  all  might  be  justified,  and  all  glorified.  In 
other  words,  all  who  heard  the  Gospel  miglit,  through 
it,  be  brought  to  love  God ;  and  miglit  take  their  places 
among  those  who  were  "  predestinated  to  be  conformed 
to  the  image  of  his  Son."  For  since  the  predestina- 
tion, as  we  have  seen,  was  not  of  a  certain  number  of 
persons,  but  of  all  believers  who  love  God ;  then, 
either  it  must  be  allowed,  that  all  who  were  called  by 
the  Gospel,  might  take  the  character  and  circumstances 
wliich  would  bring  them  under  the  predestination 
mentioned  by  the  apo.stle ;  or  else  those  who  deny  this, 
are  bound  to  the  conclusion,  that  God  calls  (invites) 
many,  whom  he  never  intends  to  admit  to  the  celestial 
feast ;  and  not  only  so,  but  punishes  them  with  the 
severity  of  a  relentless  displeasure,  for  not  obeying  an 
invitation  which  he  never  designed  them  to  accept,  and 
whicli  they  never  had  the  power  to  accept.  In  other 
Words,  the  interpretation  of  this  passage  by  the  Synod 
of  Uort  obUges  all  who  follow  it  to  admit  all  the  con- 
sequences connected  with  the  doctrine  of  reprobation, 
as  before  stated. 


CHAPTER  XXVII. 

An  Examin'ation  of   certain  Passages  or  Sceip- 

TURB,  SUreOSF.DTO  Ll.MITTHE  EXTENT  OF  ChRIST's 

Rkdkmption. 

Having  now  shown,  that  those  passages  of  Holy 
Writ,  in  whicli  the  terms  election,  calling,  predes- 
tination, and  FORKKsowLEDGK  occur,  do  not  warrant 
those  inferences  by  which  Calvinists  attempt  to  re- 
strain the  signification  of  those  declarations  with  re- 
spect to  the  extent  of  the  benefit  of  Christ's  death 
•which  are  ex])ressed  in  terms  so  universal  in  the  New 
Testament,  we  may  conclude  our  investigation  of  the 
sense  of  Scripture  on  this  point,  by  adverting  to  some 
of  those  insulated  texts  which  are  most  frequently  ad- 
duced to  support  the  same  conclusion. 

John  vi.  37,  "  All  that  the  Father  giveth  me  shall 
come  to  me ;  and  him  that  cometh  to  me  I  will  in  no 
wise  cast  out." 

It  is  inferred  from  this,  and  some  similar  passages  in 
the  Gospels,  that  by  a  transaction  between  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  a  certain  number  of  persons  called  "  the 
elect"  were  given  to  Christ,  and  in  process  of  time 
"  drawn"  to  him  by  the  Father ;  and  that  as  none  can 
be  saved  but  those;  thus  "  given"  to  him,  and  "  drawn" 
by  the  Father,  the  doctrine  of  "  distinguishing  grace"  is 
established  ;  and  the  rest  of  mankind,  not  having  been 
given  by  the  Father  to  the  Son,  can  have  no  saving 
j)articipation  in  the  benefits  of  a  redemption  which  did 
not  extend  to  them.  ■  This  fiction  has  ollen  been  de- 
fended with  much  ingenuity ;  but  it  remains  a  fiction 
still  unsupported  by  any  good  interpretation  of  the 
texts  which  have  been  assumed  as  itslbundation. 

1.  The  first  objection  to  the  view  usually  taken  by 
Calvinists  of  this  te.\t  is,  that  in  the  case  of  the  per- 
verse Jews,  with  whom  the  di^cnurse  of  Olirist  was 
held,  it  places  the  reason  of  their  not  "  coming"  to 
Christ  in  their  not  having  been  given  to  him  by  the 
Father ;  whereas  our  Lord,  on  the  contrary,  places  it 
in  themselves,  and  shows  that  he  considered  their  case 
to  be  in  their  own  hands  by  his  inviting  them  to  come 
to  him,  and  reproving  them  because  they  would  not 
come.  "  Ye  have  not  his  word  (the  word  of  the  Fa- 
ther) abiding  ill  you;  for  whom  he  hath  sent,  him  ye 
believe  not,"  John  v.  38.    "  Aud  yo  will  not  come  to  me 


that  ye  may  have  life."  ver.sc  40.  "  How  can  ye  believe, 
which  receive  honour  one  of  another,"  verse  44.  "  For 
had  ye  believed  Moses,  ye  would  have  believed  me,  for 
he  wrote  of  me,"  verse  40.  Now  these  stiilcmenis  can- 
not stand  together;  for  if  the  true  reason  why  the  jier- 
verse  Jews  did  not  believe  in  our  Lord  was,  that  tln;y 
had  not  been  given  to  him  of  the  Father,  then  it  lay  not 
in  themselves;  but  if  the  reason  was  that  "his  word 
did  not  abide  in  them,"  that  iXiey  "  lamld  not  come  to 
him ;"  that  they  sought  worldly  "  honour ;"  finally,  that 
they  believed  not  Moses's  v/ritings  ;  then  it  is  altoi^cthcr 
contradictory  to  these  declarations  to  place  itinanVdV  of 
God ;  to  which  it  is  not  attributed  in  any  part  of  the 
discourse. 

2.  To  be  "  given"  by  the  Father  to  Christ,  is  a  phrase 
abundantly  explained  in  the  context  wliich  tliis  class 
of  interpreters  generally  overlook. 

It  had  a  special  application  to  those  pious  Jews,  who 
"  waited  for  redemption  at  .Jerusalem :"  those  who  read 
and  believed  the  writings  of  Moses  (a  general  term,  it 
would  seem,  for  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures),  and 
who  were  thus  prepared,  by  more  spiritual  views  than 
the  rest,  though  they  were  not  unmixed  with  obscurity, 
to  receive  Christ  as  the  Messiah.  Of  this  description 
were  Peter,  Andrew,  Philip,  Nathanael,  Lazarus  and 
his  sisters,  and  many  others.  Philip  says  to  Nathanael, 
"  We  have  found  him  of  whom  Moses  in  the  law  and 
the  prophets  did  write  ;"  and  Nathanael  was  manifestly 
a  pious  Jew ;  for  our  Lord  said  of  liim,  "  Behold  an 
Israelite  indeed,  in  whom  is  no  guile."  The  light 
which  such  honest  inquiries  into  the  meaning  of  the 
Scriptures  obtained  as  to  the  import  of  their  testimony 
concerning  the  Messiah,  and  the  character  and  claims 
of  Jesus,  is  expressly  attributed  to  the  teaching  and 
revelation  of  "  the  Father."  So,  afler  Peter's  confes- 
sion, our  Lord  exclaimed,  "Ulesscd  art  thou  Simon  Bar 
Jonah,  ioT  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto 
thee;  but  7?iy  Fa/Zier  which  is  in  heaven."  This  teach- 
ing, and  its  influence  upon  the  mind,  is,  in  John  vi.  44, 
called  the  "  drawing"  of  the  Father,  "  No  man  can  come 
to  me,  e.iccept  the  Father  drnic  him  ;"  for  that  "  to  draw" 
and  "  to  teach"  mean  the  same  thing,  is  evident,  since 
our  Lord  immediately  adds,  "it  is  written  in  the  jiro- 
phets,  and  they  shall  be  all  taught  of  God ;"  and  then 
subjoins  this  exegetical  observation; — "every  man, 
therefore,  that  halti  heard,  and  hath  learned  of  the  Fa- 
ther, Cometh  to  me."  Those  who  truly  "  believed"  Mo- 
ses's words,  then,  were  under  the  Father's  illuminating 
influence,  ^"^ heard  and  learned  of  the  Father;"  were 
"rfrnMii"  of  the  Father;  and  so,  by  the  Father,  were 
"  given  to  Clirist,"  as  his  disciples,  to  be  more  fully 
taught  the  mysteries  of  Ms  religion,  and  to  be  made  the 
saving  partakers  of  its  benefits ; — for  "  this  is  the  Fa- 
ther's will  which  sent  rne,  that  of  all  which  he  hath  given 
me  (thus  to  perfect  in  knowledge,  and  to  exalt  into  ho- 
liness) I  should  lose  nothing ;  but  should  raise  it  up 
again  at  the  last  day."  Thus  we  have  exhibited  thai 
beautiful  process  in  the  work  of  God  in  the  hearts  of 
sincere  Jews,  which  took  place  in  their  transit  from  one 
dispensation  to  another,  from  Moses  to  Christ.  Taught 
of  the  Father ;  led  into  the  sincere  belief,  and  general 
spiritual  understanding  of  the  Scriptures  as  to  the 
Messiah ;  when  Christ  appeared,  they  were  "  drawn" 
and  "given"  to  him,  as  the  now  visible  aud  accredited 
Head,  Teacher,  Lord,  and  Saviour  of  the  church.  All 
in  this  view  is  natural,  explicit,  and  supported  by  the 
context ;  all  in  the  Calvinistic  interpretation  appcar.s 
forced,  obscure,  and  inapplicable  to  the  whole  tenor  of 
the  discourse.  For  to  what  end  of  edification  of  any 
kind  were  the  Jews  told  that  none  but  a  certain  num- 
ber, elected  from  eternity,  and  given  to  him  before  the 
world  was,  by  the  Father,  should  come  to  him  ;  and 
that  they  to  whom  he  was  then  speaking  were  not  of 
that  number  ?  But  the  coherence  of  the  discourse  is 
manifest,  when,  in  these  sermons  of  our  Lord,  they 
were  told  that  their  not  coming  to  Christ  was  the  proof 
of  their  unbelief  in  Moses's  writings;  that  they  were  not 
"taught  of  God;"  that  they  had  neither  "heard  nor 
learned  of  the  Father,"  whom  they  yet  professed  to  wor- 
ship,and  seek;  and  that,  as  the  hinderauce  to  their  com- 
ing to  Christ  was  in  the  state  of  their  hearts,  it  was  reme- 
diable by  a  diUgentand  honest  .search  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  by  listening  to  the  teacliings  of  God.  To  this  very 
class  of  Jews  our  Lord,  in  tliis  same  discourse  says, 
"  Search  the  Scriptures ;'  but  to  w  hat  end  were  they  to  do 
this,  if,  in  the  Calvinistic  sense,  tliey  were  not  given  to 
him  ofthe  Father  ?  The  text  in  (lucstion,  then,  tljus  opened 


346 


THEOLOGICAl.  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


by  a  reference  to  the  whole  discourse,  is  of  obvious 
riieaiiiiig.  "  All  that  the  Father  niveth  me  after  this 
prcjiariii?  leaching,  shall  or  irill  come  to  me  (for  it  is 
shnply  the  future  tense  of  the  indicative  mood  which  is 
used  ;  and  no  notion  of  irresistilde  inllucnce  is  con- 
veyed) ;  and  liiin  that  cometh  to  me,  I  will  in  no  wise 
cast  out."  The  latter  clause  is  added  to  show  the  per- 
fect harmony  of  desif,'n  between  <  hrist  and  the  I'ather, 
a  point  often  adverted  to  in  this  discourse  ;  for  "  I  came 
down  from  heaven  not  to  do  mine  own  will,  but  the 
will  of  him  that  sent  me."  Whom,  therefore,  the  Fa- 
ther so  gives,  I  receive :  I  enter  ujion  my  assigned 
office,  and  shall  be  faithlUl  to  it.  In  reference  also  to 
the  work  of  God  in  the  hearts  of  men  in  general,  as 
well  as  to  the  honest  and  inciuirin^;  Jews  of  our  Lord's 
day,  these  passages  have  a  clear  ami  interesting  apjili- 
cation.  The  work  of  the  Fatlier  is  carried  on  by  his 
convincing  and  teaching  Spirit;  but  that  Spirit  "  testi- 
fies" of  (JhrLst,  "leads"lo  (Uirist,aiid  "ifjiVA-"  to  Christ, 
that  we  may  reiteive  the  full  benefit  of  his  sacrifice  and 
salvation,  and  be  placed  in  the  church  of  which  he  is 
the  Head.  Hut  in  this  there  is  no  exclusion.  That 
which  hinders  others  from  coming  to  Christ,  is  that 
which  hinders  them  from  being  "  drawn"  of  the  Father ; 
from  "  hearing  and  learning"  of  the  Father,  in  his  holy 
word,  and  by  his  Spirit ;  which  hinderance  is  the  moral 
state  of  the  heart,  not  any  exclusive  decree ;  not  the 
want  of  teaching,  or  drawing,  but,  as  it  is  compendi- 
ously expressed  in  Scripture,  a  "  kesisting  of  the  Uoly 
Ghost." 

Matt.  XX.  15,  Ifi,  "  Is  it  not  lawful  for  me  to  do  what 
1  will  with  my  own  7  Is  thine  eye  evil  because  I  am 
good  ;  So  the  last  shall  be  first,  and  the  first  last ;  for 
many  are  called,  but  few  chosen." 

This  passage  has  been  often  urged  in  proof  of  the 
doctrine  of  unconditional  election ;  and  the  argument 
raised  upon  it  is,  that  God  has  a  right  to  dispense  grace 
and  glory  to  whom  he  will,  on  a  principle  of  pure  sove- 
reignty ;  and  to  leave  others  to  perish  in  their  sins. 
That  the  passage  has  no  relation  to  this  doctrine,  needs 
no  other  j)roof  than  that  it  is  the  conclusion  of  the  pa- 
rable of  the  labourers  in  the  vineyard.  The  house- 
holder gives  to  them  that  "  wrought  but  one  hour"  an 
equal  reward  to  that  bestowed  upon  those  who  had  la- 
boured through  the  twelve.  The  latter  received  the 
full  price  of  the  day's  labour  agreed  upon  ;  and  the 
former  were  made  subjects  of  a  special  and  sovereign 
dispensation  of  grace.  The  exercise  of  the  Divine 
sovereignty,  in  bestowing  degrees  of  grace,  or  reward, 
is  the  subject  of  the  parable,  and  no  one  disputes  it ; 
but,  according  to  the  Calvinistic  interpretation,  no  grace 
at  all,  no  reward,  is  bestowed  upon  the  non-elect,  who 
are,  moreover,  punished  for  rejecting  a  grace  never  oi- 
fered.  The  absurdity  of  such  a  use  of  the  jiarable  is 
obvious.  It  relates  to  no  such  subject ;  for  its  moral 
manifestly  relates  to  the  reception  of  great  offenders, 
and  especially  of  the  Gentih'S,  into  the  favour  of  Christ, 
and  the  abundant  rewards  of  Heaven. 

2  Timothy  ii.  19,  "  Nevertheless  the  foundation  of  God 
standetli  sure,  having  this  seal.  The  Lord  knowelh  tlu^m 
Ihat  are  his  ;  and.  Let  every  one  that  nanielh  the  name 
of  Christ  depart  from  iniquity." 

The  apostle,  in  this  chapter,  is  speaking  of  those  an- 
cient hi^retics  who  afl'irmcd  "that  the  resurrection  is 
past  already,  and  overthrew  the  faith  of  some."  What 
then?  the  truth  itself  is  not  overthrown;  the  founda- 
tion of  God  standeth  sure,  h.iving  this  seal,  or  inscrij)- 
tiou,  "The  Lord  knoweth,"  or  approveth,or, if  it  please 
better,  distinguishes  and  acknowledges  "  them  that  arc 
his  ;"  and  "  Let  every  one  that  namcth  the  name  of 
Christ  depart  from  iniquity  ;"  which  is  as  much  as  to 
say  that  none  are  truly  "  the  Lord'.s"  who  do  not  depart 
from  iniquity;  and  that  those  whose  faith  is  "over- 
thrown" by  the  influence  of  corrupt  principles  and 
manners,  are  no  longer  accounted  '-his:"  all  which 
is  perfectly  congruous  with  the  opinions  of  those  who 
hold  the  unrestricted  extent  of  the  death  of  Christ. 
Towards  the  Calvinistic  doctrme  this  text  certainly 
bears  no  friendly  aspect ;  for  surely  it  was  of  little 
consequence  to  any,  to  have  their  "  fiiitli  overthrown," 
if  that  faith  never  was,  nor  could  be,  counccied  with 
salvation. 

I    John  X.  26,  "  Rut  ye  believe  not,  because  yc  are  not 
of  my  sheep,  as  1  said  unto  you." 

The  argument  here  is,  that  the  cause  ol'  the  unbelief 
of  the  persons  aihiressed  was,  that  they  were  not  of  the 
number  given  to  Cttrist  by  the  FatUer,  from  eiernity,  to 


Ihe  exclusion  of  all  others.(3)  Let  it,  however,  be 
observed,  that  in  direct  opposition  to  this,  men  are  call- 
ed the  sheep  of  Christ  by  our  Lord  himself,  not  with 
reference  to  any  supposed  transaction  between  tie  Fa- 
ther and  the  Son  in  eternity,  which  is  never  ever  hinted 
at,  but  because  of  their  qualities  and  acts.  "  My 
sheep  hear  my  voice,  and  I  know  them  ;  and  they  follow 
me."  "A  stranger  will  they  not /o/tou'."  Why  then 
did  not  the  Jews  believe  ?  Because  they  had  not  the 
qualities  of  Christ's  sheep  :  they  were  neither  discrimi- 
nating as  to  the  voice  of  the  shejiherd,  nor  cbedieut  to 
it.  The  usual  Calvinistic  interinelation  brings  in  otir 
Lord,  in  this  instance,  as  teaching  the  Jews  that  the 
reason  why  tlicy  did  not  believe  on  him,  was,  that  they 
could  not  believe  I  for,  as  Mr.  Scott  says  in  the  note 
below,  "  not  being  of  that  chosen  renniant,  they  were 
left  to  the  pride  and  ennuty  of  their  carnal  heart.s." 
This  was  not  likely  to  be  very  edifying  to  them.  But  the 
words  of  our  Lord  are  manifestly  words  of  reproof, 
grounded  not  U|ion  acts  of  (;od,  but  upon  acts  of  their 
o\v^l ;  and  they  are  parallel  to  Ihe  passages — •'  If  God 
were  your  Father,  ye  would  love  me,"  cha|(.  viii.  42 
"  Every  one  that  is  of  the  truth  heareth  my  voice,"  xviii. 
37.  "  How  can  ye  believe,  which  receive  honour  one 
of  another,"  v.  44. 

John  xiii.  18,  "  I  speak  not  of  you  all :  I  know  whom 
I  have  chosen  :  but  that  the  Scrijiture  may  be  fulfilled, 
He  that  eateth  bread  with  me  hath  lifted  up  his  heel 
against  me." 

"  He  perfectly  knew,"  says  Mr.  Scott  on  the  passage, 
"  what  persons  he  had  chosen,  as  well  as  which  of 
them  were  chosen  unto  salvation."  This  is  surely 
making  our  Lord  utter  a  very  immeaning  truism;  for 
as  he  chose  the  apostles,  so  he  must  have  "/mown" 
that  he  chose  them.  Dr.  Whitby's  intc-rprctation  is, 
therefore,  to  be  taken  in  preference.  "  I  know  the 
temper  and  disposition  of  those  whom  I  have  chosen, 
and  what  I  may  expect  from  every  one  of  them  ;"  for 
which  case  I  said, '  Ye  are  not  all  clean  ;'  but  God  in 
his  wisdom  hath  permitted  tins,  that  as  Aliithophel  be- 
trayed David,  though  he  was  his  familiar  friend,  so 
Judas,  my  familiar  at  my  table,  iinglit  betray  the  Son 
of  God  ;  and  so  the  words  recorded,  I'salm  xli.  9, 
might  be  fulfilled  in  him  also  of  whom  lung  David  was 
the  type."(4)  Certainly  Judas  was  "  chosen"  as  well 
as  the  rest.  "  Have  not  I  chosen  you  twelve,  and  one 
of  you  is  a  devil  ?"  nor  have  we  any  reason  to  con- 
clude that  (Christ  uses  the  term  chosen  difierenflyin 
the  two  passages.  When,  therelbre,  our  Lord  says,  "  I 
know  whom  I  have  chosen,"  the  term  know  must  be 
taken  in  the  .sense  of  discriminating  character. 

John  XV.  1(5, "  Ye  have  not  cho.sen  me,  but  1  have  cho- 
sen you,  and  ordained  you,  that  ye  should  go  and  bring 
forth  fruit."  Mr.  Scott,  wliom,  as  being  a  modern  (Jal- 
vinislic  commentator,  we  rather  choo.se  again  to  <|Uote, 
interprets — "chosen  them  unto  salvation."  In  its 
proper  sense,  we  make  no  objection  to  this  phra.se  :  it 
is  a  scriptural  one ;  but  it  must  be  taken  in  its  own 
connexion.  Here,  however,  either  the  term  "  chosen" 
is  to  be  miderstood  with  reference  to  the  apostolic 
office,  which  is  very  agreeable  to  the  context ;  or  if  it 
relate  to  the  salvation  of  the  disciples,  it  can  have  no 
respect  to  the  doctrine  of  eternal  election.  For  if  the 
election  spoken  of  were  not  an  act  done  in  time,  it  would 
liave  been  unnecessary  for  our  Lord  to  say,  "  Ye  have 
noi  chosen  nie ;"  because  it  is  obvious  they  could  not 
choose  liim  before  they  came  into  being.  Another  pas- 
sage, also,  in  the  same  discourse,  farther  proves,  that 
the  election  mentioned  was  an  act  done  in  time.  "  1 
have  chosen  yov  out  of  the  leorld,"  ver.  I'.).  But  if  they 
were  "  chosen  out  of  the  world,"  they  werecho.sen  sub- 
seiiuently  to  their  being  "in  the  world  ;"  and,  therefore, 
the  election  sjioken  of  is  not  eternal.  The  last  observa- 
tion will  also  deprive  these  interpreters  of  another  fa- 
vourite passage,  "Those  that  thou  ij'ni'esi  me  I  have 
k<pt,  and  none  of  them  is  lost,  but  the  son  of  perdition." 
The  "giving"  here  mentioned,  was  no  more  an  act  of 
God  in  eternity,  as  they  pretend,  than  the  "  choosing" 
to  which  we  have  already  rcli'rred  ;  for  in  the  same 
lUscourse  the  apostles  are  called  "  the  men  thou  gavest 


(3)  "  The  true  reason  why  they  did  not  believe  was 
the  want  of  that  simple,  teachable,  and  inoflensive  tem- 
per, which  characterised  his  slieep,  fou  not  being  of 
that  enosKN  remnant,  Ihcy  were  left  to  the  pride  and 
enmity  of  their  carnal  hearts."— Scott's  Com. 

(1)  Notes  in  loc. 


Chap.  XXVII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


347 


me  out  of  the  world,"  and  were  therefore  given  to 
Christ  in  time.  The  excci)tion  as  to  .(udas,  also, 
proves  that  this  "  givinii^'  expresses  actual  diseiple- 
ship.  Judas  had  been  '^giviii"  as  well  as  the  rcsl,  or 
he  could  not  have  buen  mentioned  as  an  exception  ;  that 
is,  he  had  been  once  ^^ found,"  or  he  could  not  liave 
been  "  lost."  2  Tim.  i.  9,  "  Wlio  hath  saved  us, 
and  called  us  with  a  holy  calling,  not  according  to 
our  works,  but  according  to  his  own  purpose  and 
grace,  winch  was  given  us  in  Christ  .lesua  before 
the  world  began." 

Mr.  Scott  here  contends  for  the  doctrine  of  the  -per- 
sonal election  of  the  persons  spoken  of,  "  from  the  be- 
ginning, or  before  eternal  ages,"  which  is  the  most 
literal  translation ;  and  argues  that  this  cannot  be  de- 
nied, without  supposing  "  that  all  who  live  and  die  im- 
penitent, may  be  said  to  be  saved,  and  called  with  a 
holy  calling;  because  a  Saviour  was  promised  from 
the  beginning  of  the  world."  "  Indeed,"  he  adds,  "  the 
pourpose  of  God  is  mentioned  as  the  reason  why  they, 
rather  than  others,  were  saved  and  called."  We  shall 
see  the  passage  in  a  very  different  light,  if  we  attend  to 
the  IbUowing  considerations. 

"  The  purjwse  and  grace,"  or  gracious  purpose, 
"  which  was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus  before  the  world 
began, ".is  represented  as  having  been  '■^  hid  in  past 
ages  ;"  for  the  apostle  immediately  adds,  "  but  is  iiow 
made  manifest  by  the  appearing  of  our  Saviour  Jesus 
C'hrist."  It  cannot  be  the  personal  election  of  believers, 
therefore,  of  which  the  apostle  here  speaks  ;  because 
it  was  saying  nothing  to  declare  that  the  Divine  pur- 
pose to  elect  them  was  not  manifest  in  former  ages ; 
but  was  reserved  to  the  appearing  of  Clirist.  What- 
ever degree  of  manifestation  God's  purpose  of  personal 
election  as  to  individuals  receives,  even  the  Calvhusts 
acknowledge  that  it  is  made  obvious  only  by  the  per- 
sonal moral  changes  which  take  place  in  them  through 
their  "  effectual  calling,"  faith,  and  regeneration.  Till 
the  individual,  therefore,  comes  into  being,  God's  pur- 
pose to  elect  him  cannot  be  manifested ;  and  those 
wlio  were  so  selected,  but  did  not  live  til!  Christ  ap- 
peared, could  not  have  their  election  manifested  before 
he  appeared.  Again,  if  personal  election  be  intended  in 
the  text,  and  calling  and  conversion  are  the  proofs  of 
personal  election,  then  it  is  not  true  that  the  election  of 
individuals  to  eternal  life,  was  kept  hid  until  the  ap- 
pearing of  Christ ;  for  every  true  conversion,  in  any 
former  age,  was  as  much  a  manifestation  of  personal 
election,  thatis,  of  the  peculiar  favour  and  "  distinguish- 
ing grace"  of  God,  as  it  is  under  the  Gospel.  A  pa- 
rallel passage  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  chap.  ill. 
4 — 6,  will,  however,  explain  that  before  us.  "  Whereby, 
when  ye  read,  ye  may  understand  my  knowledge  -n  the 
mystery  of  Christ,  which  in  other  ages  was  not  made 
known  unto  the  sons  of  men,  as  it  is  now  revealed  unto 
the  holy  apostles  and  prophets  by  the  Spirit ;  that  the 
Gentiles  should  he  fellow-heirs,  &nA  of  the  same  body, 
and  partakers  of  his  promise  in  Christ  by  the  Gospel :" 
and  in  ver.  11  this  is  called,  in  exact  conformity  to  the 
phrase  used  in  the  Epistle  to  Timothy,  "  the  eternal 
purpose  which  he  puri)osed  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord." 
Tlie  "  purpose,"  or  "  gracious  purpose,"  mentioned  in 
both  places,  as  formerly  hidden,  but  "  noiv  manifested," 
was  therefore  the  purpose  to  form  one  universal  church 
of  believing  Jevv's  and  Gentiles ;  and  in  the  text  belbre 
us,  the  apostle,  speaking  in  tiie  name  of  all  his  fellow- 
Christians,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  sajs  that  they 
were  saved  and  called  according  to  that  previous  pur- 
pose and  plan — ^'  who  hath  saved  vs  and  called  its," 
&c.  The  reason  why  the  apostle  Paul  so  often  refers 
to  "this  eternal  purpose"  of  God,  is  to  justify  and  con- 
firm his  own  ministry  as  a  teacher  of  the  Gentiles,  and 
an  asserter  of  their  equal  spiritual  rights  with  the  Jews ; 
and  that  this  subject  was  present  to  his  mind  when  he 
wrote  this  passage,  and  not  an  eternal  personal  election, 
is  manifest  from  verse  11,  which  is  a  part  of  the  same 
paragraph,  "  whereunto  I  am  appointed  a  preacher,  and 
an  apostle,  and  a  teacher  of  the  Gentiles." 

But,  says  Mr.  Scott,  "  all  who  live  and  die  impenitent 
may  then  be  said  to  be  '  saved,  and  called  with  a  holy 
calling,'  because  a  Saviour  was  promised  from  the  be- 
ginning of  the  world."  But  we  do  not  say  that  any  are 
saved  only  because  a  Saviour  was  pronused  from  the 
beginning  of  the  world  ;  but  that  the  apostle  simi)ly  af- 
finns  that  the  salvation  of  believers,  whether  GentUes 
or  Jews,  and  the  means  of  tliat  salvation,  were  the  con- 
seijuences  of  God's  previous  purpose,  before  the  world 


began.  All  who  are  actually  saved,  may  say,  "We  are 
saved"  according  to  this  jjiirpose  ;  but  if  their  actual 
salvation  sliut  out  the  salvalion  of  all  others,  then  no 
more  have  been  saved  Ihati  those  included  by  the  apos- 
tle in  the  pronoun  "  vs,"  which  would  imive  too  much. 
But  Mr.  Scott  tells  us  that  '• '  the  purpo.scofGod'  is  men- 
tioned as  the  reason  wiiy  tliey,  ratlii:r  iliaii  othcr.s,  were 
thus  saved  and  called."  It  is  mcnliojiLd  wiib  nosucli 
view.  The  jmrpose  of  God  is  introduced  by  ilu;  apostle 
as  his  authority  for  making  to  "  the  Gentiles"  the  offer 
of  salvation ;  and  as  a  motive  to  induce  Timothy  to 
[irosecute  the  same  glorious  work,  after  his  decease. 
This  is  obviously  the  scope  of  the  whole  chajjter. 

Acts  xiii.  48,  "  And  as  many  as  were  ordained  to 
eternal  life  believed."  Mr.  Scott  is  somewhat  li;ss  con- 
fident than  some  others  as  to  the  support  which  the 
Calvinistic  system  is  thought  to  derive  from  the  word 
rendered  ordained.  He,  however,  attempts  to  leave 
the  impression  upon  the  minds  of  his  readers,  that  it 
means  "  appointed  to  eternal  life." 

We  may,  however,  observe, 

1.  That  the  persons  here  spoken  of  were  the  Gentiles 
to  whom  the  apostles  preached  the  Gospel,  upon  the 
Jews  of  the  same  place  "  putting  it  from  them,"  and 
"judging"  or  proving  "  themselves  unworthy  of  eternal 
life."  But  if  the  only  reason  why  the  Gentiles  believed 
was,  that  they  were  "  ordained,"  in  the  sense  of  per- 
sonal predestination,  "  to  eternal  life ;"  then  the  reason 
why  the  Jews  believed  not  was  the  want  of  such  a  pre- 
destinating act  of  God,  and  not,  as  it  is  affirmed,  an 
act  of  their  own — the  1'i;tting  it  away  from  them. 

2.  This  interpretation  supposes  that  all  thee/ec?  Gen- 
tiles at  Antioch  believed  at  that  time ;  and  that  no  more, 
at  least  of  full  age,  remained  to  believe.  This  is  rather 
dilKeult  to  admit ;  and  therefore  Mr.  Scott  says, "  though 
it  is  ])robable  that  all  who  were  thus  affected  at  first, 
did  not  at  that  time  believe  unto  salvation;  yet  many 
(hd."  But  this  is  not  according  to  tlie  text,  which  says 
expressly,  "  as  many  as  were  ordained  to  eternal  life 
believed  :"  so  that  such  commentators  must  take  this 
inconvenient  circumstance  along  witli  their  interpreta- 
tion, that  all  the  elect  at  Antioch  were,  at  that  moment, 
brought  into  Cl^rist's  church. 

3.  Even  some  Calvinists,  not  thinking  that  it  is  the 
practice  of  the  apostles  and  evangelists  to  lift  up  the 
veil  of  the  decrees  so  high  as  this  interpretation  supposes, 
choose  to  render  the  words — "  as  many  as  were  deter- 
mined," or  "  ordered"  for  eternal  life. 

4.  But  we  may  finally  observe,  that  in  no  place  in 
the  New  Testament,  in  which  the  same  word  occurs, 
is  it  ever  employed  to  convey  the  meaning  of  destiny  or 
predestination :  a  consideration  which  is  fatal  to  the 
argument  wliich  has  been  drawn  from  it.    The  follow- 
ing are  the  only  instancesof  its  occurrence.  Matt,  xxviii. 
16,  "  Then  the  eleven  discijJes  went  away  into  Galilee, 
into  a  mountain  where  Jesus  had  appoi7ited  them." 
Here  the  word  means  commanded,  or  at  most  agreed 
upon  beforehand,  and  certainly  conveys  no  idea  of 
destiny.     Luke  vii.  8, "  For  I  also  am  a  man  set  under 
authority."    Here  the  word  means  "  placed  or  disposed." 
Acts  XV.  2,  "  They  determined  that  Paul  and  Barnabas 
should  go  up  to  Jerusalem."    Here  it  signifies  mutual 
agreement  and  decision.    Acts  xxii.  10,  "  Arise,  and  go 
into  Damascus ;  and  there  it  shall  be  told  thee  of  all 
things  which  are  appointed  lor  thee  to  do."    Here  it 
means  committed  to,  or  appointed  in  the  way  of  injunc- 
tion ;  but  no  idea  of  destiny  is  conveyed.    Acts  .xxviii. 
23,  "  And  when  they  had  appointed  him  a  day,"  when 
they  had  fi.xed  upon  a  day  lay  mutual  agreement ;  for 
St.  Paul  was  not  under  the  command  or  control  of  the 
visiters  who  came  to  him  to  hear  his  doctrine.    Rom. 
xiii.  1,  "  The  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God :" 
clearly  signifying  constituted  and  ordered.     1  Cor.  xvi. 
15,  "  They  have  addicted  themselves  to  the  ministry  of 
the  saints :"  here  it  can  mean  nothing  else  than  applied, 
devoted  themselves  to.    Thus  the  word  never  takes  the 
sense  of  predestination ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  when 
St.  Liike  wishes  to  convey  that  notion,  he  combines  it 
with  a  preposition,  and  uses  a  comjiound  verb — "  and 
hath  determined  the  times  before  appointed."    This  was 
preordination,  and  he  therefore  so  tenns  it;    bat  in 
the  text  in  question,  he  speaks  not  of  preordination, 
but  of  ordination  simply.   The  word  employed  signifies 
"  to  place,  order,  appoint,  dispose,  determine,"  and  is 
very  variously  apphed.    The  prevalent  idea  is  that  of 
settling,  ordering,  and  resolving  ;  and  the  meaning  of 
the  text  is,  that  as  many  as  were  fixed  and  regolved 


348 


THEOLOGICAL  LXSTITUTES. 


upon  eternal  life,  aa  many  as  were  rarefUl  about,  and 
detcnniiied  on  salvation,  believed.  l''or  that  tlie  liisio- 
rian  is  speaking  of  the  candid  and  serious  iiart  of  ibc 
hearers  of  the  aixtslles,  in  opposition  to  Ilic  hl;ispheniing 
Jews;  that  is,  of  those  Gentiles  "who,  wlien  they 
heard  this,  were  glad,  and  glorified  the  word  of  the 
I-ord,"  is  evident  from  the  context.  Tlie  persons  who 
then  believed,  apjiear  to  have  been  under  a  previous 
preparation  for  receiving  the  Gosjjel ;  and  were  proba- 
bly religious  jiroselytes  associating  with  the  Jews. 

Luke  X.  20,  ''But  rather  rejoice,  because  your  names 
are-vritten  in  heaven."  The  inference  from  this  text 
is,  liiat  there  is  a  register  of  all  the  elect  in  the  "  book 
of  life,"  and  that  their  number,  according  to  the  doctrine 
jf  the  Synod  of  Dort,  is  fixed  and  detenninate.  Our 
Calvinistic  friends  forget,  however,  that  names  may 
be  "blotted  out  of  the  book  of  life  :"  ami  so  the  theory 
falls. — "  And  if  any  man  shall  take  away  from  the 
words  of  the  book  of  this  projihecy,  God  shall  take  away 
liis  jiart  out  of  the  book  of  lili-." 

Prov.  xvi.  4,  "  The  Lord  hath  made  all  things  for  him- 
self; yea,  even  the  wicked  for  the  day  of  evil."  If 
there  be  any  relevance  in  this  passage  to  the  Calvin- 
istic theory,  it  must  be  taken  in  the  supralapsarian 
sense,  that  the  final  cause  of  the  creation  of  tlie  wicked 
is  their  eternal  punishment.  It  follows  from  this,  that 
sin  is  not  the  cause  of  punishment ;  but  that  this  flows 
from  the  mere  will  of  (Jod,  which  is  a  suflicient  refu- 
tation. The  persons  sjioken  of  are  "  wicked."  Either 
they  were  made  wicked  by  themselves,  or  by  God.  If 
not  by  God,  then  to  make  the  wicked  for  the  day  of 
evil,  can  only  mean  that  he  renders  them  who  have 
made  themselves  wicked,  and  remain  incorrigibly  so, 
the  instruments  of  glorifying  his  justice,  "  in  the  day 
of  evil,"  that  is,  in  the  day  of  punishment.  The  Hebrew 
phrase,  rendered  literally,  is,  "  the  Lord  doth  u-ork  all 
things  for  himself;"  which  applies  as  well  to  acts  of 
Hovernnieiil  as  to  acts  of  creation.  Thus,  then,  we  are 
taught  by  the  passage,  not  that  God  created  the  wicked 
to  punish  them,  but  so  governs,  controls,  and  subjects 
all  things  to  himself;  and  so  orders  them  for  the  ac- 
complishment of  his  purpose,  that  the  wicked  .shall  not 
escape  his  just  displeasure,  since  upon  such  men  the 
day  of  evil  will  ultinialely  come.  It  is  therefore  added 
in  the  next  verse,  "  Though  hand  join  in  hand,  he  shall 
not  be  unpunished.  "(5) 

John  xii.  37—40,  "  Hut  though  ho  had  done  so  many 
miracles  belbre  them,  yet  they  believed  not  on  him  ; 
thai  the  saying  of  Esaiastlie  prophet  might  be  fulfilled, 
which  he  sjiake.  Lord,  who  hath  believed  our  report '.' 
and  to  whom  hath  the  arm  of  the  Lord  been  revealed  ? 
Therefore  they  could  not  believe,  because  that  Esaias 
said  again,  lie  hath  blinded  their  eyes,  and  hardened 
their  heart ;  that  they  should  not  see  with  their  eyes, 
nor  understand  with  their  heart,  and  be  converted,  and 
I  should  heal  them." 

Mr.  Scott's  interpretation  is,  in  its  first  aspect,  more 
moderate  than  that  of  many  divines  of  the  same  school. 
It  is— "they  had  long  shut  their  own  eyes,  and  hardened 
their  own  hearts  ;  and  so  God  would  give  up  many  of 
them  to  such  judicial  blindness,  as  rendered  their  con- 
version and  salvation  impossible.  The  proi)he(^y  was 
not  the  motive  or  cauae  of  their  wickedness ;  but  it 
was  the  declaration  of  God's  ptirpoxe  which  could  not 
be  defeated :  therefore;  while  this  prophecy  stood  in 
Scripture  against  iheni  and  others  of  like  character. 
Who  haled  the  truth  from  the  love  of  sin,  tlie  event  be- 
came certain ;  in  which  sense  it  is  said  that  they  could 
not  believe." 

That, in  some  special  and  aggravated  cases,  and  espe- 
cially in  that  which  coii.-^islc  il  in  ascribing  the  miracles 
of  Christ  to  Satan,  and  thus  Masphemmg  the  Holy 
Ghost  (cases,  however,  which  jirobably  afli-cted  but  a 
lew  individuals,  and  tho.se  principally  tlie  chief  Phari- 
sees and  Rabbis  of  our  lAird's  time)  ;  there  was  such  a 
judicial  dereliction  as  Mr.  Scott  s]>caks  of,  is  allowed ; 
but  that  it  extended  to  the  body  of  the  Jews,  who  at 
that  time  did  not  believe  in  the  mission  and  miracles 
of  Christ,  may  be  denied.  The  contrary  iiiust  appear 
fl-om  the  earnest  manner  in  which  their  salvation  was 


(5)  Hoi.DKN  translates  the  verse,  "Jehovah  hath 
made  all  things  for  himself;  yea,  even  the  wicked  he 
daily  sustains;"  and  observes,  "should  the  received 
translation  be  deemed  correct,  '  the  day  of  evil'  would 
be  considered,  by  a  Jew  of  the  age  of  (Solomon,  to  mean 
tlic  day  of  trouble  and  aUliciioii. 


[Part  II. 

sought  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  sub.sequently  to  this 
declaration  :  and  also  from  the  fact  of  great  numbers 
of  this  same  people  being  allerward  brought  to  acknow- 
ledge and  embrace  Christ  and  his  religion.  This  is 
our  objection  to  the  former  [lart  of  this  interpretation. 
Not  every  one  who  is  lost  finally,  is  given  up  previously 
to  judicial  blindness.  To  be  thus  abandoned  before 
death  is  a  special  procedure,  which  our  Lord  himself 
confines  to  the  special  case  of  blasphemy  against  the 
Holy  Ghost.  To  the  latter  part  of  the  comment  the 
objection  is  still  stronger.  Mr.  Scott  acknowledges  the 
wicked  and  wilful  blindness  of  these  Jews  to  be  the 
cause  of  the  judicial  dereliction  supposed.  From  this 
it  would  naturally  Ibllow,  that  this  willul  blinding  and 
hardening  of  their  hearts  was  the  true  reason  why 
they  "  could  not  believe,"  as  provoking  God  to  take 
away  his  Holy  Spirit  from  them,  liut  Mr.  Scott  can- 
not stop  here.  He  will  have  another  cause  for  their 
incajiacity  to  believe  :  not,  indeed,  the  prophecy  quoted 
from  Isaiah  by  the  evangelist,  but  "Goo's  purijose," 
of  which  that  prediction,  he  says,  w'as  the  "  declara- 
tion." It  follows,  then,  that  they  could  not  believe," 
because  it  was  "  (Ion'.-;  purjio.se  which  could  not  be  dc- 
fratid."  Agreeably  to  this,  Mr.  Hcott  understands  the 
prediction  as  asserting  thai  the  agent  in  blinding  the 
eyes  of  the  people  reproved,  that  is,  the  obstinate  Jews, 
was  God  himself. 

Let  us  now,  therefore,  more  particularly  examine 
this  passage,  and  we  shall  find, 

1.  That  it  afljrms  not  that  their  eyes  should  be 
blinded,  or  their  ears  closed  by  a  Divine  agency,  as  as- 
sumed by  Mr.  Scott  and  other  Calvinists.  This  notion 
is  not  found  in  Isaiah  vi.  from  which  the  quotation  is 
made.  There  the  agent  is  represented  to  be  the  pro- 
phet himself.  "Make  the  heart  of  this  people  fat,  and 
make  their  ears  heavy,  and  shut  their  eyes  ;  lest  they 
see  with  their  eyes,"  &,c.  Now  as  the  prophet  could 
exert  no  secret  direct  influence  over  the  minds  of  the 
disobedient  Jews,  he  must  have  fulfilled  this  commis- 
sion, if  it  be  taken  literally,  by  preaching  to  tliein  a  fal- 
lacious and  obdurating  doctrine,  like  that  of  the  false 
projihets ;  but  if,  as  we  know,  he  jireached  no  such 
doctrine,  then  are  the  words  to  be  understood  accord- 
ing to  the  genius  of  the  Hebrew  language,  which  ollcti 
represents  him  as  an  agent,  who  is  the  occasion,  how- 
ever innocent  and  undesigned,  of  any  thing  being  done 
by  another.  Thus  the  prophet,  in  consequence  of  the 
unbelief  of  the  Jews  of  his  day  in  those  promises  of 
Messiah  he  was  ajipointed  to  deliver,  and  which  led 
him  10  complain,  "  Who  halh  believed  our  reiMjrt  .'"  be- 
came an  occasion  to  the  .liws  of  "making  their  own 
hearts  fat,  and  their  ears  heavy,  and  of  shutting  their 
eyes"  against  his  te.sthiiony.  'I'he  true  agents  were, 
however,  the  Jews  themselves  ;  and  by  all  who  knew 
the  genius  of  the  Hebrew  language,  they  would  be  un- 
derstood as  so  charged  by  IIk;  jirojihet.  Thus  the  (Sep- 
tuaginl,  the  Arabic,  and  the  Syriac  versions  all  agree 
in  rendering  the  text,  so  that  the  iieojile  themselves,  to 
whom  the  prophet  wrote,  are  made  the  agents  of  doing 
that  which,  in  the  style  o/'  the  Hebrews,  is  ascribed  to 
the  prophet  himself.  So  also,  it  is  manifest  that  St. 
Paul,  who  quotes  the  same  Scripture,  Acts  xxvhi.25 — 
27,  understood  the  pro])het ;  "  Well  sjiake  the  Holy 
Ghost  by  Esaias  the  prophet  unto  our  fathers,  saying, 
Go  unto  this  people,  and  say.  Hearing  ye  shall  hear, 
and  not  understand  ;  and  seeing  ye  shall  see,  and  not 
perceive :  for  the  heart  of  this  people  is  waxed  gross, 
and  their  ears  arc  dull  of  hearing,  and  Ihnr  eyes  iiavk 
THEY  closed;  lest  they  should  see  with  their  eyes,  and 
hearwiththeirears,  and  understand  wall  their  hearl.  and 
should  be  converted,  and  1  should  heal  them."  Nor  in 
the  passage  as  it  is  given  by  St.  John,  is  the  blinding  of 
the  eves  of  the  Jews  attributed  to  (iod.  It  stands,  it  is 
true, "ill  our  version,  "  He  hath  blinded  their  eyes,"  A:c. 
Hut  the  Greek  verbs  have  no  nominative  case  expressed, 
and  it  is  left  to  be  supplied  by  the  reader.  Nor  does 
the  context  mention  the  agent ;  and  farther,  if  we  su|)- 
ply  the  pronoun  //c,  we  cannot  refer  it  to  (Jod,  since 
the  passage  closes  with  a  change  of  person,  "  and  / 
should  heal  them."  The  agent  blinding  and  hardening, 
and  the  agent  attempting  to  "  heal,"  cannot,  therefore, 
be  the  same,  because  they  are  ojijiosed  to  each  other, 
not  only  grammatically,  but  in  design  and  operation. 
That  ageiil,  then,  may  be  "  the  God  of  this  world,"  to 
whom  I  he  wiirk  of  blinding  them  that  believe  not,  is 
e\|iressly  Mllrilputed  by  the  apostle  Paul ;  or  St.  John, 
laiiiiliar  with  the  Hebrew  style,  jnigUt  rcler  it  to  the 


Chap.  XXVIL] 


THEOLOGICAL  L\STITUTES. 


349 


prophet,  who  consequently,  and  through  the  wilful  per- 
vurseness  of  Iho  .lews,  was  the  occasion  of  their  niak- 
jn;?  their  own  "  hearts  gross,  and  closing  their  cars  ;" 
or,  finally,  the  personal  verb  may  be  used  impersonally, 
and  the  active  form  lor  the  passive,  of  which  critics 
furnish  i)arallcl  instances.(6)  But  in  all  these  views 
the  true  responsible  agent  and  criminal  doer  is  "  this 
PEOPLE," — this  iwrverse  and  obstinate  iieople  them- 
selves ;  a  point  to  which  every  part  of  their  Scriptures 
gives  abundant  testimony. 

2.  It  may  be  denied  thai  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  here 
quoted  is,  as  Mr.  Scott  rejiresents  it,  "  a  declaration  of 
(;od's  purpose,  which  could  not  be  defeated."  A  sim- 
ple prophecy  is  not  a  declaration  of  purpose  at  all,  but 
the  declaration  of  a  future  event.  If  a  purpose  of  God 
to  be  liereaf^er  accomplished  be  declared,  tliis  declara- 
tion becomes  more  than  a  siiiijile  prophecy;  it  connects 
the  act  with  an  agent  ;  and  in  the  case  before  us,  that 
agent  is  assumed  to  be  God.  Hut  we  have  shown,  that 
the  agent  in  blinding  the  eyes  and  closing  tlie  cars  of 
these  perverse  Jews  is  nowhere  said  to  be^fJon;  and 
llierelbrc  the  prophecy  is  not  a  declaration  of  his  pur- 
pose. Again,  if  it  were  a  declaration  of  God's  purpose, 
it  would  not  follow  that  it  could  not  be  defeated  ;  for 
proi)hetic  ttu-eatenings  are  not  absolute,  but  imply  con- 
ditions. This  is  so  far  from  being  a  mere  assuni])tion, 
that  it  is  established  by  the  authority  of  Almighty  God 
himself,  who  declares,  Jer.  .wui.  7, 8,  "  At  what  instant 
I  shall  speak  concerning  a  nation,  to  pluck  up,  and  to 
pull  down,  and  to  destroy  it;  if  that  nation,  against 
whom  I  have  pronounced,  turn  from  tlieir  evil,  I  will 
repent  of  the  evil  that  1  thought  to  do  unto  them." 
Here  we  have  a  projihetic  comminatiou  w/^ero/ ;  "at 
what  instant  I  spealc" — "  that  nation  against  whom  I 
have  pronounced."  We  have  also  the  purpose  in  the 
mind  of  God — "  the  evil  that  I  thought ;"  and  yet  this 
prediction  might  fail,  and  this  purpose  be  defeated.  So 
in  the  ease  of  repentant  Anieveli,  the  predicted  destruc- 
tion failed,  and  the  wrathful  purpose  was  defeated 
without  any  impeachment  of  the  Divine  attributes ;  on 
the  contrary,  they  were  illustrated  by  this  manifesta- 
tion of  the  mingled  justice  and  grace  of  his  adminis- 
tration. Mr.  Scott,  like  many  others,  argues  as  though 
the  prediction  of  an  event  gave  certainty  to  it.  But 
the  certainty  or  uncertainty  of  events  is  not  created  by 
prophecy.  Pfl'ophecy  results  from  prescience ;  and  pre- 
science has  resi)ect  to  what  will  be,  but  not  necessarily 
to  what  must  be.  Of  this,  however,  more  in  its  proper 
place. 

3.  If  this  prophecy  could  be  made  to  hear  all  that  the 
Calvinists  impose  upon  it,  it  would  not  serve  their  pur- 
pose. It  woiild.  even  then,  afford  no  proof  of  general 
election  and  reprobation,  since  it  has  an  exclusive  aj)- 
plication  to  tlie  unbelieving  part  of  the  Jewish  people 
only ;  and  is  never  adduced,  either  by  St.  John  or  by 
St.  Paul,  as  the  ground  of  any  general  doctrine  what- 
ever. 

Jude  4,  "  For  there  are  certain  men  crept  in  una- 
wares, who  were  before  of  old  ordained  to  this  con- 
demnation, ungodly  men,"  &c. 

The  word  which  is  here  rendered  ordained,  is  literally 
fOTCvrittcn ;  and  the  word  rendered  condemnation, 
signifies  legal  punishment  or  judgment.  The  passage 
means,  therefore,  either  that  the  class  of  men  spoken 
of  had  been  foretold  in  the  Scriptures,  or  tliat  their  pu- 
nisliment  had  been  there  formerly  typified  in  those  ex- 
amples of  ancient  times,  of  which  several  are  cited  in 
the  IbUowing  verses ;  as  Cain,  Balaam,  Korah,  and  the 
cities  of  the  plain.  Mr.  Scott,  therefore,  very  well  in- 
terprets the  te.xt,  when  he  says,  "  the  Lord  had  fore- 
seen them,  for  they  were  of  old  reguttered  to  this  con- 
demnation ;  many  predictions  had,  from  the  bcgmning, 
been  delivered  to  this  effect."  But  when  lie  adds, 
"  Nay,  these  predictions  had  been  extracts,  as  it  were, 
from  the  registers  of  heaven  ;  even  the  secret  and 
eternal  decrees  of  God,  in  whieli  he  had  determined  to 
leave  them  to  tlieir  pride  and  lusts,  till  they  merited 
and  received  this  condemnation,"  we  may  well  ask  for 
the  proof.  All  this  is  manifestly  gratuitous;  brought 
to  the  text,  and  not  deduced  from  it ;  and  is,  tlierelbre, 
very  unworthy  of  a  commentator.  The  "extracts" 
from  the  register  of  God's  decrees,  as  they  are  found  in 
the  Scriptures,  contain  no  such  sentiment  as  that  ihc^se 
abusers  of  the  grace  of  God  only  did  that  wiuch  they 


(6)  See  Whitby's  Parajilirase  and  Aniiot. ,  and  Ids 
Dis.  on  the  Five  Points,  cli.  i. 


could  not  but  do,  in  consequence  of  having  been  "  left 
to  their  pride  and  lusts;"  and  excluded  before  they 
were  born  from  the  mercies  of  Christ.  If  this  senti- 
ment, then,  is  not  in  the  "  extracts,"  it  is  not  in  the  ori- 
ginal register;  or  else,  something  is  llure  which  God, 
in  liis  own  revealed  word,  has  not  extracted,  and  re- 
specting which  the  commentator  must  cither  have  had 
.some  independent  revelation,  or  have  been  guilty  of 
speaking  very  rashly.  On  the  contrar>-,  in  the  jiarallel 
passage  in  2  Peter  ii.  1—3,  where  the  same  cla.ss  of 
persons  is  certainly  spoken  of,  so  far  are  they  from 
being  represented  as  excluded  from  the  benefits  of 
Christ's  redemption,  that  they  are  charged  with  a  sjie- 
cific  crime,  which  necessarily  implies  their  jiarticipa- 
lion  in  it,  with  the  crime  of  "  denying  the  Lord  that 
BoroiiT  them." 

1  Cor.  iv.  7,  "  For  who  makclh  thee  to  differ  from 
another  ?" 

The  context  shows  that  the  apostle  was  here  endea- 
vouring to  repress  that  ostentation,  which  had  arisen 
among  many  persons  in  the  church  of  Corinth,  on  ac- 
count of  their  spiritual  gifts  and  endowments.  Thia 
he  does  by  referring  those  gills  to  God,  as  the  sole 
giver, — "lor  who  maketh  thee  to  differ V  or  who  con- 
fers superiority  ujion  thee  ?  as  the  sense  obviously  is ; 
"  and  what  hast  thou  that  thou  didst  not  receive  V  Mr. 
Scott  acknowledges,  that  "  the  apostle  is  here  speaking 
more  immediately  of  natural  abilities  and  spiritual 
gifts,  and  not  of  special  and  eliicacious  grace."  If  so, 
then  the  passage  has  nothing  to  do  with  this  contro- 
versy. The  argument,  he  however  affirms,  concludes 
eijually  in  one  case  as  in  the  other ;  and  in  his  sermon 
on  election,  he  thus  applies  it :  "  Let  the  blessings  of 
the  Gospel  be  fairly  proposed,  with  solemn  warnings 
and  pressing  invitations,  to  two  men  of  exactly  the 
same  character  and  disposition :  if  they  are  left  to 
themselves  in  entirely  similar  circumstances,  the  effect 
must  be  precisely  the  same.  But  behold,  while  one 
proudly  sconis  and  resents  the  gracious  offer,  the  other 
trembles,  weeps,  prays,  repents,  believes  I  Who  maketh 
this  man  to  differ  from  the  other  ?  or  what  hath  he  that 
he  hath  not  received  .'  The  Scriptural  answer  to  this 
question,  when  properly  understood,  decides  the  whole 
controversy."(7) 

As  this  is  a  favourite  argument,  and  a  popular  di- 
lemma in  the  hands  of  the  Calvinists,  and  so  much  is 
supposed  to  depend  upon  its  solution,  we  may  some- 
what particularly  examine  it. 

Instead  of  supposing  the  case  of  two  men  "  of  ex- 
actly the  same  cliaracter  and  disposition,"  why  not  sup- 
pose the  same  man  in  two  moral  states .'  For  one  mare 
who  "  proudly  scorns  the  Gospel"  does  not  more  differ 
from  another  who  penitently  receives  it,  than  the  same 
man  who  has  once  scoffingly  rejected,  and  afterward 
meekly  submitted  to  it,  differs  from  himself;  as,  for 
instance,  Saul  the  Pharisee  from  Paul  the  aix)stle. 
Now  to  account  for  the  case  of  two  men,  one  receiving 
the  Gospel,  and  the  other  rejecting  it,  the  theory  of 
election  is  brought  in  ;  btit  in  the  case  of  the  one  man 
in  two  different  states,  this  theory  cannot  be  resorted 
to.  The  man  was  elect  from  eternity ;  he  is  no  outcast 
from  the  mercy  of  his  God  and  the  redemption  of  his 
Saviour,  and  yet,  in  one  period  of  his  life,  he  proudly 
sconis  the  offered  mercy  of  Christ,  at  another  he  ac- 
cepts it.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  doctrine  of  election, 
simply  considered  in  itself,  will  not  solve  the  latter 
case ;  and  by  consequence,  it  will  not  solve  the  former. 
For  the  mere  fact,  that  one  man  rejects  the  Gospel 
while  another  receives  it,  is  no  more  a  proof  of  the 
non-election  of  the  non-recijiient,  than  the  fact  of  a 
man  now  rejecting  it,  who  shall  afterward  receive  it, 
is  a  proof  of  his  non-election.  The  solution,  then, 
must  be  sought  for  in  some  communication  of  the  grace 
of  God,  in  some  inward  operation  upon  the  heart,  which 
is  supposed  to  be  a  consetiuence  of  election ;  but  this 
leads  to  another  and  distinct  question.  This  question 
is  not,  however,  the  vincibility  or  uivincibUity  of  the 
grace  of  God,  at  least  not  in  the  first  instance.  It  is,  in 
truth,  whether  there  is  any  operation  of  the  grace  of 
God  in  man  at  all  tending  to  salvation,  in  cases  where 
we  see  the  Gospel  rejected.  Is  the  man  who  rejects 
perseveringlv,  and  he  who  rejects  but  for  a  time,  per- 
haps a  long  period  of  his  life,  left  without  any  good  mo- 
tions or  assisting  influence  from  the  grace  of  God,  or 


(7)  Calvin  puis  the  matter  in  much  the  same  way. 
.  —Inst.  Lib.  iii.  c.  24. 


350 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  XL 


not?  Tljis  question  seems  to  adnnit  of  but  one  of 
three  answi^rs.  Either  he  has  no  gracious  assistance 
at  all,  to  dispose  him  to  receive  the  (Jospel ;  or  he  has 
a  sullicieiit  inllueiicc  of  grace  so  to  dispose  him ;  or 
that  gracious  iiillueuce  is  dispensed  in  an  insullicient 
measure.  If  the  first  answer  be  given,  then  not  only 
are  the  non-elect  lell  without  any  visitations  of  grace 
throughout  life,  but  the  elect  also  are  left  without 
them  until  the  moment  of  their  effectual  calling.  If 
the  second  be  offered  as  the  answer,  then  both  in  the 
case  of  the  non-elect  man  who  finally  rejects  Christ, 
and  that  of  the  elect  man  who  rejects  him  for  a  great 
part  of  his  life,  the  savin!!  grace  of  CJod  nmst  be  al- 
lowed so  to  work,  as  to  be  capable  of  counteraction 
and  effectual  re.sistance.  If  this  be  denied,  then  the 
third  answer  must  be  adopted,  and  Ihe  grace  of  God 
must  he  allowed  so  to  influence,  as  to  be  designedly  in- 
sufficienl  for  the  ends  for  which  it  is  given ;  that  is,  it 
is  given  for  no  saving  end  at  all,  either  as  to  the  non- 
elect,  or  as  to  the  elect,  all  the  time  they  remain  in  a 
state  of  actual  alienation  from  Christ.  For  if  an  in- 
sufficient degree  of  grace  is  bestowed,  when  a  sufficient 
degree  might  have  been  imparted,  then  there  must  have 
been  a  reason  for  restraining  the  degree  of  grace  to  an 
insullicient  nicasiirf;  wliicli  reason  could  only  be,  that 
it  mi^'lit  he  insuiliiii-iil,  and  tlierefore  not  saving.  Now 
two  of  the  three  ui  these  iioMtiuus  are  manifestly  con- 
trary to  ttio  word  of  (ioD.  To  say  that  no  gracious 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  operates  upon  the  uncon- 
verted, is  to  take  away  their  guilt;  since  they  cannot 
be  guilty  of  rejecting  the  (Jospel  if  they  have  no  power 
to  embrace  it,  cither  from  thetriselves,  or  by  itnparta- 
tion,  while  yet  the  Scripture  represents  this  as  the 
highest  guilt  of  men.  All  the  e.xhortations,  and  re- 
proofs, and  invitations  of  Scripture,  are  also  by  this 
doctrine  turned  into  mockery  and  delusion ;  and  finally, 
there  can  be  no  such  thing  in  this  case  as  "  resisting 
the  Holy  Ghost ;"  as  "  grieving  and  quenching  the 
Spirit;"  as  "doing  despite  to  the  Spirit  of  grace;" 
either  in  the  case  of  the  non-elect,  who  are  never  con- 
verted, or  of  the  elect,  before  conversion ;  so  that  the 
latter  have  never  been  guilty  of  stubbornness,  and  ob- 
stinacy, and  rebellion,  and  resistance  of  grace ;  though 
these  are  by  them  afterward  always  acknowledged 
among  their  sins.  Nor  did  tliey  ever  feel  any  good 
motion,  or  drawing  from  the  Spirit  of  God,  before  what 
they  term  their  effectual  calling ;  though  it  is  presuised 
that  few,  if  any  of  them,  will  deny  this  in  fact. 

If  the  doctrine  that  no  grace  is  imparted  before  con- 
version is  then  contradicted  both  by  Scripture  and  ex- 
perience, how  will  the  case  stand  as  to  the  intentional 
restriction  of  that  grace,  to  a  degree  which  is  insuffi- 
cient to  dispose  the  subject  to  the  acceptance  of  the 
Gospel  ?  If  this  view  be  held,  it  must  be  maintained 
equally  as  to  the  elect  before  their  conversion,  and  as 
to  the  non-elect.  In  that  case,  then,  we  have  eijual 
difficulty  in  accounting  for  the  guilt  of  man,  as  when 
it  is  supposed  that  no  grace  at  all  is  imparted ;  and  for 
the  reproof's,  calls,  and  invitations,  and  threatenings  of 
the  word  of  (iod.  I"or  where  lies  the  difference  be- 
tween the  absohue  noii-iiriiiartation  of  grace,  and  grace 
so  imparted  as  to  be  designedly  insufficient  for  salva- 
tion ?  Plainly  there  is  none,  except  that  we  can  see  no 
end  at  all  for  giving  insufficient  grace  ;  a  circumstance 
which  would  only  serve  to  render  still  more  perplexing 
the  principles  and  ])ractice  of  Ihe  Divine  administra- 
tion. It  has  no  end  of  mi^rcy,  and  none  of  justice,  nor, 
as  far  as  can  be  perceived,  of  wisdom.  Not  of  mercy, 
for  it  effects  nothing  merciful,  and  designs  not  to  effect 
it ;  not  of  juxttcc.  for  it  places  no  man  under  ciiuitable 
responsibility  ;  not  of  wisdom,  for  it  has  no  assignable 
end.  The  Scripture  treats  all  men  to  whom  !lie  (iosjiel 
is  preached  as  endowed  with  power,  not  indee<l  from 
themselves,  but  from  the  grace  of  (;od,  to  "turn  at  his 
reproof;"  to  come  at  his  "call;"  to  embrace  his 
"  grace ;"  but  they  have  no  capacity  for  any  of  these 
acts,  if  either  of  these  opinions  be  trui;:  and  thus  the 
word  of  God  is  contradicted.  So  also  is  exiierience  in 
both  cases ;  for  there  could  be  no  sense  of  guilt  for 
having  rejected  Christ,  and  grieved  the  Holy  Spirit, 
either  in  the  non-elect  never  converted,  or  in  "the  elect 
before  conversion,  if  either  they  had  no  visitations  of 
grace  at  all,  or  if  these  were  designedly  granted  in  an 
insufficient  degree. 

It  follows,  then,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  imparlaiion 
of  grace  to  the  unconverted,  in  a  sufficient  degree  to 
unable  theiu  to  embrace  the  Gosiicl,  muat  be  udtmtted ; 


and  with  this  doctrine  comes  in  that  of  a  power  in  man 
to  use  or  to  spurn  this  heavenly  gift  and  gracious  as- 
sistance ;  in  olher  words,  a  power  of  willing  to  come  to 
Christ,  even  when  men  do  not  come ;  a  power  of  con- 
sidering their  ways  and  turning  to  the  Lord,  when  they 
do  not  consider  them,  and  turn  to  him ;  a  power  of 
l)raying,  wluai  they  do  not  i)ray  ;  and  a  power  of  believ- 
ing, when  they  do  not  believe  :  powers  all  of  grace ; 
all  the  results  of  the  work  of  the  Spirit  in  the  heart ; 
but  powers  to  be  exerted  by  man,  since  it  is  man,  and 
not  (Jod,  who  wills,  and  turns,  and  prays,  and  believes, 
while  the  influence  under  which  tliis  is  done  is  from 
Ihe  grace  of  God  alone.  This  is  the  doctrine  which  is 
clearly  contained  in  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  "Work  out 
your  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling ;  for  it  is 
God  that  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  do,  of  his 
own  good  i)leasure;"  where  not  only  the  operation  of 
God,  but  theco-operationof  man,  are  distinctly  marked, 
and  are  both  held  up  as  necessary  to  the  production  of 
the  grand  result — "salvation." 

It  will  appear,  then,  from  these  observations,  that 
the  i|uestion,  "  Who  maketh  thee  to  differ  .'"  as  urged 
by  Mr.  Scott,  and  others,  from  the  time  of  Calvin,  is  a 
very  inajiposite  one  to  their  purpose;  for, 

First,  it  is  a  question  which  the  apostle  asks  with  no 
reference  to  a  difference  in  religious  state,  but  only 
with  respect  to  gifts  and  endowments.  Secondly,  tho 
Holy  Ghost  gives  no  authority  for  such  an  application 
of  his  words  as  is  thus  made,  in  any  other  part  of 
Scrijiture.  Thirdly,  it  cannot  be  employed  for  the  pur- 
jjose  for  which  it  is  dragged  forth  so  ollen  from  its  con- 
text and  meaning  ;  for  m  the  use  thus  made  of  it,  it  is 
falsely  assumed,  that  the  two  men  instanced,  the  one 
who  rejects,  and  the  other  who  embraces  the  Gospel, 
are  not  each  endowed  with  sufficient  grace  to  enable 
them  to  receive  (;od's  gracious  ofler.  Now  this,  wo 
may  again  say,  must  either  be  denied  or  affirmed.  li' 
it  be  affirmed,  then  the  difference  between  the  two  men 
consists,  not  where  they  place  it,  in  the  destitution  or 
deficiency  on  the  one  hand,  or  in  the  plenitude  on  the 
other,  of  the  grace  of  God;  but  in  thevse  of  grace; 
and  when  tliev  say,  "  it  is  God  which  maketh  them  to 
differ,"  they  say,  in  fact,  that  it  is  God  that  not  only 
gives  sufficient  grace  to  each,  but  -itsfs  that  grace  for 
them.  For  if  it  be  allowed  that  a  sufficient  grace  for 
repentance  and  faith  is  given  to  each,  then  the  true  dif- 
ference between  them  is,  that  one  repents,  and  the 
other  does  not  repent ;  the  one  believes,  and  the  other 
does  not  believe :  if,  therefore,  this  difference  is  to  bo 
attributed  to  God  directly,  then  the  act  of  repenting 
and  the  act  of  believing  are  both  the  acts  of  Goo.  If 
they  hesitate  to  avow  tills,  for  it  is  an  absurdity,  then 
either  they  must  give  up  the  question  as  totally  use- 
less to  them,  or  else  take  the  other  side  of  the  alterna- 
tive— that  to  all  who  reject  the  Gosi)el,  sufficient  grace 
to  receive  it  is  not  given.  How  then  will  that  serve 
them  ?  They  may  say,  it  is  true,  when  they  take  tho 
man  who  embraces  the  Gospel,  "  Who  maketh  him  to 
differ  but  God,  who  gives  this  sufficient  grace  toliim  V 
but  then  we  have  an  equal  right  to  take  the  man  who 
rejects  the  Gos))el,  and  ask,  "  Who  maketh  him  to 
differ"  from  the  man  that  embraces  it  ?  To  tliis  they 
cannot  reply  that  he  maketh  kimsel/lo  differ;  for  that 
which  ihey  here  lay  down  is,  that  he  has  either  no 
grace  at  all  imparted  toliim  to  enable  him  to  act  as  the 
other;  or,  what  amounts  to  the  same  thing,  no  suffi- 
cient degree  of  it  to  produce  a  true  faith ;  that  he  never 
bad  that  grace ;  that  he  is,  and  always  must  remain, 
as  destitute  of  it  as  when  he  was  born.  He  does  not, 
therefore,  vtakc  Ininstif  to  differ  from  the  man  who  cm- 
braces  the  (.'ospel ;  lor  he  has  no  power  to  imitate  liis 
example,  and  to  make  himself  equal  with  him ;  and 
the  only  answer  to  ouniuestion  is,  "that  it  is  (Jod  who 
makelh  him  to  diltir  from  the  other,"  by  withholding 
that  grace  by  which  alone  he  could  be  prevenleil  from 
rejecting  the  Gospel ;  and  this,  so  far  from  "settling 
the  w-hole  controversy,"  is  the  ver)'  point  in  debate. 

This  dileiama,  then,  will  prove,  when  examined,  but 
inconvenient  to  iheniselves  ;  for  if  sufficiency  of  grace 
be  allowed  to  the  unconverted,  then  the  Calvinists 
make  tho  acts  of  grace,  as  well  as  the  gift  of  grace 
itself,  to  be  the  work  of  God  in  the  elect :  if  sufficiency 
of  grace  is  denied,  then  the  unbelief  and  condemnation 
of  the  wicked  are  not  from  themselves,  but  from  (iod.(8) 


(8)  This  <"\i,viN  scruples  not  to  say,  "The  supremo 
Lord,  thcrclbrc,  by  dipriving  of  the  communicalioii  of 


Chap.  XXVIIL] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


351 


The  fact  is,  that  this  supposed  ptizzle  has  been  always 
used  ad  captaiidum  ;  and  is  uiiwortliy  so  grave  a  con- 
troversy; and  as  to  tlie  pretence,  that  the  adniissiou  of 
a  power  in  man  to  use  or  to  abuse  the  grace  of  God  in- 
volves some  mtTit  or  ground  of  glorying  in  man  himself, 
this  is  equally  fallacious.  The  jiower  "  to  will  and  to 
do"  is  tile  sole  residt  of  the  working  of  God  in  man. 
All  is  of  grace  :  "  liy  the  grace  of  God"  nmst  every 
one  say,  "  I  am  what  I  am."  Here  is  no  dispute  ;  every 
good  thought,  desire,  and  tendency  of  the  heart,  and  all 
its  power  to  turn  these  to  practical  account  by  prayer, 
by  faith,  by  the  use  of  the  means  of  grace,  through 
which  new  power  "  to  will  and  to  do,"  new  power  to 
use  grace,  as  well  as  new  grace,  is  communicated,  is 
of  God.  Every  good  act,  tlierefore,  is  the  use  of  a  com- 
municated power  which  is  given  of  grace,  as  the 
stretching  out  of  the  withered  hand  of  the  healed  man 
was  the  use  of  the  power  comnmnicated  to  his  imbe- 
cility, and  still  ivorkmg  with  the  act,  though  not  the  act 
itself;  and  to  attempt  to  lay  a  ground  of  boasting  and 
self-sufficiency  in  the  assisted  acceptance  of  the  grace 
of  God  by  us  ;  and  the  empowered  submission  of  our 
hearts  to  it,  is  as  manifestly  absurd  as  it  would  be  to 
say,  that  the  man  whose  arm  was  withered,  had  great 
reason  to  congratulate  himself  on  his  share  in  the  glory 
of  the  miracle,  because  he  himself  stretched  out  the 
invigorated  member  at  the  command  of  Christ;  and 
because  it  was  not,  in  fact,  lifted  up  by  the  hand  of  him 
who,  in  that  act  of  faith  and  obedience,  had  healed  hiin. 

The  question  of  the  invincibility  of  Divine  grace  is 
a  point  to  be  in  another  place  considered. 

Acts  .xviii.  9,  10,  "  Be  not  afraid,  but  speak,  and  liold 
not  thy  peace ;  for  I  am  with  thee,  and  no  man  shall  set 
on  thee  to  hurt  thee ;  for  /  have  much  people  in  this 
city." 

Mr.  Scott,  to  whom  the  doctrine  of  election  is  always 
present,  says,  "  in  this  Christ  evidently  spake  of  those 
who  were  his  by  election,  the  gift  of  the  Father,  and  his 
own  purchase ;  though,  at  that  time,  in  an  unconverted 
8tate."(9)  It  would  have  been  more  "  evident"  had  this 
been  said  by  the  writer  of  the  Acts  as  well  as  by  Mr. 
Scott,  or  any  thing  approaching  to  it.  The  "  evidence," 
we  fear,  was  all  in  Sir.  Scott's  predisposition  of  mind ; 
for  it  nowhere  else  appears.  The  expression  is,  at 
least,  capable  of  two  very  satisfactory  interpretations, 
independent  of  the  theory  of  Calvinistic  election.  It 
may  mean,  that  there  were  many  well-disposed  and  se- 
rious inquirers  among  the  "  Greeks"  in  Corinth ;  for 
when  Paul  turned  from  the  Jews,  he  "entered  into 
the  house  of  .Justus,  one  that  worshipped  Goo.  This 
man  was  a  Greek  proselyte;  and  from  various  parts  of 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  it  is  plain,  that  this  class  of 
people  were  not  only  numerous,  but  generally  received 
the  Gospel  with  joy,  and  were  among  the  first  who 
joined  the  primitive  churches.  They  manifested  their 
readiness  to  receive  the  Gospel  in  Corinth  itself  when 
the  Jews  "  ojjposed  and  blasphemed ;"  and  it  is  not  im- 
probable, that  to  such  proselytes,  who  were  in  many 
places  a  "  people  prepared  of  the  Lord,"  reference  is 
made,  when  our  Saviour,  speaking  to  Paul  in  this 
vision,  says  "  I  have  much  people  in  tliis  city."  Sup- 
pose, however,  he  speaks  prospectively  and  prophetic- 
ally, making  his  foreknowledge  of  an  event  the  means 
of  encouraging  the  labours  of  his  devoted  apostle,  the 
doctrine  of  election  follows  neither  from  the  fact  of  the 
foreknowledge  of  God,  nor  from  prophetic  declarations 
grounded  uiion  it.  Even  Calvin  founds  not  election 
upon  God's  foreknowledge ;  but  upon  his  decree. 

A  few  other  passages  might  be  added,  which  are 
sometimes  adduced  as  proofs  of  the  Calvinistic  theory 
of  "  election"  and  "  distinguishing  grace ;"  but  they  are 
all  either  explained  by  that  view  of  scriptural  election 
Which  has  been  at  large  adduced,  or  are  of  very  obvious 
interpretation.  I  believe  that  I  have  omitted  none,  on 
which  any  great  stress  is  laid  in  the  controversy ;  and 
the  reader  will  judge  how  far  those  wliich  have  been 
examined  serve  to  support  those  inferences  which  tend 
to  lirrat  the  universal  import  of  thos'e  declarations  which 
prove,  in  the  literal  sense  of  the  terms,  that  our  Lord 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  "  by  the  grace  of  God,  tasted 
death  for  every  man." 


his  light,  and  leaving  in  darkness  those  whom  he  has 
reprobated,  makes  way  tor  the  accomplislimcnt  of  his 
own  predestination."    Inst.  Lib.  iii.  c.  21. 
(9)  Notes  in  loo. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII. 


Theories  which  Limit  tuk  Extent  of  the  Death 
OF  Christ. 

We  have,  in  the  fnro;;(iing  attempt  to  establish  the 
doctrine  of  the  redcnipimn  of  all  inankincl  against  our 
Calvinistic  brethren,  l;ikcn  Iticir  srhrinc  m  ilic  sense  in 
which  it  is  usually  understood,  without  noucing  those 
minuter  shades  with  which  the  system  has  been  varied. 
In  this  discussion,  it  is  hoped,  that  no  expression  ha.s 
hitherto  escaped  inconsistent  with  candour.  Doctrinal 
truth  would  be  as  little  served  by  this  as  Christian 
charity  ;  nor  ought  it  ever  to  be  forgotten  by  the  theo- 
logical inquirer,  that  the  system  which  we  have  brought 
under  review  has,  in  some  of  its  branches,  always  im- 
bodied,  and  often  preserved  in  various  parts  of  Chris- 
tendom, that  truth  which  is  vital  to  the  church,  and 
salutary  to  the  souls  of  men.  It  has  numbered,  too, 
among  its  votaries,  many  venerable  names ;  and  many 
devoted  and  holy  men,  whose  writings  often  rank 
among  the  brightest  lights  of  scriptural  criticism  and 
practical  divinity.  We  think  the  peculiarities  of  their 
creed  clearly  opposed  to  the  sense  of  Scripture,  and 
fairly  chargeable  in  argument  with  all  those  conse- 
quences we  have  deduced  from  them ;  and  which,  were 
it  necessary  to  the  discussion,  might  be  characterized 
in  still  stronger  language.  Those  consequences,  how- 
ever, let  it  be  observed,  we  only  exhibit  as  logical  ones. 
By  many  of  tliis  class  of  divines  they  are  denied  ;  by 
others  modified  ;  and  by  a  third  party  explained  away 
to  their  own  satisfaction  by  means  of  metaphysical  and 
subtle  distinctions.  As  logical  consequences  only  they 
are,  therefore,  in  such  cases,  fairly  to  be  charged  upon 
our  opponents,  in  any  disputes  which  may  arise.  By 
keeping  this  distinction  in  view,  the  discussion  of  these 
points  may  be  preserved  unfettered ;  and  candour  and 
charity  sustain  no  wound. 

We  shall  now  proceed  to  justify  the  general  view  we 
have  taken  of  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  election,  pre- 
destination, and  partial  redemiition,  by  adducing  the 
sentiments  of  Calvin  himself,  and  of^  Calvinistic  theo- 
logians and  churches  ;  after  which,  our  attention  may 
be  directed,  briefiy,  to  some  of  those  more  modern  modi- 
fications of  the  system,  which,  though  they  differ  not, 
as  we  think,  so  materially  from  the  original  model  as 
some  of  their  advocates  suppose,  yet  make  concessions 
not  unimportant  totiie  more  liberal,  and,  as  we  believe, 
the  only  scrijitural  theory. 

Calvin  has  at  large  opened  his  sentiments  on  election 
in  the  third  book  of  his  Institutes.  (1)"  Predestination 
we  call  the  eternal  decree  of  God  ;  by  which  he  hath 
determined  in  himself  what  he  would  have  to  become 
of  every  individual  of  mankind.  For  they  are  not  all 
created  with  similar  destiny ;  but  eternal  life  is  foreor- 
dained for  some,  and  eternal  damnation  for  others. 
Every  man,  therefore,  being  created  for  one  or  other  of 
these  ends,  we  say  he  is  predestinated  either  to  life  or 
to  death."  After  having  spoken  of  the  election  of  the 
race  of  Abraham,  and  then  of  particular  branches  of 
that  race,  he  proceeds,  "Though  it  is  sufficiently  dear, 
that  God,  in  his  secret  counsel,  freely  chooses  whom  he 
will,  and  rejects  others,  his  gratuitous  election  is  but 
half  displayed  till  we  come  to  particular  individuals,  to 
whom  God  not  only  offers  salvation,  but  assigns  it  in 
such  a  manner,  that  the  certainty  of  the  effect  is  liable 
to  no  suspense  or  doubt."  He  sums  up  the  chajitcr,  in 
which  he  thus  generally  states  the  doctrine,  in  these 
words  :(2)  "  In  conformity,  therefore,  to  the  clear  doc- 
trine of  the  Scripture,  we  assert,  that  by  an  eternal  and 
immutable  counsel,  God  hath  once  for  all  determined 
both  whom  he  would  admit  to  salvation,  and  whom,  he 
would  condemn  to  destruction.  We  affirm  that  this 
counsel,  as  far  as  concerns  the  elect,  is  founded  on  his 
gratuitous  mercy,  totally  irrespective  of  human  merit ; 
but  that  to  those  whom  he  devotes  to  condemnation, 
the  gate  of  life  is  closed  by  a  just  and  jrreprehensible, 
but  mcimiprehensibte  judgmein.  In  the  elect,  vve  con- 
sider calling  as  an  evidence  of  election ;  and  justifica- 
tion as  another  token  of  its  manifestation,  till  they 
arrive  in  glory,  which  constitutes  its  completion.  As 
God  seals  his  elect  by  vocation  and  justification,  so  by 
excluding  the  reprobate  from  the  knowledge  of  his 


(1)  The  following  quotations  are  made  fromALLK.N'a 
translation.    Loud.  1S23.      (2)  Chap.  21,  book  iii. 


352 


THEOLOGICAL   L\STITUTES. 


[Pabt  II, 


name,  an  J  pnnnlification  of  liis  Spirit,  he  alFords  another 
iiiilicatioii  of  tliu  judf^mciit  tliat  awaits  them."' 

In  llic  coiMiiieni'iMiiciit  ul'tlie  lidlowing  chaptcr(3)  lie 
thus  nyccts  the  notion  that  predestination  is  to  be  un- 
derstood as  resulting  from  God's  foreknowledge  of 
what  would  be  the  conduct  of  either  the  elect  or  the 
reprobate.  "  It  is  a  notion  comrnoTily  entertained,  that 
Gon,  foreseeing  what  would  be  the  respective  merits 
of  every  individual,  makes  a  correspondent  distinction 
between  diflerent  persons;  that  lie  adopts  as  his  chil- 
dren such  as  he  foreknows  will  he  deserving  of  his 
grace ;  and  devotes  lo  the  damnation  of  death  others, 
whose  dispositions  he  sees  will  bo  inclined  to  wicked- 
ness and  impiety.  Thus  they  not  only  obscure  election 
by  covering  it  with  the  veil  of  foreknowledge,  but  pre- 
tend that  it  originates  in  another  cause."  Consistently 
with  this,  he  a  little  farther  on  assents,  that  election 
does  not  flow  from  holiness ;  but  holiness  from  election. 
"  For  when  it  is  said,  that  the  faithful  are  elected 
that  they  should  be  holy,  it  is  fully  nnplied,  that  the 
holiness  they  were  in  future  to  possess,  had  its  origin 
in  election."  He  proceeds  to  quote  the  e.xample  of  .la- 
cob  and  Esau,  as  loved  and  hated  before  they  had  done 
good  or  evil,  to  show  that  the  only  reason  of  election 
and  reprobation  is  to  be  placed  in  God's  "  secret  coun- 
sel." He  will  not  allow  the  future  wickedness  of  the 
reprobate  to  have  been  considered  in  the  decree  of  their 
rejection,  any  more  than  the  righteousness  of  the  elect, 
as  inlhiencing  their  better  late.  "  God  hath  mercy  on 
whom  he  will  have  mercy ;  and  whom  he  will  he 
hardeiielh.  Vou  see  how  he  (the  apostle)  attributes 
bofk  to  the  ?ncre  will  of  God.  If,  therefore,  we  can  as- 
sign no  reason  why  he  grants  mercy  to  liis  people  but 
because  such  is  his  pleasure,  neither  shall  we  lind  any 
other  cause  but  liis  will  for  the  reprobation  of  others. 
For  when  God  is  said  to  harden,  or  show  mercy  to 
whom  he  pleases,  men  are  taught  by  this  declaration, 
to  seek  7W  cause,  beside  his  irUl.'\4)  "  Many,  indeed, 
as  if  they  wished  to  avert  odium  from  God,  admit  elec- 
tion in  such  a  way  as  to  deny  that  any  one  is  repro- 
bated. Hut  this  is  puerile  and  absurd;  because  elec- 
tion itself  could  not  exist,  without  being  opposed  to 
reprobation  : — whom  God  jinsses  by  he  therefore  repro- 
bates; and/roOT  no  other  cause  than  his  determination 
to  ex<dude  ihi  rn  from  the  inheritance  which  he  predes- 
tines for  his  children."(5) 

This  is  the  scheme  of  predestination  as  exhibited  by 
f 'alvin  ;  and  it  is  remarkable,  that  the  answers  which 
lie  is  compelled  to  give  to  objections  did  not  unfold  to 
this  great  and  acute  man  its  utter  contrariety  to  the 
testimony  of  God,  and  to  all  established  notions  of 
equity  among  men.  To  the  objection  taken  from  jus- 
tice, he  replies,  "  They  (the  objectors)  inquire  by  what 
right  the  Lord  is  angry  with  his  creatures  who  had  not 
provoked  him  by  any  previous  offence  ;  for  that  to  de- 
vote lo  destruction  whom  he  pleases,  is  more  like  the 
caprice  of  a  tyrant,  than  the  lawful  sentence  of  a  judge. 
If  such  thoughts  ever  enter  into  the  minds  of  pious 
men,  they  will  be  sufficiently  enabled  to  break  their  vi- 
olence by  this  one  consideration,  how  exceedingly  pre- 
sumptuous it  is,  only  to  inquire  into  the  causes  of  the 
Divine  irill ;  wliich  is,  in  fact,  and  is  justly  entitled  to 
be,  the  cause  of  every  thing  that  exists.  For  if  it  has 
any  cause,  then  there  must  be  something  antecedent 
on  which  it  depends,  which  it  is  impious  to  suppo.se. 
For  the  will  of  (Jod  is  the  highest  rule  of  justice;  so 
that  what  he  wills  must  be  considered  just,  for  this 
very  reason,  because  he  wills  it."  The  evasions  are 
here  curious.  1.  He  assumes  the  very  thing  in  dis- 
pute, that  God  has  willed  the  deslniction  of  any  part 
of  the  human  race,  "  for  no  other  cause  than  because 
he  wills  it ;"  of  which  assumption  there  is  not  only  not 
a  word  of  jiroof  in  Scripture;  but  on  the  contrary,  all 
{Scripture  a.scribes  the  death  of  him  that  dieth  to  his 
own  will,  and  not  to  the  will  nl'Gon;  and  therefore 
contradicts  his  statement.  2.  1  le  pretends  that  to  as- 
sign any  cause  to  the  Divine  will  is  to  suppose  some- 
thing antec(!dent  to,  something  above  God,  and  there- 
fore "impious;"  as  if  we  might  not  suppose  some- 
thing IN  Gun  to  be  the  rule  of  his  will,  not  only 
without  any  impiety,  but  with  truth  and  piety  ;  as,  for 
iiiMiaiu-(\  his  perfect  wisdom,  holiness,  justice,  and 
f;oiidnrss  :  or,  in  other  words,  to  believe  the  exercise  of 
his  will  10  How  tVom  the  perfection  ofhis  whoU;  nature ; 


Ci)  Book  ill.  chap.  22. 
(0)  Ibid,  cluip.  23. 


(4)  Ibid.  chap.  22. 


a  much  more  honourable  and  scriptural  view  of  the  will 
of  Gon  than  that  v«hich  subjects  it  to  no  rule,  even  iti 
the  nature  of  God  hhiiself  3.  When  he  calls  the  will 
of  God  "  the  highest  rule  of  justice,"  beyond  which  we 
cannot  pu.-^h  onr  inipiiries,  he  confounds  the  will  of 
God,  as  a  rule  ol  justice  to  us,  and  as  a  rule  to  him- 
self. This  will  is  our  rule;  yet  even  then,  because  we 
know  that  it  is  the  will  of  a  iierfect  being ;  but  when 
Calvin  rejiresents  vnerc  will  as  constituting  God's  own 
rule  of  justice,  he  shuts  out  knowledge,  discrimination 
of  the  nature  of  things,  and  holiness;  which  is  saying 
something  very  different  to  that  great  truth,  that  God 
cannot  will  any  thing  but  what  is  perfectly  just.  It  is 
to  say  that  blind  will,— will  which  has  no  respect  to 
any  thing  but  itself,— is  (iod's  lii;;licst  rule  of  justice  ;  a 
position  which,  if  presented  absinictedly,  many  of  the 
most  ultra  Calvinists  would  spurn.  4.  He  determines 
the  question  by  ilie  authority  of  his  own  metaphysics, 
and  totally  forgets,  that  one  (lirtinn  of  inspiration  over- 
turns his  whole  theory, — fiod  "  uilttth  all  men  to  be 
saved  :"  a  declaration,  which,  in  no  part  of  the  sacred 
volume,  is  oppo.sed  or  limited  by  any  eontrao'  decla- 
ration. 

Calvin  is  not,  however,  content  thus  to  leave  the 
matter ;  but  resorts  to  an  argument  in  which  he  has 
been  generally  followed  by  those  who  have  adopted  his 
system  with  some  mitigations.  "  As  we  are  all  cor- 
rupted by  sin,  we  must  necessarily  be  odious  to  Gon, 
and  tliat  not  from  tyrannical  cruehy,  but  in  the  most 
eijuitable  estimation  of  justice.  If  all  whom  the  Lord 
predestinates  to  death  are,  in  their  natural  condition, 
liable  to  the  sentence  of  death,  what  injustice  do  they 
complain  of  receiving  from  him  7"  To  this  Calvin  very 
fairly  states  the  obvious  rejoinder  made  in  his  day; 
and  which  the  common  sense  of  mankind  will  always 
make, — "  They  object,  were  they,  not  by  the  decree  of 
God  antecedently  predestinated  to  that  corruption 
wliich  is  now  stated  as  the  cause  of  their  condemnation  7 
When  they  perish  in  their  corruption,  therefore,  they 
only  su0'er  the  punishment  of  that  misery  into  which, 
in  consequence  of  his  predestination,  Adam  fell,  and 
precipitated  his  posterity  with  him."  The  manner  in 
which  Calvin  attempts  to  refUte  this  objection,  shows 
how  truly  unanswerable  it  is  upon  his  system.  "  I 
confess,"  says  he,  "  indeed,  that  all  the  descendants  of 
Adam  fell  by  the  Divine  will,  into  that  miserable  con- 
dition in  which  they  are  now  involved ;  and  this  is 
what  I  asserted  froin  the  beginning,  that  we  must 
always  return  at  last  to  the  sovereign  determination  of 
God's  leiil;  the  cause  of  which  is  hidden  in  himself. 
Hut  it  follows  not,  therefore,  that  God  is  liable  to  this 
reproach;  for  we  will  answer  them  in  the  language  of 
Paul,  '  O  man,  who  art  thou  that  rrpliest  against  God? 
shall  the  thing  formed  say  to  him  that  formed  it,  Why 
hast  thou  made  me  thus  ?'  "  That  is,  in  order  lo  escape 
the  pinch  of  the  objection,  he  a.ssunies,  that  St.  Paul 
affirms  that  God  has  "  formed''  a  part  of  the  human 
race  for  eternal  misery  ;  and  that  by  inijiosing  silence 
upon  them,  he  intended  to  declare  that  this  proceeding 
in  God  was  just.  Now  the  passage  may  be  proved 
from  the  context  to  mean  no  such  thing ;  but,  if  that 
failed,  and  it  were  more  obscure  in  its  meaning  than  it 
really  is,  such  an  interpretation  would  be  contradicted 
by  many  other  plain  te.xts  of  holy  writ,  of  which  Cal- 
vin takes  no  notice.  Even  if  this  text  would  serve  the 
purpose  belter,  it  fiivcs  no  answer  lo  the  objection  ;  for 
wearebrouglit  round  again,  as  indeed  Calvin  confesses, 
to  his  fornirr,  and  indeed  only  arguinent.  that  the  whole 
matter,  as  he  states  il,  is  to  be  referred  back  to  the  Di- 
vine will ;  which  will,  though  perfectly  arbitrary,  is, 
as  he  contends,  the  highest  rule  of  justice.  "  I  say, 
with  Augustine,  that  the  Lord  created  those  whom  he 
certainly  foreknew  would  fall  into  destruction  ;  and 
that  this  was  actually  so,  bectmne  he  willed  it;  bnl  of 
his  will,  it  belongs  not  to  us  to  d(niiand  the  reason, 
which  we  are  incapiible  of  cnmiirehending;  nor  is  it 
reasonable,  that  (he  Divine  wdl  should  be  made  the 
subject  of  controversy  with  us,  which  is  only  another 
name  for  the  highest  rule  of  justice."  Thus  he  shuts 
us  out  from  jiursuing  the  argument.  When  God 
places  fences  against  our  approach,  we  grant,  that  we 
are  bound  not  "  to  break  through  and  gaze ;"  but  not 
so,  when  man  without  aulhorily  usurps  ihis  authority, 
and  warns  us  off  from  his  own  enclosures,  as  though 
wi^  were  trespassing  upon  the  peculiar  domains  of  God 
liiiiisilf  t.'alvin's  (•vasion  proves  the  objr'ction  uiian- 
svveiable.     For  il'all  is  to  be  resolved  into  the  mere  will 


Chap.  XXVIIL] 


THEOLOGICAL  LXSTITUTES. 


353 


of  God  as  to  the  destruction  of  the  reprobate;  if  they 
were  created  for  this  j/urposo,  as  Calvin  expressly  af- 
Crnis  ;  if  they  fell  into  their  corruption  in  pursuance  of 
God's  determination ;  if,  as  he  had  said  bel'ore,  "  God 
passes  them  by  and  reprobates  them,  from  ?in  other 
cause  than  his  determination  to  exclude  Ihein  from  the 
inheritance  of  his  clnldren,"  why  refer  to  iheir  natural 
corruption  at  all,  ami  their  being  odious  to  God  in  that 
stale,  since  the  same  reason  is  given  for  their  corrup- 
tion as  for  their  reiirobalion  !— not  any  fault  of  theirs ; 
but  the  mere  will  of  Gou,  "  the  reprobation  iiidden  in 
ins  secret  counsel,"  and  not  grouniled  on  the  visible  and 
tangible  fact  of  their  demerit.  Thus  the  election  taught 
by  Calvin  is  not  a  choice  of  some  persons  to  peculiar 
grace  from  the  whole  mass,  equally  deserving  of  pu- 
nishment (though  this  is  a  sophism);  for,  in  that  case, 
the  decree  of  reprobation  would  rest  ujion  God's  fore- 
knowledge of  those  jiasscd  by  as  corrupt  and  guilty, 
which  notion  lie  rejects.  "  For  since  God  Ibrsees  future 
events  oidyin  conseiiuence  oi lus dnree  that  thtij  sliall 
hajijien,  it  is  useless  to  contend  about  foreknowledge, 
while  it  is  evident  that  all  things  come  to  pass  rather 
by  ordmatUm  and  decree."  It  is  a  iiorkihi.e  decree, 
I  confess  ;  but  no  one  can  deny  that  God  tbreknew  the 
luture  fate  of  man  belore  he  created  him;  and  that  he 
did  Ibreknow  it,  because  it  was  appointed  by  his  own 
decree.  Agreeably  to  this,  he  repuihates  the  dislinction 
between  will  and  permission.  "  For  what  reason  shall 
we  assign  for  his  permitting  it,  but  because  it  is  his 
will  ?  It  is  nut  probable,  however,  that  man  procured 
his  own  destruction  by  the  mere  peTiiivssioii,  and  with- 
out any  appuintmeat  of  God." 

With  tliis  doctrine  he  again  makes  a  singular  attempt 
to  reconcile  the  demerit  of  men :  "  Their  perdition  de- 
pends on  the  Divine  predestination  in  such  a  manner, 
that  the  cause  and  7)uUter  of  it  are  found  in  tlicrnselves. 
For  the  first  man  fell  because  the  Lord  had  determined 
it  should  so  happen.  Tlic  reason  of  this  determination  is 
unknown  to  us. — Man,  liierefore,  falls  according  to  the 
appmiitiiient  of  Divine  I'rovidence;  but  he  falls  by  his 
own  fault.  The  Lord  had  a  little  before  pronounced 
every  thing  that  he  had  made  to  be  '  very  good.' 
Whence,  then,  comes  the  depravity  of  man  to  revolt 
liom  his  God  !  Lest  it  should  be  thought  tocomelrom 
creation,  God  approved  and  commended  what  had  pro- 
ceeded iVom  himself.  By  his  own  wickedness,  there- 
fore, man  corrupted  the  narture  he  had  received  pure 
Irorn  the  Lord,  and  by  his  fall  he  drew  all  Ills  posterity 
with  him  to  destruction."  It  is  in  this  way  that  Calvin 
attempts  to  avoid  the  charge  of  making  God  the  author 
of  sin.  liut  how  God  shoidd  not  merely  permit  the  de- 
fection of  the  first  man,  but  appoint  it,  and  ivill  it,  and 
that  his  will  should  be  the  "  necessity  of  things,"  all 
which  he  had  before  asserted,  and  yet  that  Deity  should 
not  be  the  author  of  that  winch  he  appointed,  ivilled,  and 
imposed  a  necessity  vpon,  would  be  rather  a  delicate 
inquiry.  It  is  enough  that  Calvin  rejects  the  impious 
doctrine,  and  even  though  his  principles  directly  lead 
to  it,  since  he  has  put  in  his  disclaimer,  he  is  entitled  to 
be  exempted  from  tlio  chai'ge ; — but  the  logical  conclu- 
sion is  inevitable. 

In  much  the  same  manner  he  contends  that  the  ne- 
cessity of  sinning  is  laid  upou  the  reprobate  by  the  ordi- 
nation of  God,  and  yet  denies  God  to  be  the  author  of 
their  sin,  since  the  corruption  of  nien  was  derived  from 
Adam,  by  liis  own  faiUt,  and  not  from  God.  Here,  also, 
although  the  dillicully  still  remains  of  conceiving  how 
a  Hecessity  of  sinuing  should  bo  laid  on  the  descendants 
of  Adam,  and  that  without  any  counteraction  of  grace 
in  the  case  of  the  reprobate,  and  that  this  should  be  at- 
tributable to  the  will  of  God  as  its  cause,  while  yet 
God,  in  no  sense  injurious  to  his  perl'cctions,  is  to  be 
regarded  as  the  author  of  sin,  we  still  admit  Calvin'a 
disclaimer;  but  then  he  cannot  have  the  advantage  on 
both  sides,  and  must  renounce  this  or  some  of  his  tbr- 
mer  positions.  He  exhorts  us  "  rather  to  contemplate 
the  evident  cau.se  of  condemnation,  which  is  nearer  to 
us,  in  the  corrupt  nature  of  mankind,  than  search  after 
a  hidden,  and  altogether  incoiniireheusible  one,  in  the 
predestination  of  Gdd.''  "  For  though,  by  the  eternal 
providence  of  God,  man  was  created  to  that  misery 
to  which  he  is  subject,  yet  the  i^rourul  of  it  he  has  de- 
rived from  himsell',  not  Gjd;  since  he  is  thus  ruintd, 
solely  in  consequence  of  his  having  degenerated  from 
the  pure  creation  of  Goo  to  vicious  and  impiu-e  depra- 
vity." Thus,  almost  in  the  same  breath,  he  aflinns 
tUat  men  became  reprobate  Iroin  no  other  cause  ihatt 


''  the  will  of  God,"  and  hia  "  sovereign  determination  ;" 
— that  men  have  no  reason  "  to  expostulate  with  God, 
if  they  are  priidesiinated  to  etenial  death,  without  any 
demerit  ol  their  own,  merely  by  his  sovereign  will ;" — • 
and  then,  that  the  corrupt  nature  of  mankind  is  the 
evident  and  nearer  cause  of  condemnation  (which 
cau.se,  however,  was  stdl  a  matter  of"  apjioiutmenl" 
and  "  ordination,"  not  "  permission");  and  that  man  is 
"  ruined  solely  in  consecjuence  of  his  having  degene- 
rated from  the  pure  state  in  which  God  created  him." 
Now  these  propositions  manifestly  fight  with  each 
other;  for  if  the  reason  of  rejirobationbe  laid  in  man's 
corruption,  it  cannot  be  laid  in  the  mere  will  and  sove- 
reign detcrniinatiou  of  Geo,  unless  we  sujipose  him  to 
be  the  author  of  sin.  It  is  this  otrensive  doctrine  only 
whii'h  can  reconcile  them.  For  if  God  so  wills,  and 
apiioints,  and  necessitates  the  depravity  of  man,  as  to 
l/e  the  author  of  it,  then  there  is  no  inconsistency  in 
saying  that  the  ruin  of  the  reprobate  is  both  from  the 
mere  will  of  God,  and  from  the  corruption  of  their  na- 
ture, whiirh  is  but  the  result  of  that  will.  The  one  is 
then,  as  (jalvin  states,  the  "  evident  and  nearer  cause," 
the  other  the  more  remote  and  hidden  one ;  yet  they 
have  the  same  source,  and  are  substantially  acts  of  the 
same  will.  But  if  it  be  denied  that  God  is,  in  any  sense, 
the  author  of  evil,  and  if  sin  is  from  man  alone,  then  is 
the  '*  corruption  of  nature"  the  effect  of  an  independent 
will;  and  if  this  be  the  "  real  source,"  as  he  says,  of 
men's  condemnation,  then  the  decree  of  reprobation  rests 
not  upon  the  sovereign  will  of  God,  as  itS  sole  cause, 
which  lie  altirins ;  but  upon  a  cause  dependent  on  the 
will  of  the  first  man.  But  as  this  is  denied,  then  the 
other  must  follow.  Calvin  himself,  indeed,  contends  for 
the  perfect  concurrence  of  these  pro.ximate  and  remote 
causes,  although,  in  point  of  fact,  to  have  been  perfectly 
consistent  with  himself,  he  ouglit  rather  to  have  called 
the  jnere  will  of  Hod  the  cause  of  the  decree  of  re- 
probation, and  the  corruption  of  man  the  means  by 
which  it  is  carried  into  efiect :  language  which  he  sanc- 
tions, and  which  many  of  his  followers  have  not  scru- 
pled to  adopt. 

So  fearfully  does  this  opinion  involve  in  it  the  conse- 
quences that  in  sin  man  is  the  instrument,  and  God  the 
actor,  that  it  cannot  be  maintained,  as  stated  by  Calvin, 
without  this  conclusion.  For  as  two  causes  of  repro- 
bation are  expressly  laid  down,  they  must  be  either  op- 
posed to  each  other,  or  be  consenting.  If  they  are  op- 
posed, the  scheme  is  given  up ;  if  consenting,  then  are 
both  reprobation  and  human  corruption  the  results  of 
the  same  will,  the  same  decree,  and  necessity.  It  would 
be  trifling  to  say,  that  the  decree  does  not  influence; 
for  if  so,  it  is  no  decree  in  Calvin's  sense,  who  under- 
stands the  decree  of  God,  as  the  foregoing  extracts  and 
the  whole  thinl  book  of  his  Institutes  plainly  show,  as 
eippointing  what  shall  be,  and  by  that  appointment 
making  it  necessary.  Otherwise,  he  could  not  reject 
the  distinction  between  will  and  permission,  and  avovsr 
the  sentiment  of  St.  Augustine,  "  that  the  will  of  God 
is  the  necessity  of  things ;  and  that  what  he  has  willed, 
will  necessarily  come  to  pass."((i)  So,  in  writing  to 
Castalio,  he  makes  the  sin  of  Adam  the  result  of  an 
act  of  God.  "  You  say  Adam  fell  by  his  free  will.  I 
except  against  it.  That  he  might  not  fall,  he  stood  in 
need  of  that  strength  and  constancy  with  which  Cod 
armeth  all  the  elect,  as  long  as  he  will  kei^plhern 
blameless.  Whom  God  has  elected,  he  props  up  with 
an  hivincible  power  unto  perseverance.  Why  did  he 
not  alford  this  to  Adam,  if  lie  would  have  had  him 
stand  m  his  integirity  r'(7)  And  with  this  view  of  ne- 
cessity, as  restating  from  the  decree  of  God,  the  inime- 
diate  followers  of  Calvin  coincide ;  the  end  and  the 
means,  a.s  to  the  elect  and  as  to  the  rci)robate,  are 
equally  fixed  by  the  decree ;  and  are  both  to  be  traced 
to  the  appointing  and  ordaining  will  of  God.  On  such 
a  scheme  it  is  therefore  worse  than  trifiing  to  attemjit 
to  make  out  a  case  of  justice  in  favour  of  this  assumed 
Divine  procedure,  by  alleging  the  corrui.tion  and  gudt 
of  man  :  a  point  which,  ludeed,  C^alvui  himsell,  in  facJ, 
gives  up,  when  he  says,  "that  the  reprobate  obey  not 
the  word  of  God,  when  made  known  to  them,  is  justly 
imputed  to  the  wickedness  and  depravity  of  their  hearts, 
provided  it  be  at  the  same  time  stated,  that  they  are  aban- 
doned to  this  depravity,  because  Ihey  have  been  raised 


(G>  Book  iii.  chap.  23,  sec.  8. 

(7)  Quoted  in  Bishop  Womack's  talvinist  Cabinet 
Unlocked,  p.  31. 


354 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES, 


[Part  IJ. 


up  by  ajnsl,  but  mscrutahle  judeinentof  Cod.  to  dis- 
play his  f!lory  in  lliiir  ooiidcniiiaiion."(H) 

It  is  by  avuiliiij;  ilu'iiisolvcsorthcRu  ineffectual  Rtrug- 
glos  of  Calvin  to  yivo  some  colour  of  juslii-e  to  his  re- 
probalinj,' decree,  by  fixin>;  upon  the  corruption  of  man 
as  a  cause  of  reprobation,  that  some  of  his  followers 
have  eadeavourfcd,  in  the  very  teeth  of  his  own  express 
words,  to  reduce  his  system  to  supralupsarianisni. 
This  was  attempted  by  Amyraldus;  who  was  an- 
swered by  CurcelUeus,  in  his  tract  "  De  Jure  Dei  in 
C'reaturas."  This  last  writer,  partly  by  several  of  the 
same  passages  we  have  given  above  from  Calvin's  In- 
stitutes, and  by  extracts  from  his  other  writings,  proves 
that  Calvin  did  by  no  means  consider  man,  as  fallen,  to 
be  the  object  of  rejirobation  ;  but  man  not  yet  created ; 
man  as  to  be  created,  and  .so  reprobated,  Ulldor  no  con- 
sideration ill  the  Divine  mind  of  his  fall  or  actual  guilt, 
except  as  coiiscijui  iicis  of  an  eternal  iirelerition  of  the 
}ii;rxoii.s  of  tile  rejirobate,  resolvable  only  into  the  sove- 
reign pleasure  of  (iod.  The  references  he  makes  to 
men  as  corrupt,  and  to  their  corrupt  state  as  the  proxi- 
mate cause  of  their  rejection,  are  all  manilestly  used  to 
parry  oil'  rather  than  to  answer  objections,  and  some- 
what to  soften,  as  Curcelloms  observes,  the  harsher 
parts  of  his  syslein.  And,  indeed,  (or  what  reason  are 
we  BO  otlt^n  brought  back  to  that  unlliiling  refuge  of 
tialvin  and  his  followers,  "  the  presnmiition  an<l  wick- 
edness of  replying  against  God  .'"  For  if  reprobation 
bo  a  mutter  of  human  desert,  it  cannot  be  a  mystery  ; 
If  it  be  adequate  punishment  f()r  an  adequate  fault,  there; 
is  no  need  to  urge  it  upon  us  to  bow  with  sul)inission 
to  an  unexplained  sovereignty.  We  may  add,  there  is 
no  need  to  speak  of  a  remote  or  first  cause  ot  reproba- 
tion, if  the  proximate  cause  will  explain  the  whole  case ; 
and  that  Calvin's  continual  rcl'erenci!  to  (Jod's  serret 
counsel,  and  will,  and  inscruttible  jiid^ntcnt,  could 
have  no  aptness  to  his  argument.(9)  Among  English 
divines,  Dr.  Twiss  has  sulKciently  defended  Calvin 
from  the  charge,  as  he  esteems  it,  of  sublapsarianism  ; 
and,  whatever  merit  Tvviss's  own  sujiralapsarian  creed 
may  have,  his  argument  on  this  point  is  unanswerable. 
This,  llieii,  is  the  doctrine  of  (.'alviii,  which  was  fol- 
lowed by  several  of  the  churches  of  the  llelbrniation, 
who  in  tins  respect  distingui-shed  themselves  from  the 
Lutherans. (I)    It  was  a  doctrine,  however,  unknown 


(s)  Inst.  Book  ill.  chap.  21,  sec.  11. 

('J)  Amyraldus  lamen,  ut  euin  infra  lapsum  substi- 
tisse  probet,  in  constituendo  reprobationis  objecto,  pro- 
Icrt  quufdam  loca  inquibus  illo  corruptee  massa  me- 
minit,  et  liujus  decreti  asquitatom  ab  originali  pecrato 
arccssit.  Sed  facilis  est  resjionsio.  Nam  Calvinus 
ipse,  qua  ratinne  istacuin  lis  quse  attuli  sint  concilianda 
nos  docet :  nimirum  adhibita  distinctione  inter  projiin- 
quam  reprobationis  causam,  ([uam  rcsidentem  in  nobis 
corrui)tioncm  esse  vult,  et  remotam,  quaB  sit  unicum 
Dei  bencidacitum.  Et  quanquam  variis  in  locis  cau- 
eam  proi)in(iuani,  veluli  ad  sententis)  sure  duritiem 
emolliendam  aptiorem,  magis  videatur  urgere ;  ita  ta- 
men  id  facit  ut  non  rar6  conxilii  arcani,  voluntatis  oc- 
ciiltfB,  jiulicii  insr.nitabilis,  et  similium,  quibus  pri- 
mam  rejectionis  causarn  solct  designare,  ibidem  simid 
inemineiit. — Dc  .lure  Dei,  Arc,  cap.  x. 

(1)  "  'I'liK  Reformed  Church,  in  the  largest  import  of 
the  word,  comprises  ail  the  religious  communities 
which  have  separate<l  themselves  from  the  Church  of 
Rome.  In  this  sense  the  words  are  ollen  used  by  Eng- 
lish writers  ;  but  having  bnn  adopted  by  the  French 
Calvinists  to  descrilie  //;«;>•  Cliurch, this  tennis  most 
commonly  used  on  theConiJmnt  as  a  general  apjiella- 
lion  of  all  the  churches  who  profess  the  doctrines  of 
Calvin.  About  the  year  1611,  the  church  of  Geneva 
■was  placed  by  the  magislrates  of  that  city  under  the 
direction  of  (Jalvin,  where  his  learning,  eloquence,  and 
talents  for  business,  soon  attracted  general  notice.  liy 
degrees,  his  limie  reached  to  every  part  of  Europe. 
Having  prevailed  upon  the  senate  of  (ieneva  to  (bund 
an  academy,  and  place  it  under  his  sniierintendence; 
and  having  filled  it  with  men,  eminent  ibroiif.'hout  Eu- 
rope for  their  learning  and  talent,  it  became  the  liivour- 
jte  resort  of  all  persons  who  leaned  to  the  new  princi- 
ples, and  sought  religious  and  literary  instruction. 
rnmi  Germany,  France,  Italy,  England,  am!  Scotland, 
numbers  crowded  to  the  new  academy,  and  returned 
from  it  to  their  native  countries,  saturated  with  the 
doctrine  of  Geneva,  and  burning  with  /.eal  to  propa- 
gate its  cni'jd."— IluAXiiK's  Life  of  Grutius 


in  the  iirimitive  churches ;  and  may  he  ranked  amon;; 
those  errors  which  the  pagan  plulosophy  subsequently 
engrafted  upon  the  faith  of  Christ.(2) 

ihsliop  Tomline's  "llefutation  of  Calvinism,"  al- 
though very  erroneous  in  some  of  its  doctrinal  view.s, 
has  some  valuable  and  conclusive  quot.itions  from  the 
ancient  Fathers,  proving  "  that  the  peculiar  tenets  of 
Calvinism  arc  in  direct  opposition  to  the  doctrines  main- 
tained in  the  first  ages."  They  also  show  that  there  is 
a  great  similarity  between  some  points  in  that  system 
and  several  of  the  most  prevalent  of  the  early  heresies. 
"  The  Maiiicheans  denied  the  freedom  of  the  human 
will,  and  spoke  of  the  elect  as  persons  who  could  not 
sin,  or  fail  of  salvation."  The  fruitful  source  of  these 
notions  was  the  Gnosticism  of  early  limes,  whic-h  wa» 
the  worst  part  of  the  speculative  pagan  philosophy,  en- 
gralted  on  a  corrupted  Christianity ;  and  was  vigor- 
ously opposed  by  the  Fathers,  from  the  earliest  date. 
In  this  system  of  affected  and  dreaming  wisdom  it  was 
assumed,  that  some  souls  were  created  bad,  and  others  / 
good  ;  and  that  they  sprung,  therefore,  from  dillerent  J 
principles,  or  creators.  Origen  contended,  in  opposi-  L._ 
tion  to  these  speculations,  that  all  souls  were  by  nature 
of  the  same  cpiality ;  that  the  use  of  the  freedom  of  will 
made  the  diflercnces  we  see  in  practice ;  and  that  tlii» 
liberty  rendered  them  liable  to  reward  and  to  punish- 
ment ;  ascribing,  however,  this  recovered  freedom  of  the 
will,  which  hail  been  lost  in  Adam,  to  the  grace  of  I'hrist. 
The  I'latonism  wliiili  he-  mi.xccl  up  with  Ins  system  was 
justly  resisted  in  the  church  ;  but  his  doctrine  of  the  free- 
dom of  the  will  ])revailed  generally  in  the  East.  It  was 
afterward  carried  to  a  dangerous  extent  by  I'elagius, 
whose  doctrine  was  iiioilified  by  Cassian.  These  dis- 
cussions called  Augustine  into  a  controversy  which 
carried  him  to  the  opposite  extreme;  and  aiqiears  to 
have  revived  the  ?vlanichean  notions  of  his  youth  in  such 
a  degree  as  greatly  to  tinge  many  parts  of  his  system 
with  that  heresy.  He  was  a  powerliil,  but  unsteady 
writer;  and  has  e.x])ressed  himself  so  nu  (iii.sisceinly  as 
to  have  diviiled  the  opinions  of  the  Latin  church,  whero 
his  authority  has  always  been  greatest.  He  held,  al- 
though his  writings  afford  many  jiassages  contradictory 
of  the  statement,  that  "  God,  (iom  the  foundation  of 
the  world,  decreed  to  save  some  men,  and  to  consign 
others  to  eternal  punishment."  Notwithstanding  his 
authority,  his  views  on  predestination  and  graci;  ajipear 
to  have  made  no  great  impression  upnn  even  the  west- 
ern church,  where  the  Collations  of  Cassian,  a  dis- 
ciple of  Chryso-stom,  a  work  which  has  been  calleil  semi- 
Pelagian,  was  held  in  extensive  estimation ;  so  that 
substantially  no  great  diflerence  of  opinion  appeared 
between  the  western  and  the  Greek  cliur<hes,  on  these 
points,  (or  several  centuries.  In  the  ninlli  centurj',  St. 
Austin's  doctrines  were  revived  and  asstrled  by  (;otes- 
cliale,  who  was  as  absurdly  as  wickedly  persecuted  on 
that  account.  His  doctrines  were  condemned  in  two 
councils;  and  the  controversy  was  laid  to  rest,  until 
the  subtle  questions  eontnined  in  it  were  revived  by  the 
schoolmen.  Thomas  Aquinas  and  the  Dominicans 
ado])ted  the  strongest  views  of  Augustine  on  predestina- 
tion and  necessity,  and  improved  upon  them ;  Scotus  and 
the  Franciscans  took  the  opposite  side;  and  the  infalli- 
bility of  the  I'ope  has  not  yet  been  employed  to  settle 
this  point.  15y  condemning  .lansenius,  however,  while 
it  has  honoured  Augustine,  that  church,  as  Hayle  ob- 
sei-ves,(S)  has  involved  itself  in  great  perplexities.  Tho 
authority  of  tliis  Father  with  the  church  of  Kome  was 
indeed  an  advantage  which  the  first  Relormers  did  not 
fail  to  make  u.se  of  From  him  they  sup|)orted  their 
views  on  justification  by  faith ;  and  finding  so  much  of 
evangelical  truth  on  this  and  some  other  subjects  in  his 
writings,  they  were  insensibly  biased  to  the  worst 
parts  of  his  system.  Luther  recovered  from  his  terror 
in  the  latter  part  of  his  life ;  ami  the  Lutheran  churches 
settled  in  the  doctrine  of  universal  redemption. (1)   Au- 


(2)  This  was  the  view  of  Mklanctiion,  who,  in 
writing  to  Teucer,  says,  "  Lcelius  writes  to  me  and  says, 
that  the  controvei-sy  respecting  the  Stoical  Fatk,  is 
agitated  with  such  uncommon  fervour  at  Geneva,  that 
one  individual  is  cast  into  prison  because  ho  happened 
todltli.T  from  Zeiio." 

(3)  Dictionary,  Art.  August  inc. 

(4)  "  It  is  pleasing,"  says  Dr.  Coplkston,  "  and  sat- 
isfactory, to  trace  the  progress  of  Melancthon's  opin- 
ions uiMin  the  subject.  In  the  first  dawning  of  the  Hc- 
formatiou,  he,  as  well  us  Luther,  hud  been  led  into 


Chap.  XXVIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


355 


gustinism,  ns  perfected  and  aystcmati/.ed  by  the  able 
hand  of  Calvin,  was  received  by  several  of  the  reformed 
churches ;  and  gave  rise  to  a  controversy  which  has 
remained  to  this  day,  thongh  happily  it  has  of  late  been 
conducted  with  less  asperity.  The  system,  as  issued 
by  Calvin,  has,  however,  undergone  various  modifica- 
tions :  some  theologians  and  llieir  followers  having 
carried  out  his  principles  to  their  full  length,  so  as  to 
advocate  or  sanction  the  Antinomiuu  henjsy;  while 
others,  either  to  avoid  this  fearful  result,  or  perceiving 
the  discrepancy  of  the  harsher  parts  of  the  theory  with 
the  word  of  God,  have  impressed  upon  it  a  more  miti- 
gated aspect. 

The  three  leading  schemes  of  predestination,  preva- 
lent among  the  Reformed  churches  previous  to  the 
Synod  of  liort,  are  thus  stated  in  the  celebrated  Decla- 
ration of  Aniiinius  before  the  slates  of  Holland.  They 
comi)rehcn<l  the  theories  generally  known  by  the  names 
of  supralapsarian  and  sublapsarian. 

"  The  riRsT,  or  Creabilitarian,  or  supralapsarian  opi- 
nion is,  1.  That  God  has  absolutely  and  precisely  de- 
creed to  save  certain  jiarticular  men  by  his  mercy  or 
grace,  but  to  condemn  others  by  his  justice ;  and  to  do 
all  this,  without  havmg  any  regard  in  such  decree  to 
righteousness  or  sin,  obedience  or  disobedience,  which 
could  possibly  exist  on  the  part  of  one  class  of  men 
or  the  other.  2.  That  for  the  execution  of  the  preced- 
ing decree,  God  determined  to  create  Adam,  and  all 
men  in  him,  in  an  ui)right  state  of  original  righteous- 
ness ;  besides  which,  he  also  ordained  them  to  commit 
sin,  that  they  might  thus  become  guilty  of  eternal  con- 
demnation, and  be  deprived  of  original  nghteousnoss. 
3.  That  those  persons  whom  God  has  thus  iiosniveiy 
wished  to  save,  he  has  decreed,  not  only  to  salvation, 
but  also  to  the  means  which  pertain  lo  it;  that  is,  to 
conduct  and  bring  them  to  faith  in  Christ  Jesus,  and 
to  perseverance  in  that  faith ;  and  that  he  qlso  leads 
them  to  these  results  by  a  grace  and  power  that  are 
irresistible;  so  that  it  is  not  possible  for  the.m  to  do 
otherwise  than  believe,  persevere  in  faith,  and  be 
saved.  4.  That  to  those  whom,  by  his  absolute  will,  God 
has  foreordained  to  penUtion,  he  has  also  decreed  to 
deny  that  grace  which  is  necessary  and  sufficient  for 
salvation ;  and  does  not,  in  reality,  confer  it  upon  them  ; 
so  that  they  are  neither  placed  in  a  possible  condition, 
nor  in  any  capacity  of  believing,  or  of  being  saved."(5) 
The  SECOND  opinion  diliers  from  the  former;  but  is 
still  supralapsarian.    It  is, 

"  J.  That  God  determined  within  himself,  by  an  eter- 
nal, immutable  decree,  to  make,  according  to  his  good 
pleasure,  the  smaller  portion  out  of  the  general  mass 
of  mankind  partakers  of  his  grace  and  glory.    But,  ac- 


those  metaphysical  discussions  which  Calvin  after- 
ward moulded  into  a  system,  and  incorporated  with 
his  exposition  of  the  Christian  doctrine.  IJut  so  early 
as  the  year  1529  he  renounced  this  error,  and  expunged 
the  passages  that  contained  it  from  the  later  editions  of 
his  Loci  Theologici.  Luther,  who  had  in  his  early  life 
maintained  the  same  opinions,  aller  the  controversy 
with  Erasmus  about  free-will,  never  taught  them  ;  and 
although  he  did  not,  with  the  candour  of  Melanethon, 
openly  retract  what  he  had  once  written,  yet  he  be- 
stowed the  highest  commendations  on  the  last  editions 
of  Melancthon's  work,  containing  this  correction.(g)  He 
also  .scrupled  not  lo  assert  publicly,  that  at  the  beginning 
of  the  Uefbrmation,  his  creed  was  not  completely  set- 
tled ;(/Oand  in  his  last  work  of  any  importance,  he  is  anx- 
ious to  point  out  the  iiualifications,  with  which  all  he  had 
ever  said,  on  the  doctrine  of  absolute  necessity,  ought 
to  be  received."  "  Vos  ergo,  qui  nunc  me  audistis, 
niemineritis  me  hoc  docnisse  non  esse  inquirendum  de 
Priedestinalione  Jki.  abscondUi,  sed  in  illis  acquies- 
ccndum,  qn:e  rcvelantur  per  vocationem  et  per  ininis- 

teiium  verbi Hoic  eadem,  alibi  quoque  in  meis 

libris  protestatus  sum,  et  nunc  etiam  viva  voce  trade; 
Idea  sum  exaisatus.(t) 

(5)  This  statement  of  the  supralapsarian  and  sublap- 
sarian theories,  as  given  by  Arminius,  might  be  illus- 
trated and  verified  by  quotations  from  the  elder  Calvin- 
islic  divines  :  the  reader  will,  however,  find  what  is 
amply  sufficient  in  those  given  in  Bishop  Womack's 
Calvinistic  Cabinet  Unlocked. 

(ir)  Pref.totlieflrstvol.ofLuiher'BWorks,A.D.  1540. 
(k)  Laur.  Bampt.  Lect.  note  21  to  Serm.  li. 

(i)  Op.  vol.  vj.  p.  aaa. 


cording  to  his  pleasure,  he  passed  hy  the  greater  por- 
tion of  men,  and  left  them  in  thi.ir  own  nature,  which 
is  incapable  of  any  thing  supernatural ;  and  did  not 
communicate  to  them  that  saving  and  supematural 
grace  by  which  their  nature,  if  it  slUl  retained  its  inte- 
grity, might  be  strengthened  ;  or  by  which,  if  it  were 
corrupted,  it  might  bo  restored,  for  a  demonstration  of 
his  own  liberty  :  yet  after  God  had  made  these  men 
sinners,  and  guilty  of  death,  he  punished  them  with 

death  eternal,  lor  a  demonstration  of  his  justice.'' 

"As  far  as  we  are  capable  of  comprehending  their 
scheme  of  reprobation,  it  consists  of  two  acts,  that  of 
PiiKTKRiTiON  and  that  of  1"REd.\mnation.  1'reteri- 
TioN  is  antecetlent  to  all  things,  and  to  all  causes  wliich 
are  cither  in  the  things  tliemselvos,  or  which  arise  out 
of  them ;  that  is,  it  has  no  regard  whatever  to  any  sin, 
and  only  views  man  under  an  absolute  and  general  as- 
pect. Two  means  are  foreordained  lor  the  execution 
of  the  act  of  preterition  :  dereUcikm  in  a  state  of 
nature,  which,  by  itself,  is  incapable  of  every  thing 
supernatural ;  andlthc  7i<m-c(mimunication  oC  aupenm- 
tural  grace,  by  which  their  nature,  if  in  a  state  of  in- 
tegrity, might  be  strengthened,  and  if  in  a  stale  of  cor- 
ruption, might  be  restored.  Tredamnation  is  ante- 
cedent to  all  things;  yet  it  does  by  no  means  exist 
without  a  foreknowledge  of  the  cause  of  damnation.  It 
views  man  as  a  sinner  obnoxious  to  damnation  in  Adam, 
and  as,  on  this  account,  perishing  through  the  neces- 
sity of  Divine  justice." 

This  opinion  differs  from  the  first  in  this,  that  it  docs 
not  lay  down  the  creation  or  the  fall  as  a  mediate  cause, 
Ibreordained  of  God  ibr  the  execution  of  the  decree  of 
rejirobation  ;  yet  this  second  kind  of  predestination 
places  election,  with  regard  to  the  end,  hefore  the  fall, 
as  also  prelerition,  or  passing  by,  wliich  is  the  first  part 
of  reprobation.  "  But  though  the  inventors  of  this 
scheme,"  says  Arminius,  "  have  been  desirous  of  using 
the  greatest  precaution,  lest  it  might  be  concluded  from 
their  doctrine,  that  God  is  the  author  of  sin  with  as 
much  show  of  probability  as  it  is  deducible  from  the 
first  scheme ;  yet  we  shall  discover,  that  the  fall  of 
Adam  cannot  possibly,  according  to  their  views,  be  con- 
sidered in  any  other  manner  than  as  a  necessary  means 
for  the  execution  of  the  preceding  decreeof  predestination. 
For,  first,  it  states  that  God  determined  by  the  decree  of 
reprobation  to  deny  to  man  that  grace  which  was  neces- 
sary for  the  confirmation  and  strengthening  of  his  nature, 
that  it  might  not  be  corrupted  by  sm ;  which  amountsto 
this,  that  God  decreed  not  (o  bestow  that  grace  which 
was  necessary  to  avoid  sin  ;  and  from  this  must  neces- 
sarily follow  the  transgression  of  man,  as  jimceeding 
from  a  law  imposed  upon  liim.  The  fall  of  man  is, 
thereforc,  a  means  ordained  for  the  execution  of  the  de- 
cree of  rejirobation." 

"  2.  It  states  the  two  parts  of  reprobation  to  be  pre- 
terition and  predamaatiun.  Those  two  parts  (al- 
thougli  the  latter  views  man  as  a  sinner,  and  obnoxious 
to  justice)  are,  according  to  that  decree,  connected 
together  by  a  necessary  and  mutual,  bond,  and  arc 
ciiually  extensive ;  for  those  whom  God  passed  by  hi 
conferring  grace,  are  likewise  damned.  Indeed,  no 
others  are  damned  except  those  who  are  the  subjecls 
of  this  act  of  preterition.  From  this,  thercfiire,  it 
must  be  concluded,  that  sin  necessarily  follows  IVum 
the  decree  of  reprobation  or  preterition  ;  because,  iC  it 
were  otherwise,  it  might  po.ssibly  happen,  that  a  pir- 
son  who  had  heenpassed  by  might  not  comniit.sin,  and 
from  that  circumstance  might  not  become  hable  to  dam- 
nation. This  second  opinion  on  predestination,  there- 
fore, falls  into  the  same  inconvenience  as  the  first,— the 
making  God  the  author  of  sin."(f>) 

The  TiiiRo  opinion  is  sublapsarian ;  in  which  man, 
as  the  object  of  predestination,  is  considered  us 
faUen.(j)    It  is  thus  epitomised  by  Arniinius. 


(6)  Declaration. 

(7)  The  question  as  to  the  object  of  the  decrees,  has 
gone  out,  as  fJoodwin  says,  among  our  Calvinislio 
brethren,  into  "  endless  dtgladiations  and  irreconcdable 
divisions  :— some  of  them  hold,  that  men  simjily  and 
indefinitely  considered  are  the  object  of  these  decrees. 
Others  contend,  that  men  considered  as  yel  lo  be  cre- 
ated, are  this  object.  A  third  sort  stands  u])  against 
botli  the  former  with  this  notion,  that  men  considered 
as  tdready  created  and  made,  are  lliis  object.  A  fourth 
disparageth  the  i;onjcctures  of  the  three  former  witli 
this  conceit,  that  men  considered  as  fallen,  arc  tliiis  oh- 


356" 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES, 


[Part  IL 


"  Because  God  willed  within  himself  from  all  eter- 
nity to  make  a  decree  by  which  he  might  elect  certain 
men  and  reprobate  the  rest,  he  viewed  and  considered 
the  human  race  not  only  as  created,  but  likewise  as 
fallen  or  corrupt;  and,  on  that  accouiit,  obnoxious  to 
malediction.  Out  of  this  lapsed  and  accursed  state 
God  determined  to  liberate  certain  individuals,  and 
freely  to  save  them  by  his  grace,  for  a  declaration  of  his 
mercy;  but  he  resolved,  in  his  own  just  judsnient,  to 
leave  the  rest  under  malediction,  lor  a  declaration  ol' 
his  justice.  In  both  these  cases  God  acts  without  the 
least  consideration  of  repentance  and  faith  in  those 
■whom  he  elects,  or  of  impenitence  and  unbelief  in 
those  whom  he  reprobates.  This  opinion  places  the 
tall  of  man,  not  as  a  means  foreordained  for  the  exe- 
cution of  the  decree  of  predestination,  as  before  e.x- 
plaiucd ;  but  as  something  that  might  flirnish  a  proa:- 
resis,  or  occasion  for  this  decree  of  predestination. (8) 

Willi  tliis  opinioji,  however,  the  necessity  of  the  fall 
is  so  generally  connected,  that  it  escapes  the  difficulties 
which  envirofl  the  preceding  scheme  in  words  only ; 
iiir  whether,  in  tlie  decree  of  predestination,  man  is 
considered  as  crcatiblc,  or  created  and  fallen,  if  a  ne- 
cessity be  laid  upon  any  part  of  the  race  to  sin,  and  to 
be  made  miserable,  whether  from  that  whicli  rendered 
the  fall  inevitable,  or  that  which  rendered  the  fall  the 
inevitable  means  of  corrupting  their  nature,  and  pro- 
ducing entire  moral  disability  \vithout  relief,  tlie  condi- 
tion of  the  reprobate  remains  substantially  tlie  same ; 
and  llie  administration  under  which  they  are  placed,  is 
ctiually  opposed  to  justice  as  to  grace.  For  let  us  shut 
out  all  these  fine  distinctions  between  acts  of  sove- 
reignty and  acts  of  justice,  preterition  and  prcdamna- 
tion,  and  fully  allow  the  principle,  that  all  are  fallen  in 
Adam,  in  what  way  can  even  the  sublapsarian  doc- 
trine be  supported  ?  It  has  two  objects;  to  avoid  the 
imputation  of  making  Ooi  the  author  of  sin,  and  to 
repel  the  charge  of  his  dealing  with  his  creatures  un- 
justly. We  need  only  take  the  latter  as  necessary  to 
the  argument,  and  show  how  utterly  they  fail  to  turn 
aside  this  most  fatal  objection  drawn  from  the  justice 
of  the  Bivino  nature  and  admirnstration. 

It  is.  an  easy  and  plausible  thing  to  say,  in  the  usual 
loose  and  general  liianner  of  stating  the  sublapsarian 
doctrine,  that  the  whole  race  having  fallen  in  Adam, 
and  become  justly  liable  to  eternal  death,  God  might, 
without  any  impeachment  of"  his  justice,  in  the  exer- 
cise of  his'  sovereign  grace,  ajipoint  some  to  life  and 
salvation  by  Christ,  and  leave  the  olliers  to  their  de- 
served punishment.  But  this  is  a  false  view  of  the 
case,  built  upon  the  false  assumption  that  the  whole 
race  were  personally  and  individually,  in  consequence 
of  Adam's  fall,  absolutely  hablc  to  eternal  death. 
That  very  fact  which  is  the  foundation  of  the  whole 
scheme,  is  easy  to  be  refuted  on  the  clearest  authority 
of  Scripture  ;  while  not  a  passage  can  be  adduced,  we 
may  boldly  affirm,  which  sanctions  any  such  doctrine. 

"  The  wages  of  sin  is  death."  That  the  death  which 
is  the  wages  or  penalty  of  sin  extends  to  eternal  death, 
we  have  belbre  proved.  But  "  sin  is  the  transgression 
of  the  law ;"  and  in  no  other  light  is  it  represented  in 
Scripture,  when  eternal  death  is  threatened  as  its  pe- 

ject.  Another  flndeth  a  defect  in  the  singleness  or 
simplicity  of  all  the  former  opinions,  and  compoundeth 
this  in  opposition  to  them,  tliat  men  considered  both  as 
to  be  created,  and  as  being  created  and  as  fallen,  to- 
gether, are  the  proper  object  of  these  troublesome  de- 
crees. A  sixth  sort  fonneth  us  yet  another  object,  and 
this  is,  man  considered  as  salvable,  or  capable  of  being 
saved.  A  seventh,  not  liking  the  fiiint  complexion  of 
any  of  the  former  opinions,  delivereth  this  to  us  as 
strong  and  healthful,  that  men  considered  as  damnable 
are  this  object.  Others  yet  again,  suporfancying  all 
the  former,  conceit  men,  considered  as  crcable,  or  pos- 
sible to  be  created,  to  bo  the  object  so  highly  contested 
about.  A  ninth  party  disciple  the  world  with  this  doc- 
trine, that  men  considered  as  Uih/Ies,  or  capable  of  fall- 
ing, are  the  oliject ;  and  whether  all  the  scattered  and 
conflicting  opinions  atxml  the  objects  of  nnr  bielhren's 
decrees  of  election  and  reprobation  are  bound  up  in 
this  bundle  or  not,  we  cannot  say."— Agreement  of 
Brethren,  &c. 

In  modern  times  these  subtile  distinctions  liavc  ra- 
ther fallen  into  desuetude  ainong  (Jalvinists,  and  arc 
ledui-tble  to  a  much  smaller  number. 

(S)  Ibid, 


nalty,  than  as  the  act  of  a  rational  being  sinning  against 
a  law  known  or  knowable ;  and  as  an  act  avoidable, 
and  not  forced  or  necessary. 

Taking  these  principles,  let  them  bo  applied  to  the 
case  belbre  us. 

The  scheme  of  predestination  in  question  contem- 
plates the  human  race  as  fallen  in  Adam.  It  must 
therefore  conteniplalte  them  either  as  seminally  in 
Adam,  not  being  yet  born;  or  as  to  be  actually  born 
into  the  world. 

In  the  former  case,  the  only  actual  beings  to  be 
charged  with  sin,  "  the  transgression  of  the  law,"  were 
Adam  and  Eve ;  for  the  rest  of  the  human  race  not  be- 
ing actually  existent,  were  not  capable  of  transgress- 
ing ;  or  if  they  were,  in  a  vague  sense,  capable  of  it 
by  virtue  of  the  federal  character  of  Adam  ;  yet  then 
only  as  potential,  and  not  as  actual  beings,  beings,  as 
the  logicians  say,  in  posse,  not  in  esse.  Our  first  pa- 
rents rendered  themselves  lialde  to  eternal  death. 
Tliis  is  granted ;  and  had  they  died  "  in  i  he  day"  they 
sinned,  which,  but  for  the  uitroduction  of  a  system  of 
mercy  and  long-suHering,  and  the  appointment  of  a 
new  kind  of  jirobation,  for  any  thing  that  appears,  they 
must  have  done,  the  human  race  would  have  perished 
with  them,  and  the  only  conscious  sinners  would  have 
been  the  only  conscious  sufferers.  But  then  this  lays 
no  foundation  tor  election  and  reprobation  ; — the  whole 
r.ace  would  thus  have  perished  witliout  the  vouchsafis- 
ment  of  mercy  to  any. 

This  predestination  must,  therefore,  respect  the  hu- 
man race  fallen  in  Adam,  as  to  be  born  actually,  and  to 
have  a  real  as  well  as  a  potential  existence ;  and  the 
doctrine  will  be,  that  the  race  so  contemplated  were 
made  unconditionally  liable  to  eternal  death.  In  this 
ca.se  the  decree  takes  efiect  immediately  upon  the  fall, 
and  determines  the  condition  of  every  individual  in  re- 
spect to  his  being  elected  from  this  common  misery,  or 
hie  being  lell  in  it ;  and  it  rests  its  plea  of  justice  upon 
the  assumed  fact,  that  every  man  is  absolutely  liable 
to  eternal  death  wholly  and  entirely  for  the  sin  of 
Adain,  a  sin  to  which  he  was  not  a  consenting  party 
because  he  was  not  in  actual  existence.  But  if  eternal 
death  be'tlie  "wages  of  sin  ;"  and  the  sin  which  re- 
ceives such  wages  be  the  transgression  of  a  law  by  a 
voluntary  agent  (and  this  is  the  rule  as  laid  down  by 
God  himself),  then  on  no  scriptural  principle  is  the 
human  race  to  be  considered  absolutely  liable  to  per- 
sonal and  conscious  eternal  death  for  the  sin  of  Adam ; 
and  so  the  very  ground  assumed  by  the  advocates  of 
this  theory  is  nnlimnded. 

But  jierliaps  they  will  bring  into  consideration  the 
foreknowledge  of  actual  transgression  as  contemidated 
by  the  decree,  though  this  notion  is  repudiated  by  ('al- 
vin,  and  the  rigid  divines  of  his  school ;  but  we  reply 
to  this,  that  either  the  sin  of  Adam  was  a  sufficient 
reason  for  the  actual  inihciion  of  a  sentence  of  eternal 
death  upon  his  descendants,  or  it  was  not.  If  not, 
then  no  man  will  be  punished  with  eternal  death,  as 
the  conseciucnce  of  Adam's  sin,  and  that  sentence  will 
rest  upon  actual  transgressions  alone.  If,  then,  this 
be  allowed,  there  comes  in  an  important  inquiry :  Are 
the  actual  transgressions  of  the  non-elect  evitable,  or 
necessary  ?  If  the  former,  then  even  the  reprobate, 
without  the  grace  of  Christ,  which  they  cannot  have, 
because  he  died  not  for  them,  may  avoid  all  sin,  and 
consequently  keep  the  whole  law  of  God,  and  claim, 
though  still  reprobates,  to  be  justified  by  their  works. 
But  if  sin  be  unavoidable  and  necessary  as  to  them,  in 
consequence  both  of  the  corrupt  nature  they  have  de- 
rived from  Adam,  and  the  withholding  of  that  sancti- 
fying influence  which  can  be  imparted  only  to  the  elect, 
for  whom  alone  Christ  died,  how  are  they  to  be  proved 
justly  liable,  on  that  account,  to  eternal  death  ?  This 
is  the  jienalty  of  sin,  of  sin  as  the  transgression  of  the 
law  ;  but  then  law  is  given  only  to  creatures  in  a  state 
of  trial,  cither  to  those  who,  from  their  lunmiiaired 
liower.s,  are  able  to  keep  it;  or  to  those  to  whom  is  made 
ihe  promise  of  gracious  assistance,  upon  their  asking 
it,  in  order  that  they  may  be  enabled  to  obey  the  will 
of  (Jod ;  and  in  no  case  are  those  to  whom  God  issues 
his  connnands  suppiKsed  in  Scripture  to  be  abselulcly 
incapable  of  obedience,  much  less  liable  to  be  lunushed, 
without  remedy,  for  not  obeying,  if  so  incapacitated. 
This  would,  indeed,  make  the  Divine  Being  a  hard 
master,  "  rcajiing  where  he  has  not  so\vn ;"  which  is 
the  language  only  of  the  "  wicked  servant ;"  and  therc- 
Ibrc  to  be  abhorred  by  all  good  men.    But  if  a  point  so 


Chap.  XXVIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


357 


obviously  at  varianco  with  truth  autl  etjuity  be  main- 
tained, the  doetrinfi  comes  to  this,  that  men  are  con- 
sidered, in  the  IJivino  decree,  as  justly  liable  to  eternal 
death  (their  actual  sins  being  Ibresecn),  because  they 
have  been  placed  by  some  previous  decree,  or  higher 
branch  of  the  same  decree,  in  circumstances  which  ne- 
cessitate them  to  sin :  a  doctrine  which  raises  sublap- 
sarianism  into  supralapsarianism  itself.  This  is  not 
the  view  wliich  God  gives  us  of  his  ovvn  justice  ;  and  it 
is  contradicted  by  every  notion  of  justice  which  iias  ever, 
obtained  among  men :  nor  is  it  at  all  relieved  by  the  sub- 
tlety of  Zanchius  and  others,  who  distinguisli  between 
being  tiecessitaled  to  sin,  and  being  forced  to  sin  ;  and 
argue,  that  because  in  sinning  the  reprobate  follow 
the  motions  of  their  own  will,  they  are  justly  punish- 
able; though  in  this  they  fulfil  the  predestination  of 
God.  The  true  question  is,  and  it  is  not  at  all  affected 
by  such  merely  verbal  distinctions.  Can  the  reprobate 
do  otherwise  than  sin,  and  could  they  ever  do  other- 
wise 1  They  sin  viiUingly,  it  is  said.  This  is  granted  ; 
but  could  they  ever  xolu  otherwise  ?  The  will  is  but 
one  of  many  diseased  powers  of  the  soul.  Is  there,  as 
to  ihcm,  any  cure  for  this  disease  of  the  will?  Accord- 
ing to  this  scheme,  there  is  not;  and  they  will  from 
necessity,  as  well  as  act  from  necessity ;  so  that  the 
difficulty,  though  thrown  a  step  backwards,  remains  in 
full  force. 

In  support  of  their  notion,  that  the  penalty  attached 
fo  original  sin  is  eternal  death,  they  allege,  it  is  true, 
that  the  apostle  Paul  represents  all  men  under  coiuh^m- 
nation  in  consequence  of  their  connexion  willi  the  first 
Adam  ;  and  attributes  the  salvation  of  tho.se  who  are 
rescued  from  the  ruin  only  to  the  obedience  of  the  se- 
cond Adam.  This  is  granted  ;  but  it  will  not  avail  to 
establish  their  position  that,  the  human  race  being 
all  under  an  absolute  sentence  of  condemnation  to  eter- 
nal death,  Almighty  God,  in  the  exercise  of  his  sove- 
reign grace,  elected  a  part  of  them  to  salvation,  and  left 
th(i  remainder  to  the  justice  of  their  previous  sentence. 

For,  i.  Supposing  that  the  whole  human  race  were 
under  condemnation  in  their  sense,  this  will  not  ac- 
count for  the  punishment  of  those  who  reject  the 
Gospel.  Their  rejecting  the  Gospel  is  represented 
in  Scripture  as  the  sole  cause  of  their  coademuation, 
and  never  merely  as  an  aggravating  cause,  as  though 
they  were  under  an  irreversible  previous  sentence  of 
death,  and  that  tliis  refusal  of  the  Gospel  only  height- 
ened a  previou.sly  certain  and  inevitable  punishment. 
An  aggravated  cause  of  condemnation  it  is ;  but  for 
tills  reason,  that  it  is  the  rejection  of  a  remedy,  and  an 
abuse  of  mercy,  neither  of  which  could  have  any  place 
in  a  previously  fixed  condition  of  reprobation.  If, 
therefore,  it  is  true  that  "  Tins  is  the  condemnation, 
that  light  is  come  into  the  world,  and  men  love  dark- 
ness rather  than  light,"  we  must  conclude,  that  the  pre- 
vious state  of  condemnation  was  not  irremediable  and 
unalterable,  or  this  circumstance,  the  rejection  "  of  the 
light,"  or  revelation  of  mercy  in  the  Gospel,  could  not 
be  their  condemnation. 

2.  Leaving  the  meaning  of  the  apostle  in  Rom. 
V.  out  of  our  consideration  for  a  moment,  the  Scriptures 
never  !)lace  the  final  condemnation  of  men  upon  the 
ground  of  Adam's  offence,  and  their  conijexion  with 
him.  Actual  sin  forms  the  ground  of  every  reproving 
charge ;  of  every  commination  ;  and,  beyond  all  doubt,  of 
the  condemnatory  sentence  at  the  day  of  judgment.  To 
what  ought  we  to  refer,  as  explaining  the  true  cause 
of  the  eternal  punishment  of  any  portion  of  our  race, 
but  to  the  proceeduigs  of  that  day,  when  that  eternal 
punishment  is  to  be  awarded  ?  Of  the  reason  of  this 
proceeding,  of  the  facts  to  be  charged,  and  of  the  sins 
to  be  punished,  we  have  very  copious  information  la 
the  Scriptures ;  but  these  are  evil  works,  and  dixhelief 
of  the  Gospel.  Nowhere  is  it  said,  or  even  hinted  In 
the  most  distant  manner,  that  men  will  be  sentenced 
to  eternal  death  at  that  day,  either  because  of  Adam's 
sin,  or  because  their  connexion  with  Adam  made  them 
inevitably  corrupt  in  nature,  and  unholy  in- conduct ; 
from  which  effects  they  could  not  escape,  because  God 
had  from  eternity  resolved  to  deny  tiiem  the  grace  ne- 
cessary to  this  end. 

3.  The  true  view  of  the  apostle's  doctrine  in  Rom. 
V.  is  to  be  ascertained,  not  by  making  partial  extracts 
from  liis  discourse,  but  by  taking  the  .argument  entire, 
and  in  all  its  parts. 

The  Calvinists  assume,  that  the  apostle  represents 
what  the  iwnal  condition  of  the  htiman  rate  would 


have  been  had  not  Christ  interposed  as  our  Redeemer. 
Here  is  one  of  their  great  and  leading  mistakes  ;  for 
St.  Paul  does  not  touch  this  jx>int.  The  Calvinist  as- 
sumes, that  the  whole  race  of  men,  but  lor  the  decree 
of  election,  would  not  only  have  come  into  actual  be- 
ing, but  have  been  actually  and  individually  punished 
for  ever ;  and,  on  this  assumption,  endeavours  to  jus- 
tify liis  doctrine  of  the  arbitrary  selection  of  a  ]iart  of 
mankind  to  grace  and  salvation,  the  other  being  left  in 
the  state  in  which  tliey  were  iouiid.  Even  this  is  con- 
trary to  other  parts  of  their  own  system ;  for  the  re- 
probate are  placed  m  an  infinitely  worse  condition  than 
had  they  been  merely  thus  left  without  a  share  in 
Christ's  redemption;  because,  even  according  to  Cal- 
vinistic  interpreters,  their  condemnation  is  fearfully  ag- 
gravated ;  and  by  that  which  they  have  no  means  of 
avoiding,  by  actual  sin  and  unbelief.  But^lhe  assump- 
tion itself  is  wholly  imaginary.  For  the  apostle  speaks 
not  of  what  the  human  raco  would  have  been,  that 
is,  he  affirms  nothing  as  to  their  penal  condition,  in 
case  Christ  had  not  undertaken  the  office  of  Kedeenier ; 
but  he  looks  at  their  moral  state  and  penal  condition,  as 
tlie  case  actually  stands  :  in  other  words,  he  takes  the 
state  of  man  as  it  was  actually  established  after  the 
fall,  as  recorded  in  the  book  of  Genesis.  No  child  of 
Adam  was  actually  born  into  the  world  until  the  pro- 
mise of  a  Redeemer  had  been  given,  and  the  virtue  of 
his  anticipated  redemption  had  begun  to  apjily  itt^elf  to 
the  case  of  the  fallen  pair ;  consequently,  all  inankinfl 
are  born  under  a  constitution  of  mercy,  which  aciualiy 
existed  before  their  birth.  What  the  race  would  have 
been,  had  not  the  redeeming  plan  been  brought  in,  the 
Scriptures  nowhere  tell  us,  except  that  a  sentence  of 
death  to  be  executed  "  »i  the  day''"'  in  which  the  first 
pair  sinned,  was  the  sanction  of  the  law  under  which 
they  were  placed ;  and  it  is  great  jiresumption  to  as- 
sume it  as  a  truth,  that  they  would  have  multiplied 
their  species  only  for  eternal  destruction.  That  the 
race  would  have  been  jjvopagated  under  an  absolute 
necessity  of  sinning,  and  of  being  made  eternally  mi- 
serable, we  may  boldly  affirm  to  be  impossible  ;  because 
it  supposes  an  administration  contradicted  by  every  at- 
tribute which  the  Scriptures  ascribe  to  Gon.  \VUat 
the  actual  state  of  the  human  race  is,  in  conse/juenco 
both  of  the  fall  of  Adam  and  of  the  inter])osiiion  of 
Christ ;  of  the  imputation  of  the  effects  of  the  offence 
of  the  one,  and  of  the  obedience  of  the  other ;  is  (he 
only  point  to  which  our  inquiries  can  go,  and  to  which, 
indeed,  the  argument  of  the  apostle  is  confined. 

There  is,  it  is  true,  an  imputation  of  the  consequences 
of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity,  independent  of  their 
personal  offences  ;  but  we  can  only  ascertain  what 
these  consequences  are  by  referring  to  the  apostle 
himself     One  of  these  consequences  is  asserted  ex- 
plicitly, and  others  are  necessarily  implied  in  this 
chapter  and  in  other  parts  of  his  writings.     That 
which  is  here  explicitly  asserted  is,  that  death  passed 
upon  all  men,  though  they  have  not  sinned  after  the 
similitude  of  Adam's  transgression,  that  is,  not  jier- 
sonally  ;  and  therefore  this  death  is  to  be  regarded  as 
the  result  of  Adam's  transgression  alone,  and  of  our 
having  been  so  far  "  constituted  sinners"  in  him,  as  to 
be  Uable  to  it.     But  then  the  death  of  which  he  here 
speaks,  is  the  death  of  the  body ;  for  his  argument, 
that  "  death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses,"  obliges  us 
to  understand  him  as  speaking  of  the  visible  and  known 
fact,  that  men  in  those  ages  died  as  to  the  body,  sinco 
he  could  not  intend  to  say  that  all  the  generations  of 
men,  from  Adam  to  Moses,  died  eternally.    The  death 
of  the  body,  then,  is  the  first  effect  of  the  imputation 
of  Adam's  sin  to  his  descendants,  as  stated  in  this 
chapter.    A  second  is  necessarily  implied ;  a  state  of 
spiritual  death,— the  being  born  into  the  world  with  a 
corrupt  nature,    alwajs   tending   to  actual    offence 
This  is  known  to  be  the  apostle's  opinion,  from  other 
parts  of  his  writings ;  but  that  jiassage  in  this  chapter  in 
which  it  is  necessarily  implied,  is  verse  16:   "The 
free  gift  is  of  many  offences  unto  justification."    If 
men  need  justification  of  "  many  offences ;''  if  all  men 
need  this,  and  that  under  a  dispensation  of  help  and 
spiritual  healing;  then  the  nature  which  universally 
leads  to  offences  so  numerous  must  be  inherently  an4 
universally  corruiit.     A  third  consequence  is  a  condi- 
tional liability  to  eternal  death;  for  that  state  which 
makes  us  liable  to  actual  sin,  makes  us  also  liable  to 
actual  punishment.    But  this  is  conditional,  not  abso- 
lute; for  since  the  apostle  makes  the  obedience  of 


358 

■Christ  available  to  the  forgiveness  of  the  "  many 
ofTenccs"  we  may  commit  in  consequence  of  the  cor- 
rupt nature  we  have  derived  from  Adam,  and  extends 
tliis  to  all  men,  tliey  can  only  perish  by  tlicir  own 
fault.  Now  beyond  these  three  effects  wo  do  not  find 
that  the  ajwstlo  carries  the  consequence  ot  Adam's 
ein.  Of  unpardoped  "  offences"  eternal  death  is  the 
consequence;  but  these  are  personal.  Of  the  sin  of 
Adam,  imputed,  these  are  the  conseciUL-ncrs, — itie  deuth 
of  the  body, — and  our  introduction  iiilo  lliu  world 
with  a  nature  tending  to  actual  olTenues,  and  a  condi- 
tional liability  to  punishment.  Uut  both  are  connected 
with  a  remedy  as  extensive  as  the  disease.  For  the 
first,  the  resurrection  from  the  dead ;  lor  the  other, 
the  healing  of  grace  and  the  promise  of  pardon, 
and  thus  tliough  "  condemnation"  has  jiassed  upon 
"  all  men,'"  yet  the  free  gill  unto  justification  of  life 
passes  upon  "  all  ineii"  also, — the  same  general  terms 
being  used  by  the  apostle  in  each  case.  The  effects  of 
"  the  free  gift"  are  not  immediate,  the  reign  of  death 
remains  till  the  resurrection  ;  but  "  in  Christ  shall  all 
1)0  made  alive,"  and  it  is  every  man's  own  fiiult,  not 
his  fate,  if  his  resurrection  be  not  a  hajipy  one.  The 
corrupt  nature  remains  till  the  healing  is  ajiplied  by  the 
Spirit  of  (Jod ;  but  it  is  provided,  and  is  actually  ap- 
plied in  the  case  of  ajl  those  dying  in  infancy,  us  we 
have  already  showed  ;(9)  while  justification  and  rege- 
neration are  offered,  through  s))ocified  means  and  con- 
(Utions,  to  all  who  are  of  the  age  of  reason  and  choice, 
and  tlius  the  sentence  of  eternal  death  rnaybe  reversed. 
What  then  becomes  of  the  premises  in  the  sublapsa- 
rian  theory  which  we  have  been  examining,  that  in 
Adam  all  men  are  absolutely  condemned  to  eternal 
death  ?  Had  Christ  not  undertaken  human  redemp- 
tion, we  have  no  proof,  no  indication  in  Scripture, 
that  for  Adam's  sin  any  but  the  actually  guilty  pair 
would  have  been  doomed  to  this  condemnation ;  and 
though  now  the  race,  having  become  actually  existent, 
is  ibr  this  sin,  and  for  the  demonstration  of  Ciod's  ha- 
tred of  sin  in  general,  involved,  through  a  federal  rela- 
tion and  by  an  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  in  the  effects 
above  mentioned ;  yet  a  universal  remedy  is  provided. 

IJut  we  are  not  to  be  confined  even  to  this  view  of 
the  grace  of  God,  when  we  speak  of  actual  offences. 
Here  the  casaiji  pvgn  strengthened.  The  redemption  of 
Chri-st  extends  not  niBrely  to  the  removal  of  the  evils 
laid  upon  us  by  the  iuiiiutation  of  Adam's  transgres- 
sion;  but;to  those  which  are  the  effects  of  our  own 
personal  choice— to  the  forgiveness  of  "  many  of- 
fences" upon  our  repentance  and  faith,  however 
numerous  anil. asigtayated  they  may  he; — to  the  be- 
stowing of  "  abundance  of  grace  and  of  the  gift  of 
righteousness ;"— aU'l  not  merely  to  the  reversal  of 
the  seniiMiire-of  .death,  but  to  our  "  rcigmns  in  life  by 
.Te.sus  Christ :'"  -so  that  "  where  sin  abounded  grace 
did  much  mote  abcniM<l ;  that  as  sin  liath  reigned  unio 
death,  even  so  ini#;lit  grace  reign  through  righteousness 
imto  eternal  //j'J'': "— whicli  jihrase,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, does  never  mean  K'ss  than  the  glorification  of  the 
bodies  and  souls  of  believers  in  the  kingdom  of  God, 
and  in  the  presence  and  enjoyment  of  the  eternal  glory 
of  (Jhrist. 

I  So  utterly  without  foundation  is  the  leading  assump- 
tion in  the  sublapsarian  scheme,  that  the  decree  of 
election  and  reprobation  finds  the  human  race  in  a  state 
of  common  and  absolute  liability  to  i)ersonal  eternal 
punishment ;  ami  that  by  making  a  sovereign  selection 
of  a  part  of  mankind,  God  does  no  injustice  to  the  rest 
by  passing  them  by.  The  word  of  God  asserts  no 
such  doclrine  as  the  absolute  condenmation  of  the 
race  to  eternal  death,  merely  lor  Adam's  oftence;  and 
if  it  did,  the  merciful  result  of  the  obedience  of  Christ 
is  declared  to  be  not  only  as  extensive  as  the  evil,  in 
respect  of  the  number  of  persons  so  involved,  but  in 
"  grace"  to  be  more  abounding.  Finally,  this  assump- 
tion falls  short  of  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  made; 
because  the  mere  "  passing  by"  of  a  part  of  the  race, 
already,  according  to  them,  under  eternal  condemna- 
tion, aiid  whidi  they  contend  inlliets  no  injnstii*  ujwn 
them,  does  not  ac<ount  lor  their  additional  and  aggra- 
vated punishment  for  doing  what  they  had  never  the 
natural  or  dispensed  power  of  avoiiliiig,— breaking 
God's  holy  laws,  and  rejecting  lhs<;ospel.  Upon  a 
close  examination  ol  the  sublapsarian  Rchi:me,  it  will 
be  found,  therefore,  to  involve  all  the  leading  dilHinltics 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


(0)  See  part  ij.  chap.  18. 


[Part  IL 

of  the  Calvinistic  theory  as  it  is  broadly  exhibited  by 
Calvin  himself  In  both  cases  reprobation  is  grounded 
on  an  act  of  mere  will,  resting  on  no  rea.son :  it  re- 
spects not  in  either,  as  its  primary  cause,  the  demerit 
of  the  creature ;  and  it  punishes  eternally  witliout  per- 
sonal guilt,  arising  either  from  actual  sin,  or  from  the 
rejection  of  the  Gospel.  Hoth  unite  in  making  sin  a 
tiecessary  result  of  the  eiriiinistances  in  wliich  Gtid  has 
placed  a  great  part  of  mankind,  which,  by  no  effort  of 
theirs,  can  be  avoided  ;  or,  wliat  is  the  same  thing,  which 
they  shall  never  be  disposed  to  avoid  ;  and  how  either  of 
these  schemes,  in  strict  consciiuence,  can  escape  the 
charge  of  making  God  the  author  of  sin,  which  the  Synod 
of  Uort  acknowledges  to  be  "  blasphemy,"  is  inconceiv- 
able. For  how  does  it  alter  the  case  of  the  reprobate, 
whether  the  fall  of  Adam  himself  was  necessitated, 
or  whether  he  acted  freely  ?  They,  at  least,  are  neces- 
sitated to  sin ;  they  come  into  the  world  imder  a  neces- 
sitating constitution,  which  is  the  result  of  an  act  to 
which  they  gave  no  consent;  and  their  case  dill'crs 
nothing,  except  in  circumstances  which  do  not  alter 
its  essential  character,  from  that  of  beings  immaUateiy 
created  by  (iod  with  a  nature  necessarily  producing 
sinful  acts,  and  to  counteract  which  there  is  no  remedy  : 
— a  case  which  few  have  been  bold  enough  to  stippose. 

The  different  views  of  the  doctrine  of  predestination, 
as  stated  above,  greatly  agitated  the  I'rotestant  world, 
from  the  time  of  Calvin  to  the  sitting  of  the  celebrated 
Synod  of  Dort,  whose  decisions  on  tliis  point,  having 
been  received  as  a  standard  by  several  churclics  and 
by  many  theologians,  may  next  be  iirojierly  introduced  ; 
although,  after  what  has  been  said,  they  call  only  for 
brief  remark. 

"  The  Judgment  of  the  SjTiod  of  the  Reformed  Bcl- 
gic  churches,"  to  which  many  divines  of  note  of  other 
reformed  churches  were  admitted,  "  on  the  articles 
controverted  in  the  Belgic  churches,"  was  dr.iwn  up  in 
Latin,  and  read  in  the  great  church  at  Uort,  in  the 
year  1619 ;  and  a  translation  into  English  of  this 
"  Judgment,"  W'ith  the  Synod's  "  Kejcction  of  Errors," 
was  published  in  the  same  year.(l)  This  translation 
having  b(;como  scarce,  or  not  being  known  to  Mr. 
Scott,  he  published  a  new  translation  in  1M8,  from 
which,  as  being  in  more  modern  English,  and,  as  far 
as  I  have  compared  it,  unexceptionably  faithful,  I  shall 
taks  the  extracts  necessary  to  exhibit  the  Synod's  de- 
cision on  the  point  before  us. 

Art.  1.  "  As  all  men  have  sinned  in  Adam,  and 
have  become  cxjwscd  to  the  curse;  and  eternal  death, 
God  would  have  done  no  injustice  to  any  one,  if  he 
had  determined  to  leave  the  whole  human  race  under 
sin  and  the  curse,  and  to  condemn  them  on  account  of 
sin;  according  to  tlie  words  of  the  apostle,  'all  the 
world  is  become  guilty  before  God,'  Uom.  iii.  10.  '  All 
have  sinned,  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God,'  23  ; 
and  '  the  wages  of  sin  is  death,'  Rom.  vi.  23." 

The  Synod  here  assumes  that  all  men,  in  conse- 
quence of  Adam's  sin,  have  become  exposed  to  the 
curse  of  "  eternal  death;"  and  they  (juote  passages  to 
prove  it,  which  manifestly  prove  nothing  to  the  jionit. 
The  two  first  sjieak  of  actual  sin  ;  the  third,  of  the 
wages  or  penalty  of  actual  sin,  as  tin;  context  of  each 
will  show.  The  very  texts  adduced,  show  how  totally 
at  u  loss  the  Synod  was  lor  any  thing  like  scrij)tural 
evidence  of  tins  strange  doctrine  ;  which,  however,  as 
we  have  seen,  would  not,  if  true,  help  them  through 
their  dilliculties,  seeing  it  leaves  the  punishment  of 
the  rei)robate  for  actual  sin  and  for  lUsbelief  of  the 
Gospel,  still  unaccounted  for  on  every  priucijile  of  jus- 
tice. 

Art.  4.  "  They  who  believe  not  the  Gospel,  on  Ihcni 
the  wrath  of  God  remaineth  ;  but  those  who  receive  it, 
and  embrace  the  Saviour  Jesus  with  a  true  and  living 
faith,  are  through  him,  delivered  from  the  wrath  of 
God,  and  receive  the  gilt  of  everka-sting  life." 

To  this  there  is  nothing  to  object ;  only  it  is  to  be 
observed,  that  those  who  are  not  cleclcd  to  eleriial  lifo 
out  of  tli(!  common  mass,  are  noi,  according  to  this  ar- 
ticle, merely  left  and  passed  by;  bnl  arebronglit  under 
an  obligation  of  believing  thetiospd,  wbicb,  iicviribr- 
less,  is  no  "  good  news"  to  tbi^iii,  and  in  winch  they 
have  no  interest  at  all  ;  and  yel,  in  default  ol  believing, 
"  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  upon  tlu'iii."  Thus,  there 
is,  in  liict,  no  alternative  for  tlnni.  They  cannot  be- 
lieve, or  else  it  would   follow   that   those   reprobated 


(I)  London,  printed  by  John  Bill. 


CuAJ'.  XX VIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


359 


might  be  saved;  ami,  therefore,  the  wrath  of  God 
"  abideth  upon  them"  for  no  fault  of  their  own. 
This,  however,  the  next  article  denies. 

Art.  5.  "  Tlie  cause  or  fault  of  this  unheliof,  as  also 
of  all  other  sins,  is  by  no  means  in  God,  but  in  man. 
But  faith  in  Jesus  Clirist  and  salvation  by  him,  is  the 
free  gift  of  God.  '  Uy  grace  are  ye  saved  tlirouffh 
faith,  and  that  not  of  yourselves,  it  is  the  gill  of  God,' 
Eph.  ii.  8.  In  like  manner, '  it  is  givi^n  to  you  to  be- 
lieve in  Christ,'  Phil.  i.  29." 

These  passages  would  be  singular  proofs  that  the 
fault  of  unbelief  is  in  men  themselves,  did  not  the 
"next  article  e.vplain  the  conne.\ion  between  them  and 
the  premises  in  the  minds  of  the  Synodists.  A  much 
more  appropriate  text,  but  a  rather  difficult  one  on  their 
theory,  would  have  been,  "  ye  have  not  because  ye  ask 
not." 

Art.  6.  "  That  some,  in  time,  have  faith  given  them 
by  God,  and  others  have  it  not  given,  proceeds  from 
his  eternal  decree ;  for  '  knoicn  unto  God  are  all  his 
ivorks  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,'  Acta  xv.  18. 
According  to  which  decree,  he  gradually  softens  the 
hearts  of  the  elect,  however  hard,  and  he  bends  them 
to  believe ;  but  the  non-elect  he  leaves,  in  just  judi^- 
vient,  to  their  own  perversity  and  hardness.  And  here 
especially,  a  deep  discrimination,  at  the  .same  time  both 
merciful  and  just,  a  discrimination  of  men  equally  lost, 
opens  itself  to  us;  or  that  decree  of  election  and  rei)ro- 
balion  which  is  revealed  in  the  word  of  God ;  wliich 
as  perverse,  impure,  and  unstable  persons  do  wrest  to 
their  own  destruction,  so  it  affords  inelfable  consolation 
to  holy  and  pious  souls." 

To  this  article  the  Synod  appends  no  Scriiiture 
proofs ;  which  if  the  doctrines  it  contains  were,  as  the 
Synodists  say,  "  revealed  in  the  word  of  God,"  would 
not  have  been  wanting.  The  passage  which  .stands  in 
the  middle  of  the  article  could  scarcely  be  intended  as 
a  proof,  since  it  would  equally  apply  to  any  other  doc- 
trine which  does  not  shut  out  the  prescience  of  God. 
The  doctrine  of  the  two  articles  just  (juoted,  will  be 
seen  by  taking  them  together.  The  position  laid  down 
is,  that  "  the  fault"  of  not  believing  the  Gospel  is  "  in 
man.''  The  alleged  proof  of  tliis  is,  that  faith  is  the 
gift  of  God.  l$ut  this  only  proves  that  the  fault  of  not 
believing  is  in  man,  just  as  it  allows  that  God,  the  giver 
of  faith,  is  willing  to  give  faith  to  those  who  have  it 
not,  and  that  they  will  not  receive  it.  In  no  other 
way  can  it  prove  the  faultiness  of  man;  for  to  what 
end  are  we  taught  that  faith  is  the  gift  of  God  in  order 
to  prove  the  fault  of  not  believing  to  be  in  man,  if  God 
will  not  bestow  the  gift,  and  if  man  cannot  believe 
without  such  bestowment?  Tliis,  however,  is  pre- 
cisely what  the  Synod  teaches.  It  argues,  that  faith  is 
the  gift  of  God  ;  that  it  is  only  given  to  "  some ;"  and 
that  this  proceeds  from  God's  "  eternal  decree."  So 
that,  by  virtue  of  this  decree,  he  gives  faith  to  some, 
and  withholds  it  from  others,  who  are,  thereupon,  left 
without  the  power  of  believing ;  and  for  this  act  of  God, 
therefore,  and  not  for  a  fault  of  their  own,  they  are 
punished  eternally.  And  yet  the  Synod  calls  this  "  a 
just  judgment ;  affording  ineffable  consolation  to  holy 
souls,"  and  a  "  doctrine  only  rejected  by  the  perverse 
and  impure  I" 

As  we  have  already  quoted  and  commented  on  the 
7th  and  8th  articles  on  election,  we  proceed  to 

Art.  10.  "  Now  the  cause  of  this  gratuitous  election 
is  the  sole  good  pleasure  of  God ;  not  consisting  in  this, 
that  he  elected  into  the  condition  of  salvation  certain 
qualities  or  human  actions,  from  all  that  were  possible ; 
but  in  th.at,  out  of  the  common  multitude  of  sinners,  he 
took  to  himself  certain  persons  as  his  peculiar  property, 
according  to  the  Scripture,  '  for  the  children  being  not 
born,  neither  having  done  any  good  or  eNil,  <!k;c.,  it  is 
said  (that  is  to  Rebecca),  the  elder  shall  serve  the 
younger ;  even  as  it  is  written,  Jacob  have  I  loved ; 
but  E.sau  have  I  hated,'  Rom.  Lx.  11 — 13.  'And  as 
many  as  were  ordained  to  eternal  life  believed,'  Acts 
xiii.  48." 

Thus  the  ground  of  this  election  is  resolved  wholly 
into  the  "  good  jileasure  of  God,"  (est  solum  Dei  bene- 
placitum)  "  having  no  respect,  as  to  its  reason  or 
loNDiTioN,  though  it  may  have  as  to  its  end,  to  any 
foreseen  faith,  obedience  of  faith,  or  any  other  good 
quality  and  disposition,"  as  it  is  expressed  in  the  jire- 
ceding  article.  Let  us,  then,  see  how  the  case  stands 
•with  the  reprobate. 

Art  15.  "Moreover,  Holy  Scripture  doth  illuotratc 


and  commend  to  iw  this  eternal  and  free  grace  of  our 
election,  in  this  more  especially,  that  it  doth  also  testify 
all  men  not  to  be  elected ;  IjM  that  some  are  non-elect, 
or  passed  Inj  in  the  eternal  election  of  God :  whom, 
truly,  God,  from  mo<?t  fret;,  just,  irrcprehcnsible,  and 
immutable  good  pleasure,  decreed  to  leave  in  the  com- 
mon misery  into  which  they  had,  by  their  own  fault, 
cast  themselves,  and  not  to  bestow  on  them  living  faith, 
and  the  grace  of  conversion  ;  but  having  left  them  in 
their  own  ways,  and  under  just  judgment,  at  length, 
not  only  on  account  of  their  unbelief,  hut  also  of  all 
their  other  sins,  to  condenni,  and  eternally  punish  them 
for  the  manifestation  of  his  own  justice.  And  this  is 
the  decree  of  rcprohatiAm  which  determines  that  God 
is  in  no  wise  the  author  of  sin  (which,  to  be  thought  of, 
is  blasphemy ) ;  but  a  tremendous,  irreprehensible,  just 
judge  and  avenger." 

Thus  we  hear  the  Synodists  confessing,  in  the  same 
breath  in  which  they  plausibly  represent  reprobation  as 
a  mere  passing  by  and  leaving  men  "  in  the  common 
misery,"  that  the  reprobate  are  punishable  for  their 
"  unbelief  and  other  sins,"  and  so  this  decree  imports, 
therefore,  much  more  than  leaving  men  in  the  "  common 
misery."  For  tliis  "  common  misery"  can  mean  no 
more  than  the  misery  common  to  all  mankind  by  tlie  sin 
of  Adam,  into  which  his  fall  plunged  the  elect,  as  well 
as  the  reprobate ;  and  tobe  "  left"  in  it,  must  be  under- 
stood of  being  left  to  the  sole  consequences  of  that 
otfence.  Now,  were  it  even  to  be  conceded  that  these 
consequences  extend  lo  personal  and  con.icious  eternal 
punishment,  v?hich  has  been  disproved;  yet,  even 
then,  their  decree  has  a  much  more  formidable  aspect, 
terrible  and  repulsive  as  this  alone  would  be.  For  we 
are  expressly  told,  that  God  not  only  "  decreed  to  leave 
them  in  this  misery,"  but  "not  to  bestow  on  them 
living  faith,  and  the  grace  of  conversion ;"  and  then  to 
condemn,  and  eternally  punish  them,  "  on  account  of 
their  unbelief,"  which,  by  their  own  showing,  these  re- 
probates could  not  avoid ;  and  for  "  all  their  other  sins," 
which  they  could  not  but  commit,  since  it  was  "  de- 
creed" to  deny  to  them  "the  grace  of  conversion." 
Thus  the  case  of  the  reprobate  is  deeply  aggravated, 
beyond  what  it  could  have  been  if  they  had  been  merely 
"  left  in  the  common  misery ;"  and  the  Synod  and  its 
followers  have,  therefore,  the  task  of  showing,  how  the 
punishing  of  men  for  what  they  never  could  avoid,  and 
which,  it  was  expressly  decreed  they  never  should 
avoid,  "  is  a  manifestation  of  the  justice"  of  Almighty 
God. 

From  the  above  extracts  it  will  be  seen  how  little 
reason  Mr.  Scott  had  to  reprove  Dr.  Ileylin  with  "  hear- 
ing false  witness  against  his  neighbour,(2)  on  account 
of  having  given  a  summary  of  the  eighteen  articles  of 
the  Synod,  on  predestination,  in  the  following  words  :— 
"  That  God,  by  an  absolute  decree,  hath  elected  to  salva- 
tion a  very  small  number  of  men,  without  any  regard 
to  their  faith  and  obedience  whatsoever  ;  and  secluded 
from  saving  grace  all  the  rest  of  mankind,  and  appointed 
them  by  the  same  decree  to  eternal  damnation,  without 
any  regard  to  their  infidelity  and  im.iieuitency."  Whe- 
ther Mr.  Scott  understood  this  controversy  or  not,  Dr. 
Heylin  shows,  by  this  summary,  that  he  neither  misap- 
prehended it,  nor  bore  "  false  witness  against  his  neigh- 
bour" in  so  stating  it ;  for  as  to  the  stir  made  about 
his  rendering  '■^multitudo"  a  very  small  number,  this 
verbal  inaccuracy  affects  not  the  merits  of  the  doctrine; 
and  neither  the  Synodists,  nor  any  of  their  followers, 
ever  allowed  the  elect  to  be  a  very  great  number.  The 
number,  less  or  more,  alters  not  the  doctrine.  With 
respect  to  the  elect,  the  Synod  confesses,  that  the  decree 
of  election  has  no  regard,  as  a  cause,  to  faith  and  obe- 
dience foreseen  in  the  persons  so  elected  ;  and  with  re- 
spect to  the  reprobate,  although  it  is  not  so  explicit  in 
asserting  that  the  decree  of  reprobation  has  no  regard 
to  their  infidelity  and  impenitency,  the  foregoing  extracts 
cannot  possibly  be  interpreted  into  any  other  nuaning. 
For  it  is  manifestly  in  vain  for  the  Synodists  to  attempt, 
in  the  15th  article,  to  gloss  over  the  doctrine,  by  saying 
that  men  ^"^  cast  themselves  into  the  common  misery  by 
their  own  fault,"  when  they  only  mean  that  tliey  were 
cast  into  it  by  Adam  and  by  kis  lault.  If  Ihey  intended 
to  ground  their  decree  of  reprobation  on  foresight  of  the 
personal  offimces  of  the  rejirobate,  they  woiUd  have 
said  this  in  so  many  words ,  l)ut  the  materials  of  wliich 


(2)  Seoar's  Translation  of  the  Articles  of  the  Synod 
of  Dort,  page  120. 


360 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


the  Synod  was  composed  forbade  such  a  declaration ; 
and  they  themsclvcis,  in  thfi  "  Rejection  of  Errors"  ap- 
jwndfd  to  tlieir  chajrter  "  l)c  Diinna  PrtrAlr.ntinatumi:" 
place  in  this  list  "the  errors  of  those  wlio  teach  that 
God  has  not  decreed,  from  his  own  wktv  jiixf.  will,  to 
leave  any  in  the  fall  of  Adam,  and  in  the  connnon  state 
of  sin  and  damnation,  or  to  pass  them  by  in  the  commu- 
nication of  grace  necessary  to  faitli  and  conversion ;" 
quoting,  as  a  proof  of  this  do;ima,  "Ke  Iiatli  mercy  on 
whom  he  will  have  mercy,  and  wlioin  lie  will  he  liard- 
cneth,"  and  giving  no  intimation  tliat  they  imderstand 
this  passage  ia  any  other  sense  than  Calvin  and  his  im- 
mediate followers  have  uniformly  allixcd  to  it.  Wiiat 
Dr.  Jleylin  has  said  is  here,  then,  abundantly  estab- 
lished ;  for  if  the  decree  of  reprobation  is  to  be  referred 
to  God's  "?«crewill,"  and  if  its  operation  is  to  leave  the 
reprobate  ^^  in  the  fall  nf  Adam,"  and  "to  pass  them 
by  in  that  communication  of  grace  which  is  Jiecesxary 
to  faith  and  conversion,"  the  decree  itself  is  that  which 
prevents  both  penitence  and  faith,  and  stands  upon  some 
other  ground  than  the  personal  infidelity  and  impeni- 
lency  of  the  reprobate,  and  cannot  have  "  any  regard" 
to  either,  except  as  a  part  of  its  own  dread  conse- 
quences :  a  view  of  the  matter  which  tlie  supralapsa- 
rians  would  readily  admit.  How  their  doctrine,  so 
stated  by  themselves,  could  give  the  Synod  any  reason 
to  complain,  as  they  do  in  their  conclusion,  that  they 
were  slandered  by  their  enemies  when  they  were 
charged  with  teaching,  "  that  God,  by  the  bare  aiid  mere 
determination  of  hi«  will,  without  any  respect  of  the 
sin  of  aiiij  man,  predestinated  and  created  the  greatest 
part  of  the  world  to  eternal  damnation,"  will  not  be  very 
obvious  ;  or  why  tliey  should  startle  at  the  same  doc- 
trine in  one  dress  wliich  they  themselves  have  but 
clothed  in  another.  The  fact  is,  that  the  divisions  in 
the  Synod  obliged  the  leading  members,  who  were 
chiefly  stout  supralapsarians,  to  qualify  their,  doctrine 
somewhat  in  ii'fjn/.s-,  while  substantially  it  remained  the 
same ;  but  what  they  lost  I)y  giving  up  a  few  words  in 
one  place,  they  secured  by  retaining  them  in  another, 
or  by  resorting  to  subtleties  not  obvious  to  the  com- 
monalty. Of  this  subtlety,  the  apparent  disclaimer 
just  quoted  is  in  proof.  When  they  seem  to  deny  that 
(Jod  reprobates  without  any  respect  to  the  sin  of  any 
man,  they  may  mean  that  he  had  respect  to  the  sin  of 
Adam,  or  to  sin  in  A<lam ;  for  they  do  not  deny  that 
tUey  reject  personal  sin  as  a  ground  of  reprobation. 
Even  when  they  appear  to  allow  that  (;od  had,  in  repro- 
bation, respect  to  the  corruption  of  Imman  nature,  or 
even  to  personal  transgression,  they  never  confess  that 
God  had  respect  to  sin,  in  either  sense,  as  the  impulsive 
or  meritorious  cause  of  reprobation.  Hut  the  greatest 
subtlety  remains  behind  ;  lor  the  Synod  says  nothing, 
in  this  complaint  and  apparent  rejection  of  the  doctrine 
charged  upon  them  by  their  adversaries,  but  what  all 
the  supralapsarian  divines  would  say.  These,  as  we 
have  seen,  make  a  distinction  between  the  two  parts  o!' 
the  decree  of  reprobation, — pret^rition  and  I'kk- 
BAMNATioN,  thc  latter  of  which  must  always  have  re- 
spect to  actual  sin ;  and  hence  arises  their  distinction 
hetv/ccn  "  deslructimi"  and  "  danuinlion."  For  they 
say,  it  is  one  thing  to  predestinate  and  create  to  damna- 
tion, and  another  to  predestinate  and  create  to  dcstTuc- 
tion.  Damnation,  being  the  sentence  of  a  judge,  must 
be  passed  in  consideration  of  sin ;  but  destruction  may 
be  the  actof  a  .fOTicrtvifrt,  and  so  indicted  by  right  of 
dominion.(3)  Tlie  Synod  would  have  disallowed  some- 
thing substantial,  had  they  denied  that  God  created  any 
man  to  destniction,  without  respect  to  sin,  and  were 
safe  enough  in  allowing  that  he  has  created  none, 
without  respect  to  sin,  tinio  duinnation.  Hut  among 
the  errors  on  predestination,  whidi  they  formally 
"reject,"  and  which  they  jilace  under  nine  distinct 
heads,  thus  attempting  to  guard  the  pure  and  orthodox 
doctrine  as  to  this  point  on  the  right  hand  and  on  the 
lell,  they  are  careful  not  to  condenni  the  supralapsarian 
doctrine,  or  to  place  cvea  its  highest  branches  among 
thc  doctrines  disavowed. 


(3)  "Non  soletit  enim  supralapsarii  diccre  Deum 
quosdam  ad  a^i  rnani  (lumnatioiu/n  cTiMssc  ct  pr.edes- 
tina.sse;  eo  (pjod  damnatio  actum  judii  iaiem  dcsignel, 
ac  proinde  peccati  merit uni  pr;nsupponal;  scd  inalunt 
uti  voce  exitii,  ad  quod  Deus,  tanquam  absolulus  Do- 
minus,  jus  liaheat  creamh  et  dcstinaiidi  quoscun<iue 
volnerit." — Curcella-us  Dc  .Tiire  Dei,  &c.  cap.  \.  See 
also  Bishop  WOmack'h  Culvinistic  Cabinet,  &c.  p.  301. 


The  doctrine  of  the  church  of  Scotland,  on  these 
topics,  is  expressed  in  the  answers  to  the  12th  and  13th 
questions  of  its  large  catechism :  "  (Jod's  decrees  are 
the  wise,  free,  and  holy  acts  of  the  cotuisel  of  his  will  j 
whereby,  from  all  eternity,  he  hath,  for  his  own  glory, 
unchangeably  liireordained  whatsoever  comes  to  pa-sa 
in  time,  especially  concerning  angels  and  men" — "God, 
by  an  eternal  and  innnutable  decree,  out  of  his  mere 
love,  for  the  praise  of  his  glorious  grace  to  be  manifested 
in  due  time,  hath  elected  some  angels  to  glory;  and,  in 
Christ,  hath  chosen  some  men  to  eternal  life  and  the 
vieans  thereof;  and  also,  according  to  his  sovereign 
power  and  the  un.searchable  counsel  of  his  own  will 
(whereby  he  extendetii  or  withholdcth  favour  as  he 
picaseth),  hath  passed  by  and  foreordained  the  rest  to 
dishonour  and  wral  h,  to  be  for  their  sin  inflicted,  to  thc 
praise  of  the  glory  of  his  justice." 

In  this  general  view  there  appears  a  strict  conformity 
to  the  ojjinions  of  Calvin,  as  before  given.  All  things  are 
the  subjects  of  decree  and  preordination;  election  and 
reprobation  are  grounded  upon41ie  mere  will  of  God ; 
election  is  the  choosing  men,  not  only  to  salvation,  but 
to  the  means  of  salvation  ;  from  which  thc  reprobates 
are  therefore  excluded,  as  passed  by,  and  tbreordained 
to  wrath;  and  yet,  though  the  "means  of  salvation" 
are  never  put  within  their  reach,  this  wrath  is  inflicted 
upon  them  "for  their  sin;"  and  to  the  praise  of  God'8 
justice  !  The  ehurchof  Scotland  adopts,  also,  the  notion 
that  decrees  of  election  and  reprobation  extend  to 
angels  as  well  as  men ;  a  pretty  certain  proof,  that  the 
framers  of  this  catechism  were  not  sublapsarians,  for 
as  to  angels,  there  could  be  no  election  out  of  a  "  com- 
mon misery  ;"  and  with  (Jalvin,  therefore,  they  choose 
to  refer  the  whole  to  the  arbitrary  pleasure  and  will  of 
Gon.  "  I'he  angels  who  stood  in  their  integrity,  Paul 
calls  elect;  if  their  constancy  rested  on  the  Divine 
pleasure,  the  defection  of  others  argues  their  having 
been  forsaken  (derelictos):  a  fact,  for  which  no  other 
cause  can  be  assigned  than  the  reprobation  hidden  in 
the  secret  counsel  of  God." 

The  ancient  church  of  the  Vaudois,  in  the  valleys  of 
Piedmont,  have  a  confession  of  faith  bearing  date  A.  D. 
1120;  and  which,  probably,  transmits  the  opinions  of 
much  more  ancient  times.  The  only  article  which 
bears  upon  the  extent  of  the  death  of  Christ  is  dravm 
up,  as  might  be  ex[)ected  in  an  ago  of  thc  church  when 
it  was  received,  as  a  matter  almost  entirely  undisputed, 
that  Christ  died  for  the  salvation  of  the  whole  world. 
Art.  8  "  Christ  is  our  life,  truth,  peace,  and  righteou.s- 
ness ;  also  our  pastor,  advoc^ate,  sacrifice,  and  priest, 
who  died  for  the  salvation  of  all  those  that  beheve,  and 
is  risen  again  for  our  justification." 

The  Confession  of  Faith,  pnbli.shcd  by  thc  churches 
of  Piedmont  in  lti55,  bears  a  different  character.  In  the 
year  1030,  a  plague  which  was  introduced  from  France 
into  these  valleys,  swept  off  all  the  ministers  but  tiro, 
and  with  them  ended  the  race  of  their  ancient  barbes, 
or  pastors. (I)  The  Vaudois  were  then  inider  tlie  ne- 
cessity of  ajjplying  to  the  reformed  churches  of  Franco 
and  (Jeneva  lor  a  suiqily  of  ministers ;  and  with  theni 
came  in  the  doctrine  of  Calvin  in  an  authorized  Ibrm. 
It  was  thus  inibodicd  in  the  Confession  of  Ki.'jS.  Art. 
11.  "  (iod  saves  from  corruption  and  condemnation 
those  whom  he  has  chosen  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world,  not  f()r  any  disposition,  (kith,  or  holiness,  that 
he  foresaw  in  tliem,  but  of  his  mere  mercy  in  Jesus 
Christ  his  Son:  passing  by  aW  thc  rest,  according  to  thc 
irrcprehensihle  rea.<!on  of  his  free  vill  and  jv.vtii:e.'" 
The  last  clause  is  expressed  in  the  very  words  of 
Calvin. 

The  12th  Article  in  the  Confession  of  the  French 
churches,  lUb"^,  is,  in  substance,  Calvinistic,  though 
brief  and  guarded  in  expression.  "We  believe,  that 
out  of  this  general  corruption  and  condemnation  in 
which  all  men  are  pliingerl,  f  ;od  doth  deliver  them  wlioiii 
be  hath,  in  his  eternal  and  unchangeable  counsel,  chosen 
of  his  mere  goodness  and  mercy,  through  onr  Lord 
.Icsus  Cllirist,  without  any  consideration  of  their  works, 
leaving  the  rest  in  their  sins  and  damnable  estate,  that 
he  may  show  forth  in  them  his  justice,  as,  in  the  elect, 
ho  doth  most  iiliistrioiisly  declare  the  riches  of  his 
mercy.  For  one  is  not  bolter  than  another,  until  such 
time  as  God  doth  make  the  difterence,  according  to  his 
unchangeable  purpose  which  he  hath  determined  in 

('))  See  "  Historical  Defence,  iVc.  of  the  Waldenses, 
by  Sims. 


Chap.  XXVIIL] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


361 


Jesus  Christ  before  ihe  creation  of  the  worl(l."(5)  Tiiis 
confession  was  drawn  up  bj'  Calvin  himself,  though 
not  in  hmgua^c  so  strons;  as  he  usually  cmi)loys ; 
%yhicli,  perhaps,  indicates  that  the  majority  of  the  I'Vcnch 
pastors  were  inclined  to  the  sublapsarian  theory,  and 
did  not,  in  every  point,  coincide  with  their  great  master. 

The  Westminster  Confession  gives  the  sentiments 
both  of  the  English  Presbyterian  churches,  and  the 
church  of  Scotland.(6)  Chap.  3  treats  of  the  predes- 
tination. 

"  By  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of  his 
glory,  some  men  and  angels  are  predestinated  unto 
everlasting  life,  and  others  foreorilained  to  everlasting 
death.  These  angels  and  men  thus  predestinated  and 
foreordained,  are  particularly  and  unchangeably  de- 
signed ;  and  their  number  is  so  certain  and  dfjinite,  that 
it  cannot  either  bo  increased  or  diminished.  Those  of 
mankind  that  are  predestinated  unto  life,  God,  hclore 
the  foundation  of  the  world  was  laid,  according  to  his 
eternal  and  immutable  purpose  and  the  secret  counsel 
and  good  pleasure  of  his  will,  hath  chosen  in  ('hrist 
unto  everlasting  glory,  out  of  his  mere  free  grace  and 
love,  without  any  foresight  of  faith  and  good  works,  or 
perseverance  in  either  of  them,  or  any  other  thing  in 
the  creature  as  conditions  or  causes  moving  him  there- 
unto ;  and  all  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  grace.  As 
Cod  hath  appointed  the  elect  unto  glory,  so  hath  he,  by 
the  eternal  and  most  free  purpose  of  his  will,  foreor- 
dained all  the  means  thereunto.  Wherefore,  they  who 
are  elected,  being  fallen  in  Adam,  are  redeemed  by 
Christ ;  are  effectually  called  unto  faith  in  Christ,  by 
his  Spirit  working  in  due  season  ;  are  justified,  adopted, 
sanctified,  and  kept  by  his  power  through  faith  unto 
salvation  ;  neither  are  any  other  redeemed  by  Christ, 
effectually  called,  justified,  adopted,  sanctified,  and 
saved,  but  the  elect  only.  The  rest  of  mankind  God 
was  pleased,  according  to  the  unsearchable  counsel  of 
his  own  u'ill,  whereby  he  extendelh  or  withholdeth 
mercy  as  he  pleaseth,  for  the  glory  of  his  sovereign 
jmwer  over  his  creatures,  to  pass  by,  and  to  ordain  them 
to  dishonour  and  wrath  for  their  sin,  to  the  praise  of 
his  glorious  justice." 

Here  we  have  no  attempts  at  qualification  after  the 
example  of  the  Synod  of  Dort ;  but  the  whole  is  con- 
formed to  the  higher  and  most  unmitigated  parts  of  the 
Institutes  of  Calvin.  By  the  side  of  the  Presbyterian 
Confession,  the  seventeenth  article  of  the  Church  of 
England  must  appear  exceedingly  moderate;  and  as 
to  Calvinistic  predestination,  to  say  the  least,  equivo- 
cal. It  never  gave  satisfaction  to  the  followers  of 
Calvin,  who  h.ad  put  his  stronger  impress  upon  the 
Augustinism  which  floated  in  the  minds  of  many  of 
the  divines  of  the  Reformation,  who  generally,  as  ap- 
pears from  the  earliest  Protestant  confessions  and  ca- 
techisms,(7)  thought  tit  to  recommend  that  either  these 
points  should  not  be  touched  at  all,  or  so  speak  of  them 
as  to  admit  great  latitude  of  interpretation,  and  that, 
probably,  in  charitable  respect  to  the  varying  opinions 
of  the  theologians  and  churches  of  the  day.  It  is  of 
the  perl'ected  Ibrm  of  Calvinism  that  Anninius  speaks, 
■when  he  says,  "  It  neither  agrees  nor  corresponds  with 
the  harmony  of  those  confessions  wliich  were  pub- 
lished together  in  one  volume  at  Geneva,  in  the  name 
of  the  Reformed  and  Protestant  Churches.  If  that 
harmony  of  confessions  be  fiiithfuUy  consulted,  it  will 
appear,  that  many  of  them  do  not  speak  in  the  same 
manner  concerning  predestination  ;  that  some  of  them 
only  incidentally  mention  it,  and  that  they  evidently 


(5)  Quick's  "  Synodicon  in  Gallia  Reformata." 

(6)  The  title  of  it  is  "  The  Confession  of  Faith  agreed 
upon  by  the  Assembly  of  Divines  at  Westminster,  with 
the  assistance  of  Commissioners  from  the  Church  of 
Scotland."  The  date  of  the  ordinance  for  convening 
this  assembly  is  1643.  The  Confession  was  approved 
by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland 
in  lf47. 

(7)  The  Augsburg  Confession  says,  "Non  est  hie 
opus  disputationibus  de  pra'destinatione  et  similibus. 
Nam  promissioest  universalis  et  ndiil  detraliit  operibus, 
sedex.suscitatadfidemet verebonaopera."  Act20.  And 
(he  Saxon  Confession  is  equally  imiillerent  to  the  subject. 
"  Non  addimus  hie  quxstiones  do  pr;edestinalione  seu 
de  electione ;  sed  deducimus  omnes  loctorcs  ail  verbutn 
Di  i,  ot  jubemus  ut  voluntatctn  Dei  verbo  ipsius  discant 
sicut  ..Kiemus  Pater  exprcssa  voce  prxcipit,  hunc  mc- 
diCt."    Art.  de  Remiss.  Pecc. 


never  once  (ouch  upon  those  heads  of  tlie  doctrine 
which  arc  now  in  great  repute,  and  particularly  urged 
in  the  preceding  scheme  of  predestination.  The  con- 
fessions of  Bohemia,  England,  and  Wtirtcmbcrg,  anil 
the  first  Helvetian  Conlession,  and  that  of  the  four 
cities  of  Strasburg,  Constance,  Meinmingen,  and  Liii- 
dau,  make  no  mention  of  this  predestination  :  tho.se  of 
Basle  and  Saxony  only  take  a  very  cursory  notice  of 
it  in  three  words.  The  Augusluri  Confession  speaks 
of  it  in  such  a  manner  as  to  induce  the  Genevan  edi- 
tors to  think  that  some  annotation  was  necessary  on 
their  part  to  give  us  a  previous  warning.  The  last  of 
the  Helvetian  Confessions,  to  which  a  great  portion  of 
the  Reformed  Churches  have  expressed  their  assent, 
likcvfise  speaks  of  it  in  such  a  strain  as  makes  mo 
very  desirous  to  see  what  method  can  possibly  bo 
adopted  to  give  it  any  accordance  with  that  doctrine  of 
the  predestination  which  I  have  stated.-  Without  the 
least  contention  or  cavilling,  it  may  be  very  properly 
made  a  subject  of  doubt,  whether  this  doctrine  agrees 
with  the  Bclgic  Confession  and  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
chism."(8) 

I  have  given  these  extracts  to  show  that  nothing  in 
the  preceding  discussion  has  been  assumed  as  Calvin- 
ism, but  what  is  to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  the 
founder  of  the  system,  and  in  the  confessions  and  creeds 
of  churches  which  professedly  admitted  his  doctrine. 

With  respect  to  modifications  of  this  system,  the 
sublapsarian  theory  has  been  already  considered  and 
shown  to  be  substantially  the  same  as  the  system  which 
it  professes  to  mitigate  and  improve.  We  may  now 
adduce  another  modified  theory  ;  tut  shall,  upon  exa- 
mination, find  it  but  little,  if  at  all,  removed  out  of  tlic 
reach  of  those  objections  which  have  been  stated  to 
the  various  shades  of  the  predestinating  scheme  al- 
ready noticed. 

That  scheme  is  in  England  usually  called  Baxtorian- 
ism,  from  the  celebrated  Baxter,  who  advocated  it  in 
liis  Treatise  of  Universal  Redeinption,  and  in  his  Mc- 
thodus  Theol'ogicB.  He  was,  however,  in  this  theory, 
but  the  disciple  of  certain  divines  of  the  French  Pro- 
testant church,  whose  opinions  created  many  dissen- 
sions abroad,  and  produced  so  much  warmth  of  oyiyo- 
sition  from  the  Calvinistic  party,  that  they  were 
obliged  first  to  engage  in  the  hopeless  attempt  of  soft- 
ening downi  the  harsher  aspects  of  the  doctrine  of  Cal- 
vin and  the  Synod  of  Dort,  in  order  to  keep  themselves 
in  countenance;  then  to  attack  the  Arminians  with 
asperity,  in  order  to  purge  themselves  of  the  suspicion 
of  entire  heterodo.xy  in  a  Calvinistic  church ;  and, 
finally,  to  withdraw  from  the  contest.  The  Calvinism 
of  the  church  of  France  was,  however,  much  mitigated 
in  subsequent  times  by  the  influence  of  the  writings 
of  these  theologians ;  a  result  which  also  has  followed 
in  England  from  the  labours  of  Baxter,  who,  though  ho 
formed  no  separate  school,  has  had  numerous  tbilowers 
in  the  Calvinistic  churches  of  this  country.  The  real 
author  of  the  schem*,  at  least  in  a  systematized  form, 
was  C.vMERo,  who  taught  divinity  at  Saumur,  and  it 
was  unfolded  and  defended  by  his  disciple  Amyraldus, 
to  whom  Curcellaeus  replied  in  the  work  I'rorn  which 
I  have  above  made  some  quotations.  Baxter  says,  in 
his  preface  to  his  Sainfs  Rest,  "  The  middle  way  which 
Camero,  Crocius,  Martinius,  Amyraldus,  Davenant,  with 
all  the  divines  of  Britain  and  Bremen,in  the  Synod  of  Dort 
go,  I  think,  is  nearest  the  truth  of  any  that  I  know  who 
have  written  on  these  points."(9)  This  system  he  la- 
boured powerfully  to  defend,  and  his  works  on  this 
subject,  although  his  system  is  often  spoken  of,  being 
but  little  known  to  the  general  reader,  the  following 
exhibition  of  this  scheme,  from  his  work  entitled  "  Uni- 
versal Redemption,"  may  be  acceptable.  It  makes 
great  concessions  to  that  view  of  the  Scriptural  doc- 
trine which  we  have  attempted  to  establish  ;  but,  for 
want  of  going  another  step,  it  is,  perhaps,  the  most  in- 
consistent theory  to  which  the  varied  attempts  to  mo- 
dify Calvinism  have  given  rise.  Baxter  first  differs 
from  the  majority  of  Calvinists,  though  not  from  all, 
in  his  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction. 


(8)  NicnoL's  Works  of  Arminius,  vol.  1,  p.  557. 

(9)  Of  Camero  or  Cameron,  Amyraldus,  Courcelles, 
and  the  controversy  in  which  they  were  engaged,  see  an 
interesting  account  in  Nichol's  Amiinianism  and  Cal- 
vinism Compared,  vol.  1,  appendix  c,  a  work  of  ela- 
borate research,  and  abounding  with  the  most  curious 
infonnation  as  to  tlic  opinions  and  history  of  those  limi:e. 


362 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  IV 


"  ChrlBt'8  sunferlngs  were  not  a  fulfilUng  of  the 
law's  threatening  (though  he  bore  its  cvrxe  materiaUy) ; 
but  a  s:itisf  action  for  our  not  fulfilling  the  precei't,  and 
to  prevent  God'sfulJUUns:  the  threatening  on  us." 

"  Christ  paid  not,  thcreifore,  the  idem,  hut  the  tantun- 
dcm,  or  tsquivalcns  ;  not  the  very  debt  which  wc  owed 
and  the  law  required,  but  the  value  (else  it  were  not 
strictly  satisfaction,  wliich  is  redditio  rejfiiivaleiitis): 
And  (it  being  improperly  called  i\ie.iinying  if  a  debt,  but 
properly  a  siij)'e.ring  fur  the  guilty)  the  idtau  i«  notbint; 
but  suppliciu.;n  deliMjuentis.  In  criminals,  duni  alius 
solvet  simul  aliud  solvitur.  The  law  knoweth  no  jij- 
carius  pcence ;  though  the  law  maker  may  admit  it,  as 
he  is  above  law ;  else  there  were  no  place  for  pardon, 
if  the  proper  debt  be  paid  and  the  law  not  relaxed,  but 
fulJilledP 

"  Christ  did  neither  obey  nor  suffer  in  any  man's 
stead,  by  a  strict,  proper  representation  of  his  person 
in  point  of  law  ;  so  as  that  the  law  should  take  it,  as 
(lone  or  suffered  by  tiie  party  himself.  Hut  only  as  a 
third  person,  as  a  jncdiator,  he  voluntarily  bore  what 
else  the  sinner  should  have  borne." 

"  To  assert  the  contrary  (especially  3.=)  to  particular 
persons  considered  in  actual  sin),  is  to  overtlirow  all 
Scripture  theology,  and  to  introduce  all  Antinoiiiianism ; 
to  overthrow  all  possibdity  of  pardon,  and  assert 
justification  before  we  sinned  or  were  born,  and  to  make 
ourselves  to  have  satisfied  God. 

"  Therefore  we  must  not  say  that  Christ  died  nostra 
loco,  so  as  to  personate  us,  or  represent  our  persons  in 
law  sense;  but  only  to  bear^what  else  we  must  have 
borne."(l) 

This  system  explicitly  asserts,  that  Christ  made  a 
satisfaction  by  his  deatli  ecjually  for  the  sins  of  every 
man ;  and  thus  Baxter  essentially  differs  both  from  the 
rigid  Calvinists,  and,  also,  from  the  sublapsarians,  who, 
though  they  may  allow  that  the  reprobate  derive  some 
benetits  from  Christ's  death,  so  that  there  is  a  vague 
sense  in  which  he  may  be  said  to  have  died  lor  all  men, 
yet  they  of  course  deny  to  such  tlie  benefit  of  Christ's 
satistaction  or  atonement,  which  Baxter  contends  for. 

"  Neither  the  law,  whose  curse  Clirist  bore,  nor  God, 
as  the  legislator  to  be  satisfied,  did  distinguish  between 
men  as  elect  and  reprobate,  or  as  believers  and  unbe- 
lievers, de  presenti  vel  de  futuro  ;  and  to  impose  upon 
Christ,  or  require  from  him  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of 
one  sort  more  than  of  another,  but  for  mankind  in  general. 

"  God  the  Father,  and  Christ  the  Mediator,  now 
dealeth  with  no  man  upon  the  lucrc  rigorous  terms  of 
the  first  law  (obey  perfectly,  and  live,  else  thou  shall 
die);  but  giveth  to  all  much  mercy,  which,  according 
to  the  tenor  of  that  violated  law,  they  could  not  receive, 
and  calleth  them  to  repentance,  iu  order  to  tiieir  re- 
ceiving farther  mercy  offered  them.  Aud  accordingly 
he  will  not  judge  any  at  last  according  to  the  mere  law 
of  works,  but  as  they  have  obeyed  or  not  obeyed  his  con- 
ditions or  terms  of  grace. 

",It  was  not  the  sins  of  ttie  duct'only,  but  of  all  man- 
kinkfallen,  which  lay  upon  Christ  satisfying.  And  to 
assert  the  contrary,  injuriously  dmiinishelh  the  honour 
of  his  sufferings  ;  and  hath  other  desjierate  ill  conse- 
qHences."(2) 

The  benefits  derived  to  all  men  equally,  from  the  sa- 
tisfaction of  Christ,  he  thus  states, 

"  All  mankind  immrdiateiy  ujion  Clirist's  satisfac- 
tion are  redeemed  and  delivered  from  that  legal  neces- 
sity of  perishing  wliicli  tliey  were  imdcr  (not  by  re- 
mitting sin  or  punislinii'iit  directly  to  them,  but  by 
giving  up  God's  jus  jiiiniiiidi  into  the  hands  of  the  Re- 
deemer ;  nor  by  giving  any  right  directly  to  them,  but 
per  mrram  resultantiam  tliis  happy  change  is  made 
for  theiii  in  their  relation,  upon  tlie  said  remitting  of 
Cod's  right  and  advantage  of  justice  against  them),  and 
they  are  given  up  to  the  Uedeemer  as  their  owner  and 
ruler,  to  be  deaJt  with  upon  terms  of  mercy  which 
have  a  tendency  to  their  recovery. 

"  (.'od  the  Father  and  Christ  the  Mediator  hath  freely, 
without  any  prerecjuisite  condition  on  man's  part,  en- 
acteil  a  law  of  grace  of  universal  extent,  in  regard  of 
its  tenor,  by  which  he  giveth,  as  a  deed  ol'  piit,  Christ 
liimself,  with  all  his  following  benefits  whidi  he  bestow- 
eth  (as  benefactor  and  legislator) ;  and  tliis  to  all  alike, 
without  excluding  any ;  upon  condition  they  believe, 
and  accept  the  offer. 


(1)  Universal  Redemption,  p.  4b — 51. 

(2)  Ibid,  p  30,  37,  and  S(i. 


"  By  this  law,  testament,  or  covenant,  all  men  are 
conditionally  pardoned,  justified,  and  reconciled  to  God 
already,  and  no  man  absolutely ;  nor  doth  it  make  a 
difference,  nor  take  notice  of  any  till  men's  performance 
or  nonperformance  of  the  condition  makes  a  difference. 
"  In  the  new  law  Christ  hath  truly  given  himself, 
with  a  conditiooial  pardon,  justification,  and  condi- 
tional right  to  salvation,  to  all  men  in  the  world,with- 
out  exception. 'X^) 

On  tlie  case  of  the  heathen  : 

"  Though  God  hath  been  pleased  less  clearly  to  ac- 
quaint us  on  what  terms  he  dealeth  with  those  that 
hear  not  of  Christ,  yet  it  being  most  clear  and  certain, 
that  he  dealeth  with  them  on  tenns  of  grace,  and  not 
on  the  terms  of  the  rigorous  law  of  works,  tliis  ge- 
neral may  evince  them  to  be  the  Mediator's  subjects, 
and  redeemed. 

"  Though  it  be  very  difficult,  and  not  very  necessary, 
to  know  what  is  the  condition  prescribed  to  them  that 
hear  not  of  Christ,  or  on  what  terms  Christ  will  judge 
them ;  yet  to  me  it  seems  to  be  the  covenant  made  with 
Adam,  Gen.  iii.  15,  which  they  are  under,  requiring 
their  taking  God  to  be  their  only  God  and  Redeemer, 
and  to  ex])cciing  mercy  from  him  and  loving  him  above 
ail,  as  their  end  and  cliief  good ;  and  repenting  of  sin, 
ami  sincere  obedience,  according  to  the  laws  promul- 
gated to  them,  to  lead  them  farther. 

"  All  those  that  have  not  heard  of  Christ,  have  yet 
much  mercy  wliich  they  receive  from  him,  and  is  the 
fruit  of  his  death:  according  to  the  well  or  ill  using 
whereof  it  seems  possible  that  God  will  judge  them. 

'•It  is  a  course  to  blind,  and  not  to  inform  men, to 
lay  the  main  stress  in  the  doctrine  of  redemption  upon 
our  uncertain  conclusions  of  God's  dealing  with  such 
as  never  heard  of  Christ,  seeing  all  proof  is  per  notiora  ; 
and  we  must  reduce  points  uncertain  to  the  certain, 
and  not  the  certain  to  the  uncertain,  in  our  trial. "(4) 

In  arguments  drawn  from  the  consequences  which 
follow  the  denial  of  "  universal  satisfaction,''  Baxter  is 
particularly  terse  and  conclusive. 

"  The  doctrine  which  denieth  universal  satisfaction 
hath  all  these  inconveniences  and  absurd  consequents 
following :  theretbre  it  is  not  of  God,  nor  true. 

"  It  either  denieth  the  universal  promise  or  condi- 
tional gill  of  pardon  and  life  to  all  men  if  they  will 
believe,  and  then  it  overturneth  the  substance  of  Christ's 
law  and  Gospel  promise ;  or  else  it  maketh  God  to  give 
conditionally  to  all  men  a  pardon  and  salvation  which 
Christ  never  purchased,  and  witliout  his  dying  for  men. 
'•  It  maketh  God  either  not  to  ofi'er  the  effects  of 
Christ's  satisfaction  (pardon  and  life)  to  all,  but  only  to 
tlie  elect ;  or  else  to  offer  that  wliich  is  not,  and  wliich 
he  cannot  give. 

"  It  denieth  the  direct  object  of  faith,  and  of  God's 
offer,  that  is  Christum  qui  satvfecit  (a  Christ  that  hath 
satisfied). 

"  It  either  denieth  the  non-elect's  deliverance  from 
that  flat  necessity  of  perishing,  which  came  on  man 
for  sinning  against  the  first  law,  by  its  remediless, 
unsuspended  obligation  (and  so.  neither  Christ,  Gos- 
pel, or  mercy,  had  ever  any  nature  of  a  remedy  to 
them,  nor  any  more  done  towards  their  deliverance 
than  towards  the  deliverance  of  the  devils) ;  or  else  it 
maketh  this  deliverance  and  remedy  to  be  without  sa- 
tisfaction by  Christ  for  them. 

"  It  either  denieth  that  (iod  commandcth  all  to  be- 
lieve (but  only  the  elect) ;  or  else  maketh  God  to  as- 
sign them  a  deceiving  object  for  tlieir  faith,  command- 
ing them  to  believe  in  that  which  never  was,  and  to 
trust  in  that  which  would  deceive  them  if  they  did 
trust  it. 

"  It  maketh  God  cither  to  have  appointed  and  com- 
manded the  non-elect  to  use  no  means  at  all  for  their 
recovery  and  salvation,  or  else  to  have  rqiiiomlcd  them 
means  which  are  all  utterly  useliss  and  iiisullii-icnt.  for 
want  of  a  prerequisite  cause  without  tliciii ;  yea,  which 
imply  a  contradiction. 

"  It  maketh  the  true  and  righteous  God  to  make  jiro- 
mises  of  pardon  and  salvation  to  all  men  on  condition  of 
believing,  which  he  neither  would  nor  coulil  perform 
(for  want  of  such  satisfaction  to  his  justice),  if  they  did 
believe. 

"  It  denieth  the  true  sufficiency  of  Christ's  death  for 
the  pardoning  and  saving  of  all  iuen,if  they  did  believe. 


(3)  Universal  Redemption,  p.  315,  &.C. 
(J)  Ibid.  p.  37,3ti,und&4. 


Chap.  XXVIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES, 


363 


"  It  makes  the  cause  of  men's  damnation  to  be  prin- 
cipally for  want  oC  an  expiatory  sacrifice  and  of  a  Sa- 
viour, and  not  of  believing. 

"  It  Icavctli  all  the  world,  elect  as  well  as  others, 
without  any  ground  and  object  for  the  first  justifying 
faith,  and  in  an  utter  uncertainty  whether  they  may  be- 
lieve to  justifi<'ation  or  not. 

"  It  denieth  the  most  necessary  liumbling  aggrava- 
vation  of  men's  sins,  so  that  neither  tlie  minister  can 
tell  wicked  men  that  they  have  sinned  against  him  that 
bouglit  them,  nor  can  aiiy  wicked  man  so  accuse  liim- 
self ;  no,  nor  any  man  that  doth  not  know  himself  to 
be  elect :  they  cannot  say,  my  sins  put  Christ  to  death, 
and  were  the  cause  of  his  sufferings :  nay,  a  minister 
cannot  tell  any  man  in  the  world,  certainly  (their  sins 
put  Christ  to  death),  because  he  is  not  certain  who  is 
elect  or  sincere  in  the  faith. 

"  It  subverteth  Christ's  new  dominion  and  govern- 
ment of  the  world,  and  his  general  legislation  and  judg- 
ment according  to  his  law,  which  is  now  founded  in  his 
title  of  redemption,  as  the  first  dominion  and  govern- 
ment was  on  the  title  of  creation. 

"  It  maketh  all  the  benefits  that  the  non-elect  receive, 
whether  spiritual  or  corporal,  and  so  even  the  relaxa- 
tion of  the  curse  of  the  law  (without  which  relaxalion 
no  man  could  have  such  mercies),  to  befall  men  with- 
out the  satisfaction  of  Christ ;  and  so  either  make  sa- 
tisfaction, as  to  all  those  mercies,  needless,  or  else  must 
find  another  satisfier. 

"  It  maketh  the  law  of  grace  to  contain  far  harder 
terms  than  the  law  of  works  did  in  its  utmost  rigour. 

"  It  maketh  the  law  of  Moses  either  to  bind  all  the 
non-elect  still  to  all  ceremonies  and  bondage  ordinunc^es 
(and  so  sets  up  Judaism),  or  else  to  be  abrogated  and 
taken  down,  and  men  deUvered  from  it,  vrithout  Christ's 
suffering  for  them. 

"  It  destroys  almost  the  whole  work  of  the  ministry, 
disabling  ministers  either  to  humble  men  by  the  chiefest 
aggravations  of  their  sins,  and  to  convince  them  of  in- 
gratitude and  unldnd  dealing  with  Christ,  or  to  show 
them  any  hopes  to  draw  them  to  repentance,  or  any 
love  and  mercy  tending  to  salvation  to  melt  and  win 
them  to  the  love  of  Christ ;  or  any  suflicient  object  for 
their  faith  and  affiance,  or  any  means  to  be  used  for 
pardon  or  salvation,  or  any  promise  to  encourage  them 
to  come  in,  or  any  threatening  to  deter  them. 

"It  makes  God  and  the  Redeemer  to  have  done  no 
more  for  the  remedying  of  the  misery  of  most  of  fallen 
mankind  than  for  the  devils,  nor  to  have  put  them  into 
any  more  possibility  of  pardon  or  salvation. 

"  Nay,  it  makes  God  to  have  dealt  far  hardlier  with 
most  men  than  with  the  devils;  making  them  a  law 
which  requireth  their  believing  in  one  that  never  died 
for  them,  and  talving  him  for  their  Redeemer  that  never 
redeemed  them,  and  that  on  the  mere  foresight  that 
they  would  not  believe  it,  or  decree  that  they  should 
not ;  and  so  to  create  by  that  law  a  necessity  of  their 
far  sorer  punislmient,  without  procuring  them  any 
possibility  of  avoiding  it. 

"  It  makes  the  Gospel  of  its  own  nature  to  be  the 
greatest  plague  and  judgment  to  most  of  men  that 
receive  it,  that  ever  God  sendeth  to  men  on  earth,  by 
biniUng  them  over  to  a  greater  punishment,  and  aggra- 
vating their  sin,  without  giving  them  any  possibility  of 
remedy. 

"  It  maketh  the  case  of  all  the  world,  except  the  elect, 
as  deplorate,  remediless,  and  hopeless  as  the  case  of 
the  danmed,  and  so  dcnicth  them  to  have  any  day  of 
grace,  visitation,  or  salvation,  or  any  price  for  happiness 
put  into  their  hands. 

"  It  maketh  Christ  to  condemn  men  to  hell  fire  for  not 
receiving  him  for  their  Redeemer  that  never  redeemed 
thein,  and  for  not  resting  on  him  for  salvation  by  his 
blood  which  was  never  shed  for  them,  and  for  not 
repenting  unto  life,  when  they  had  no  hope  of  mercy, 
and  faith  and  repentance  conld  not  have  saved  them. 

"  It  putteth  suflicient  excuses  into  the  mouths  of  the 
condeimied. 

"  It  maketh  the  torments  of  conscience  in  hell  to  be 
none  at  all,  and  teacheth  the  damned  to  put  away  all 
their  sorrows  and  self-accusations. 

"  It  denieth  all  the  privative  part  of  those  torments 
which  men  are  obliged  to  suffer  by  the  obligation  of 
Christ's  law,  and  so  makeih  hell  either  no  hell  at  all, 
or  next  to  none. 

"And  I  shall  anon  slww  how  it  leads  to  infidelity 
and  other  sins,  and,  at^er  this,  what  face  of  religion  is 


left  unsubveited.  Not  that  I  charge  those  that  deny 
universal  satisfaction  with  liolding  all  these  abomina- 
tions; but  their  doctrine  of  introducing  them  by  neces- 
sary conseiiucnco :  it  is  the  opinion,  and  not  the  men 
that  I  accuse." 

A  thorough  Arminian  could  say  nothing  stronger 
than  what  is  asserted  in  several  of  the  above  quotations ; 
and,  perhaps,  what  might  not  be  borne  from  him  may 
call  attention  from  Uaxter,  and  happy  would  it  be  if 
every  advocate  of  Calvin's  reprobation  would  give 
these  "  consequents"  a  candid  consideration. 

The  peculiarity  of  Baxter's  scheme  will  be  seen  from 
the  following  farther  extracts  ;  and,  after  all,  it  singu- 
larly leaves  itself  open  to  almost  all  the  objections 
which  he  so  powerfully  urges  against  Calvinism  itself. 

"Though  Christ  died  equally  for  all  men,  in  the 
aforesaid  laiv  sense,  as  he  satisfied  tlie  offended  legis- 
lator, and  as  giving  himself  to  all  alike  in  tlie  condi- 
tional covenant ;  yet  he  never  properly  intended 

OR  PURPOSED  THE  ACTUAL  JUSTIFYING  AND  SAVING  OF 

AT,L,  nor  of  ANY  but  those  that  come  to  be  justified  and 
saved  :  \ie  did  not,  therefore,  die  for  all,  nor  for  any  that 
perish,  with  a  decree  or  resolution  to  save  them,  much 

LESS  DID  HE  DIE  FOR   ALL   ALIKE,  AS   TO  THIS  INTENT. 

"Christ  hath  given  faith  to  none  by  his  law  or  tes- 
tament, though  he  hath  revealed,  that  to  some  he  will, 
as  benefactor  and  Dominus  absolutus,  give  that  grace 
which  shall  infallibly  produce  it ;  and  God  hath  given 
some  to  Christ  that  he  might  prevail  witii  them  accord- 
ingly ;  yet  this  is  no  giving  it  to  the  person,  nor  hath 
he  in  himself  ever  the  more  title  to  it,  nor  can  any  lay 
claim  to  it  as  their  due. 

"  It  belongeth  not  to  Christ  as  satisfier,  nor  yet  as 
legislator,  to  make  wicked  refusers  to  become  willing, 
and  receive  him  and  the  benefits  which  he  oflers ;  there- 
fore he  may  doall  for  them  that  is  fore-expressed,  though 
he  cure  not  their  unbelief. 

"  Faith  is  a  fruit  of  the  death  of  Christ  (and  so  is  all 
the  good  which  we  do  enjoy),  but  not  directly,  as  it  is 
satisfaction  to  justice ;  but  only  re?notcly,  as  it  pro- 
ceedeth  from  that  jus  dominii  which  Christ  has  re- 
ceived to  send  the  Spirit  in  what  measure  and  to  whom 
HE  will,  and  to  succeed  it  accordingly ;  and  as  it  is 
necessary  to  the  attainment  of  the  farther  ends  of  Iha 
death  in  the  certain  gathering  and  saving  of  the 
elect."(5) 

Thu.'?,  then,  the  whole  theory  comes  to  this,  that, 
although  a  conditional  salvation  has  been  purchased 
by  Christ  for  all  men,  and  is  offered  to  them,  and  all 
legal  difficulties  are  removed  out  of  the  way  of  their 
pardon  as  sinners  by  the  atonement,  yet  Christ  hath 
not  purchased  for  any  man  the  gif^  of  faith,  or  t)ie 
poiver  of  performing  the  condition  of  salvation  re- 
quired ;  but  gives  this  to  some,  and  does  not  give  it  to 
others,  by  virtue  of  that  absolute  dominion  over  men 
which  he  has  purchased  for  himself;  so  that,  in  fact, 
the  old  scheme  of  election  and  reprobation  still  comes 
in,  only  with  this  difference,  that  the  Calvinists  refer 
that  decree  to  the  sovereignty  of  the  Father,  Baxter  to 
the  sovereigiHy  of  the  Son ;  one  makes  the  decree  of 
reprobation  to  issue  from  the  Creator  and  Judge ;  the 
other  (which  is,  indeed,  the  more  repulsive  view)  from 
the  Redeemer  himself,  who  has  purchased  even  those 
to  whom  he  denies  the  gift  of  faith  with  liis  own  most 
precious  blood.  This  is  plain  from  the  following  quo- 
tation : 

"  God  did  not  give  Christ  faith  for  his  blood  shed  in 
exchange ;  the  thing  that  God  was  to  give  the  Son  for 
his  satisfaction  was  dominion  and  rule  of  the  redeemed 
creature,  and  power  therein  to  use  what  means  he  saw 
fit  for  the  bringing  in  of  souls  to  himseli;  even  to  send 
forth  so  much  of  his  word  and  Spirit  as  he  pleased; 
both  the  Father  and  Son  resolving,  from  eternity,  to 
prevail  infallibly  (oz^/t  all  the  elect;  but  never  did  Christ 
desire  at  his  Father's  hands,  that  all  whom  he  satisfied 
lor  should  be  infalUbly  and  irresistibly  brought  to  be- 
lieve, nor  did  God  ever  grant  or  promise  any  such  tiling. 
Jesus  Christ,  as  a  ransom,  died  for  all,  and  as  Rector 
per  leges,  or  legislator,  he  hath  conveyed  the  fruits  of 
his  death  to  all,  that  is,  those  fruits  which  it  appertained 
to  liim  as  legislator  to  convey,  which  is  right  to  what 
liis  new  law  or  covenant  doth  promise ;  but  those  mer- 
cies which  he  gives  as  Dominus  absolutus,  arbitrarily 
besides  or  above  Ins  engagement,  he  neither  gives  nor 
ever  intended  to  give  to  all  that  he  died  for."(6) 

(5)  Universal  R'^denip.  p.  03,  &c.        (ti)  Ibid.  p.  425.  < 


364 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  11. 


The  only  quibble  which  iirevents  the  real  aspect  of 
this  scheme  from  being  at  first  seen  is,  that  Itaxter, 
and  the  divines  of  this  school,  give  to  the  elect  irresisti- 
ble cU'cctiial  griK-e,  but  contend  that  others  have  sv//i- 
cient.  grace.  This  kind  of  grace  is  called,  aptly  cnouL'li, 
by  Baxter  himself,  '■*  aniYicKM  ineffectual  gmcc  ;"  and 
that  it  is  worthy  the  appellation  his  own  account  of  it 
will  show. 

"  I  say  it  again,  confidently,  all  rnen  that  perish  (who 
have  the  use  of  reason)  do  perish  directly,  lor  rejecting 
sufficient  recovering  grace.  By  grace,  1  mean  mercy 
contrary  to  merit :  by  recovering,  I  mean  such  as 
TENDETH  iH  its  owu  naturo  towards  their  recovery, 
and  leadeth  or  helpetU  them  thereto.  By  sufficient,  I 
mean  not  sufkiciknt  pireutly  to  save  tiik.m  (tor 
such  none  of  the  elect  have  till  thiiy  are  saved),  nor 

YET  SUFFK^ENT  TO  (JIVE  TIIKM  FAITH  OR  CAUSE  THEM 

SAVINGLY  TO  BELIEVE.  But  it  is  Sufficient  to  bring 
them  NEARER  (Christ  than  thoy  are,  though  not  to  put 
them  into  immediate  [losscssiou  of  Christ  by  union  with 
him,  as  faith  would  do.  It  is  an  easy  truth,  that  all 
men  naturally  are  far  from  Christ,  and  that  some,  by 
custom  in  sinning,  for  want  of  inforniiiig  ami  restrain- 
ing means,  are  much  farther  from  him  ihan  others  (as 
the  heathens  are),  and  that  it  is  not  Cod's  usual  way 
(nor  to  be  expected)  to  bring  these  men  to  Christ  at 
once,  by  one  act,  or  without  any  preparation,  or  first 
bringing  them  nearer  to  him.  It  is  a  similitude  used 
by  some  that  oppose  what  I  now  say  :  supi)ose  a  man 
in  a  lower  room  should  go  no  more  steps  than  he  in  the 
middle  room,  he  must  go  many  steps  before  he  came 
to  be  as  near  you  as  the  other  is.  Now,  suppose  you 
olfer  to  take  tliem  by  the  hand  when  they  come  to  the 
Tipper  stairs,  and  give  them  some  other  suilicient  help 
to  come  up  life  lower  steps  :  if  these  men  will  not  use 
the  help  given  them  to  ascend  the  first  steps  (though 
entreated),  who  can  be  blamed  but  themselves  if  they 
came  not  to  the  top?  It  is  not  your  fault,  but  theirs, 
that  they  have  not  your  hand  to  lill  them  up  at  the  last 
step.  So  is  our  present  case.  Worldlings  and  sensual 
ignorant  sinners  have  many  steps  to  ascend  before  they 
come  to  justtfymg  faith :  and  heathens  have  many  stei)S 
before  llicy  come  as  far  as  ungodly  (,'hristians  (as  might 
easily  be  manifested  by  enumeration  of  several  neces- 
sary particulars).  Now,  if  those  will  not  use  that  suili- 
cient help  that  Christ  gives  them  to  come  the  first,  or 
second,  or  third  step,  who  is  it  long  of  that  they  have 
not  faith  ?"(') 

But  we  have  no  reason  to  conclude,  from  this  system, 
that  if  they  took  the  steps  reijuired,  it  would  bring  them 
"nearer  to  Christ  than  they  are,"  or,  at  least,  bring 
them  up  to  saving  faith,  which  is  the  great  point, 
since  Mr.  Baxter's  own  doctrine  is,  that  Christ  "  never 
properly  intended  or  purposed  the  actual  justifying  and 
saving  of  all,  and  did  not,  therefore,  die  for  all,  nor  lor 
any  that  perish,  wUk  a  design  or  resolutia/i.  to  save. 
them,  much  less  did  he  die  lor  all,  as  to  this  intent." 
Those,  then,  for  whom  Christ  died,  not  with  intent  to 
give  saving  lailh,  cannot  be  saved;  yet  we  are  told, 
that  to  these  sufficient  grace  is  given  to  take  a  step  or 
two  which  would  bring  them  "  nearer  to  Christ."'  iSup- 
posc  such  persons,  then,  to  take  these  stej)S,  yet,  as 
Christ  died  not  for  them,  with  intent  to  give  them 
saving  faith,  without  this  intent  they  cannot  have 
saving  faith,  since  it  is  nol  a  pari  of  tUirist's  pnrcliase, 
but  his  arbitrary  gift.  The  truth,  then,  is,  that  their 
salvation  is  as  impossible  as  that  of  the  reprobates 
under  the  supralapsarian  scheme,  and  the  reason  of 
their  doom  is  no  act  of  their  own,  but  an  act  of  Christ 
himself,  who,  as  "absolute  Lord,"  denies  that  to  them 
which  is  necessary  to  their  salvation. 

It  IS,  however,  but  fair  that  Mr.  Ba.xter  should  himself 
answer  this  objection. 

"  Objection.— Then,  they  that  come  not  the  first  step 
are  excusable ;  for,  if  they  had  come  to  the  step  next 
believing,  they  had  no  assurance  that  Christ  would 
have  given  them  faith. 

" An.mer.—Ko  such  matter:  for,  though  they  had 
no  assurance,  they  had  both  Coil's  command  to  seek 
more  grace,  and  snfflcient  encouracenienl  thereto  ;  they 
had  sucli  as  Mr.  Cotton  calls  half  phomisks,  that  is, 
a  discovery  of  a  possibility,  and  high  degree  of  I'UonA- 
Bu.iTv  of  obtaining  ;  as  I'r/er  to  *'//«««,  pray,  if  ;«r- 
liiilift  the  thoughts  of  thy  heart  may  be  forgiven.    They 


may  think  (iod  will  not  appoint  men  vain  m!»ans,  and 
he  hath  ajipointed  some  in<:ans  to  all  men  to  get  more 
grace,  and  bring  thcin  nearer  Christ  than  they  are. 
Yea,  no  man  can  name  that  man  since  the  world  was 
made,  that  did  his  best  in  the  use  of  these  means,  and 
lost  his  labour.  f>o  that  if  all  men  have  not.faith,  it  is 
Iheir  own  fault ;  not  only  as  originally  sinners,  but  as 
rejecting  suiti(;i(i)t  grace  to  have  brought  them  nearer 
Christ  than  they  were;  lor  which  it  is  that  they  justly 
perish,  as  is  more  fully  opened  in  the  dispute  of  suffi- 
cient grace." 

One  argument  from  Scripture  demolishes  tliis  whole 
scheme.  Mr.  Baxter  makes  the  condemnation  of  men 
to  rest  upon  their  not  coming  '■  nearer  to  Christ"  than 
they  are  in  their  natural  state ;  but  the  Scripture  places 
their  guilt  in  not  /w/Zy  ''  coming  to  him ;"  or,  ui  other 
words,  in  their  not  believing  in  Christ  "  to  salvation," 
since  it  has  made  faith  their  duty,  and  has  connected 
salvation  with  faith.  That  they  must  take  previous 
steps,  such  as  consideration  and  repentance,  is  true, 
and  that  they  are  guilty  for  not  taking  them  ;  but  then 
their  guilt  arises  from  their  rejection  of  a  strength  and 
grace  to  consider  and  repent  which  is  imparted  to  them, 
iti  order  to  lead  thcin,  through  this  jtrocess,  to  saving 
faith  itself;  and  they  are  condemned  for  not  having 
this  faith,  because  not  only  the  preparatory  steps,  but 
the  faith  itself  is  put  within  their  reach,  or  they  coulil 
not  be  condemned  for  unbelief.  If  Baxter  really  meant 
that  any  steps  these  non-elect  persons  could  take  would 
actually  put  them  into possessionof  saving  faith,  he  would 
have  said  so  in  so  many  jilain  words,  and  then  between 
liim  and  the  Arminians  there  would  have  been  no  dil- 
ference,  so  far  as  they  who  perish  arc  concerned.  But 
coming  nearer  to  Christ,  and  nearer  to  saving  faith  are 
with  him  (juile  distinct.  His  concern  was  not  to  show 
how  the  non-elect  might  be  saved,  but  how  they  might 
with  some  plausibility  be  damned. 

"  What,  then,"  says  Dr.  Womack,  "  is  the  universal 
redeinjition  you  or  they  speak  of!  Doth  it  consist  in 
the  ablation  of  the  curse  or  pain,  the  im[ielralion  of 
grace  and  righteousness,  and  the  collation  of  life  and 
glory?  Man's  misery  consists  but  of  two  parts,  sin 
and  punishrnen.t.  Doth  your  vniversal  redemption 
make  sufficient  provision  to  free  the  non-elect  from 
both,  or  from  cither  of  these  ?  From  the  xvruth  to  come, 
the  damnation  of  hell,  or  from  iniquity  and  their  vain 
cojiversationf  Indeed,  in  your  assise  sermons,  you 
did  very  seasonably  preach  nj)  Christ  to  be  a  Lord 
Chief  Justice  to  judge  the  reproliate ;  but  I  cannot  find 
that  ever  you  declare  him  to  be  their  Lord  Keejier,  or 
their  Lord  Treasurer,  to  communicate  his  saving  grace 
for  their  conversion,  or  to  secure  them  against  the 
assaults  and  rage  of  their  ghostly  enemy.  These  last 
ofliccs  you  suppose  him  to  bear  in  favour  of  the  elect 
only,  so  that  your  universal  redemption  holds  a  very 
fair  correspondence  with  your  svjfficieiit  grace  (as  to 
the  non-elect)— there  is  not  one  single  person  sanctified 
by  this,  or  saved  by  </(a<."(S) 

The  remark  of  Cnrcellxus  on  the  same  system  as 
delivered  by  Amyraldus,  is  conclusive. 

"  Besides,  since  faith  is  necessary,  in  order  to  make 
us  partakers  of  the  benefits  which  are  procured  by  the 
death  of  Christ,  and  since  no  one  can  obtahi  it  by  his 
natural  powers  (for  it  is  imparted  through  a  special 
gill,  from  which  Cod,  by  an  absolute  decree,  has  ex- 
cluded the  greatest  j)ortion  of  mankind),  of  what  avail 
is  it  that  Christ  has  died  for  those  to  whom  faith  is  de- 
nied f  Docs  not  the  aflUir  revert  to  the  same  point,  as 
if  he  had  never  entertained  an  i7itcntion  of  redeeming 
th(-m?'\'^) 

This  cannot  consistently  be  denied.  Mr.  Baxter,  in- 
deed, says,  tliat  "  none  can  name  the  man  since  the 
world  was  ma<le,  that  did  liis  best  in  the  use  of  the 
means  to  obtain  more  grace,  and  lost  his  labour."  ■  f?o 
wo  believe,  but  this  helps  not  Mr.  Baxter.  One  of  his 
main  principles  is,  that  there  is  a  class  of  men  to  whom 
Christ  has  resolved  to  give  saving  faith  ;  to  the  rest  ho 
has  re.solved  not  to  give  it.  The  hian,  then,  who  seeks 
more  than  common  grace,  and  obtains  saving  grace,  is 
either  in  the  class  to  wlioni  Christ  has  resolved,  by 
right  of  ilominion,  to  give  saving  grace,  or  he  is  not. 
ll'tlie  former,  then,  he  is  one  of  the  elect,  and  so  the 
instance  givi;n  proves  nothing  as  to  the  case  of  the  non- 


(7)  Universal  Kedcniptioii,  p.  iU. 


(S)  (Jalvinistic  Cabinet  Vnlockud. 
('.!)  De  Jure  Dei  Creaturas,  <i;c. 


Chap.  XXVIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


365 


elect ;  but  if  he  be  of  the  latter  class,  then  one  of  those 
to  whom  Christ  never  resolved  to  give  savins  grace, 
by  some  means,  obtains  it,— how,  it  will  be  dilRcult  (o 
say.  In  fact,  it  was  never  allowed  by  Mr.  Baxter,  or 
Ills  followers,  that  any  but  the  elect  would  be  saved. 

I'Tie  remarks  of  a  Calvinist  upon  the  "middle 
scheme"  of  the  French  divines,  the  same  in  substance 
as  that  which  was  adorwiird  advocated  by  l{axter,may 
properly  close  our  remarks. 

"This  mitigated  view  of  the  doctrine  of  predestina- 
tion has  on/y  one  defect,  but  it  is  a  capital  one.  It  re- 
presents fiod  as  desiring  a  tiling  (that  is,  salvation  and 
happiness)  for  all,  which,  in  order  to  its  attainment, 
reijuires  a  degree  of  his  assistance  and  succour,  which 
he  rcfuscth  to  many.  This  rendered  grace  and  redemp- 
tion iNivKRSAL  only  in  words,  but  partial  in  reality  ; 
and  therefore  did  not  at  all  mend  the  matter.  The  su- 
pralapsarians  were  consistent  with  themselves ;  but 
iheir  doctrine  was  harsh  and  terrible,  and  was  founded 
on  the  most  unworthy  notions  of  the  Supreme  Being ; 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  system  of  Amyraut  was  full 
of  inconsistencies  :  nay,  even  the  sublapsarian  doctrine 
has  its  difficulties,  and  rather  palliates  than  removes 
tlie  horrors  of  supralapsarianism.  What  then  is  to  be 
done  ?  From  what  quarter  shall  the  candid  and  well- 
disposed  Christian  receive  that  solid  satisfaction  and 
wise  direction,  which  neither  of  these  systems  is  adapted 
to  administer  ?  These  he  will  receive  by  turning  Ids 
dazzled  and  feeble  eye  from  the  secret  decrees  of  God, 
which  were  neither  designed  to  be  rules  of  action,  nor 
soTtrees  of  comfort  to  mortals  here  below ;  and  by  fix- 
ing his  view  upon  the  mercy  of  God,  as  it  is  manifested 
through  Christ,  the  pure  laws  and  sublime  promises  of 
his  Gospel,  and  the  equity  of  liis  present  government 
and  future  tribunal. "(1) 

The  theory  to  which  the  name  of  Baxter  has  given 
some  weight  in  tins  country,  has  been  introduced  more 
at  length,  because  with  it  stands  or  falls  every  system 
of  moderated  or  modified  Calvinism,  which  by  more 
modern  writers  has  been  advocated.  Tlie  scheme  of 
Dr.  Williams,  of  Botherham,  is  little  beside  the  old 
theory  of  supralapsarian  reprobation,  in  its  twofold 
enunciation  of  PKETEParioN,  by  which  God  refuses 
help  to  a  creature  which  cannot  stand  without  help, 
and  his  conseiiuent  damnation  for  the  crimes  com- 
mitted in  consequence  of  this  withholding  of  super- 
natural aid.  The  dress  is  altered,  and  the  system  has 
a  dash  of  t^arneronism,  but  it  is  in  substance  the  same. 
All  other  mitigated  schemes  rest  on  two  principles,  the 
sufficiency  of  the  atonement  for  all  mankind,  and  the 
sufficiency  of  grace  to  tbose  who  believe  not.  For  the 
first,  it  is  enough  to  say,  that  the  Synod  of  Uort  and  the 
lugherCalvinistic  school  will  agree  with  them  upon 
tills  point,  and  so  nothing  is  gaineil ;  for  the  second, 
that  the  sufficiency  of  grace  in  these  schemes  is  always 
understood  in  Baxter's  sense,  and  is  mere  verbiage.  It 
is  not  "  the  grace  of  God  which  bringeth  salva- 
tion ;"  for  no  man  is  actually  saved  without  something 
more  than  this  "  sufficient  grace"  provides.  That 
which  is  contended  for  is,  in  fhct,  not  a  sufficiency  of 
grace  in  order  to  salvation,  but  in  order  to  justify  the 
condemnation  which  inevitably  foUov/s.  For  tills 
alone  the  struggle  is  made,  but  without  success.  The 
main  characteristic  of  all  these  theories,  from  the  first 
to  the  last,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  is,  that  a 
part  of  mankind  are  shut  out  from  the  mercies  of  God, 
on  some  ground  irrespective  of  their  refusal  of  a  sin- 
cere ofier  to  them  of  salvation  through  Christ,  made 
with  a  communicated  power  of  embracuig  it.  Some 
power  they  allow  to  the  reprobate,  as  natural  power, 
and  degrees  of  superadded  moral  power;  but  in  no 
case  the  power  to  believe  unto  salvation  :  and  thus,  as 
one  well  observes,  "  when  they  have  cut  some  fair 
trenches,  as  if  they  would  bring  the  water  of  life  unto 
tlie  dwellings  of  the  reprobate,  on  a  sudden  they  ojien  a 
sluice  which  carries  it  off  again."  The  whole  labour 
of  these  theories  is  to  find  out  some  decent  pretext  for 
the  infhctiuii  of  punishment  on  them  that  perish,  inde- 
l)endent  of  the  only  reason  given  by  Scripture,  their  re- 
jection of  a  mercy  free  lor  all. 

Having  exhibited  the  Calvinislic  system  on  its  own 
authorities,  it  may  be  naturally  asked,  liom  what  mode 
or  basis  of  thinking  a  scheme  could  arise  so  much  at 
variance  with  the  Scriplurcs,  and  with  all  received  no- 
tions of  just  and  benevolent  adi.uaisiration  among  men; 


(I)  Maclaine's  Notes  on  Mosheim'a  Ilistory. 


properties  of  government,  which  must  be  found  more 
perf(x,tly  in  the  government  of  God,  bv  reason  of  the 
jierlection  of  its  author,  than  in  any  other.  That  it  had 
its  source  in  a  course  of  induction  from  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  though  erroneous,  is  not  probable;  for  if  it 
had  been  left  to  that  test,  it  is  pretty  certain  it  would 
not  have  maintained  itself.  It  apjiears  rather  to  have 
arisen  from  metaphysical  hypotheses  and  school  sub- 
tleties, to  which  the  sense  of  Scripture  has  been  accom- 
modated, often  very  violently ;  and  by  subtleties  of 
this  kind,  it  has  at  all  times  been  cluefly  supported. 

It  has,  for  instance,  been  assumed  by  the  advocates 
of  this  theological  theory,  that  all  things  which  come 
to  pass  have  been  fixed  by  eternal  decrees  ;  and 
that,  as  many  men  actually  perish,  it  must  therefore 
have  been  decreed  that  they  should  perish :  and,  con- 
sistently with  such  a  scheme,  it  became  necessary  to 
exclude  a  part  of  the  human  race  from  all  share  in  the 
benefits  of  Christ's  redemption.  The  argument  em- 
ployed to  confirm  the  premises  is,  "  that  it  is  agreeable 
to  reason  and  to  the  analogy  of  nature,  that  God  should 
conduct  all  things  according  to  a  deliberate  and  fixed 
plan,  independent  of  his  creatures,  rather  than  that  ho 
should  be  influenced,  even  in  his  purposes,  by  the  fore- 
sight of  their  capricious  conduct."(2)  "  It  is  not  easy 
to  reconcile  the  immutability  and  efficacy  of  the  Divine 
counsel,  which  enters  into  our  conceptions  of  the  first 
cause,  with  a  purjiose  to  save  all,  suspended  upon  a 
condition  which  is  not  fulfilled  with  regard  to  many."(S) 
This  has,  indeed,  all  along  been  the  main  stress  of  the 
argument  for  absolute  decrees,  that  a  conditional  decree 
reflects  dishonour  upon  the  Divine  attributes,  "  by 
leaving  God,  as  it  were,  in  suspense,  and  waiting  to 
see  what  men  will  do,  before  he  passes  a  firm  and  irre- 
vocable decree ;"  which,  as  they  say,  seems  to  imply 
want  of  power  and  prescience  in  God,  and  to  be  in- 
onsistent  with  other  of  his  Divine  perfections.  They 
especially  think  that  this  is  irreconcilable  with  the  im- 
mutability of  God,  and  that  to  subject  his  decrees  to 
the  changes  of  a  countless  number  of  mutable  beings, 
must  render  him  the  most  mutable  beuig  in  the  uni- 
verse. 

The  whole  of  this  objection,  however,  seems  to  in- 
volve a  petitio  principii.  It  is  taken  for  granted,  cither 
that  the  decrees  of  God  are  absolute  appointments  from 
eternity,  and  then  any  change  of  his  decrees,  dependent 
upon  the  acts  of  creatures,  woidd  be  a  contradiction; 
or  else,  that  the  acts  of  creatures  being  free,  it  follows 
that  God  had  from  eternity  no  plan,  and  conducts  his 
own  government  only  as  circumstances  may  arise. 
But  that  either  the  decrees  of  God  are  fixed  and  abso- 
lute, or  that  God  can  have  no  plan  of  government  if 
that  be  denied,  is  the  very  alternative  to  be  proved,  the 
matter  which  is  in  debate.  It  becomes  necessary, 
therefore,  in  order  to  ascertain  the  truth,  to  fix  the  sense 
of  the  favourite  term  "  decrees ;"  and  for  this  we  have 
no  sound  guide  but  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which,  as  to 
what  relates  to  man's  salvation  at  least,  contain  the 
only  exposition  of  the  purposes  of  God. 

The  term  "  decree"  is  nowhere  in  Scripture  used  in 
the  sense  in  which  it  is  taken  in  the  theology  of  the 
Calvinists.  It  is  properly  a  legislative  or  judicial  term, 
importing  the  solemn  decision  of  a  court,  and  was 
adopted  into  that  system  probably,  because  of  the  ab- 
solute meaning  it  conveys  ;  wliicli  quality  of  absolute- 
ness is,  in  fact,  the  point  debated.  The  "purpose"  and 
"  cminseV  of  God  are  the  Scriptural  terms  applicable 
to  this  subject;  one  of  which,  '^counsel,"  expresses  an 
act  of  wisdom,  and  the  other  necessarily  implies  it,  as 
it  is  the  "purpose,'"  design,  or  determination  of  a 
Being  of  infinite  perfection,  who  can  purpose,  design, 
will,  and  determine  nothing  but  under  the  direction  of 
his  intelligence,  and  the  regulation  of  his  moral  attri- 
butes. 

Terms  are  not,  indeed,  to  be  objected  to  merely  be- 
cause they  are  not  found  in  the  word  of  God  ;  but  their 
signification  must  be  controlled  by  it ;  otherwise,  as  in 
the  ca.se  of  the  tei-m  decrees,  a  meaning  is  often  .silently 
brought  in  under  covert  of  the  term,  which  becomes  a 
postulate  in  argument :  a  practice  which  has  been  a 
fruitful  source  of  misai)prehcnsioii  and  error.  The  de- 
crees of  God,  if  the  phrase  then  must  be  continued, 
can  only  Scripturally  signify  the  dctcrniinations  of  Ids 
will  m  his  government  of  the  world  he  lias  made;  and 
those  determinations  are  plainly,  In  Scripture,  referred 


(2)  Dr.  Rankin's  Institutes.    (3)  Dr.  Hill's  Lectures. 


36G 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


to  two  classes,  what  he  has  liimseU  detcrmimd  to  do, 
and  wliat  ho  has  detirminal  to  ptrmit  to  be  done  by 
tVee  and  ai-coiintablc;  creatures.  lie  dotcriiiined,  for 
iuslaiice,  to  create  man,  and  he  determined  to  permit 
his  fall ;  he  determined  also  the  only  method  of  dis- 
peiisinf;  pardon  to  the  guilty,  but  he  determined  to  i)er- 
mit  men  to  reject  it,  and  to  fall  mto  the  jiunishment  of 
their  olTences.  Calvin,  indeed,  rejects  tlie  doctrine  of 
j)ermission.  "  It  is  not  probable,''  he  says,  "  that  man 
procured  his  own  destruction  by  the  mere  permission, 
and  wilhmitnuy  appoiiitmi  lit  of  God."  lie  had  reason 
for  this  ;  fur  to  have  allowed  this  distinction  would  have 
been  contrary  to  the  main  principles  of  his  theological 
system,  which  are,  that  "  the  will  of  God  is  the  wc  cess// 1/ 
of  things,"  and  that  all  tilings  are  jireviously  fixed  by  an 
absolute  decree  ;  so  that  they  must  happen.  The  conse- 
<iuence  i.s,  that  he  and  his  followers  involve  themselves 
in  the  tremendous  consequence  of  making  God  thcauthor 
of  sin;  which,  after  all  their  disavowals, and  we  grant 
them  sincere,  will  still  logically  cleave  to  them ;  tor  it 
is  obvious,  that  by  nothing  can  we  fairly  avoid  this  con- 
sequence, but  by  allowing  the  distinction  between  de- 
terminations T(i  no  on  the  part  of  God,  and  determina- 
tions TO  I'ERjiiT  certain  tilings  to  be  done  by  others. 
The  princijile  laid  down  by  Calvin  is  destructive  of  all 
human  agency,  seeing  it  converts  man  into  a  mere  m- 
strument;  while  the  other  maintains  his  agmcy  in  its 
proper  sense,  and  thcretbrc  his  proper  accountability. 
On  Calvin's  principle,  man  is  no  more  an  agent  than 
the  knife  in  the  hand  of  the  assassin ;  and  he  is  not 
more  responsible,  therefore,  in  equity,  to  punishment, 
than  the  knife  by  which  the  assassination  is  connnitted, 
were  it  capable  of  being  jmnislied.  For  if  man  has 
not  a  real  agency,  that  is,  if  there  is  a  necessity  above 
him  so  controlling  Ills  actions  as  to  render  It  impossible 
that  they  should  have  been  otherwise,  he  is  in  the  hands 
of  another,  and  not  master  of  hunself,  and  so  tiis  ac- 
tions cease  to  be  his  own. 

A  decree  to  jiermit  involves  no  such  consequences. 
This  is  indeed  acknowledged  ;  but  then,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  is  urged  that  tliis  imposes  an  uncertainty  upon 
the  Divine  plans,  and  makes  him  dependent  upon  the 
acts  of  the  creature.  In  neither  of  these  allegations  is 
there  any  weight ;  for  as  to  the  first,  there  can  be  no 
uncertainty  in  the  principles  of  the  administration  of  a 
Ueing,  who  regulates  the  whole  by  the  immutable  rules 
of  rigliteou.sness,  holhicss,  truth,  and  goodness ;  so 
that  all  the  acts  of  the  creature  do  but  call  forth  some 
new  illustration  of  his  unchangeable  regard  to  these 
princijiles.  Nor  can  any  act  of  a  creature  render  his 
plans  uncertain  by  coming  upon  him  by  surprise,  and 
thus  oblige  him  to  alter  his  intentions  on  the  spur  of 
the  moment.  What  the  creature  will  do,  in  fact,  is 
known  beforehand  with  a  perfect  prescience,  which 
yet,  as  we  have  already  proved,(4)  interferes  not  witli 
the  liberty  of  our  actions ;  and  what  God  has  deter- 
mined to  do  in  consecpience,  is  made  apjiarent  by  what 
he  actually  does,  which  with  him  can  be  no  new,  no 
sudden  thought,  but  knowTi  and  purposed  from  eter- 
nity, in  the  view  of  the  actual  circumstaufies.  As  to 
the  second  objection,  that  this  makes  Ids  conduct  de- 
pendent upon  the  acts  of  the  creature,  so  far  from  de- 
nying it,  we  may  aUirm  it  to  be  one  of  the  plainest  doc- 
trines of  the  word  of  Goi>.  He  punishes  or  blesses 
men  according  to  their  conduct ;  and  he  waits  until  the 
acts  of  their  sin  or  their  obedience  take  place,  before 
he  either  punishes  or  rewards.  The  dealings  of  a  so- 
vereign judge  must,  in  the  nature  ot  things  themselves, 
be  dependent  upon  the  conduct  of  the  subjects  over 
whom  he  rules :  they  must  vary  according  to  that  con- 
duct; and  it  is  oiUy  in  the  jjrincijiles  of  a  righteous 
government  that  we  ought  to  look  lor  that  kind  of  im- 
mutability, which  has  any  thing  in  it  of  moral  charac- 
ter. Still  it  is  said,  that  though  the  acts  of  God,  as  a 
sovereign,  change,  and  are  apparently  dependent  upon 
the  conduct  of  creatures,  yet  that  he,  from  all  eternity, 
decreed,  or  determined  to  do  them ;  as,  for  instance,  to 
c.xalt  one  nation,  and  to  abase  another;  to  favour  this 
individual,  or  to  punish  that ;  to  save  this  man,  to  de- 
stroy the  other.  This  may  be  granted,  but  only  in  this 
sense — that  his  eternal  determination  or  (Icitlc  was  as 
dependent  and  consequent  upon  his  prrscleuce  ol  the 
■cts  which,  according  to  the  immutable  piijici]il(s  of 
his  nature  and  govermrient,  are  pleasing  or  hatetul  to 
him,  as  the  actual  administration  of  favour  or  punish- 


(4)  I'urt  ii.  c,  4. 


ment  is  ujion  the  actual  cfinduct  of  men  In  time.  This 
brings  on  the  question  of  decrees  absolute  or  condi- 
tiimal;  and  wc  arc  happily  not  letl  to  the  reasonings 
of  men  on  this  jioint ;  but  have  the  light  of  the  word 
of  God,  which  abounds  with  examples  of  decrees,  to 
which  conditions  are  annexed,  on  the  performance  or 
neglect  of  which,  by  his  creatures,  their  execution  is 
mad(!  dependent.  "If  thou  doest  well,  shalt  thou  not 
be  accepted?  but  if  thou  doest  not  well,  sin  lieth  at  the 
door."  If  this  was  God's  eternal  decree  concerning 
Cain,  then  it  was  plainly  conditional  from  eternity; 
for  his  decrees  in  time  cannot  contradict  liis  decrees 
from  eternity,  as  to  the  same  persons  and  events.  But 
Cain  did  "not  well;"  was  it  not  thcn,saysaCalvinist, 
eternally  and  absolutely  decreed  that  he  should  not  "  do 
well '!"  The  reply  is  no  ;  because  this  sujiiwacd  abso- 
lute decree  of  the  Calvinist  would  contradict  th«  re- 
vealed decree  or  determination  of  tlod,  to  put  both  the 
doing  well  and  the  doing  ill  into  Cain's  own  power ,which 
is  utterly  inconsistent  with  an  absolute  decree  that  he 
should  have  it  in  his  power  only  to  do  ill ;  and  the  in- 
evitable conclusion  therefore  is,  that  the  only  eternal 
decree,  or  Divine  determination,  concerning  Cain  in  this 
matter  was,  that  he  should  be  conditionally  accepted, 
or  conditionally  lelt  to  the  punishment  of  his  sins.  To 
this  class  of  conditional  decrees  belong  also  all  such 
passages,  as  "  If  ye  be  willing  and  obedient,  ye  shall 
eat  the  good  of  the  land  ;  but  if  ye  refuse  and  rebel,  yc 
shall  be  devoured  by  the  sword."  "  If  ye  live  after  the 
flesh  ye  shall  die ;  but  if  ye,  through  the  Spirit,  do 
mortify  the  deeds  of  the  body,  ye  shall  live."  "  He 
that  believeth  shall  be  saved,  and  he  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  damned."  This  last  especially  is  God's  decree 
or  determination,  as  to  all  who  hear  the  Gospel,  to  the 
end  of  time.  It  professes  to  bo  so  on  the  very  face  of 
it,  for  its  general  and  unrestricted  nature  cannot  be  de- 
nied ;  but  if  we  are  told  that  there  is  a  decree  affecting 
numbers  of  men  as  individuals,  by  which  God  deter- 
mined absolutely  to  pass  them  by,  and  to  deny  to  them 
the  grace  of  faith,  such  an  allegation  cannot  be  true  ; 
because  it  contradicts  the  decree  as  revealed  by  God 
himself.  His  decree  gives  to  all  who  hear  the  news 
of  Christ's  salvation  the  alternative  of  believing  and 
being  saved,  of  not  believing  and  being  damned ;  but 
there  is  no  alternative  in  the  absolute  decree  of  Cal- 
vinism :  as  to  the  reprobate,  no  one  can  believe  and  be 
saved  who  is  under  such  (Iccrec ;  God  never  intended 
he  should ;  and  therefore,  he  is  put  by  one  decree  in 
one  condition,  and  by  another  decree  in  an  entirely  op- 
posite condition,  which  is  an  obvious  contradiction. 

But  we  have  instances  of  the  revocation  of  God's 
decrees,  as  well  as  of  their  conditional  character ;  one 
of  which  will  be  suthcient  for  illustration.  In  the  case 
of  Kli,  "  I  said,  indeed,  that  thy  house  and  the  house 
of  thy  father  should  walk  before  me  for  ever ;  but  now 
the  Lord  saith,  be  it  far  from  me  ;  tor  them  that  honour 
me  I  will  honour,  and  they  that  despise  me  shall  be 
lightly  esteemed."  No  passage  can  more  strongly  re- 
fute the  (^alvini.'itic  notion  of  God's  immutability,  which 
they  seem  to  place  ni  his  never  changing  his  piirposf, 
whereas  in  fact  the  Scrij)lural  doctrine  Is,  that  it  consists 
in  his  never  changing  the  ]'rincipl(s  of  his  administra- 
tion. One  of  those  ])rinciplesis  laid  down  in  this  pas- 
sage. It  is,  "  them  that  lidnimr  me  I  will  honour,  and 
they  that  despise  me  shall  lie  lightly  esteemed."  To 
this  principle  God  is  imnmtahly  true;  but  it  was  his 
unchangeable  regard  to  that  very  princiiile  which 
brought  on  the  change  of  his  conduct  towards  the  house 
of  Eli,  and  induced  him  to  revoke  his  former  jiromisc. 
This  is  the  only  immutability  worthy  of  God,  or  which 
can  he  reconciled  to  the  facts  of  his  government.  For 
either  the  advocate  of  absolute  predestination  must 
say  that  the  promises  and  thrcatcnings  are  declarations 
of  his  will  and  purposes,  or  they  are  not.  If  they  aro 
not,  they  contradiit  his  truth;  but  if  the  point  that  they 
do  in  fact  cleclare  his  will  is  conceded,  that  will  is  either 
absolute 'or  conditional.  I.ct  us  then  try  the  case  of 
Eli  by  this  altjcrnative.  If  the  promise  of  continuing 
the  priesthood  in  the  family  of  Eli  were  absolute,  then  it 
could  not  be  revoked.  If  the  threatening  expressed  ail 
absolute  and  eternal  will  and  determination  to  divert 
the  priesthood  from  Eli's  progeny,  then  the  promise 
was  a  mockery  ;  and  God  ia  in  this,  and  all  similar  in- 
stances, made  to  engage  himself  to  do  what  is  contrary 
to  his  absolute  inleiiiion  and  dilerniination ;  in  other 
vvorils,  he  maiies  no  engagement  in  fact,  while  he 
seems  to  do  it  in  Ibrm,  wluch  involves  a  charge  ugaiust 


Chap.  XXVIIL] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


367 


the  Divine  Being,  wliioh  few  Calvinists  wuuld  be  bolil 
enough  to  maintain.  l!ut  if  these  deelanitioiis  to  Eli  be 
regardeJ  as  tlie  expressions  of  a  ileterinination  always 
taken  in  the  mind  ol'  (Jon,  under  the  conditions  implied 
in  the  fuveil  prineiples  of  his  government,  then  ihc  lan- 
guage and  tlie  aels  of  God  harmonize  with  his  since- 
rity and  faithfulness,  and  instead  of  tlirowing  a  sliade 
over  his  moral  altnbutes,  illustrate  his  immutable  re- 
gard to  those  wise,  etiuitable,  and  holy  rules  by  whicli 
he  conducts  his  government  of  moral  agents.  Nor  will 
the  distinction  which  some  Calvinists  have  endeavoured 
to  establish  between  the  promises  and  threateiiings  of 
God  and  his  decrees,  serve  them ;  for  where  is  it  to  be 
Ibund  except  in  their  own  imagination  ?  We  have  no 
intimation  of  such  a  distinction  in  Scripture,  which, 
nevertheless,  protesscs  to  reveal  the  eternal  "purpose" 
and  "  counsel"  of  God  on  those  matters  to  which  his 
promises  and  thrcatenings  relate,— the  salvation  or  de- 
struction of  men.  That  counsel  and  purpose  has  also 
no  manifestation  in  his  word,  but  by  promises  and 
threateiiings.  These  make  up  its  whole  substance; 
and  therelbre,  in  order  to  make  their  distinction  good, 
those  who  hold  it  must  discover  a  distinction,  not  only 
between  God's  promises  and  threatenings,  and  his  de- 
crees, but  between  the  eternal "  counsels  and  purposes"' 
of  God  and  liis  decrees,  wliich  they  acknowledge  to  be 
identical. 

The  fallacy  which  seems  to  mislead  them  appears  to 
he  the  following  :  They  allege  that  of  two  conseijuences, 
say  the  obedience  or  disobedience  of  Eli's  house, 
■we  acknowledge,  on  both  sides,  that  one  will  happen. 
That  which  actually  happens  we  also  see  taken  up  into 
the  course  of  the  i)ivine  administration,  and  made  a 
part  of  liis  subseciuent  jtlan  of  government,  as  the  trans- 
fer of  the  priesthood  from  tlie  house  of  Eli :  they,  there- 
fore, argue  that  the  Divine  Being  having  his  plan  be- 
fore him,  and  this  very  circumstance  entering  into  it,  it 
was  fixed  from  eternity  as  a  part  of  that  general 
scheme  by  which  the  purposes  of  God  were  to  be  ac- 
complished, and  which  would  have  been  imcerlain  and 
unarranged  but  lor  this  preordination.  The  answer  to 
this  is, 

1.  That  the  circumstance  of  an  event  being  taken  up 
into  the  Divine  administration,  and  being  made  use  of 
to  work  out  God's  purjioses,  is  no  proof  that  he  willed 
and  decreed  it.  lie  could  not  will  the  wickedness  of 
Ell's  sons,  and  could  not,  therefore,  ordain  and  appoint 
it,  or  his  decrees  would  be  contrary  to  liis  will.  Tlie 
making  use  of  the  result  of  the  choice  ol'  a  free  agent 
only  proves  that  it  was  foreseen,  and  that  there  are,  so 
to  speak,  infinite  resources  in  the  Divine  mind  to  turn 
the  actions  of  men  into  the  accomplishment  of  his 
plans,  without  either  willing  them  when  they  are  evil, 
or  imposing  fetters  upon  llieir  freedom. 

2.  That  though  an  event  be  interwoven  with  the 
course  of  the  Divine  government,  it  does  not  follow 
that  it  was  necessary  to  it.  The  ends  of  a  course  of 
administration  might  have  been  otherwise  accom- 
plished ;  as,  in  the  case  before  us,  if  Eli's  house  had 
remained  faitliful,  and  the  family  of  Zadok  had  not  been 
chosen  in  its  stead.  The  general  plan  of  God's  govern- 
ment does  not,  therelbre,  necessarily  include  every  event 
which  happens  as  a  necessary  part  of  its  accomplish- 
ment, since  the  same  results  might,  in  many  cases, 
have  been  brought  out  of  other  events ;  and,  tlierefore, 
it  cannot  be  conclusively  argued,  that  as  God  wills  the 
accomplishment  of  the  general  plan,  he  must  will  in  the 
same  manner  the  particular  events  wliich  he  may  over- 
rule to  contribute  to  it.    But, 

3.  As  to  tho  general  plan,  it  isedso  an  unfounded  as- 
sumption, that  it  was  the  subject  of  an  absolute  deter- 
mination. P'vom  this  has  arisen  the  notion  that  the 
fall  of  Adam  was  willed  and  decreed  by  God.  To  tliis 
doctrine,  wliich,  for  the  sake  of  a  metaphysical  specu- 
lation, draws  alter  it  so  many  abhorrent  and  antiscrip- 
tural  consequences,  we  must  demur.  God  could  not 
will  that  event  actively  without  willing  sin  ;  he  could 
not  absolutely  decree  it  without  removing  all  responsi- 
bility, and  therefore  all  fault,  from  the  first  ofiender. 
If  God  be  holy  he  could  not  will  Ad.am's  offence,  though 
he  might  detcnnim;  not  to  prevent  it  by  iiiterli;ring  with 
man's  freedom,  which  is  a  very  diH(;reiit  <  a.se  ;  and  If 
in  guarding  his  law  Irom  violation  by  a  severe  .sanction 
he  proceeded  with  sinceriiy,  he  could  not  appoint  its 
violation.  We  may  confidently  say,  tliat  he  willed  the 
contrary  of  Adam's  oflTence  ;  and  that  he  used  all  means 
tonsibteut  with  his  detcrininatioii  to  give  and  maintain 


free  agency  to  his  crcainrea,  to  seeurc  the  accomplish- 
ment of  that  will.  It  was  against  liis  will,  therefore, 
that  our  jirogcnitors  sinned  and  fell ;  and  his  "  purpose" 
and  "  counsel,"  or  his  decree,  if  the  term  )ilease  belter, 
to  govern  the  world  according  to  the  principles  ami 
mode  now  in  operation,  was  dependent  upon  an  event 
whicli  he  willed  not ;  but  which,  as  being  foreseen,  was 
the  plan  he,  in  wisdom,  justice,  and  mercy,  adopted  in 
view  of  this  contingency.  And  suppose  we  were  to 
acliiiowledge  with  some,  that  the  result  will  be  more 
glorious  to  him,  and  more  beneficial  to  the  tiniverse, 
through  the  wisdom  with  v;hich  he  overrules  all  things, 
than  if  Adam  and  his  descendants  had  stood  in  their 
innocence,  it  will  not  follow,  even  from  this,  that  tho 
present  was  that  order  of  events  wliich  God  absolutely 
ordere<l  and  decreed.  We  are  told,  indeed,  that  if  this 
was  the  best  of  possible  plans,  God  was,  by  the  perfi^c- 
tion  of  his  nature,  bound  to  choose  it ;  and  that  if  he 
chose  it,  his  will,  in  this  respect,  made  all  tlie  rest  ne- 
cessary. But,  to  say  nothing  of  the  presumi)tioii  of  de- 
termining what  God  was  bound  to  do  in  any  hypothetic 
case,  the  position  that  God  must  choose  the  best  of  pos- 
sible plans  is  to  be  taken  with  qualification.  We  can 
neither  prove  that  the  state  of  things  which  shall  ac- 
tually issue  is  the  best  among  those  possible  ;  nor  that 
among  possible  systems  there  can  be  a  best,  since  they 
are  all  composed  of  crt;ated  tilings,  and  no  system  can 
actually  exist,  to  which  the  Creator,  who  is  Infinite  in 
power,  could  not  add  something.  Were  no  sin  involved 
in  the  case  it  would  be  clearer ;  but  it  is  not  only  un- 
supported by  any  declaration  of  Scripture,  but  certainly 
contrary  to  many  of  its  principles,  to  assume  that  God 
originally,  so  to  speak,  and  in  the  first  instance,  willed 
and  decreed  a  state  of  things  which  should  necessarily 
include  the  introduction  of  moral  evil  into  his  creation, 
in  order  to  manifest  his  glory,  and  work  out  future  good 
to  the  creature ;  because  we  know  that  sin  is  that  "  abo- 
minable thing"  which  he  hateth.  A  monarch  is  surely 
not  bound  secretly  to  apjioint  and  rfetree  the, circum- 
stances which  must  necessarily  lead  to  a  rebellion,  in 
order  tliat  his  clemency  may  be  more  fully  manilesteil 
in  pardoning  the  rebels,  or  the  strength  of  his  govern- 
nienl  displayed  in  their  subjugation  ;  although  his  sub- 
jects, upon  the  whole,  might  derive  some  higher  bene- 
fit. We  may  tlieretbre  conclude,  that  God  willed  with 
perfect  truth  and  sincerity  that  man  sliould  not  fall,  al- 
though he  resolved  not  to  prevent  that  fall  by  interfer- 
ing with  his  freedom,  which  would  have  changed  the 
whole  character  of  his  government  toward  rational  crea- 
tures ;  and  that  his  plan,  or  decree,  to  govern  the  world 
upon  the  principle  of  redemption  and  mediation  was  no 
absolute  ordination,  but  conditional  upon  man's  ofleiice ; 
and  was  an  "eternal  purpose"  only  in  tho  eternal  fore- 
sight of  the  actual  occurrence  of  the  fall  of  man, 
which  yet,  it  is  no  contradiction  to  say,  was  against 
his  will. 

So  fallacious  are  all  such  notions  as  to  God's  fixed 
plans.  Fixed  they  may  be,  without  being  absolutely 
decreed;  because  fixed,  in  reference  to  what  takes  place, 
even  in  opposition  to  his  will  and  intention ;  and  as 
to  the  argument  drawn  by  Calvinists  from  the  perfec- 
tions of  God,  it  is  surely  a  more  honourable  view  of 
him  to  suppose  that  his  ivill  and  his  promulgated  law 
accord  and  consent,  than  that  they  are  in  opposition  to 
each  other;  more  honourable  to  liim,  that  he  is  immu- 
table in  his  adherence  to  the  principles  rather  than  in 
the  acts  of  government;  more  honourable  to  him,  that 
he  can  make  the  conduct  of  his  free  creatures  to  work 
out  either  his  original  purposes,  or  purposes  more  glori- 
ous to  himself  and  beneficial  to  the  universe,  than  that 
he  should  frame  plans  so  fixed  as  to  have  no  reference 
to  the  free  actions  of  creatures,  whom,  by  a  strange 
contradiction,  he  is  represented  as  still  holding  account- 
able for  their  conduct ;  plans  which  all  these  creatures 
shall  be  necessitated  to  fulfil,  so  as  to  be  capable  of  no 
other  course  of  action  whatever,  or  else  that  his  govern- 
ment must  become  loose  and  uncertain.  This  is,  in- 
deed, to  have  low  thoughts,  even  ol  the  infinite  wisdom 
of  God  ;  and  cither  involves  his  justice  and  truth  in 
deep  obscurity,  or  presents  them  to  us  under  very  equi- 
vocal aspects.  Whicli  of  these  views  is  the  most  con- 
sonant with  the  Bible,  may  be  safely  left  with  the 
candid  reader. 

The  i'KEseiB;NcE  of  God  is  also  a  subject  by  which 
Calvinists  have  endeavoured  to  give  some  plausibility 
to  their  sy.stem.  The  ac«ument,  as  popularly  stated, 
has  been,  that,  as  tlie  destiuctiou  or  salvation  of  every 


363 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


I  paj»t  ii; 


iuilividual  is  foreseen,  it  ia,  lliereforc,  certain,  and,  iis  cct- 
tarn.,  it  is  intviUMe  and  necessary.  Tlic  answer  to 
this  is,  tliat  certainty  and  necessity  are  not  at  all  con- 
nected in  the  nature  of  things,  and  are,  in  fact,  two 
j)trfcclly  distinct  prcilicaments.  Certainty  lias  no  rela- 
tion to  an  event  at  all  as  evitable  or  inev)tal)l«,  free  or 
compelled,  contingent  or  necessary.  It  rcUilcs  only  to 
the  issue  itself,  the  act  of  any  agent,  not  to  the  quality 
of  the  act  or  event  with  reference  to  the  circumstances 
under  which  it  is  produced.  A  free  action  is  as  much 
an  event  as  a  necessitated  one,  and,  therefore,  is  as  truly 
an  object  of  foresight,  which  foresight  cannot  change 
the  nature  of  the  action,  or  of  the  process  through 
which  it  issues,  be  ;ause  the  simjile  knowledge  of  an 
action,  whether  present,  past,  or  to  come,  has  no  influ- 
ence upon  it  of  any  kind.  CcrtaiiUy  is  in  fact,  no  qua- 
lity  of  ap  action  at  all ;  it  exists,  properly  speaking,  in 
the  mind  foreseeing,  and  not  in  the  action  foreseen ;  but 
freedom  or  constraint,  contingency  or  necessity,  qualify 
the  action  itself,  and  determine  its  nature,  and  the  re- 
wardablencss  or  punitive  demerit  of  the  agent.  When, 
therefore,  it  is  said,  that  what  God  foresees  will  ccr- 
tainly  happen,  nothing  more  can  be  reasonably  meant, 
than  that  he  is  certain  that  it  will  hap])en  ;  so  that  we 
must  not  transfer  the  certainty  from  God  to  the  action 
itself,  in  the  false  sense  of  necessity,  or,  indeed,  in  any 
sense ;  for  the  certainty  is  in  the  Divine  mind,  and 
stands  there  opposed,  not  to  the  contingency  of  the  ac- 
tion, but  to  doubtfulness  as  to  his  own  prescience  of 
the  result.  There  is  this  certainty  in  the  Divine  mind 
as  to  the  actions  of  men,  that  they  will  hajipen :  but 
that  they  7nM.v?'hapi)en  cannot  follow  from  this  circum- 
stance. If  th(!y  must  happen,  they  are  under  some 
control  which  prevents  a  ditTerent  result ;  but  the  most 
certain  knowledge  has  nothing  in  it  wliich,  from  its  na- 
ture, can  control  an  action  in  any  way,  unless  it  sliould 
lead  the  being  endowed  with  it  to  adopt  measures  to  in- 
iluence  the  action,  and  then  it  becomes  a  question,  not 
of  foreknowledge,  but  of  jKwer  and  inftuericc,  wliich 
wholly  changes  the  case.  This  is  a  su/hcicnt  reply  to 
the  iiopular  manner  of  stating  the  argument.  The 
Gcholaytic  method  requires  a  little  more  illustration. 

The  knowledge  of  ;)0SA-iWe  things,  as  existing  from  all 
eternity  in  the  Divine  understanding,  has  been  termed 
"  ncieiUia  si?nplicis'intdligc)itice,"  or  by  the  schoolmen, 
"  srientia  iiulrfmita"  as  not  determining  the  existence 
of  any  thing.  The  knowledge  which  God  had  of  all  real 
existences  is  termed  ^^scientia  visionis,''^  and  by  the 
schoolmen, "  scientia  definita"  because  the  existence  of 
all  objects  of  this  knowledge  is  determinate  and  cer- 
tain. To  these  distinctions  another  was  added  by  those 
who  rejected  the  preilestinarian  hypothesis,  to  which 
they  gave  the  name  "  scioUia  meAia^''  as  being  supposed 
to  stand  in  the  middle  between  the  two  liirmer.  By  this 
is  understood,  the  knowledge,  neither  of  tilings  as  possi- 
ble, nor  of  events  appointed  and  decreed  by  (iod  ;  but  of 
events  winch  are  to  happen  upon  certain  condition3.(5) 

The  third  kind  of  knowledge,  or  scientia  media,  might 
very  well  be  included  in  the  second,  since  scientia  vi- 
sionis  ought  to  incluile  not  what  God  will  do,  and  what 
his  creatures  wUl  do  under  his  ai)pointment,  but  what 
they  will  do  by  his  permission  as  free  agents,  and  what 
he  will  do,  as  a  consequence  of  this,  in  his  character  ol' 
Governor  and  Lord.  But  since  the  predestinarians  had 
confounded  scientia  visionis  with  a  predestinating  ilc- 
cree,  the  scieijlui  midia  well  expressed  what  they  had 
left  quite  unaccounted  for,  and  which  they  had  assumed 
did  not  really  exist, — the  actions  of  creatures  endowed 
with  free  will,  and  the  acts  of  Deity,  which  from  eter- 
nity were  consequent  U|)ori  them.  If  such  actions  do 
not  take  place,  then  men  are  not  free  ;  and  if  the  recto- 
ral  acts  of  God  are  not  consequent  upon  the  actions  ol 
the  creature  in  the  order  of  the  Divine  intention,  and 

(5)  "  Ordo  autcin  hie  ut  recte  intcUigi  possit,  obser" 
vandam  est  triplieem  Deo scieniiani  irihni  solere :  nnam 
necessariam,  quie  omncm  voluntatis  Ijbcr.e  actum  na- 
turaj  ordinc  anteccdit,  qua;  etiam  jirtir/ica  ft  siniplicis 
irUelligentiiC  dici  potest,  qua  seipsnm  et  alia  omnia 
[lossibiliaintelligit.  Alteram  ^7>^r((»(,qu.c  conscciuitur 
actum  volnnl.il is  libera-,  qutB  etiam  j.ksvo/w.s- dici  jjote.st; 
quA  Deus  omnia,  quie  lai'crc  et  jwrmilkn;  decrevit  ita 
distiiicte  novil,  uti  ea  fieri  et  i)ernnllci;c  voluit.  'I'er- 
tiam  medinm,  qua  sub  condilione  novit  tjuid  homines  ant 
ungeli  facluri  esscnt  ])ri>  sua  lihcrtatc,  si  cum  his  aul 
illis  circunistantiis,  in  hoc  vel  in  illorcrum  ordirie  con- 
biilueroutur." — UisptUat.  Upmcupii,  Part  i.  Disp.  v. 


the  conduct  of  the  creature  is  consequent  upon  the  fore- 
ordained rectoral  acts  of  God,  then  we  reach  a  neces- 
sitating eternal  decree,  which,  in  lact,  the  predcstina- 
rian  contends  Ibr :  but  it  unfortunately  brings  after  it 
consequences  which  no  subtleties  have  ever  been  al.Je 
to  shake  otC, — that  the  only  actor  in  the  universe  is 
(ion  himself;  and  that  the  oiUy  distinction  among  events 
is,  that  one  class  is  brought  to  pass  by  God  directly, 
and  the  other  indirectly ;  not  by  the  agency,  but  by  the 
mere  iiistrumeiitalily  of  his  creatures. 

The  manner  in  which  absolute  predestination  is  made 
identical  \\\i\\  scientia  visionis,  will  be  best  illustrated 
by  an  extract  from  the  ^Mritingsof  a  tolerably  fair  and 
temperate  modern  Clalvinist.  Speaking  of  the  two  dis- 
tinctions, sciMilia  sitnplicis  intelligaitim,  and  scie^itia 
visionis,  he  says, 

"  Those  who  consider  all  the  objects  of  knowledge  as 
comprehended  under  one  or  other  of  the  kinds  that  have 
been  explained,  are  naturally  conducted  to  that  en- 
larged conception  of  the  extentof  the  Divine  decree,  from 
which  the  Oalvinistic  doctrine  of  predestination  una- 
voidably follows.  The  Divine  decree  is  the  determina- 
tion of  the  Divine  will  to  jiroduce  the  universe,  that  is, 
the  whole  series  of  beings  and  events  that  were  then  fu- 
ture. The  parts  of  this  series  arise  in  succession ;  but 
all  were  from  eternity  present  to  the  Divine  mind ; 
and  no  cause  was,  at  any  time,  to  ojierate.  or  no  ef- 
fect that  was  at  any  time  to  be  produced  in  the  uni- 
verse can  be  excluded  from  the  original  decree,  with- 
out supjiosing  that  the  decree  was  at  first  iniperlect, 
and  afterward  received  accessions.  The  determina- 
tion to  produce  this  world,  miderstanding  by  that  word 
the  whole  combination  of  beings,  and  causes,  and  ef- 
ects,  that  were  to  come  into  existence,  arose  out  of 
the  view  of  all  possible  worlds,  and  proceeded  upon  rea- 
sons to  us  unsoarcha.blc,  by  which  this  world  that  now 
exists  apppeared  to  the  Divine  wisdom  the  tjitest  to  be 
produced.  1  say,  the  determination  to  produce  this 
world  proceeded  upon  reasons  ;  because,  we  must  sup- 
jiose,  that  in  forming  the  decrees,  a  choice  was  e.xerled, 
that  the  Supreme  Being  was  at  liberty  to  resolve  either 
that  he  would  create,  or  that  he  would  not  create  ;  that 
he  would  give  his  work  this  tbrm  or  that  form,  as  he 
chose ;  otherwise  we  withdraw  from  the  Supreme  In- 
telligence, and  subject  all  things  to  blind  fatality.  But 
if  a  choice  was  exerted  in  forming  the  decree,  the  choice 
must  have  proceeded  upon  reasons  ;  for  a  choice  made 
by  a  wise  Being,  without  any  ground  of  choice,  is  a 
contradiction  in  terms.  At  the  same  time  it  is  to  be 
remembered,  that  as  nothing  then  existed  but  the  Su- 
l)reme  Being,  the  only  reason  which  could  determine 
him  in  choosing  what  he  was  to  produce,  was  its  ap- 
pcanng  to  him  fitter  for  accomplishing  the  end  which 
lie  proposed  to  himself  than  any  thing  else  which  he 
might  have  produced.  Hence  scientia  visionis  is  called 
by  theologians  scientia  libera.  To  scientia  simjilicis 
iiUellisentirc  they  gave  the  epithet  naluralis,  because 
the  knowledge  of  all  things  possible  arises  necessarily 
11-om  the  nature  of  the  Supreme  mind  ;  but  to  scientia 
visimiis  they  gave  the  epithet  libera,  because  the  quali- 
ties and  extent  of  its  objects  are  determined,  not  by  any 
necessity  of  nature,  but  by  the  will  of  the  Deity.  Al- 
though in  forming  the  Divine  decree  there  was  a  choice 
of  this  world,  proceeding  upon  a  representation  of  all 
possible  worlds,  it  is  not  to  be  conceived  that  there  was 
any  interval  between  the  choice  and  representation,  or 
any  sueccssion  in  the  parts  of  the  choice.  In  the  Di- 
vine mind  there  was  an  intuitive  view  of  that  immense 
suhjrii,  whiili  it  is  not  only  impossible  for  our  minds 
to  comiireliend  at  once,  but  in  travclluig  through  the 
parts  ol  w  Inch  we  are  instantly  bew  ildered ;  and  one 
degree,  embracing  at  once  the  end  and  means,  ordained 
with  perfect  wisdom  all  that  was  to  he. 

"The  conihtion  of  the  human  race  entered  into  this 
decree.  It  is  not,  perhaps,  the  most  important  part  of 
it  when  we  speak  of  the  Ibrniation  ol  llic  univirsc,  but 
it  is  a  part  wliich,  even  were  it  more  nisignificant  than 
it  is,  could  not  be  overlooked  by  the  Almighty,  whose 
attention  extends  to  all  his  works,  and  which  appears, 
by  tliose  dispensations  of  his  rrovidcnce  that  have  been 
made  known  to  us,  to  be  interesting  in  his  eyes.  A 
ilecree  respecting  the  condition  of  the  human  race  in- 
cludes the  history  of  every  individual :  the  time  of  his 
a|>|M  aring  upon  the  earth;  the  manner  of  his  existence 
while  he  is  an  iidiabitaiit  of  the  earth,  as  it  is  diversi- 
fied hy  the  actions  which  he  pcrliirms,  and  by  the  cvciils, 
whether  prosiierous  or  culannious,  whicJi  befall  luni, 


Chap.  XXVIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


369 


and  the  manner  of  his  existence  after  he  leaves  the 
earth,  that  is,  future  hapiiiness  or  misery.  A  decree 
respecting  tlie  condition  of  the  human  race  also  includes 
the  relations  of  the  individuals  to  one  another :  it  fixes 
their  connexions  in  society,  which  have  a  great  inllu- 
ence  upon  llieir  happiness  and  their  improvement ;  and 
it  must  be  conceived  as  extending  to  the  important  events 
recorded  in  Scripture,  in  which  the  whole  species  have 
a  concern.  Of  tliis  kind  is  the  sin  of  our  first  parents, 
the  consequence  of  that  sin  reaching  to  all  their  pos- 
terity, the  mediation  of  Jesus  Christ  appointed  by  God 
as  a  remedy  lor  lliese  consequences,  tlie  final  salvation, 
through  his  mediation,  of  one  part  of  the  descendants 
of  Adam,  and  the  final  condemnation  of  another  part, 
notwitlistanding  the  remedy.  These  events  arise  at 
long  intervals  of  time,  by  a  gradual  preparation  of  cir- 
cumstances, and  the  operation  of  various  means.  But 
by  the  Creator,  to  whose  mind  the  end  and  means  were 
at  once  present,  these  events  were  beheld  in  intimate 
connexion  with  one  another,  and  in  conjunction  with 
many  other  events  to  us  unl;novvn,and  consequently  all 
of  them,  however  far  removed  from  one  another  as  to 
the  time  of  their  actual  existence,  were  comprehended 
in  that  one  decree  by  which  he  determined  to  produce 
the  world. "(6) 

Now  some  things  in  this  statement  may  be  granted  ; 
as  for  instance,  that  when  the  choice,  speaking  alter  the 
manner  of  men,  was  between  creating  the  world  and 
not  creating  it,  it  appeared  filter  to  God  to  create  than 
not  to  create;  and  that  all  actual  events  were  foreseen, 
and  will  take  place,  so  far  as  they  are  future,  as  they 
are  foreseen  ;  but  where  is  the  connexion  between  these 
points  and  that  absolute  decree  which  in  this  passage 
is  taken  for  either  the  same  thing  as  foreseeing,  or  as 
necessarily  involved  in  it  ?  "  The  Divine  decree,"  says 
Dr.  Hill,  "  is  the  determination  of  the  Divine  will  to 
produce  the  universe,  that  is,  iheu-kole series  of  bein'gs 
and  KVENTs  that  were  then  future."  If  so,  it  follows, 
that  it  was  the  Divine  will  to  produce  the  fall  of  man 
as  well  as  his  creation ;  the  offences  which  made  re- 
demption necessary,  as  the  redemption  itself:  to  pro- 
duce the  destruction  of  human  beings,  and  their  vices 
which  are  the  means  of  that  destruction ;  the  salvation 
of  another  part  of  the  race,  and  their  faith  and  obedi- 
ence, as  the  means  of  that  salvation  : — for  by  "one  de- 
cree, embracing  at  once  tlie  end  and  tke  means,  he  or- 
dained, with  perfect  wisdom,  all  that  was  to  be."  This 
is  in  the  true  character  of  the  Calvinistic  theologj' ;  it 
dogmatises  with  absolute  confidence  on  some  meta- 
physical assumption,  and  forgets  for  the  time,  that  any 
such  book  as  the  Bibie,  a  revelation  of  Gor>,  by  God 
himself,  exists  in  the  world.  If  the  determination  of 
the  Divine  will,  whh  respect  to  the  creation  of  man, 
were  the  same  kind  of  determination  as  that  which  re- 
spected his  fall,  how  then  are  we  to  account  for  the 
means  taken  by  God  to  prevent  the  fall,  wliich  were  no 
less  than  the  communication  of  an  upright  and  perfect 
nature  to  man,  from  which  his  ability  to  stand  in  his 
uprightness  arose,  and  the  threatening  of  the  greatest 
calamity,  death,  in  order  to  deter  him  from  the  act  of 
offence  ?  How,  in  that  case,  are  we  to  account  for  the 
declarations  of  God's  hatrei*  to  sin,  and  for  his  own  ex- 
press declaration  that  "  he  ivilleth  not  the  death  of  him 
that  dieth!"  How,  for  the  obstructions  he  has  placed 
m  the  way  of  transgression,  which  would  be  obMruc- 
tions  to  his  own  determinations,  if  they  can  be  allowed 
to  be  obstructions  at  all !  How,  for  the  intercession  of 
Christ  ?  How,  for  his  tears  shed  over  Jerusalem  ?  Fi- 
nally, how,  for  the  declaration  that  "  he  willeth  all  men 
to  be  saved,"  and  for  his  invitations  to  all,  and  the  pro- 
mises made  to  all  ?  Here  the  discrepancies  between 
the  metaphysical  scheme  and  the  written  word  are  most 
strongly  marked ;  are  so  totally  irreconcilable  to  each 
other,  as  to  leave  us  to  choose  between  the  specula- 
tions of  man,  as  to  the  operations  of  the  Divine  mind, 
and  the  declared  will  of  God  himself  The  fact  is,  that 
Scripture  can  only  be  interpreted  by  denying  that  the 
determination  of  the  Divine  will  is,  as  to  "  heiytgs  and 
events,^'  the  same  kind  of  determination ;  and  we  are 
necessarily  brought  back  again  to  the  only  distinction 
which  is  compatible  with  the  written  word,  a  determi- 
nation in  God  to  do,  and  a  determination  to  i)ermit. 
For  if  we  admit  that  the  decree  to  eflect  or  produce  is 
absolute,  both  "  as  to  the  end  and  means,"  then,  beside 
the  consequences  which  follow  as  above  stated,  and 


A  a 


(6)  Hill's  Lee.  vol.  iii.  p.  38. 


which  so  directly  contradict  the  testimony  of  God  him- 
self, another  equally  revolting  also  arises,  namely,  Ihat 
as  the  end  decreed  is,  as  we  are  told,  most  glorious  to 
God,  so  the  means,  being  controlled  and  chrected  to  that 
end,  are  necessarily  and  directly  connected  with  the 
glorification  of  God ;  and  so  men  glorify  (;od  by  their 
vices,  because  by  them  they  tulfd  his  will,  and  work  out 
his  designs  according  to  tlie  appointment  of  his  "  wis- 
dom." That  this  has  been  boldly  contended  for  by 
leading  Calvinistic  divines  in  former  times,  and  by 
some,  though  of  a  lower  class,  in  the  present  day,  ia 
well  known;  and  that  they  are  consistent  in  their  de- 
ductions from  the  above  premises,  is  so  obvious,  that  it 
is  matter  of  surprise,  that  those  Calvinists  who  are 
shocked  at  this  conclusion  should  not  either  suspect 
the  principles  from  which  it  so  certainly  flows,  or  that, 
admitting  the  doctrine,  they  should  shun  the  expUcit 
avowal  of  the  inevitablfe  consequence. 

The  sophistry  of  the  above  statement  of  the  Calvin- 
istic view  of  prescience  and  the  decrees,  as  given  by 
Dr.  IIill,  lies  in  this,  that  the  determination  of  the  Di- 
vine will  to  produce  the  universe  is  made  to  include  a 
determination  as  absolute,  '■  to  produce  the  whole  series 
of  beings  and  events  tliat  were  then  future ;"  and  in 
assuming  that  tliis  is  involved  in  a  perfect  prescience 
of  things,  as  actually  to  exist  and  take  place.  But 
among  the  "ekinos"  to  be  produced,  were  not  only 
beings  bound  by  their  instincts,  and  by  circumstances 
which  they  could  not  control,  to  act  in  some  given 
manner ;  but  also  beings  endowed  with  such  freedom 
that  they  might  act  in  different  and  opposite  ways,  as 
their  own  will  might  determine.  Either  this  must  be 
allowed  or  denied.  If  it  is  denied,  then  man  is  not  a 
free  agent,  and,  therefore,  not  accountable  for  his  per- 
sonal otfences,  if  offences  those  acts  can  be  called,  to 
the  doing  of  which  there  "  is  a  determination  of  the 
Divine  will,"  of  the  same  nature  as  to  the  "  producing 
of  the  universe"  itself  This,  however,  is  so  de- 
structive of  the  nature  of  virtue  and  vice ;  it  so  en- 
tirely subverts  the  moral  government  of  God  by  merg- 
ing it  into  his  natural  government ;  and  it  so  mani- 
festly contradicts  the  word  of  God,  which,  from  the 
beginning  to  the  end,  supposes  a  power  bestowed  on 
man  to  avoid  sin,  and  on  this  establishes  his  accounta- 
bleness  ;  that,  with  all  these  fatal  consequences  hang- 
ing upon  it,  we  may  leave  this  notion  to  its  own  fate. 
But  if  any  such  freedom  be  allowed  to  man  (either  ac- 
tually enjoyed  or  placed  within  his  reach  by  the  use  of 
means  which  are  within  his  power),  that  he  may  both 
will  and  act  differently,  in  any  given  case,  from  his 
ultimate  volitions  and  the  acts  resulting  therefrom,  then 
cannot  that  which  he  actually  does,  as  a  free  agent,  say 
some  sinful  act,  have  been  "  determined"  in  the  same 
manner  by  the  Divine  will,  as  the  "  production"  of  the 
universe  and  the  "  beings"  which  compose  it.  For  if 
man  is  a  being  free  to  sin  or  not  to  sin ;  and  it  was  the 
"  determination  of  the  Divine  will"  to  produce  such  a 
being ;  it  was  his  determination  to  give  him  tliis 
liberty  of  not  doing  that  which  actually  he  does ;  which 
is  wholly  contrary  to  a  determination  that  he  should 
act  in  one  given  manner,  and  in  that  alone.  For  here, 
on  the  one  hand,  it  is  alleged  that  the  Divine  will  abso- 
lutely determines  to  produce  certain  "  evoits,^^  and  yet 
on  the  other  it  is  plain  that  he  absolutely  determined  to 
produce  "  beings"  who  should,  by  his  will  and  conse- 
quent endowment,  have  in  themselves  the  power  to 
produce  contrary  events;  propositions  which  mani- 
festly fight  with  each  other,  and  cannot  both  be  true. 
We  must  either,  then,  give  up  man's  free  agency  and 
true  accountability,  or  this  absolute  dctermiiiation  of 
events.  The  former  cannot  be  renounced  wiihout  in- 
volving the  consequences  above  stated ;  and  the  aban- 
doning of  the  latter,  brings  us  to  the  only  conclusion 
which  agrees  with  the  word  of  God, — that  the  acts  of 
free  agents  are  not  determined,  but  foreseen  and  per- 
mitted ;  and  are  thus  taken  up,  not  as  the  acts  of  God, 
but  as  the  acts  of  men,  nUo  the  Divine  government. 
"  Ye  devised  evil  against  me,"  says  Joseph  to  his  bre- 
thren, "but  God  meant  it  for  good."  Thus  the  prin- 
ciple which  vitiates  Dr.  Hill's  statement  is  detected. 
Grotius  has  much  better  observed,  "  \Mien  we  say  that 
God  is  the  cause  of  all  things,  we  mean  of  all  such 
things  as  have  a  real  existence ;  wluch  is  no  rea.son 
why  those  things  themselves  should  not  be  the  cause 
of  some  accidents,  such  as  actions  are.  God  created 
men,  and  some  other  intelligeiicessuperior  to  man,  with 
a  liberty  of  acting ;  which  liberty  of  acting  is  not  in 


370 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


itself  ovil ;  but  may  be  tlie  rausc  of  somothinj;  that  is 
ovU  ;  uml  to  iiiakd  CJon  the  author  of  evils  of  this  kind, 
wliicli  are  ealleil  moral  evils,  is  the  liit;hi.'St  wicked- 
ness.(") 

Perhaps  the  notions  which  Calvinists  form  as  to  the 
wUl  may  be  regarded  as  a  consequence  of  thcjiredcKti- 
nariaii  branch  of  llieir  system ;  but  whetlier  ihcy  arc 
amon^  the  metaphysical  sources  of  their  error,  or  con- 
seiiueiits  upon  it,  tliey  may  here  have  a  brief  notice. 

U'  the  doctrine  just  refuted  were  allowed,  namely, 
that  all  events  are  produced  by  the  deUrniiiiaiion  of 
llii:  Divine  will ;  and  that  the  end  and  means  are  bound 
up  in  "one  decree;"  the  predestinarian  had  sai^acity 
eiioii;;h  to  discern  that  the  VdUliniis  as  well  as  the  acts 
111  men  must  be  jilaced  equally  under  bondage,  to  make 
tlu^  scheme  consistent;  and  that,  whenever  any  moral 
uclion  is  the  tnul  jiroiinsecl,  the  choice  of  the  will,  as 
till,'  7/uiuLs  to  that  end,  mu.-.i  come  under  the  same  ap- 
poinuiient  and  dulermhiatiuii.  It  is,  indeed,  not  denied, 
thai  crialures  may  lose  the  power  to  will  that  which  is 
mcirally  good.  Such  is  the  state  of  devils,  and  such 
Avcmld  have  been  the  state  of  man,  had  he  been  left 
wholly  to  the  cou.sccjuences  of  the  fall.  The  inability 
is,  however,  not  a  natural,  but  a  moral  one ;  for  voli- 
tion, as  a  power  of  the  mind,  is  not  destroyed,  but 
brought  so  conijiletely  under  the  dominion  of  a  corrujit 
nature,  as  not  to  be  morully  capable  of  choosing  any 
thing  but  evil.  If  man  is  not  in  tliis  condition,  it  is 
owing,  not  to  the  remains  oporigiiial  goodness,  as  some 
supi)o.se,  but  to  that  "  grace  of  God"  which  is  the  result 
of  the  "  free  gill"  bestowed  upon  all  men  ;  but  that  the 
jKHver  lo  choose  that  which  is  good,  in  some  respects, 
and  as  a  (irst  stej)  to  the  entire  and  exclusive  choice  of 
good  in  the  highest  degree,  is  in  man's  possession,  must 
be  certainly  concludeil  from  the  calls  so  otlen  made  upon 
him  in  the  word  of  G'ou  to  change  his  conduct,  and,  in 
order  to  this,  his  will.  "  Hear,  ye  deaf,  and  see,  ye 
blind,"  is  the  c.vhorlation  of  a  prophet,  which,  while  it 
charges  both  spiritual  deafness  and  blindness  upon  the 
Jews,  supposes  a  power  existing  in  them,  both  of 
opening  the  eyes,  and  uii.stopiiing  the  ears.  Such  arc 
all  tJicexhonalions  lo  rcpciilaaciand  faith  addressed  to 
simuT.s,  ami  the  llireatciiinLis  coiisiiiiiienl  ujion  (•ontinued 
iiiij)riiilence  and  unbi'Uef;  which  eimally  siiiqiose  a 
jiiiwer  uf  considering,  willing,  and  acluig,  m  all  (liings 
adeiiiiate  to  the  comnieiH,"ement  of  a  religious  cour.se. 
From  whatever  source  it  may  be  derived,  and  no  other 
can  be  assigned  to  it  consistently  with  the  Hcriplnres 
than  the  grace  of  God,  this  power  must  be  exiicneiiced 
to  the  full  extent  of  the  call  and  the  obligation  to  these 
duties.  A  power  of  choosing  only  to  do  evil,  and  of 
remaining  impenitent,  cannot  be  reconciled  to  such  ex- 
hortations. This  woulil  but  be  a  mockery  of  men,  and 
a  mere  show  of  equitable  government  on  the  )iart  of 
God,  without  any  thing  correspondent  to  this  appear- 
ance of  equity  in  point  of  fact.  The  Calviiii.«tic  doc- 
trine, howeviir,  takes  another  course.  As  the  sin  and 
the  destruction  of  the  rei)robate  is  determined  by  the 
decree,  and  Iheir  will  is  cither  lell  to  its  natural  prone- 
iiesslo  the  choice  of  evil,  or  is,  by  coaciioii,  iinpilli'd  (o 
it;  so  the  salvation  of  the  elect  beingabsuluti  ly  (Inrccd, 
the  will,  at  the  appointed  time,  comes  uiidir  an  irresist- 
ible impulse  which  carries  it  tdilir.liui.r  oi  gooil.  Nor 
is  this  only  an  occasional  iiiilin  nr,  ,  lr:i\  mi;  men  aller- 
ward,  or  liy  intervals,  to  IK-cilnm  of  <  lioiee,  which 
might  bi^  allowc'il ;  but,  in  all  cases,  and  at  all  times, 
the  will,  when  directed  to  good,  moves  only  under  the 
unfrustralile  impulse.s  of  grace.  That  man,  therefore, 
has  no  choice,  or  at  least  no  alleniative  in  either  case, 
is  the  iloctrineassiniied  ;  and  no  other  view  can  be  con- 
sisleiilly  ta1<eii  by  those  who  admit  the  scheme  of  abso- 
liile  predestination.  Tonne  class  of  objects  is  the  will 
determined:  no  other  being,  in  citlii;r  casir,  po.ssibic ; 
and  Ihus  one  course  of  action,  fullilllng  the  decree  of 
God,  is  the  only  imssiblc  result,  or  the  decree  would  not 
be  absolute,  and  flxed. 

Some  (;alvinists  have  adopted  all  the  consequences 
winch  Ibllow  this  view  of  the  subject.  They  ascribe 
tile  aciloiis  and  volitions  of  man  to  God,  and  regard 
sinful  men  as  impi'lled  toaiiecessily  of  sinning,  in  order 
to  the  inllictioii  of  that  punishment  which  they  think 
will  glorify  the  sovereign  wrath  of  him  who  made  "  the 
wickird"  hiicntiDiL'ilhi  "  for  the  day  of  evil."  Knough 
has  been  said  in  refutation  of  this  gross  and  blaspho 
inous  opinion,  which,  though  it  inevitably  follows  from 


(7)  Trulh  of  tho  Christian  Religion,  s.  8. 


absolute  predestination,  the  more  modest  writerij  of  the 
same  school  have  endeavoured  to  hide  under  various 
guises,  or  to  reconcile  lo  some  show  of  justice  by  vari- 
ous subtleties. 

It  has,  for  instance,  been  contended,  that  as,  in  tho 
case  of  transgressors,  the  evil  acts  done  by  them  are 
the  choice  of  llieir  corruiit  will,  they  arc,  therelbre, 
done  villiiiaifi ;  and  that  (hey  are  in  consequence  pu- 
nishalile,  alUioiiuh  llieir  will  could  not  but  choose  them. 
This  may  be  allowed  to  be  true  in  the  case  of  devils,  sup- 
posing (iiiin  at  liisl  to  have  voluntarily  corrupted  an 
innoreiil  nature  endowed  with  the  power  of  mamlain- 
iiig  its  innocence,  and  that  they  were  under  no  absolute 
decree  determining  them  to  this  offence.  For,  though 
now  their  will  is  so  much  under  the  control  of  their 
bad  passions,  and  is  in  it.self  so  vicious,  that  it  has  no 
disposition  at  all  to  good,  and  from  their  nature,  re- 
maining in  its  present  state,  can  have  no  such  ten- 
dency ;  yet  the  original  act,  or  scries  of  acts,  by  which 
this  state  of  their  will  and  alfections  was  induced, 
being  their  own,  and  the  result  of  a  dehberate  choice 
between  moral  good  and  evil,  both  being  in  their  own 
power,  they  are  justly  held  to  be  culpable  for  all  that 
Ibllows,  having  had,  originally,  the  power  to,  avoid 
both  the  first  sin  and  all  others  conseqnent  upon 
it.  The  same  may  be  said  of  sinful  men,  who  have 
formed  in  themselves,  by  repeated  acts  of  evil,  at 
first  easily  avoided,  various  habits  to  which  the  will 
op[)oses  a  decreasing  resistance  in  proportion  as  tluy 
acijuire  strength.  Such  persons,  too,  as  are  spoken  of 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  tliose  whom  "  it  is  im- 
possible to  renew  unto  repentance,"  may  be  regarded 
as  approaching  very  nearly  to  the  state  of  apostate 
s])irits,  and  biding  lelt  without  any  of  the  aids  of  that 
Holy  Spirit  whom  they  have  "  quenched,"  caoDOt  be 
supposed  capable  of  willing  good.  Yet  are  they  them- 
selves justly  chargeable  with  this  state  of  their  wills, 
and  all  the  evils  resulting  from  it.  Uut  the  case  of 
devils  is  widely  difleront  to  that  of  men  who,  by  their 
hereditary  corrujition,  and  the  fall  of  human  nature,  to 
which  they  were  not  consenting  parties,  cdiiic  into  the 
world  with  this  infirm  and,  indeed,  inrversr  state  of 
the  will,  as  to  all  good.  It  is  not  tlair  personal  fault 
that  they  are  born  with  a  will  aver.se  fnnii  good;  and 
it  cannot  be  their  personal  fault  that  they  continue 
thus  inclined  only  (o  evil  if  no  assistance  has  been 
alliirded,  no  gracious  intluence  imjiarted,  to  counleract 
Ibis  limit  of  nature,  and  lo  set  the  will  .so  far  free,  that 
it  can  clioosi'  cillicr  the  guod  nigc;d  upon  it  by  the  au- 
thority and  I'xcitnig  niouves  ofilietiospel  or,  "making 
light"  of  that,  to  yield  itself,  in  opixi.silion  to  conviction, 
to  the  evil  to  which  it  is  by  nature  prone.  It  is  not 
denied,  that  the  will,  in  its  purely  natural  state,  and 
ind(|iciidoiil  of  all  grace  communicated  to  man  through 
Clirlsl,  can  incline  only  to  evil;  but  the  question  is, 
whether  it  is  so  left ;  and  whether,  if  this  be  coiitciid«;d 
for,  the  circumstance  of  a  sinful  ait  biiiig  the  act  of  a 
will  not  able  to  determine  ollierwise,  from  whatever 
cause  ihat  may  arise,  whelher  fnini  the  iiilhunce  of 
circiiiiislaiues  or  fnini  cuacuon,  or  lidin  its  own  iiivin- 
ciMe  depravity,  renilrrs  him  pniiisliaule  who  never  had 
Iheni'-ausol  prevent iiig  bis  will  from  lapsing  into  this 
disiascd  and  vilialcd  slal!^;  who  was  born  with  thin 
moral  disease  ;  and  who,  by  an  ab.solute  decree,  has 
been  excUidi'd  from  all  share  in  the  remedy  .'  This  is 
the  only  shnplc  and  correct  way  of  viewing  I  he  subject ; 
and  it  is  quite  independent  of  all  melaphysical  hypo- 
theses as  to  tho  will.  The  argument  is,  that  an  act 
which  has  tlu!  consent  of  the  will  is  iiunishable,  al- 
though tho  will  can  only  choose  evil :  we  reply,  that 
this  is  only  true  where  the  time  of  trial  is  past,  as  in 
devils  and  apostates;  and  tlum  only,  because  these  are 
piTsiinally  guilty  ol  having  so  vitiated  their  wills  as  to 
rtiidrr  Uiem  incapable  of  good.  Hut  the  ease  of  men 
who  have  fallen  by  the  fault  of  another,  and  who  are 
still  in  a  state  of  trial,  is  one  totally  dilltTent.  The 
senteiK-e  is  passed  upon  devils,  and  it  is  as  good  as 
passed  upon  such  ajiostatcs  as  tile  aposlle  describes  In 
the  llpistle  to  ilie  Hebrews;  but  the  ma.ss  of  mankind 
are  still  probationers,  and  are  appointed  to  be  judged 
according  to  Iheir  works,  whether  good  or  evil.  We 
deny,  then,  first,  Ihat  they  are,  in  any  case,  left  with- 
out the  power  of  willing  good  ;  and  we  deny  it  on  the 
authority  of  Scrijiturc.  For,  in  no  sense,  can  "  life  and 
d(  ath  be  SI  t  before  us,"  in  order  that  we  may  "choose 
life,"  if  man  is  wholly  derelict  by  the  grace  of  God,  and 
if  he  remams  under  his  natural,  and,  but  for  the  grace 


Chap.  XXVIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


371 


of  God  given  to  all  mankind,  his  invincible  inclination 
to  evil.  For  if  this  be  the  natural  state  of  mankiml, 
and  if  to  a  part  of  them  that  remedial  grace  is  denied, 
then  is  not  "  life"  set  before  them  as  an  object  of 
"  choice ;"  and  if  to  another  part  that  grace  is  so  sivcn, 
tliat  it  irresistibly  and  constantly  works  so  as  to  com- 
jii'l  the  will  (o  choose  predetermined  and  absolutely 
appointed  acts,  no  "  dmt.K^  is  set  before  them  as  an 
object  of  choice.  If,  therefore,  accordnig  to  the  Scrip- 
tures, both  life  and  death  are  set  before  men,  then  have 
they  power  to  choose  or  refuse  either,  which  is  conclu- 
sive, on  the  one  hand,  against  the  doctrine  of  the  total 
dereliction  of  the  reprobate,  and  on  the  other  against 
the  unfrustrable  operation  of  grace  upon  the  elect.  So, 
also,  when  our  Lord  says,  "1  would  have  gathered 
you  as  a  hen  gathereth  her  chickens  under  her  wings, 
and  YK  woiiLD  not,"  the  notion  that  men  who  finally 
perish  have  no  power  of  willing  that  which  is  good,  is 
totally  disproved.  The  blame  is  manifestly,  and  be- 
yond all  the  arts  of  cavilling  criticism,  laid  upon  their 

not  WILLING  IN  A  CONTRARY  MANNER,  Whlch  WOUid  be 

false  upon  the  Calvinistio  hypothesis.  "  I  would  not, 
and  ye  could  not,"  ought,  in  that  case,  to  have  been 
the  reading ;  since  they  are  bound  to  one  determination 
only,  either  by  the  e.xternal  or  internal  influence  of  an- 
other, or  by  a  natural  and  hivoluntary  disease  of  the 
will,  for  which  no  remedy  was  ever  provided. 

Thus  it  is  decided  by  the  word  of  God  itself,  tliat 
men  who  perish  might  have  "  chosen  life."  It  is  con- 
firmed, also,  by  natural  reason ;  for  it  is  most  egre- 
giously  to  trifle  with  the  common  sense  of  mankind  to 
call  that  a  righteous  procedure  in  God  wliic.h  would  by 
all  men  be  condemned  as  a  monstrous  act  of  tyranny 
and  oppression  in  a  human  judge,  namely,  to  punish 
ca!)itally,  as  lor  a  personal  oflTence,  those  who  never 
coidd  will  or  act  otherwise,  being  impelled  by  an  in- 
vincible and  incurable  natural  impulse  over  v,'hich 
they  never  had  any  control.  Nor  is  the  case  at  all 
amended  by  the  quibble  that  they  act  willingly,  that  is, 
with  consent  of  the  will ;  for  since  the  will  is  under  a 
natural  and  irre.sistible  power  to  incline  only  one  way, 
obedience  is  full  as  much  out  of  their  power  by  this 
state  of  the  will,  which  they  did  not  bring  upon  them- 
selves, as  if  they  were  restrained  from  all  obedience 
to  the  law  of  God  by  an  external  and  irresistible  im- 
pulse always  acting  upon  them. 

The  case  thus  kept  upon  the  basis  of  plain  Scripture, 
and  the  natural  reason  of  mankind,  stands,  as  we  have 
said,  clear  of  all  metaphysical  subtleties,  and  cannot  be 
subjected  to  their  determination  ;  but  as  attempts  have 
been  made  to  establish  the  doctrine  of  necessity  from 
the  actual  phenomena  of  the  human  will,  we  may 
glance,  also,  at  this  philosophic  attempt  to  give  plausi- 
bility to  the  predestiiiarian  hypothesis. 

The  philosophic  doctrine  is,  that  the  will  is  swayed 
by  motives ;  that  motives  arise  from  circumstances ; 
that  circumstances  are  ordered  by  a  power  above  us, 
and  beyond  our  control ;  and  that,  therefore,  our  voli- 
tions necessarily  follow  an  order  and  chain  of  events 
appointed  and  decreed  by  infinite  wisdom.  President 
Kdwards,  in  his  well  known  work  on  the  will,  applied 
this  philosophy  in  aid  of  Calvinism ;  and  has  been 
largely  followed  by  the  divines  of  that  school.  But 
who  does  not  see  that  this  attempt  to  find  a  refuge  in 
the  doctrine  of  philosophical  necessity  affords  no  shel- 
t(^r  to  the  Calviinan  system,  when  pressed  either  by 
Scripture  or  by  arguments  founded  upon  the  acknow- 
ledged principles  of  justice  ?  For  what  matters  it, 
whether  the  will  is  obliged  to  one  class  of  volitions  by 
the  immediate  influence  of  God,  or  by  the  denial  of  his 
remedial  influence,  the  doctrine  of  the  elder  Calvinists ; 
or  that  it  is  obliged  to  a  certain  class  of  volitions  by 
motives  which  are  irresistible  in  their  operation,  which 
result  from  an  arrangement  of  circumstances  ordered 
by  God,  and  wliich  we  cannot  control  ?  Take  which 
theory  you  please  you  are  involved  in  the  same  diffi- 
culties ;  for  the  residt  is,  that  men  can  neither  will  nor 
act  otherwise  than  they  do,  being,  in  one  case,  inevita- 
bly disabled  by  an  act  of  God,  and  in  the  other  bound 
by  a  chain  of  events  established  by  an  Almighty  power. 
The  advocates  for  this  philosophic. theory  of  the  will 
must  be  content  to  take  this  conclusion,  therefore,  and 
reconcile  it  as  they  can  with  the  Scriptures ;  but  they 
have  the  same  (ask  as  their  elder  brethren  of  the  same 
faith,  and  have  made  it  no  easier  by  their  philo- 
eoiihy. 

It  Is  in  vain,  too,  that  they  refer  us  to  our  own  con- 
Aa2 


sciousness  in  proof  of  this  theory-.  Nothing  is  more 
directly  contradicted  by  what  passes  in  evory  man's 
mind;  and  if  we  may  take  the  terms  human  language 
has  used  on  these  subjects,  as  an  indication  of  the 
general  feelings  of  mankind  it  is  contradicted  by  the 
experience  of  all  ages  and  countries.  For  if  the  will  is 
thus  absolutely  dependent  upon  motives,  and  motives 
arise  out  of  uncontrollable  circumstances,  for  men  to 
praise  or  to  blame  each  other  is  a  manifest  absurdity; 
and  yet  all  languages  abound  in  such  terms.  So,  also, 
there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  conscience,  which,  upon 
this  scheme,  is  a  popular  delusion  which  a  better  phi- 
losophy might  have  dispelled.  For  why  do  I  blame  or 
commend  myself  in  my  inward  thoughts,  any  more 
than  I  censure  or  praise  others,  if  I  am,  as  to  my 
choice,  but  the  passive  creature  of  motives  and  prede- 
termined circumstances  1 

Hut  the  sophistry  is  easily  detected.  The  notion  in- 
culcated is,  that  motives  influence  the  will  just  as  an 
additional  weight  thrown  into  an  even  scale  poises  it 
and  inclines  the  beam.  This  is  the  favourite  metaphor 
of  the  necessitarians  ;  yet,  to  make  the  comparison 
good,  they  ought  to  have  first  proved  the  will  to  be  as 
passive  as  the  balance,  or,  in  other  words,  they  should 
have  annihilated  the  distinction  between  mind  and 
matter.  But  this  necessary  connexion  between  motive 
and  volition  may  be  denied.  For  what  are  motives,  as 
rightly  understood  here?  Not  physical  causes,  as  a 
weight  thrown  into  a  scale;  but  reasons  of  choice, 
views  and  conceptions  of  things  in  the  mind,  which 
themselves  do  not  work  the  will  as  a  machine,  but  in 
consideration  of  which,  the  mind  itself  wills  and  de- 
termines. But  if  the  mind  itself  were  obliged  to  deter- 
mine by  the  strongest  motive,  as  the  beam  is  to  incline 
by  the  heaviest  weight,  it  would  be  obliged  to  deter- 
mine always  by  the  best  reason  ;  for  motive  being  but 
a  reason  of  action  considered  in  the  mind,  then  the  best 
reason,  being  in  the  nature  of  things  the  strongest, 
must  always  predominate.  But  this  is,  plainly,  con- 
trary to  fact  and  experience.  If  it  were  not,  all  men 
would  act  reasonably,  and  none  fboiislily ;  or,  at  least, 
there  would  be  no  faults  among  them  but  those  of  the  . 
understanding,  none  of  the  heart  and  affections.  The 
weakest  reason,  however,  too  generally  succeeds  when 
appetite  and  corrupt  affection  are  present;  that  is  to 
say,  the  weakest  motive.  For  if  this  be  not  allowed, 
we  must  say,  that  under  the  influence  of  appetite  the 
weakest  reason  always  appears  the  strongest,  which 
is  also  false,  in  fact ;  for  then  there  would  be  no  sins 
committed  against  judgment  and  conviction,  and  that 
many  of  our  sins  are  of  this  description,  our  consciences 
painfully  convict  us.  That  the  mind  wills  and  acts 
generally  under  the  influence  of  motives,  may,  there- 
fore, be  granted;  but  that  it  is  passive,  and  ojierated 
upon  by  them  necessarily,  is  disproved  by  the  fact  of 
our  of^en  acting  under  the  weakest  reason  or  motive, 
which  is  the  character  of  all  sins  against  our  judg- 
ment. 

But  were  we  even  to  admit  that  present  reasons  or 
motives  operate  irresistibly  upon  the  will,  the  neces- 
sary connexion  between  motive  and  volition  would  not 
be  established ;  unless  it  could  be  proved  that  we  have 
no  power  to  displace  one  motive  by  another,  nor  to  con- 
trol those  circumstances  from  which  motives  flow. 
Yet,  who  will  say  that  a  person  may  not  shun  evil 
company  and  fly  from  many  temptations  ?  Either  this 
must  be  allowed,  or  else  it  must  be  a  hnk  in  the  neces- 
sary chain  of  events  fixed  by  a  superior  power,  that  we 
should  seek  and  not  fly  evil  company  ;  and  so  the  ex- 
hortations "when  sinners  entice  thee  consent  thou  not," 
and  "  go  not  into  the  way  of  sinners,"  are  very  imper- 
tinent, mid  only  prove  that  Solomon  was  no  philoso- 
pher. But  we  are  all  conscious  that  we  have  the 
power  to  alter,  and  control,  and  avoid,  the  force  of  mo- 
tives. If  not,  why  does  a  man  resist  the  same  tempta- 
tion at  one  time  and  yield  to  it  at  another,  without  any 
visible  change  of  the  circumstances  ?  He  can  also  both 
change  his  circumstances  by  shunning  evil  company  ; 
and  fly  the  occasions  of  temptation  ;  and  control  that 
motive  at  one  time  to  which  he  yields  at  another,  under 
similar  circumstances.  Nay,  he  sometimes  rcsi.sts  a 
powerful  tcmiitation,  which  is  the  same  thing  as  re- 
sist iiig  a  iiiiwcrfulii  ml  ive,  and  yields  at  aiiothc'r  to  afeeble 
one,  and  is  cciiisiinus  that  he  does  so :  a  suflicicni  proof 
that  there  is  an  irregularity  and  corruptness  in  the  self- 
delermiumg  active  power  of  the  mitid,  independent  of 
motive.      Still  farther,  the  motive  or  reason  for  an 


372 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


action  may  be  a  bad  one,  auj  yet  be  prevalent  for  want 
of  the  presunee  of" a  better  reason  or  motive  to  lead  to  a 
contrary  eUoice  and  act ;  but  in  how  many  instances 
is  this  the  true  clause  why  a  better  reason  or  .stron;;or 
motive,  is  not  present,  that  we  have  lived  thoughtless 
and  viiin  lives,  little  cousidering  the  jrood  or  evil  of 
things?  And  if  so,  then  the  thoughtless  might  have 
been  more  thoughtful,  and  the  ignorant  nnght  have 
acquired  better  knowledge,  and  thereby  have  |)laced 
themselves  under  the  inrluence  of  stronger  and  better 
motives.  Thus  this  theory  does  not  accord  with  the 
facts  of  our  own  consciousness,  but  contndictis  them. 
It  is,  also,  refuted  by  every  part  of  the  moral  history  of 
man  ;  and  it  may  be,  therelbre,  concluded  that  those 
speculations  on  the  human  will,  to  wliich  the  prodesti- 
narian  theory  has  driven  its  advocates,  are  equally  op- 
posed to  the  words  of  Scripture,  to  the  pliilosophy  of 
mind,  to  our  observation  of  what  passes  in  others,  and 
to  our  own  convictions. 

Our  moral  liberty  manifestly  consists  in  the  united 
power  of  tliiiiking  ami  reasoning,  and  of  choosing  and 
acting  upon  such  thinking  and  reasoning  ;  so  that  the 
clearer  our  thought  and  conception  is  of  what  is  fit  and 
right,  and  the  more  constantly  our  choice  is  determined 
by  it,  the  more  nearly  we  rise  to  the  liighest  acts  and 
exercises  of  this  liberty.  The  best  beings  have,  there- 
fore, the  highest  degree  of  moral  liberty,  since  no  mo- 
tive to  will  or  act  wrong  is  any  thing  else  but  a  viola- 
tion of  this  established  and  original  connexion  between 
right  reason,  choice,  ami  conduct ;  and  if  any  necessity 
bind  the  irrational  inolive  upon  the  will,  it  is  either  the 
result  of  bad  voluntary  habil,  for  which  we  are  account- 
able ;  or  necessity  of  nature  and  circumstances,  lor 
which  we  are  not  accountable.  In  the  Ibrmer  case,  the 
actually  intluencing  motive  is  evitable,  and  the  theory 
of  the  necessitarians  is  disproved :  in  the  latter,  it  is 
confirmed ;  but  then  man  is  neither  responsible  to  his 
fellow-man  nor  to  God. 

Certain  notions  as  to  the  Divine  sovereignty  have 
also  been  resorted  to  by  (;alvinists,  in  order  to  render 
that  scheme  plausible  which  cuts  off  the  greater  part 
of  the  human  race  from  the  hojie  of  salvation,  by  tlie 
absolute  decree  of  God. 

That  the  sovereignty  of  God  is  a  scriptural  doctrine 
no  one  can  deny  ;  but  it  does  not  follow,  that  the  no- 
tions which  men  please  to  form  ol  it  should  be  received 
as  scriptural ;  for  religious  errors  consist  not  only  in 
denying  the  doctrines  of  the  word  of  God,  but  also  in 
interpreting  ihifli  fallaciously. 

The  (alviniKtic  view  of  God's  sovereignty  appears 
1,0  he,  his  doing  what  he  wills,  only  because  lie  wills  it. 
So  Galvin  Inmself  has  stated  the  case,  as  we  have 
noticed  above:  but  as  this  view  is  repugnant  to  all 
worthy  notions  of  an  infinitely  wise;  Being,  so  it  has 
no  countenance  in  Scripture.  The  doctrine  which  we 
arc  there  taught  is,  that  God's  sovereignty  consists  in 
his  doing  many  things  by  virtue  of  his  own  .supreme 
right  and  dominion,  but  that  this  right  is  under  the 
direction  of  his  "  r.nunsel'"  gr  "  wisdom."  The  bright- 
est act  of  sovereignty  is  that  of  creation,  and  one  in 
which,  if  in  any,  mere  will  might  seem  to  have  the 
.•^hief  place ;  yet,  even  in  this  act,  by  which  myriads  of 
beings  of  diverse  powers  and  capacities  were  produced, 
"wo  are  taught  that  all  was  done  in  unsdmn."  Nor 
can  it  be  said  that  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  creation 
is  uncontrolled  by  either  justice  or  goodness.  If  the 
final  cause  of  creation  had  been  the  misery  ol'  all  sen- 
tient creatures,  and  all  its  contrivances  had  tended  to 
that  end :  if,  (or  instance,  every  sight  had  been  dis- 
gusting, every  smell  a  stench,  every  sound  a  scream, 
and  every  necessary  function  of  life  had  been  performed 
with  pain,  we  must  necessarily  have  relerred  the  crea- 
tion of  such  a  world  to  a  malignant  being  ;  and,  if  we 
are  obliged  to  think  it  imjiossiMe  that  a  good  being 
could  have  emjiloyed  his  almighly  power  with  the 
direct  intention  to  inflict  misery,  wv  then  concede  that 
<iis  acts  of  sovc^reignty  are,  by  the  very  perlcction  of 
his  nature,  under  the  direction  of  his  iriiiiiliicss,  as  to 
all  creatures  potentially  existing,  or  ailually  existing 
while  still  innoi'cnt.  Nor  can  we  think  it  borne  out  by 
(Scriplnre,  or  by  the  reasonable  notions  of  mankind, 
that  thp  exercise  of  God's  sovereignty  in  the  creation 
of  things  is  exi'inpt  from  any  resjiec-t  to  justice,  a 
quality  of  tin-  Divine  nature,  wliich  is  noiliing  but  his 
essential  rectitude  in  exercise.  It  is  true,  that  as  ex- 
isience,  under  all  circumstances  in  which  to  exist  is 
betier  upon  the  whole  than  not  to  exist,  leaves  iho 


creature  no  claim  to  have  been  other^vise  than  it  is 
made ;  anil  that  God  has  a  sovereign  right  to  make  one 
being  an  archangel  and  another  an  insect,  so  that  "the 
thing  formed"  may  not  say  "  to  him  that  formed  it,  why 
hast  thou  made  me  thus  ?"  It  could  deserve  nothing 
before  creation,  its  being  not  having  commenced ;  aU 
that  it  is  and  has  (its  existent  state  being  better  than 
non-existence)  is,  therefore,  a  boon  conferred  ;  and,  in 
matters  of  grace,  no  axiom  can  be  more  clear,  than 
that  he  who  gratuitously  bestows  has  the  right  "  to  do 
what  he  will  with  his  own."  But  every  creature 
having  been  formed  without  any  consent  of  its  own,  if 
It  be  innocent  of  ofl'ence,  cither  from  the  rectitude  of  its 
nature,  or  from  a  natural  incapacity  of  ofl'ending,  as 
not  being  a  moral  agent,  appears  to  have  a  claim,  in 
natural  right,  upon  exemption  from  such  pains  and 
sulferings,  as  would  render  existence  a  worse  condi- 
tion than  never  to  have  been  called  out  of  nothing. 
For,  as  a  benevolent  being,  which  (iod  is  acknowledged 
to  be,  cannot  make  a  creature  with  such  an  intention 
and  contrivance,  that,  by  its  very  constitution,  it  must 
necessarily  be  wholly  miserable ;  and  we  see  in  this, 
that  his  sovereignty  is  regulated  by  his  goodness  as  to 
the  commencement  of  the  existence  of  sentient  crea- 
tures; so,  from  the  moment  they  begin  to  be,  the 
government  of  God  over  them  commences,  and  sove- 
reignty in  ffovenimevt  necessarily  grounds  itself  upon 
the  principles  of  equity  and  justi(-e,  and  "  the  Judge  of 
the  whole  earth"  must  and  will  "  do  right." 

This  is  the  manifest  doctrine  of  Scripture,  for,  al- 
though Almighty  God  often  gives  "  no  account  of  his 
matters,"  nor,  in  some  instances,  admits  us  to  know 
how  he  IS  both  just  and  gracious  in  his  administration, 
yet  are  we  referred  constantly  to  those  general  decla- 
rations of  his  own  word,  which  assure  us  that  he  is  so, 
that  we  may  ''  walk  by  faith,"  and  wait  for  that  period, 
when,  after  the  faith  and  patience  of  good  men  have 
been  sufiiciently  tried,  the  manifestation  of  these  facts 
shall  take  place  to  our  comfort  and  to  his  glory.  In 
many  respects,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned,  we  sec  no 
other  reason  for  his  proceedings,  than  that  he  so  wills 
to  act.  But  the  error  into  which  our  brethren  often 
fall,  is  to  conclude,  from  their  want  of  information  in 
such  cases,  that  God  acts  merely  because  he  wills  so 
to  act ;  that  because  he  gives  not  those  reasons  for  his 
conduct  which  we  have  no  right  to  demand,  that  he  acts 
without  any  reasons  at  all;  and  because  we  are  not 
admitted  to  the  secrets  of  his  council  chamber,  that 
his  government  is  perfectly  arbilrar)',  and  that  the  main 
spring  of  his  leading  dispensations  is  to  make  a  show 
of  power;  a  conclu.sion  which  irnidies  a  most  tniwor- 
thy  notion  of  God,  which  he  has  him.self  contradicted 
in  the  most  explicit  manner.  Even  his  most  myste- 
rious proceedings  are  called  "  judgments  ;"  and  he  is 
said  to  work  ail  things  "  according  to  the  cnvnscl  of 
liis  own  will,"  a  colhilion  of  words,  which  sufficiently 
show  that  not  blind  will,  but  will  subject  to  "  coun- 
sel," is  that  sovERKioN  WILL  which  governs  the  world. 

"  Whenever,  therefore,  (Jod  acts  as  a  governor,  as  a 
rewarder,  or  punisher,  he  no  longer  acts  as  a  mere  so- 
vereign by  his  own  sole  will  and  pleasure,  but  as  an 
impartial  judge,  guided  in  all  things  by  invariable  jus- 
tice. 

"  Vet  it  is  true,  that,  in  some  cases,  mercy  rejoices 
over  justice,  although  severily  never  dois.  Goil  may 
reward  more,  but  he  will  never  jiunisli  more  than  strict 
justice  requires.  It  may  be  allowed,  that  God  acts  as 
sovereign  in  convincing  some  souls  of  sin,  arresting 
them  in  tlieir  mad  career  by  his  rc-sistless  power.  It 
seems  also,  that,  at  the  moment  of  our  conversion,  he 
acts  irresistibly.  There  may  likewise  be  many  irresist- 
ible touches  in  the  course  of  our  Christian  warfare; 
but  still,  as  St.  I'aul  might  have  been  either  obedient 
or  '  disobedient  to  the  heavenly  vision,'  so  every  indi- 
vidual may,  after  all  that  <iod  has  done,  cither  improve 
his  grace,  or  make  it  of  none  effect. 

"  VVbaievrr,  therefore,  it  has  ideascd  Ocxl  to  do  of 
his  sovereign  jileasure,  as  Creator  of  lii;ivenand  earth, 
and  whatever  his  mercy  may  ilo  on  pariiciilaroccasions, 
over  and  above  what  justice  requires,  the  general  rule 
stands  firm  as  the  pillars  of  heaven.  •  The  Juilge  of 
all  the  earth  will  do  right:'  'he  will  judge  the  world 
in  righteousnoss,'  and  every  man  I  herein,  according  to 
the  strictest  justice.  He  will  punish  no  man  for  doing 
any  thing  which  he  could  not  possibly  avoid ;  neither 
for  omitting  any  thing  which  he  could  not  possibly  do. 
Every  piuiibhuient  supposes  the  oU'ender  luighl  Uavc 


Chap.  XXVIII.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


373 


avoided  tilt!  olTencc  for  which  he  18  punished,  other- 
wise to  punish  tiim  would  be  palpably  unjust,  and  in- 
consistent with  the  cliaraeter  of  God  our  f;ovcrnor."(8) 

The  ease  of  iikathkn  nations  ha.s  KonaliiHL'-i  been 
referred  to  by  Calvinists,  as  present  iiig  e(iiial  dillicul- 
ties  to  those  urged  against  their  schcniu  of  election  and 
reprobation.  Hut  the  cases  are  not  at  all  parallel,  nor 
can  tliey  bo  made  so,  unless  it  could  be  proved  that  hea- 
thens, as  such,  are  inevitably  excluded  Irom  the  king- 
dom of  heaven ;  which  is  not,  as  some  of  them  seem  to 
suppose,  a  conceded  point.  Those,  indeed,  if  there  be 
any  such,  who,  believing  in  the  universal  redemption 
of  mankind,  should  allow  this,  would  be  most  incon- 
sistent with  themselves,  and  give  up  many  of  those 
principles  on  which  they  successfully  contend  against 
the  doctrine  of  absolute  reprobation ;  but  the  argu- 
ment lies  in  small  compass,  and  is  to  be  determined  by 
the  word  of  God,  and  not  by  the  speculations  of  men. 
The  actual  state  of  pagan  nations  is  afl'ectingly  bad ; 
but  nothing  can  be  deduced  from  what  they  are  in  fact 
against  their  salvability ;  for  although  there  is  no 
ground  to  hope  for  the  salvation  of  great  nimibers  of 
them,  actual  salvation  is  one  thing,  and  possible  sal- 
vation is  another.  Nor  does  it  aftect  this  question,  if 
we  see  not  ftoiu  heathens  may  be  saved;  that  is,  by 
what  means  repentance,  and  faith,  and  righteousness, 
should  be  in  any  such  degree  wrought  in  them,  as  that 
they  shall  become  acceptable  to  God.  The  dispensa- 
tion of  religion  under  which  all  those  nations  are  to 
whom  the  Gospel  has  never  been  sent,  continues  to  be 
the  patriarchal  dispensation.  That  men  were  saved 
under  that  in  former  times  we  know,  and  at  what 
point,  if  any,  a  religion  becomes  so  far  corrupted,  and 
truth  so  far  extinct,  as  to  leave  no  means  of  salvation 
to  men,  nothing  to  call  forth  a  true  faith  in  prinr.iple, 
and  obedience  to  what  remains  known  or  knowable  of 
the  original  law,  no  one  has  the  right  to  determine, 
unless  lie  can  adduce  some  authority  from  Scripture. 
That  authority  is  certainly  not  available  to  the  conclu- 
sion, that,  in  point  of  fact,  the  means  of  salvation  are 
utterly  withdrawn  from  heathens.  We  may  say  that 
a  murderous,  adulterous,  and  idolatrous  heathen  will 
he  shut  out  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  we  must  say 
this,  on  the  express  c.vclusion  of  all  such  characters 
from  future  blessedness  by  the  word  of  God;  but  it 
would  be  little  to  the  purpose  to  say,  that,  as  far  as  we 
know,  all  of  them  are  wicked  and  idolatrous.  As  far 
as  we  know  they  may,  but  we  do  not  know  the  whole 
case ;  and,  were  these  charges  universally  true,  yet  the 
question  is  not  what  the  heathen  are,  but  what  they 
have  the  means  of  becoming.  We  indeed  know  that 
all  are  not  equally  vicious,  nay,  that  some  virtuous 
heathens  have  been  found  in  all  ages ;  and  some  earnest 
and  anxious  inquirers  after  truth,  dissatisfied  with  the 
notions  prevalent  in  their  own  countries  respectively  ; 
and  what  these  few  were,  the  rest  might  have  been 
likewise.  But  if  we  knew  no  such  instances  of  supe- 
rior virtue  and  eager  desire  of  religious  information 
among  them,  the  true  question,  "  what  degree  of  truth 
is,  after  all,  attainable  by  them  ?"  would  still  remain  a 
question  wliich  must  be  determined  not  so  much  by 
our  knowledge  of  facts  which  may  bo  very  obscure ; 
but  such  principles  and  general  declarations  as  we  find 
applicable  to  the  case  in  the  word  of  Gon. 

If  all  knowledge  of  right  and  wrong,  and  all  gracious 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  all  objects  of  faith 
have  passed  away  from  the  heathen,  through  the  fault 
of  their  ancestors  "  not  liking  to  retain  God  in  their 
knowledge ;"  and  without  the  present  race  having  been 
parties  to  this  wilful  abandonment  of  truth,  then  they 
would  appear  no  longer  to  be  accountable  creatures, 
being  neither  under  law  nor  under  ^racc  ;  but  as  wo 
find  it  a  doctrine  of  Scripture  thnt  all  men  are  respon- 
sible to  God,  and  that  the  "  whole  world"  will  be 
judged  at  the  last  day,  we  are  bound  to  admit  the  ac- 
countability of  all,  and  with  that,  the  remains  of  law 
and  the  existence  of  a  merciful  government  towards 
the  heathen  on  the  part  of  God.  With  this  the  doc- 
trine of  St.  Paul  accords.  No  one  can  take  stronger 
views  of  the  actual  danger  and  the  corrupt  state  of  the 
Gentiles  than  he ;  yet  he  allirrns  that  the  Divine  law 
had  not  perished  wholly  from  among  thorn ;  that  though 
they  had  received  no  revealed  law,  yet  they  had  a  law 
"  written  on  their  hearts;"  meaning, no  doubt,  the  tra- 
ditionary law,  the  equity  of  which  their  consciences 

(8)  WasLEv's  Works,  vol,  15,  p.  23. 


attested;  and  farther,  that  iliough  they  ha»l  not  the 
written  law,  yet,  that  "  by  nature,"  that  is,  "  without 
an  outward  rule,  though  this  also,  strictly  speaking, 
is  by  preventing  grace,"(9)  they  were  capable  of  doing 
all  the  things  contained  in  the  law.  lie  aflirms,  too, 
that  all  such  Gentiles  as  were  thus  obedient,  should  bo 
"  justified,  in  the  day  when  CJod  shall  judge  the  secrets 
of  men,  by  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  his  Gospel." 
The  ])ossibIe  obedience  and  the  possible  "  justification" 
of  lieathens  who  have  no  written  revelation  are  points, 
therelbrc,  distinctly  affirmed  by  the  ajiostle  in  his  dis- 
course in  the  second  cha])ter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans, and  the  whole  matter  of  God's  sovereignty,  as 
to  the  heathen,  is  reduced,  not  to  the  leaving  of  any 
portion  of  our  race  without  the  means  of  salvation,  and 
then  punishing  them  for  sins  which  they  have  no  means 
of  avoiding;  but  to  the  fact  of  his  having  given  supe- 
rior advantages  to  us,  and  inferior  ones  only  to  them; 
a  proceeding  which  we  see  exemplified  in  the  most  en- 
lightened of  Christian  nations  every  day,  for  neither 
every  part  of  the  same  nation  is  equally  favoured  with 
the  means  of  grace,  nor  are  all  the  families  living  in 
the  same  town  and  neighbourhood  eciually  circum- 
stanced as  to  means  of  religious  influence  and  improve- 
ment. The  principle  of  this  inequality  is,  however, 
far  different  from  that  on  which  Calvinistic  reprobation 
is  sustained  ;  since  it  involves  no  inevitable  exclusion 
of  any  individual  from  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  because 
the  general  principle  of  God's  administration  in  such 
cases  is  elsewhere  laid  down  to  be,  the  requiring  of 
much  where  much  is  given,  and  the  requiring  of  little 
where  little  is  given:-*  principle  of  the  strictest 
equity. 

An  unguarded  opinion  as  to  the  irresistibility  of 
GRACE,  and  the  passiveness  of  man  in  conversion,  has 
also  been  assumed,  and  made  to  give  an  air  of  plausi- 
bility to  the  predestinarian  scheme.  It  is  argued,  if 
our  salvation  is  of  God  and  not  of  ourselves,  then  those 
only  can  be  saved  to  whom  God  gives  the  grace  of  con- 
version ;  and  the  rest,  not  having  this  grace  alforded 
them,  are,  by  the  inscrutable  counsel  of  God,  passed  by 
and  reprobated. 

This  is  an  argument  d  postcnori ;  from  the  assumed 
passiveness  of  man  in  conversion  to  the  election  of  a 
part  only  of  mankind  to  life.  The  argument  a  priiiri 
IS  from  partial  election  to  life  to  the  doctrine  of  irresist- 
ible grace,  as  the  means  by  wliich  the  Divine  decree  is 
carried  into  effect.  The  doctrine  of  such  an  election 
has  already  been  refuted,  and  it  will  be  easy  to  show 
that  it  derives  no  support  from  the  assumption  that 
grace  must  work  irresistibly  in  man  in  order  that  the 
honour  of  our  salvation  may  be  secured  to  God,  which 
is  the  plausible  dress  in  which  the  doctrine  is  generally 
presented. 

It  is  allowed,  and  all  scriptural  advocates  of  the  uni- 
versal redemption  of  mankind  will  join  with  the  Cal- 
vinists in  maintaining  the  doctrine,  that  every  disposi- 
tion and  inclination  to  good  which  originally  existed  in 
the  nature  of  man  is  lost  by  the  fall ;  that  all  men,  isi 
their  simply  natural  state,  are  "  dead  in  trespasses  and 
sins,"  and  have  neither  the  will  nor  the  power  to  turn 
to  God ;  and  that  no  one  is  sufficient  of  lumself  to  think 
or  do  any  thing  of  a  saving  tendency.  But,  as  all 
men  are  reciuircd  to  do  those  things  which  have  a  sa- 
ving tendency,  we  contend,  that  the  grace  to  do  theiii 
has  been  bestowed  upon  all.  Equally  sacred  is  the 
doctrine  to  be  held,  that  no  person  can  repent  or  truly 
believe  except  under  the  iiilluence  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ; 
and  that  we  have  no  ground  of  boasting  in  ourselves, 
bur  that  all  the  glory  of  our  salvation,  commenced  and 
consummated,  is  to  be  given  to  God  alone,  as  the  re- 
sult of  the  freeness  and  riches  of  his  grace. 

It  will  also  be  freely  allowed,  that  the  visitations  of 
the  gracious  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  arc  vouchsafed 
in  the  first  instance,  and  in  numberless  other  subse- 
quent cases,  quite  independent  of  our  seeking  them  or 
desire  for  them  ;  and  that  when  our  thoughts  are  thus 
turned  to  serious  considerations,  and  various  exciting 
and  quickening  feelings  are  produced  within  us,  we 
are  ollen  wholly  passive ;  and  also,  that  men  are  some- 
times suddenly  and  irresistibly  awakened  to  a  sense 
of  their  guilt  and  danger  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  either 
through  the  preacliing  of  the  word  instrumentally  or 
through  other  means,  and  sninetimes  even  independ- 
ent of  any  external  means  at  all ;  and  are  thus  con- 

(9)  Wi£8LEv's  Notes,  in  loc. 


374 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  IL 


strained  to  cry  out,  "  What  must  I  do  to  be  saved  ■" 
All  this  is  coiifirined  by  plain  verity  ol'  Holy  Writ ;  and 
is,  also,  a  certain  matter  of  exi)erieni;e  as  that  the  mo- 
tions of  the  Holy  Spirit  do  often  silently  interminsle 
themselves  with  our  thoughts,  reasoniucs,  anil  ron- 
sciences,  and  breathe  thoir  milder  persiiasions  uimn 
our  aflections. 

From  these  i)remiscs  the  conclusions  which  leRiti- 
mately  How  are  in  direct  opposition  to  the  Calviiiistic 
hyiiolliesis.     'I'bey  establish, 

1.  'I'lic  jiislire  ol'flod,  in  the  condemnation  of  men, 
wliii-b  llii-ii-  doclriiie  leaves  under  a  dark  and  imjiene- 
trable  cloud.  More  or  less  ol'  these  inlluences  from  on 
high  visit  the  finally  impenitent,  so  as  to  render  their 
destruction  their  own  act  by  resisting  them.  This  is 
proved,  from  the  "  Siiiril"  having  "  strove"  with  those 
who  were  finally  ile.iUdycd  by  the  flood  of  Noah;  from 
the  case  of  the  finally  iini)enitent  Jews  and  their  ances- 
tors, who  are  cliar;ied  with  "  always  resisting  the 
Holy  Ghost ;"  from  the  case  of  the  apostates  mentioned 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  who  are  said  to  have 
done  "  despite  to  the  Spirit  of  grace ;"  and  from  the  so- 
lemn warnings  given  to  men  in  the  New  Tc^stament, 
not  to  "  grieve"  and  "  (juench"  the  Holy  Spirit.  If, 
therefore,  it  appears  that  the  destruction  of  men  is  at- 
tributed to  their  resistance  of  those  inlluences  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  which,  but  for  that  resistance,  would  have 
been  saving,  according  to  the  design  of  God  in  impart- 
ing them,  then  is  the  justiceof  God  manifested  in  their 
punishment;  and  it  follows,  also,  that  his  grace  so 
works  in  men,  as  to  be  both  SBflicieiit  to  lead  them  into 
a  state  of  salvation,  and  even"ctually  to  place  them  in 
this  state,  and  yet  so  as  to  be  capable  of  being  finally 
and  fatally  frnstrated. 

2.  The.se  premises,  also,  secure  the  glory  of  our  sal- 
vation to  the  grace  of  (iod;  but  not  by  implying  the 
Calvinistic  notion  of  the  continued  and  uiiiiUcrruptcd 
irresistibility  of  the  inlluence  of  grace,  and  the  jiassive- 
ness  of  man,  so  as  to  deprive  him  of  his  sigc.ncy  ;  but 
by  showing  that  bis  agency,  even  when  rightly  directed, 
is  ujilirlil  and  uillueiirid  by  the  superior  power  of  Gou, 
and  yet  so  as  to  he  siill  his  own.  For,  in  the  instance 
of  the  mightiest  visitation  we  can  produce  from  Scriji- 
ture,  that  of  St.  Paul,  we  see  where  the  irresistible  in- 
fluence terminated,  and  where  his  own  agency  recom- 
menced. Under  the  impulse  of  the  conviction  struck 
into  his  mind,  as  well  as  under  the  dazzling  brightness 
which  fell  upon  his  eyes,  ho  was  passive,  and  the  ef- 
fect produced  for  the  time  /iccMsari/i/ followed  ;  but  all 
the  actions  consecjuent  upon  this  were  the  results  of 
delibt •ation  and  personal  choice.  He  submits  to  be 
taught  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ ;  "  he  confers  not  with 
lleshand  blood  ;"  "lie  is  not  disobedient  to  the  heavenly 
vision  ;"  "  he  faints  not"  under  the  burdensome  minis- 
try he  had  received  ;  and  he  "  keeps  his  body  under 
subjection,  lest  after  having  jireached  to  others  he 
should  himself  become  a  castaway."  All  these  ex- 
pressions, .so  descrijitive  of  consideration  and  choice, 
Hhow  that  the  irresistible  impulse  was  not  permanent 
and  that  he  was  subsecpienlly  left  to  improve  it  or  not, 
though  under  a  powerful  but  still  a  resistible  motive 
operating  upon  him  to  remain  faithful. 

For  the  gentler  emotions  jiroduccd  by  the  Spirit 
these  are,  as  the  experience  of  all  Christians  testifies, 
the  ordinary  and  general  manner  in  which  Ihe  Holy 
Spirit  carries  on  his  work  in  man ;  and,  if  all  good  de- 
sires, resolves,  and  aspirations  are  from  him,  and  not 
frpm  our  own  nature  (and,  if  we  are  utterly  fallen, 
from  our  own  nature  they  cannot  be),  then,  if  any  man 
is  conscious  of  having  ever  checked  good  desires,  and 
of  having  opposed  his  own  coiivlciuiiis  and  better  fe(^l- 
ings.  be  has  in  liimself  abundant  imiof  of  the  resistibi- 
lity  of  grace,  and  of  the  siiiier.ihility  ol'lliose  good  incli- 
nations whirli  the  Spirit  is  plea'^erl  to  imjiart.  He  is 
equally  (■(nisriiins  of  the  powiT  of  complying  with  them, 
though  slill  ill  the  stnnigh  of  grace,  which  yet,  while  it 
works  in  him  "  to  will  and  to  do,"  neither  wills  nor 
acts /or  him,  nor  even  by  him,  as  a  jiassive  instrument. 
For  if  men  were  wholly  and  at  all  times  jiassive  under 
divine  inlluence;  not  merely  in  Ww.  riirjitiiii)  of  it,  for 
all  are,  in  lliat  respect,  passive;  but  in  the  actings  of  it 
to  practical  ends,  then  would  there  lie  iiolliing  to  mark 
the  difierence  between  the  righteous  and  i  he  wicked 
but  an  act  o/'flrx/,  which  is  utterly  irrecoinilable  to  the 
Scriptures.  They  call  the  former  "  obedeni,"  the  lat- 
ter "disobedient;"  one  "  willing,"  the  other  "unwil- 
ling ;"  and  promise  or  threaten  accordingly.    They  at- 


tribute the  destruction  of  the  one  to  their  refusal  of  the 
grace  of  God,  and  Ihe  salvation  of  the  otlier,  as  the 
instrumental  cause,  to  their  acceptance  of  it ;  and  to 
urge  that  that  personal  act  by  which  we  receive  the 
grace  of  Christ  detracts  from  his  glory  as  our  Saviour 
by  attributing  our  salvation  to  ourselves,  is  to  speak  as 
absurdly  as  if  we  should  say  that  the  act  of  obedience 
and  faith  required  of  the  man  who  was  commanded  to 
stretch  out  his  withered  arm,  detracted  from  the  glory 
of  Chrisl's  bralirig  virtue,  by  which,  iiidted,  the  power 
of  complying  with  the  command,  and  the  condition  ol_ 
his  being  lieuled,  was  imparted. 

It  is  by  such  reasonings,  made  plausible  to  many 
minds,  by  an  affectation  of  metaphysical  depth  and 
subtlety,  or  by  pretensions  of  magnifying  the  sovereignty 
and  grace  of  God  (often,  we  doubt  not,  very  sincere), 
that  the  theory  of  election  and  reprobation,  as  held  by 
the  followers  of  Calvin  with  some  shades  of  diflference, 
but  in  all  substantially  the  same,  has  had  currency 
given  to  it  in  the  church  of  (;hrjst  in  these  latter  ages. 
How  unsound  and  how  contrary  to  the  Scrijiturcs  they 
are,  may  apjjcar  from  that  brief  refutation  of  them  just 
given  ;  but  1  repeat  what  was  said  above,  that  we  are 
never  to  forget  that  this  system  has  generally  had  inter- 
woven with  it  many  of  the  most  vita!  points  of  Christi- 
anity. It  is  this  which  has  kept  it  in  existence ;  for 
otherwise  it  had  never,  jirobably,  held  itself  up  against 
the  opposing  evidence  of  so  many  plain  Scriptures,  and 
that  sense  of  Ihe  benevolence  and  equity  of  God,  which 
his  own  revelations,  as  well  as  natural  reason,  has 
riveted  in  llii^  convictions  of  mankind.  In  one  respect, 
the  ('alvinislic  and  llio  Sociniaii  sclieines  have  tacitly 
confes.sed  the  evidence  of  Ihe  word  of  (Jed  lo  be  against 
them.  The  latter  h;is  shrunk  lioni  Hie  h-tter  and  com- 
mon sense  interpretation  ol  Scripture  witbin  the  clouds 
raised  by  a  licentious  crilicisin  ;  the  other  has  chosen 
rather  to  find  refuge  in  the  mists  of  metaphysical  theo- 
ries. Nothing  is,  however,  here  meant  by  this  juxta- 
position of  theories  so  contrary  to  each  other,  but  that 
both  thus  confess,  that  the  prima  facie  evidence  afford- 
ed by  the  word  of  God  is  not  in  their  favour.  If  we 
intended  more  by  thus  naming  on  the  same  page  sys- 
tems so  o]ipositc,  one  of  which,  with  all  its  faults,  con- 
tains all  that  truth  by  which  men  may  be  saved,  while 
the  other  excludes  it,  "  we  slioud  offend  against  tlio 
generation  of  the  children  of  God." 


CHAPTER   XXIX. 

Rkdtcmi'tion. — Farther  Hknefits. 

Having  endeavoured  to  establish  thiMloclrinc  of  the 
univer.sal  redcMnption  of  the  human  race,  the  enumera- 
tion of  the  leading  blessings  which  How  from  it  may  now 
be  resumed.  We  have  already  spoken  ol'justijirdtion, 
adoption,  regeneration,  and  the  witness  of  the  Holy 
■Spirit,  and  we  proceed  to  another  as  disiincily  marked, 
and  as  graciously  promised  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  :  this 
is  the  ENTiRK  SANCTiFicATioN,  or  the  perfected  noi.i- 
NKss  of  believers  ;  and  as  this  doctrine,  in  some  of  its 
respects,  has  been  the  subject  of  controversy,  the  scrip- 
tural evidence  of  it  must  lie  apjiealed  to  and  examined. 
Happily  for  us,  a  subject  of  so  great  importance  is  not 
involved  in  obscurity. 

That  a  distinction  exists  between  a  regenerate  state 
and  a  state  of  entire  and  perfect  holiness  will  be  gene- 
rally allowed.  Regeneration,  we  have  seen,  i.s  con- 
comitant with  justification  ;  but  the  apostles,  in  ad- 
dressing the  body  of  believers  in  the  churches  to  whom 
they  wrote  their  epistles,  set  before  them,  both  in  the 
prayers  they  ofi'er  in  their  behalf,  and  in  the  exhorta- 
tions they  admini.ster,  a  still  higher  degree  of  deliver- 
ance from  sin,  as  well  as  a  higher  growth  in  Christian 
virtues.  Two  passages  only  need  be  quoted  lo  prove 
this.  I  Tliess.  V.  23,  "And  the  very  God  of  peace 
sanctify  yon  wholly,  and  I  pray  God  your  whole  spirit 
ai.d  soul  and  body  be  preserved  blameless  unto  the 
coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  2  Cor.  vii.  1, 
"  Having  these  promises,  dearly  beloved,  let  us  cleanse 
our.selves  from  all  Illlliiness  of  Ihe  flesh  and  spirit,  per- 
fecltng  holiness  in  ihf  fear  of  God."  In  both  these  pas- 
sages deliverance  from  sin  is  Ihe  subject  sjiokcn  of; 
and  the  prayer  in  one  instance  and  the  exhortation  in 
the  other  goes  to  the  extent  of  the  entire  sanctificalion 
of  "  Ihe  soul"  and  "  spirit,"  as  well  as  of  the  "  llesh"  or 
"  body,"  from  all  sin ;  by  which  can  only  be  meant  our 


Chap.  XXIX.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


375 


complete  deliverance  iVom  all  spiritn:il  luilliitioii,  all 
inward  depravation  of  tlio  lieart,  as  well  aw  Hint  wliicli, 
expressing  itselC  outwariUy  by  tlie  imlul^^oiice  of  the 
senses,  is  ealled  •'  fillliiness  <if  (lie  Ilesli." 

The  attaiiialiloness  ol  sm  li  a  stale  is  not  so  nmrli  a 
matter  of  deliale  airiuii;;  (Christians  as  the  i/mf  when 
We  arc  authorized  lo  expect  it.  For  as  it  is  an  axiom 
of  Christian  doctrine,  that  "without  holiness  no  man 
can  see  the  Tord ;"  and  is  equally  clear  that  if  we  would 
*'  be  found  of  lihn  in  peaci:,^'  we  rnnst  be  found  "  with- 
out spot,  and  blameless ;"  and  that  the  church  will  be 
presented  by  Christ  lo  the  Father  without  "  fault ;"  so 
it  must  be  concluded,  unless,  on  the  one  hand,  we 
greatly  iiervert  the  sense  of  these  passages,  or,  on  the 
other,  admit  the  doctrine  of  purgatory  or  some  inter- 
mediate purifying  institution,  that  the  entire  sanctlfi- 
cation  of  the  soul,  and  its  complete  renewal  in  holiness, 
must  lake  place  in  tliis  world. 

While  this  is  generally  acknowledged,  however, 
among  spiritual  Christians,  it  has  been  warndy  contend- 
ed by  many,  that  the  linal  stroke,  which  destroys  our 
natural  corruption,  is  only  given  at  death  ;  and  that  the 
soul,  when  separated  from  the  body,  and  not  before,  is 
capable  of  that  immaculate  purity  wliich  these  passages, 
doubtless,  exhibit  to  our  hope. 

If  this  view  can  be  refuted,  then  it  must  follow,  un- 
less a  purgatory  of  some  description  be  allowed  after 
death,  that  the  entire  sanctification  of  believers  at  any 
time  previous  to  their  dissolution,  and  in  the  full  sense 
of  these  evangelical  promises,  is  attainable. 

To  the  opinion  in  rjuestion,  then,  there  appear  to  bo 
the  following  fatal  objections  : 

1.  That  we  nowhere  find  the  promises  of  entire  sanc- 
tification restricted  to  the  article  of  death,  either  ex- 
pressly, or  in  fair  inference  from  any  passage  of  Holy 
Scripture. 

2.  That  we  nowhere  find  the  circumstance  of  the 
soul's  union  with  the  body  rejirescnteil  as  a  necessary 
obstacle  to  its  entire  sanctification. 

The  princijial  passage  which  has  been  urged  in  proof 
of  this  from  the  New  Testament,  is  that  part  of  the 
seventh  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  in  which 
St.  Paul,  speaking  in  the  first  person  of  the  bondage  of 
the  flesh,  has  been  supposed  lo  describe  his  state,  as  a 
believer  in  Christ.  But,  whether  he  speaks  of  himself, 
or  describes  the  state  of  others  in  a  supposed  case, 
given  for  the  sake  (jf  more  vivid  representation  in  the 
first  person,  which  is  jnuch  more  probable,  he  is  clearly 
speaking  of  a  person  who  had  once  sought  justification 
by  the  works  of  Ihe  law,  but  who  was  then  convinced 
by  the  force  of  a  spiritual  apprehension  of  the  extent  of 
the  acquirements  of  that  law,  and  by  constant  failures 
in  his  attempts  to  keep  it  perfectly,  that  he  was  in  bond- 
age to  his  corrupt  nature,  and  could  only  be  delivered 
from  this  thraldom  by  the  interposition  of  another. 
For,  not  to  urge  that  his  strong  expressions  of  being 
"  carnal,"  "  sold  under  sin,"  and  doing  always  "  the 
things  which  he  would  not,"  are  utterly  inconsistent 
with  that  moral  state  of  believers  in  Christ  which  he 
describes  in  the  next  chapter  ;  and,  especially,  that  he 
(here  declares  that  such  as  are  in  Christ  Jesus  "  walk 
not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  spirit ;  the  seventh 
chapter  itself  contains  decisive  evidence  agahist  the 
inference  which  the  advocates  of  the  necessary  continu- 
ance of  sin  till  death  have  drawn  from  it.  The  apostle 
declares  the  person  whose  case  he  describes,  to  be  un- 
der the  laie,  and  not  in  a  state  of  deliverance  by  Christ ; 
and  then  he  represents  him  not  only  as  despairing  of 
seif-deliverance,  and  as  praying  for  the  interposition  of 
a  sufficiently  powerful  deliverer,  but  as  thanking  God 
that  the  very  deliverance  for  which  he  groans  is  ap- 
pointed to  be  administered  to  him  by  Jesus  Christ. 
"  Who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this  death  ?  I 
(hank  God  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 

This  is  also  so  fully  confirmed  by  what  the  apostle 
had  said  in  the  preceding  chapter,  where  he  unques- 
tionably describes  the  moral  state  of  true  believers,  that 
nothing  is  more  surprising  than  that  so  perverted  a 
comment  upon  the  seventh  chapter,  as  that  to  which 
we  have  adverted,  should  have  been  adopted  or  perse- 
vered in.  "  What  shall  we  say  then?  Shall  we  con- 
tinue in  sin,  that  grace  may  abound  ?  God  forbid  1 
How  shall  we,  who  are  dead  to  sin,  live  any  longer 
therein  1  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  bap- 
tized into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death  ? 
Tlierefbre,  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death, 
that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dca*  by  the 


glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  wc  also  should  walk  in 
newness  of  life.  For  if  wc  have  been  planted  together 
in  the  likeness  of  his  death,  we  shall  be,  also,  in  the 
likeness  of  his  resurrection  ;  knowing  this,  that  oi'r 
oi.n  MAN  is  crucified  with  him,  riivr  tub  body  op  sin 
MIGHT  BE  iiEsTRdVKn,  that  licncetorth  we  should  not 
serve  sin  ;  for  he  that  is  dead  is  krked  from  sin."  So 
clearly  does  the  apostle  show  that  he  who  is  bound  to 
the  "  body  of  death,"  as  mcniioiicd  in  the  seventh  chap- 
ter, is  not  in  the  state  of  a  believer;  and  that  he  who 
has  a  true  faith  in  Christ  '•  is  fkekd  from  sin." 

It  is  somewhat  singular,  that  the  divines  of  the  Cal- 
vinistic  school  should  be  almost  uniformly  the  zealous 
advocates  of  the  doctrine  of  the  continuance  of  indwell- 
ing sin  till  death  ;  but  it  is  but  justice  to  say,  that 
several  of  them  have  as  zealously  denied  that  the  ajios- 
tle,  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  the  Romans,  describes  the 
state  of  one  who  is  justified  by  faith  in  Christ,  and  very 
properly,  consider  the  case  there  spoken  of  as  that  of 
one  struggling  in  lkoai,  bondage,  and  brought  to  that 
pointof  self  despair  and  conviction  of  sin  and  helpless- 
ness which  must  always  precede  an  entire  trust  in  the 
merits  of  (Christ's  death,  and  the  power  of  his  salvation. 

3.  The  doctrine  before  us  is  disjiroved  by  those  pas- 
sages of  Scripture  which  connect  our  entire  sanctifica- 
tion with  subsequent  habits  and  acts,  to  be  exlnhited  in 
the  conduct  of  believers  bif (ire  death.  So  in  the  quota- 
tion from  Rom.  vi.  just  given, — "  knowing  this,  that 
the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed,  that  liencffnrt.h  wo 
should  not  serve  sin."  So  the  exhortation  in  2  Cor.  vli. 
1,  also  given  above,  refers  to  the  present  lift,',  and  not  to 
the  future  hour  of  our  dissolution  ;  and  in  1  Thess  v. 
23,  the  apostle  first  prays  for  the  entire  sanctification 
of  the  Thessalonians,  and  then  for  their  jiresertntton  in 
that  hallowed  state  "  unto  the  coming  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ." 

4 .  It  is  disproved,  also,  by  all  those  passages  which 
require  us  to  bring  forth  those  graces  and  virtues  which 
are  usually  called  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit.     That  ihese 
are  to  be  produced  during  our  life,  and  to  be  displayed 
in   our  spirit  and  conduct  cannot  be  doubted  ;  and  wo 
may  then  ask  whether  thc^y  are  required  of  us  in  per- 
fection and  maturity  .'    If  so,  in  this  degree  of  maturity 
and  perfection,    they   necessarily  suppose  the  (intire 
sanctification  of  the  soul  irom  the  opposite  and  antago- 
nist evils.    Meekness  in  its  perfection  sujiposes   the 
extinction  of  all  sinful  anger;  perfect  love  to  God  sup- 
poses that  no  affection  remains  contrary  to  it;  and  so 
of  every  other  perfect  internal  virtue.     The  in.|uiry, 
then,  is  reduced  to  this,  whether  these  graces,  ni  suili 
perfection  as  to  exclude  the  ojiposite  corruptions  of  iho 
heart,  are  of  possible  attainment.    If  they  are  not,  then 
wo  cannot  love  God  with  our  whole  hearts ;  th(;n  we 
must  be  sometimes  sinfully  angry ;  and  how,  in  that 
case,  are  we  to  interpret  that  -perfectiiess  in  these  graces 
which  God  hath  required  of  us,  and  promised  to  us  in 
the  Gospel  1    For  if  the  perfection  meant  (and  let  it  be 
observed  that  this  is  a  scriptural  Venn,  and  must  mean 
something),  be  so  comparative  as  that  wc  may  be  some- 
times sinfully  angrj',  and  may  sometimes  divide  onr 
hearts  between   God  and  the  crealure,  we  may  a])ply 
the  same  compar.ative  sense  of  the  term  to  good  words 
and  to  good  works,  as  well  as  to  good  alTections.    Thus 
when  the  apcstle  prays  for  the  Hebrews,  "Now  the 
God  of  iieace  that  brought  again  from  the  dead  our 
Lord  Jesus,  that  great  She])herd  of  the  sheep,  through 
the  blood  of  the  everlasting  covenant,  make  you  pirjirt 
in  every  gooA  work,  to  do  his  will,"  we  must  under- 
stand this  perfection  of  evangelical  good  works  so  that 
it  shall  sometimes  give  place  to  opposite  evil  works, 
just  as  good  affections  must  necessarily  sometimes  give 
place  to  the  opposhe  bad  afTections.     This  view  can 
scarcely  be  soberly  entertained   by  any  enlightened 
Christian ;  and  it  must,  therefore,  be  concluded,  that 
the  standard  of  our  attainable  Christian  perfection,  as 
to  the  affections,  is  a  love  of  God  so  perft^ct  as  to  "  rule 
the  heart"  and  exclude  all  rivalry,  and  a  meekness  so 
perfect  as  to  cast  out  all  sinful  anger,  and  prevent  its 
return  ;  and  that  as  to  good  works  the  rule  is,  that  we 
shall  be  so  "  perfect  in  every  good  work"  as  to  "  do  Ihe 
will  of  God"  habitually,  fully,  and  constantly.    If  we 
fix  the  standard  lower,  we  let  in  a  license  totally  incon- 
sistent with  that  Christian  purity  which  is  allowed  by 
all  to  be  ullainahle,  and  wc  make  every  man  himself 
his  own  iiiteriirclcr  of   that    camparative    perfection 
which  is  ofleii  contended  for  as  that  only  which  is 
attainable. 


376 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


[Part  XL 


Some,  It  IB  truti,  ailmit  ihe  exii'iit  ul  tlie  promises  and 
the  rt'ciuiremeiitsor  tin:  (Jospt'l  us  \vi  tiave  stateil  them  ; 
but  they  contend,  that  this  is  the  mark  at  which  we  are 
to  aim,  the  standard  towanls  which  we  are  to  aspire, 
though  neither  is  attainable  fully  till  death.  Bui  this 
view  cannot  bo  true  as  apjilicd  to  sanrtijirat/on  or 
deliverance  from  all  inwanl  and  outward  sin.  That 
the  desri'e  of  every  virtue  implanted  by  f;race  is  nol 
limited,  but  advances  and  grows  in  the  Viviiin  Christian 
throughout  life,  may  be  granted  ;  and  through  eternity 
also:  but  to  say  that  these  virtues  are  not  attainable, 
through  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  m  that  degree  which 
shall  destroy  all  oppasite  vice,  is  to  say,  that  God,  under 
the  IJospe),  requires  us  to  be  what  we  cannot  he,  either 
through  want  of  efficacy  in  liis  grace,  or  from  some 
defect  in  its  administration  ;  neither  of  which  has  any 
countenance  from  Scriiiture,  nor  is  at  all  consistent 
with  the  terms  in  which  the  promises  and  exhortations 
of  the  Gospel  are  e.\i)ressed.  It  is  also  contradicted  by 
our  own  consciousness,  which  charges  our  criminal 
neglects  and  failures  upon  ourselves,  and  not  upon  the 
grace  of  God,  as  though  it  were  insulflcient.  Either 
The  consciences  of  good  men  have  in  all  ages  been  de- 
lusive and  over-scrupulous,  or  this  doctrine  of  the  ne- 
cessary, though  occasional,  dominion  of  sin  over  us  is 
false. 

5.  The  doctrine  of  the  necessary  indwelling  of  sin  in 
the  soul  till  death  involves  other  antiscriptural  conse- 
quences. It  supposes  that  the  seat  of  sin  is  in  the 
flesh,  and  thus  harmonizes  with  the  pagan  philosopliy, 
which  attributed  all  evil  to  matter.  The  doctrine  of  the 
Bible,  on  the  contrary,  is,  that  the  seat  of  sin  is  m  the 
soul ;  and  it  makes  it  one  of  the  jiroofs  of  the  fall  and 
corruption  of  our  spiritual  nature,  that  we  are  in  bondage 
to  the  appetites  and  motions  of  the  flesh.  Nor  does  the 
theory  which  places  the  necessity  of  sinning  in  the  con- 
nexion of  the  soul  with  the  body  account  lor  the  whole 
moral  case  of  man.  There  are  sins,  as  pride,  covetous- 
ness,  malice,  and  other.s,  wliich  are  wholly  spiritual ; 
and  yet  no  exception  is  made  in  this  doctrine  of  the  ne- 
cessary continuance  of  sin  till  death  as  to  them.-  There 
is,  surely,  no  need  to  wait  for  the  separation  of  the  soul 
from  the  body  in  order  to  be  saved  from  evils  which  are 
the  sole  offspring  of  the  spirit ;  and  yet  these  are  made 
as  inevitable  as  the  sins  which  more  immediately  connect 
themselves  with  the  excitements  of  the  animal  nature. 

This  doctrine  supposes,  too,  that  the  flesh  must  neces- 
sarily not  only  lust  against  the  Spirit,  but  in  no  small 
degree,  and  on  many  occasion.-?,  be  the  conqueror : 
whereas,  we  are  commanded  to  "  mortify  the  deeds  of 
the  body ;"  to  "  crucify ;'  that  is,  to  put  to  death,  "  the 
flesh;"  "io  put  nlflhe  old  man,"  which,  in  its  full 
meaning,  must  import  separation  from  sin  in  fact,  as 
well  as  the  renunciation  of  it  in  will ;  and  "  to  put  on 
the  new  man."  finally,  the  apostle  expressly  states, 
that  though  the  flesh  stands  victoriously  ojiposed  to 
legal  sanctiflcation,  it  is  not  insuperable  by  evangelical 
hohness. — "  For  what  lite  law  could  not  do  in  that  it 
was  weak  through  the  Jiesh,  God  sending  his  own  Son 
in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  and  for  sin,  condemned 
Bin  in  the  flesh  ;  that  the  righteousness  of  the  law  might 
be  futfUlcd  in  us,  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but 
after  the  Spirit,"  Rom.  viii.  3,  4.  So  inconsistent  with 
the  declarations  and  promises  of  the  Gospel  is  the  notion 
that,  so  long  as  we  are  in  the  body,  "  the  flesh"  must 
of  necessity  have  at  least  the  occasional  dominion. 

We  conclude,  therefore,  as  to  the  time  of  our  com- 
plete sanctiflcation  ;  or,  to  use  the  phrase  of  the  apostle 
Paul,  "  the  destruction  of  the  body  of  sm  ;"  that  it  can 
neither  be  referred  to  the  hour  of  death,  nor  placed  sub- 
sequently to  this  present  life.  The  attainment  of  per- 
fect freedom  from  sin  is  one  to  which  believers  are 
called  during  the  present  life ;  and  is  necessary  to  that 
completeness  of  "holiness,"  and  of  those  active  and 
passive  graces  of  ("tiristianity  by  which  they  are  called 
to  glorify  God  in  this  world,  and  to  edify  mankind. 

Not  only  the  time,  but  the  manner  also,  of  our  sanc- 
tificalion,  has  been  matter  of  controversy :  some  con- 
tending that  all  attainable  degrees  of  it  are  accpiired  by 
the  process  of  gradual  mortification  and  the  acimisiiion 
of  holy  habits ;  others  alleging  it  to  be  nisiani  lucoiis, 
and  the  fruit  of  an  act  of  faith  in  the  Uivinc  iircniiiscs. 
That  Ihe  regeneration  which  accompanies  justinca- 
tion  is  a  large  a|)proach  to  tins  state  of  |ierlected  holi- 
ness ;  and  that  all  dying  to  sin,  and  all  growth  in  grace, 
advance.'!  us  nearer  to  this  point  of  entire  sanctity,  is. so 
obvious,  that  on  these  jiomls  there  can  be  no  reasonable 


dispute.  Hut  they  arc  nol  at  all  inconsistent  with  a 
more  instantaneous  work,  when,  the  depth  of  our  na- 
tural dei)ravily  being  more  painfully  felt,  we  plead  in 
faith  the  accomplishment  of  the  promises  of  God.  The 
great  question  to  be  settled  is,  whether  the  deliverance 
sighed  after  be  held  out  to  us  in  tliese  promises  as  a 
present  blessing  .'  And,  from  what  has  been  already 
said,  there  appears  no  ground  to  doubt  this  ;  since  no 
small  violence  would  be  ofTercd  to  the  passages  of 
.""cripture  already  quoted,  as  well  as  to  many  others,  by 
the  opposite  ojiinion.  All  the  promises  of  God  which 
are  not  expressly,  or  from  their  order,  referred  to  future 
time,  are  objects  of  present  trust;  and  their  fulfilment 
now  is  made  conditional  only  upon  our  faith.  They 
cannot,  therelbre,  be  pleaded  in  our  prayers,  with  an 
entire  reliance  upon  the  truth  of  God,  in  vain.  The 
general  promise  that  we  shall  receive  "  all  things  what- 
soever we  ask  in  prayer,  believing,"  comprehends, 
of  course,  "  all  things"  suited  to  our  case  which  God 
has  engaged  to  bestow ;  and  if  the  entire  renewal  of 
our  nature  be  included  in  the  number,  without  any 
limitation  of  time,  except  that  in  which  we  ask  it  in 
faith,  then  to  this  faith  shall  the  promises  of  entire 
sanctiflcation  be  given ;  which,  in  the  nature  of  the 
case,  supposes  un  instantaneous  work  immediately  fol- 
lowing upon  our  entire  and  unwavering  faith. 

The  only  plausible  objections  made  to  this  doctrine 
may  be  answered  in  few  words. 

It  lias  been  urged,  that  this  state  of  entire  sanctiflca- 
tion supposes  future  impeccability.  Certainly  not ;  for 
if  angels  and  our  first  parents  fell  when  in  a  state  of 
immaculate  sanctity,  the  renovated  man  cannot  be 
I)laced,  by  his  entire  deliverance  from  inward  sin,  out 
of  the  reach  of  danger.  This  remark,  also,  answers 
Ihe  allegation,  that  we  shoifld  thus  be  removed  out  of 
the  reach  of  temptation ;  for  the  example  of  angels  and 
of  the  first  man,  who  fell  by  temptation  when  in  a  state 
of  native  purity,  proves  that  the  absence  of  inward  evil 
is  not  inconsistent  with  a  state  of  probation  ;  and  that 
this,  in  itself,  is  no  guard  against  the  attempts  and  soh- 
citationsof  evil. 

It  has  been  objected,  too,  that  ttiis  supposed  slate 
renders  the  atonement  and  intercession  of  Christ  super- 
fluous in  future.  But  the  very  contrary  of  this  is  mani- 
fest when  the  case  of  an  evangelical  renewal  of  the 
soul  in  righteousness  is  understood.  Tliis  proceeds 
from  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ,  through  the  Holy 
S])irit,  as  tlie  effuaent  cause ;  it  is  received  by  faith  as 
the  instrumental  cause ;  and  the  state  itself  into  which 
we  are  raised  is  maintained,  not  by  inherent  native 
power,  but  by  the  continual  i)reseiice  and  sanctifying 
influence  of  Ihe  Holy  Sjiirit  himsell,  received  and  re- 
tained in  answer  to  ceaseless  prayer  ;  which  prayer  has 
respect  solely  to  the  merits  of  the  death  and  intercession 
of  Christ. 

It  has  been  farther  alleged,  that  a  person  delivered 
from  all  inward  and  outward  sin  has  no  longer  need  to 
use  the  petition  of  the  Lord's  prayer, — "  and  forgive  us 
our  tresjiasses ;"  because  he  has  no  longer  need  of 
pardon.  To  this  we  rejily,  1.  That  it  would  be  absurd 
to  sujipose  that  any  person  is  placed  under  the  necessity 
of  "  trespassing,"  in  order  that  a  general  prayer  de- 
signed for  men  in  a  mixed  condition  might  retain  its 
a])tness  to  every  particular  case.  2.  That  trespassing 
of  every  kind  and  degree  is  not  supposed  by  this  prayer 
to  be  continued,  in  order  that  it  might  be  used  always 
in  the  same  import,  or  otherwise  it  might  be  pleaded 
against  the  renunciation  of  any  trespass  or  transgression 
whatever.  3.  That  this  petition  is  still  relevant  to  the 
case  of  the  entirely  sanetitie<I  and  the  evangelically  jier- 
fect,  since  neither  the  perfection  of  the  first  man  nor  that 
of  angels  is  in  question  ;  that  is,  a  perfection  measured  by 
the  perfect  law,  which,  in  its  obligations,  contemplates 
all  creature-s  as  having  sustained  no  injury  by  moral 
lapse,  and  admits,  therefore,  of  no  excuse  from  infirmi- 
ties and  mistakes  of  judgment ;  nor  of  any  degree  of 
obedience  below  that  which  beings  created  imtiir.tlly 
perfect  were  capable  of  rendering.  There  may,  how- 
ever, be  an  entire  sanctiflcation  of  a  being  rendered 
natiirally  weak  and  imperfect,  and  so  liable  to  mistake 
and  infirmity,  as  well  as  to  defect  in  Ihe  degree  of  that 
absolute  obedience  and  service  which  Ihe  law  of  God, 
never  bent  or  lowered  to  human  weakness,  demands 
Irom  all.  These  defects,  and  mistakes,  and  infirmities, 
may  be  ipiite  consistent  with  Ihe  entire  sanctiflcation 
of  the  soul,  and  the  mnrul  maturity  of  a  being  still 
naturally  inflrin  and  imperfect.    Still,  farther,  if  this 


Chap.  XXIX.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


377 


•were  not  a  sufficient  answer,  it  may  be  remarked,  that 
we  are  not  tlie  ultimate  judges  of  our  own  rase  as  to 
our  "  trespasses,"  or  our  exemption  from  tliem  ;  ami  we 
are  not,  tlierelore,  to  put  ourselves  into  the  plaee  of  (iod, 
"who  is  greater  than  our  hearts."  So,  although  St. 
Paul  says,"  I  know  nothing  by  myself,"  that  is,  I  am 
conscious  of  no  ollence,  he  adds,  "  yet  am  I  not  lieroliy 
justified  ;  but  he  that  judgelh  me  is  the  Lord :"  to  whom, 
therefore,  the  apptvil  is  every  moment  to  bo  made 
through  Christ  the  Mediator,  and  who,  by  liie  renewed 
testimony  of  his  Spirit,  assures  every  true  believer  of 
his  aeceptanee  in  his  sight. 

Another  benelit  which  accrues  to  all  true  believers, 
is  the  RifiiiT  TO  PRAY,  with  the  special  assurance  that 
they  shall  be  heard  in  all  things  which  are  according  to 
the  will  of  God.  "And  this  is  the  confidence  that  we 
have  in  him,  that,  if  we  ask  any  thing  according  to  his 
will,  he  hearcthus."  It  is  under  this  gracious  institu- 
tion that  all  good  men  are  constituted  intercessors  for 
others,  even  for  the  whole  world ;  and  that  God  is 
pleased  to  order  many  of  his  di.sjtensations,  both  as  to 
individuals  and  to  nations,  in  reference  to  "  his  elect 
who  cry  day  and  night  unto  him." 

With  respect  to  every  real  member  of  the  body  or 
church  of  Christ,  the  providence  of  God  is  special ;  in 
other  words,  they  are  individually  considered  in  the 
administration  of  the  affairs  of  this  life  by  the  Sovereign 
Ruler,  and  their  measure  of  good  and  of  evil  is  ap- 
pointed with  constant  reference  to  their  advantage, 
either  in  tliis  life  or  in  eternity.  "  The  hairs  of  their 
head"  are,  therefore,  said  to  be  "  numbered,"  and  "  all 
tilings"  are  declared  '•  to  work  together  for  their  good." 

To  them  also  victory  over  death  is  awarded. 
They  are  freed  from  its  fear  in  respect  of  consequences 
in  another  state  ;  for  the  apprehension  of  future  punish- 
ment is  removed  by  the  remission  of  their  sins,  and 
the  attestation  of  this  to  their  minds  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
while  a  patient  resignation  to  the  will  of  God,  as  to  the 
measure  of  their  bodily  sufferings,  and  the  strong  hopes 
and  joyful  anticipations  of  a  better  life,  cancel  and 
subdue  that  horror  of  pain  and  dissolution  which  is  na- 
tural to  man.  "Forasmuch,  then,  as  the  children  are 
partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he,  also,  himself  took  part 
of  the  same,  that,  through  death,  he  might  destroy  him 
that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the  devil,  and  de- 
liver them  who,  through  fear  of  death,  were  all  their 
life  time  subject  to  bondage,"  Heb.  ii.  14, 15. 

Thk  immediate  reception  ok  the  soul  into  a 
STATE  OF  BLESSEDNESS  after  death,  is  also  another  of 
the  glorious  promises  of  the  new  covenant  to  all  them 
that  endure  to  the  end,  and  "  die  in  the  Lord." 

This  is  so  explicitly  taught  in  the  New  Testament, 
that,  but  for  the  admission  of  a  philosophical  error,  it 
would,  probably,  have  never  been  doubted  by  any  per- 
sons professing  to  receive  that  book,  as  of  Divine  au- 
thority. Till,  in  recent  times,  the  belief  in  the  mate- 
riality of  the  human  soul  was  chiefly  confined  to  those 
who  entirely  rejected  the  Chriistian  revelation ;  but, 
when  the  Socinians  adopted  this  notion,  without  wholly 
rejecting  the  Scriptures,  it  was  promptly  perceived  that 
the  doctrine  of  an  intermeiUate  state,  and  the  materiality 
of  the  soul,  could  not  be  maintained  together  ;(1)  and 
the  most  violent  and  disgraceful  criticisms  and  evasions 
have,  therefore,  by  this  class  of  interpreters  been  re- 
sorted to,  in  order  to  save  a  notion  as  unjihilosophical 
as  it  is  contrary  to  the  word  of  God.  Nothing  can  be 
more  satisfactory  than  the  observations  of  Dr.  Campbell 
on  this  subject. 

"  Many  expressions  of  Scripture,  in  the  natural  and 
obvious  sense,  imply  that  an  intermediate  and  separate 
state  of  the  soul  is  actually  to  succeed  death.  Such  are 
the  words  of  the  Lord  to  the  penitent  thief  upon  the 
cross,  Luke  xxiii.  43.  Stephen's  dying  petition,  Acts 
vii.  59.  The  comparisons  which  the  apostle  Paul  makes 
in  different  places  (2  Cor.  v.  G,  &c. ;  Phil.  i.  21),  between 
the  enjoyment  which  true  Christians  can  attain  by  their 
continuance  in  this  world,  and  tliat  which  they  enter  on 

(1)  A  few  divines,  and  but  tew,  have  also  been  found, 
who,  still  admitting  the  essential  di.sthiction  lietween 
body  and  spirit,  have  thought  that  their  separation  by 
death  incapacited  the  soul  for  the  exercise  of^its  powers. 
This  suspension  they  call  "  the  sleep  of  the  soul." 
With  the  materialist  death  causes  the  entire  annihila- 
tion, for  the  time,  of  the  thinking  property  of  matter. 
Both  opinions  are,  however,  refuted  by  the  same  scrip- 
tural arguments. 


at  their  departure  out  of  it,  and  several  other  passages. 
Let  the  words  referred  to  be  read  by  any  judicious 
person,  either  in  the  original  or  in  the  common  transla- 
tion, which  is  sufficiently  exact  for  this  purpose,  and 
let  him,  setting  aside  ;ill  theory  or  system,  say,  candidly, 
whether  they  would  not  be  understood,  by  the  gross  of 
manlii;id,  as  presupposing  that  the  soul  may  and  will 
exist  separately  Irom  the  body,  and  be  susceptible  of 
happiness  or  misery  in  that  state.  If  any  tiling  could 
add  to  the  native  evidence  of  the  expressions,  it^would 
be  the  unnatural  meanings  that  are  put  upon  thcni,  in 
order  to  disguise  that  evidence.  What  shall  wc  say 
of  the  metaphysical  distinction  introduced  for  this  jiur- 
pose  between  absolute  and  relative  time  ?  The  apostle 
Paul,  they  are  sensible,  speaks  of  the  saints  as  admitted 
to  enjoyment  in  the  presence  of  God,  immediately  after 
death.  Now,  to  palliate  the  direct  contradiction  there 
is  in  this  to  their  doctrine,  that  the  vital  principle,  which 
is  all  they  mean  by  the  soul,  remains  extinguished  be- 
tween death  and  the  resurrection,  they  remind  us  of 
the  difference  there  is  between  absolute,  or  real  and 
relative,  or  apparent  time.  They  admit,  that  if  the 
apostle  be  understood  as  speaking  of  real  time,  what  is 
said  flatly  contradicts  their  system  ;  but,  say  they,  his 
words  must  be  interpreted  as  spoken  only  of  apparent 
time.  He  talks,  indeed,  of  entering  on  a  state  of  enjoy- 
ment immediately  after  death,  though  there  may  be 
many  thousands  of  years  between  the  one  and  the 
other ;  for  he  means  only,  that  when  that  state  shall 
commence,  however  distant  in  reality,  the  time  may  be, 
the  jierson  entering  upon  it  will  not  be  sensible  of  that 
distance,  and,  consequently,  there  will  be  to  him  an  ap- 
parent coincidence  with  the  moment  of  his  death.  But 
does  the  apostle  any  where  give  a  hint  that  this  is  his 
meaning .'  or  is  it  what  any  man  would  natur.illy  dis- 
cover from  his  words  7  That  it  is  exceedingly  remote 
from  the  common  use  of  language,  1  believe  hardly  any 
of  those  who  favour  this  scheme  will  be  partial  enough 
to  deny.  Did  the  sacred  penman  then  mean  to  put  a 
cheat  upon  the  world,  and,  by  the  help  of  an  equivocal 
expression,  to  flatter  men  with  the  hope  of  entering,  the 
instant  they  expire,  on  a  state  of  felicity,  when,  in  fact, 
they  knew  that  it  would  be  many  ages  before  it  would 
take  place?  But  were  the  liypothesis  about  the  ex- 
tinction of  the  mind  between  death  and  the  resurrection 
well  founded,  the  apjiarent  coincidence  they  speak  of 
is  not  so  clear  as  they  seem  to  think  it.  For  my  part,  I 
cannot  regard  it  as  an  axiom,  and  I  never  heard  of  any 
who  attempted  to  demonstrate  it.  To  me  it  appears 
merely  a  corollary  from  Mr.  Locke's  doctrine,  which 
derives  our  conceptions  of  time  from  the  succession  of 
our  ideas,  which,  whether  true  or  false,  is  a  doctrine  to 
be  found  only  among  certain  philosophers,  and  which, 
we  may  reasonably  believe,  never  came  into  the  heads 
of  those  to  whom  the  Gospel,  in  the  apostolic  age,  was 
announced. 

"  I  remark  that  even  the  curious  equivocation  (or, 
perhaps,  more  properly,  mental  reservation)  that  has 
been  devised  for  them,  will  not,  in  every  case,  save  the 
credit  of  apostolical  veracity.    The  words  of  Paul  to 
the  Corinthians  are,  knowing  that  while  we  are  at  home 
in  the  body,  we  are  absent  from  the  Lord ;  again,  we 
are  willing  rather  to  be  absent  from,  the  body  and  pre- 
sent with  the  Lord.    Could  such  expressions  have  been 
used  by  him,  if  he  had  held  it  impossible  to  be  with 
the  Lord,  or,  indeed,  anywhere,  without  the  body ;  and 
that,  whatever  the  change  was  which  was  made  by 
death,  he  could  not  be  in  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  till 
he  returned  to  the  body  ?    Absence  from  the  body,  and 
presence  with  the  Lord,  were  never,  therefore,  more 
unfortunately    combined,    than    in    tliis   illustration. 
Things  are  combined  here  as  coincident,  which,  on  the 
hypothesis  of  those  gentlemen,  are  incompatible.    If 
recourse  be  had  to  the  original,  the  expressions  in  Greek 
are,  if  possible,  still  stronger.    They  are,  h  evSr/iiovvTes 
cv  TO)   aionari,  those  who  dwell  in  the  body,  who  are 
skStjixuvtcs  atto  th  Kvpm,  at  a  distance  from  the  Lord. 
As,  on  the  contrary,  they  arc  hi  eKi^rj/xuvTc;  ck  t«  awixa- 
Tos,  those  who  have  travelled  ont  of  the  body,  who  are 
bi  evitiiiyvTcg  npog  Tov  Kvpiov,  those  who  reside,  or  are 
present  with  the  Lord.    In  the  passage  to  the  Philip- 
pians,  also,  the  commencement  of  his  presence  with 
the  Lord  is  represented  as  coincident,  not  with  his  re- 
turn to  the  body,  but  with  his  leaving  it ;  with  the  dis- 
solution, not  with  the  restoration  of  the  union. 

"From  the  tenor  of  the  New  Testament,  the  sacred 
writers  appear  to  proceed  on  the  supposition  that  the 


378 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


[Part  II. 


soul  and  the  body  are  naturally  distinct  and  separable, 
and  that  ttie  soul  is  Kusceplible  of  pain  or  pleasure  in 
a  stale  of  separation.  It  were  endless  to  enumerate 
all  the  jilaeos  which  evince  this.  The  story  of  tlie  rich 
man  and  Lazarus,  Luke  xvi.  22,  23.  The  last  words  of 
our  Lord  upon  the  cross,  Luke  xxiii.  46,  and  of  Stephen, 
when  dyins.  Paul's  doubts,  whether  he  was  in  the 
body  or  out  of  the  body,  when  ho  was  translated  to  the 
third  iK-aven  and  I'arailise,  2  Cor.  xii.  2,  3,  ■!.  Our 
Lord's  words  to  'I'lionias,  to  satisfy  him  that  he  was 
not  a  spirit,  Luke  xxiv.  3'J.  And,  to  conclude,  the  cy- 
press ni(!nlion  of  the  denial  of  sjjirits  as  one  of  tlie  errors 
of  the  Sadducees.  Acts  xxiii.  H,  For  Ike.  Uddilucees  say 
there  is  no  resurrection,  luitltcr  aiiffel  nor  spirit,  [icSt 
ayYc\av  ai£&  irvcvua.  All  these  arc  irrefragable  evi- 
dences of  the  general  oi)inion  on  tliis  subject  of  both 
Jews  and  Christians.  Hy  spirit,  as  distinguished  from 
angel,is  evidently  meant  the  departed  sijirilof  ahuman 
being ;  for,  that  man  is  here,  before  his  natural  death, 
possessed  of  a  vital  and  intelligent  principle,  which  is 
commonly  called  his  soul  or  spirit,  it  was  never  pre- 
tended that  they  denied."(9) 

In  this  intcrincdiaie,  but  felicitous  and  glorious  state, 
thedisemlwdied  spirits  of  the  righteous  will  remain  in 
joy  and  felioiiy  with  Christ,  until  the  general  judg- 
ment ;  when  another  display  of  the  gracious  elTecis  of 
our  redemption,  by  Christ,  will  ap|)ear  in  the  glorious 
REsiiRRKCTioN  of  their  bodies  to  an  imnvirlal  life: 
thus  distinguishing  them  from  the  wicked,  whose  re- 
surrection will  be  to  "shame  and  everlasting  conteini)t," 
or,  to  what  may  be  emphatically  termed,  an  immortal 
death. 

On  this  subject,  no  point  of  discussion  of  any  im])or- 
tance  arises  among  those  who  admit  the  truth  of  .S(;rip- 
ture,  except  as  to  the  way  in  which  tlie  doctrin(^  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  body  is  to  be  understood ;— whether 
a  resurrection  of  the  substance  of  the  body  be  meant, 
or  of  some  minute  and  indestructible  part  of  it.  The 
latter  theory  has  been  adojited  lor  the  sake  of  avoiding 
certain  supposed  difficulties.  It  cannot,  however,  fail 
to  strike  every  impartial  reader  of  the  New  Testament, 
that  the  doclrine  of  the  resurrection  is  there  taught 
without  any  nice  distinctions.  It  is  always  exhibited 
as  a  miraculous  work ;  and  represents  the  same  body 
which  is  laid  in  the  grave  as  the  subject  of  this  change 
from  death  to  life,  by  the  power  of  Christ.  Thus,  our 
Lord  was  raised  in  the  same  body  in  wliich  he  died, 
and  his  resurrection  is  constantly  held  forth  as  the  mo- 
del of  ours ;  and  the  apostle  Paul  expressly  says, 
"  Who  shall  change  our  vile  body,  that  it  may  be 
fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body."  The  only  pas- 
sage of  Scripture  which  appears  to  favour  the  notion 
of  the  rising  of  the  immortal  body  from  some  inde- 
structible germ,  is  1  Cor.  xv.  35,  &c.,  "  But  some  men 
will  say,  How  arc  the  dead  raised  up,  and  with  what 
body  do  tliey  <:ome  ?  Thou  fool,  that  which  thou  sowesl 
is  not  quickened  except  it  die;  and  that  which  thou 
sowest,  thou  sowest  not  that  body  that  shall  be,  but 
bare  grain,  it  may  chance  of  wheat,  or  of  some  other 
grain,"  (fee.  If,  however,  it  had  been  theinteniion  of  the 
apostle,  holding  this  viewof  the  case,  to  meet  objections 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  grounded  upon  the 
ditTicultiesofconceivIng  how  the -same  body,  in  llic  iinpu- 
lar  sense,  could  be  rai.sed  up  in  substance,  we  niiglii  have 
expected  him  to  corn^ct  this  misapiireheiision,  by  declar- 
ing, that  this  was  not  the  Christian  doctrine;  but  that 
some  small  parts  of  the  body  only,  bearing  as  little 
projiortion  to  the  wliolc  as  the  giTin  of  a  seed  to  the 
plant,  would  be  preserved,  and  be  unfolded  into  the 
perfected  body  at  the  resurrection.  Instead  of  this,  lie 
goes  on  immediately  to  remind  the  objector  of  the  dif- 
ferences which  exist  between  material  bodies  as  they 
now  exist;  between  the  plant  and  the  bare  or  naked 
grain;  between  one  plant  and  another;  between  the 
flesh  of  men,  of  beasts,  of  (ishcs,  and  of  birds ;  be- 
tween celestial  and  terrestrial  bodi(;s  ;  and  between  the 
lesser  and  greater  celestial  linninaries  themselves. 
Still  farther  he  proceeds  to  state  tlie  cliUcreiH'e,  not  be- 
tween the  germ  of  the  body  to  be  raiscil,  and  the  hmly 
given  at  the  resurrection ;  but  between  Ihe  body 
itself,  iiiidcrstdDd  jHipularly,  which  ilies,  and  the  body 
wliich  shall  bi^  raised.  "  It  is  sown  in  corruption,  it  is 
raised  in  incorruption,"  which  would  not  be  true  of  the 
supposed  incorraptihle  and  iinperisliable  giTiii  ol'  this 
hypothesis ;  and  can  only  be  alfirincd  ol  the  body  itself, 

(2)  Diss.  vi.  Part  2. 


considered  in  substance,  and  in  its  present  state  cor- 
ruptible. Farther,  the  <iuestion  jiut  by  the  objector, 
"  IIow  are  the  dead  raised  up  .'"  does  not  refer  to  the 
modus  iigejiili  of  the  resurrection,  or  the  process  or 
manner  in  'which  the  thing  is  to  be  elVected,  as  the  ad- 
vocates of  the  germ  hyiiotliesis  appear  to  assume.  Tliis 
is  manifest  from  the  answer  of  the  apostle,  who  goes 
on  iininediately  to  slate,  not  In  what  maniur  tlie  resur- 
rection is  to  be  ellecteil,  but  what  shall  be  the  slate  or 
condition  of  the  le.suin'ciion  body,  which  is  no  answer 
at  all  to  the  ijue.stion,  if  it  be  taken  in  that  sense. 

The  first  of  the  two  ijueslioiis  in  the  passage  referred 
to  relates  to  the  possibility  of  tlic  resurrection,  "  How 
are  the  dead  raised  up  .'"  the  second  to  the  kind  of  body 
which  they  are  to  take,  supposing  the  fad  to  be  allowed. 
Both  questions,  however,  imply  a  denial  of  the  fact,  or, 
at  least,  express  a  strong  doubt  conceriiing  it.  It  is 
thus  that  TTd);  "  /low,"  in  the  first  question,  is  taken  in 
many  jiassages  where  it  is  connected  with  a  verb  ;(3) 
and  the  second  question  only  expresses  the  i^vneral  ne- 
gation or  doubt  more  particularly,  by  implying,  that 
the  objector  could  not  conceive  of  any  kind  of  body  be- 
ing restored  to  man,  which  would  not  be  an  evil  and 
imperfection  to  liiin.  For  the  very  reason  why  some  of 
the  (;hristiaiia  of  that  age  denied,  or  strongly  doubted, 
the  resurrection  of  the  body ;  explaining  it  figuratively, 
and  .saying  that  it  was  past  already;  was,  that  they 
were  influenced  to  this  by  the  notion  of  their  philoso- 
phical schools,  that  the  body  was  the  prison  of  the  soul, 
and  that  the  greatest  dtiliverance  men  could  experi- 
ence was  to  be  eternally  freed  from  their  connexion 
with  matter.  Hence  the  early  philo.sopliizing  sects  in 
tlie  Christian  church,  the  Gnostics,  Marcioiiites,  &;c., 
denied  the  resurrection,  on  the  same  ground  as  the  ))hi- 
losophers,  and  thought  it  ojiposed  to  that  jierfection 


(3)  Gen.  xxxix.  9,  Hus  TTotriau),  How  shall  I,— how 
is  it  possible  that  I  should  do  this  great  wickedness  ? — 
"  How,  then,  can  1,"  say  our  translators.  Exod.  vi.  12, 
"  Behold,  the  children  of  Israel  have  not  hearkened  unto 
me;  how,  then,  shall  Pharaoh  hear  me  .'" — nios  ciauKov- 
eiirai  fiov  '\'apa<j3 ; — how  is  it  likely,  or  possible  that 
Pharaoh  should  hear  me  ?  See  also  yerse  30.  Judges 
xvi.  15,  "And  she  said  unto  him,  Hmq^s^yui,  How  canst 
thou  say  I  love  thee?"  2  .Sam.  xi.  11,  may  also  be  con- 
sidered in  tlie  LXX.  2  Kings  x.  4,  "  Hut  they  were  ex-. 
ccedingly  afraid,  and  said,  Behold,  two  kings  stood  not 
before  him  :  kui  ttws,  how  then  shall  we  stand  ?" — how 
is  it  possible  that  we  should  stand  ?  Job  ix.  2,  Ilwf  yap 
mrui  HiKatiis  (SpuTos ; — For  how  shall  mortal  man  be 
just  with,  or  in  the  presence  of  (Jou .' — how  is  it  pos- 
sible? See  what  follows;  Psalm  l.vxii.  (Ix.xiii.)  11; 
IIus  cyi'(s)  hOcui;  "How  doth  God  know?" — how  is 
it  possible  that  he  should  knovv  ?  See  the  connexion. 
Jer.  viii.  8;  Hws  cpure,  "how  do  yc  say," — how  is  it 
that  ye  say,— how  can  ye  say.  We  are  wise  ?— Ibid. 
x.\ix.  7,  (xlvii.  7,)  Ilwj  riavxaaet ;  "  IIow  can  it," — the 
.sword  of  the  Loud, — "be  quiet?" — Kzek.  xxxiii.  10, 
"  If  our  transgressions  and  our  sins  be  upon  us,  and 
we  pine  away  in  them,  ttw;  ^riaoiuOa,  how  should  we 
then  live  ?"  iNlatt.  vli.  4,  "  Or  how,  ttoij,  wilt  thou  say 
to  thy  brother  ?" — where  Rosenrn.  observes  that  Trwf  has 
Ihe  force  of  negation.  Ibid.  xii.  26,  "  If  Satan  cast  out 
Satan,  he  is  divided  against  himself;  ttwj  ovv  s'aOriaerat, 
how  shall  then," — how  can  then, — "his  kingdom 
stand  '!"  See  also  Luke  xi.  18,— Matt.  xxiu.  33,  "  Yo 
serpents,  ye  generation  of  vipers,  -uj  (pvyrjTe,  how  can 
ye  escape  the  damnation  of  hell  ?"  "  qui  fieri  potest  V 
RosKNM.  Markiy. 'H),J\tai  UK  exert  TtiGTiV,  "  How  is 
it  that  ye  have  no  faith  ?"— Luke  i.  34,  may  also  be  ad- 
duced. John  v.  47,  "  If  ye  believe  not  his  writings, 
TTM? — niaTzvctTt ;  how  shall  yc," — how  cmi  ye, — "  be- 
lieve my  words.'"  Romans  iii.  6,  "God  forbid:  for 
then  TTws  (1(11  i£i,  how  shall  Gun  judge  the  world?" — 
how  is  it  possible?  See  the  preceding  verse.  Ibid.  viii. 
32,  llws— X«p«r£T«t;  "how  shall  he  not,"— how  is  it 
possible  but  tiiat  he  should,—"  Willi  him  also  freely  give 
us  all  filings."  Ibid.x.  M.nwttTTik-uXtffuiTni,  "How  then 
shall  lliey,"— how  is  it  possible  that  they  should, — 
"  call  on  him  in  whom  they  have  not  believed  ?"  &.c. 
1  Tim.  iii.  5,  "  For  if  a  innn  know  not  how  to  rule  his 
own  house,  ttuij,  ho^V  shall  he  take  care  of  the  church 
of  (ioi)?"  Heb.  ii.  3,  "  How  shall  we  escape," — how  is 
it  possible  f hat  we  should  esrapi', — "if  we  neglect  so 
great  salvation  '"  1  John  iii.  17,  llw?,  "  IIow  dwrllctU 
the  love  of  (Jou  in  him  ?"— how  ran  it  dwell?  Coinp. 
ch.  iv.  20,  where  i)vvaTai  is  added. 


Chap.  XXIX.] 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


379 


whicl)  they  hoped  to  enjoy  in  another  worlii.  Suth 
persons  appear  to  U;ive  been  in  the  churcli  of  Corinth 
as  early  as  the  time  of  St.  I'aul,  for  that  in  this  chapter 
he  answers  the  objections,  not  of  pagans,  but  of  pro- 
fessing Christians,  appears  from  ver.  12,  "  How  s.iy 
some  anirm^  you,  that  there  is  no  resurrection  of  the 
dead."  The  olyection,  therefore,  in  the  minds  of  these 
persons  to  the  iluctnne  of  the  resurrection,  did  not  lie 
against  tlie  doctrine  of  the  raising  up  of  the  substance 
of  the  same  body,  so  that,  provided  this  notion  could  be 
dispensed  with,  they  were  prepared  to  admit,  that  a 
now  material  body  might  spring  from  its  germ,  us  a 
plant  from  seed.  They  stumbled  at  the  doctrine  in 
every  form,  because  it  iiivolve<l  the  circumstance  of  the 
reunion  of  the  spirit  with  matter,  which  they  thought 
ail  cinl.  Wlien,  thorelbre,  the  objector  asks,  "  How 
are  the  dead  raised  up  Vii)  he  is  to  be  understood, 
not  as  inquiring  as  to  the  process,  but  as  to  the  pos- 
sibility. The  doubt  may,  indeed,  be  taken  as  an 
implied  negation  of  the  possibility  of  tlie  resurrec- 
tion with  reference  to  God ;  and  then  the  apostle,  by 
referring  to  the  springing  up  of  the  grain  of  corn,  when 
dissolved  and  putrified,  may  be  understood  to  show  that 
the  event  was  not  inconceivable,  by  referring  to  God's 
omnipotence,  as  shown  in  his  daily  providence,  which, 
«  priori,  would  appear  as  marvellous  and  incredible. 
But  it  is  much  more  probable,  that  the  impossibility 
implied  ui  this  question  refers  not  to  the  power  of  God, 
which  every  Christian  in  the  church  of  Corinth  must 
be  supposed  to  have  been  taught  to  conceive  of  as  al- 
mighty, and,  therefore,  adequate  to  the  production  of 
this  effect;  but  as  relating  to  the  contrariety  which 
was  assumed  to  e.xist  between  the  doctrine  of  the  re- 
union of  the  soul  with  the  body,  and  those  hopes  of  a 
higher  condition  in  a  future  life,  wliich  both  reason  and 
revelation  taught  them  to  form.  The  second  question, 
"With  what  body  do  they  come""  like  the  former,  is  a 
question  not  of  inquiry,  but  of  denial,  or,  at  least,  of 
strong  doubt,  importing,  that  no  idea  could  be  enter- 
tamed  by  the  objector  of  any  material  body  being  made 
the  residence  of  a  disenthralled  spirit,  which  could 
comport  with  those  notions  of  deliverance  from  the 
bondage  of  corruption  by  death,  which  the  philosophy 
of  the  age  had  taught,  and  which  Christianity  itself  did 
not  discountenance.  The  questions,  though  different, 
come,  therefore,  nearly  to  the  same  iinport,  and  this 
explains  why  the  apostle  chiefly  dwells  upon  the  an- 
swer to  the  latter  only,  by  which,  in  fact,  he  replies  to 
both.  The  grain  cast  into  the  earth  even  dies  and  is 
corrupted,  and  tliat  which  is  sown  is  not  "  the  body 
which  shall  be,"  in  form  and  quality,  but  ''naked 
grain;"  yet  into  the  plant,  in  its  perfect  form,  is  the 
same  matter  transformed.  eSo  the  flesh  of  beasts,  birds, 
fishes,  and  man,  is  the  same  matter,  though  exhibiting 
different  qualities.  So,  also,  bodies  celestial  are  of  the 
same  matter  as  "  bodies  terrestrial ;"  and  the  more 
splendid  luminaries  of  the  heavens  are,  in  substance, 
the  same  as  those  of  inferior  glory.  It  is  thus  that  the 
.  apostle  reaches  his  conclusion,  and  shows,  that  the 
doctrine  of  our  reunion  with  the  body  implies  in  it  no 
imperfection — nothing  contrary  to  the  hopes  of  libera- 
tion "  from  the  burden  of  this  flesh  ;"  because  of  the 
high  and  glorified  qualities  which  God  is  able  to  give 
to  matter ;  of  which  the  superior  purity,  splendour, 
and  energy  of  some  material  things  in  this  world,  in 
comparison  of  others,  is  a  visible  demonstration.  For 
after  he  has  given  these  instances,  he  adds,  "  So  is  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead ;  it  is  sown  in  corruption,  it  is 
raised  in  incorniption ;  it  is  sown  in  dishonour,  it  is 
raised  in  glory ;  it  is  sown  in  weakness,  it  is  raised 
in  power ;  it  is  sown  a  natural  (an  animal)  body,  it  is 
raised  a  spiritual  body,"  so  called,  "  as  being  accommo- 
dated to  a  spirit,  and  far  excelling  all  that  is  required 
for  the  transaction  of  earthly  and  terrene  affairs  ;"(5) 
and  so  intent  is  the  apostle  on  dissipating  all  those 
gross  representations  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
which  the  objectors  had  assumed  as  the  ground  of  their 
opposition,  and  which  they  had,  probably,  in  their  dispu- 
tations, placed  under  the  strongest  views,  that  he  guards 
the  true  Christian  doctrine,  on  this  point,  in  the  most 
explicit  manner,  "  Now,  this  1  say,  brethren,  that  flesh 
and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God,  neither 
doth  corruption  inherit  incorruptioii ;"  and,  therefore,  let 


(4)  The  present  indicative  verb  is  here  used,  as  it  is 
generally  throughout  this  chapter,  for  the  future. 

(.5)  RuSENUULLER. 


no  man  henceforward  artirm,  or  assume  it  In  his  argu- 
ment, that  we  teacti  any  such  doctrine.  This,  also,'hc 
strengtiiens  by  showiiig,  that  as  to  the  saints  who  are 
alive  at  the  second  coming  of  (  lirisl,  tliey  also  shall  be 
in  like  manner"  I  iiANfiED,"  and  tliat  "  this  corruptible," 
as  to  them  also,  "  shall  put  on  iucorruption." 

Thus,  in  the  argument,  the  apostle  confines  himself 
wholly  to  the  possibility  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
in  a  refiiicil  and  glorified  state  ;  but  omits  all  rclcrenco 
to  the  mode  in  which  the  thing  will  be  elfectcd,  as  be- 
ing out  of  the  line  of  the  objector's  questions,  and  in 
itself  above  human  thought,  and  wholly  miraculous. 
It  is,  however,  clear,  that  when  he  speaks  of  tlit  body,  as 
the  subject  of  this  wonderous  "change,"  he  speaks  of 
it  popularly,  as  the  same  body  in  substance,  whatever 
changes  in  its  qualities  or  figure  may  be  impressed 
upon  it.  Great  general  changes  it  will  experience,  as 
from  corruption  to  incorruption,  from  mortality  to  im- 
mortality ;  great  changes  of  a.  particular  kind  will  also 
take  place,  as  its  being  freed  from  deformities  and  de- 
fects, and  the  accidental  varieties  produced  by  climate, 
aliments,  labour,  and  hereditary  diseases.  It  is  also 
laid  down  by  our  Lord,  that  "  in  the  resurrection  Ihcy 
shall  neither  marry  nor  be  given  in  marriage,  but  be 
like  to  the  angels  of  God;"  and  this  also  implies  a  cer- 
tain change  of  structure  ;  and  we  may  gather  from  the 
declaration  of  the  apostle,  that  though  "  the  stomach" 
is  now  adapted  "  to  meats,  and  meats  to  the  stomach, 
God  will  destroy  both  it  and  them ;"  that  the  animal 
appetite  for  food  will  be  removed,  and  the  organ  now 
adapted  to  that  appetite  have  no  place  in  the  renewed 
frame.  Cut  great  as  these  changes  are,  the  human 
tbrm  will  be  retained  in  its  perfection,  after  the  model 
of  our  Lord's  "  glorious  body,"  and  the  substance  of 
the  matter  of  which  it  is  composed  will  not  thereby  be 
affected.  That  the  same  body  which  was  laid  in  the 
grave  shall  arise  out  of  it,  is  the  manifest  doctrine  of 
the  Scriptures. 

The  notion  of  an  incorruptible  germ,  or  that  of  an 
original  and  unchangeable  stamen,  out  of  which  a  new 
and  glorious  body,  at  the  resurrection,  is  to  spring,  ap- 
pears to  have  been  borrowed  from  the  speculations  of 
some  of  the  Jewish  Rabbins,  who  speak  of  some  such 
supposed  part  in  the  human  frame,  under  the  name  luz, 
to  which  tliey  ascribe  marvellous  properties,  and  from 
which  the  body  was  to  arise.  No  allusion  is,  however, 
made  to  any  such  opinion  by  the  early  fathers,  in  their 
defences  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  from  the 
dead.  On  the  contrary,  they  argue  in  such  a  way  aa 
to  prove  the  possibility  of  the  reunion  of  the  scattered 
parts  of  the  body  ;  which  sufficiently  shows  that  the 
germ  theory  had  not  been  resorted  to,  by  Christian  di- 
vines at  least,  in  order  to  harmonize  the  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection  with  philosophy.  So  Justin  Martyr,  in  a 
fragment  of  his  concerning  the  resurrection,  expressly 
answers  the  objection,  that  it  is  impossible  for  the  flesh, 
after  a  corruption  and  perfect  dissolution  of  all  its  parts, 
should  be  united  together  again,  and  contends,  "  that 
if  the  body  be  not  raised  complete,  with  all  its  integral 
parts,  it  would  argue  a  want  of  power  in  God  ;"  and 
although  some  of  the  Jews  adopted  the  notion  of  the 
gemiinating  or  springing  up  of  the  body  from  some 
one  indestructible  part,  yet  the  most  orthodox  of  their 
Rabbles  contended  for  the  resurrection  of  the  same 
body.  So  Maimonides  says,  "  Men,  in  the  same  man- 
ner as  they  before  lived,  with  the  same  body,  shall  be 
restored  to  life  by  God,  and  sent  into  this  life  with  the 
same  identity ;"  and  "  that  nothing  can  properly  be 
called  a  resurrection  of  the  dead,  but  the  return  of  the 
very  same  soul  into  the  very  same  body  from  which 
it  was  separated."(fi) 

This  theory,  under  its  various  forms,  and  whether 
adopted  by  Jews  or  Christians,  was  designed,  doubt- 
less, to  render  the  doctrine  of  a  resurrection  from  the 
dead  less  difficult  to  conceive,  and  more  acceptable  to 
pliilosophic  minds;  but,  like  most  other  attempts  of 
the  same  kind  to  bring  do\vn  the  supernatural  doctrines 
of  revelation  to  the  level  of  our  conceptions,  it  escapes 
none  of  the  original  difficulties,  and  involves  itself  in 
others  far  more  perplexing. 

For,  if  by  tliis  hypothesis  it  was  designed  to  remove 
the  difficulty  of  conceiving  how  the  scattered  parts  of 
one  body  could  be  preserved  from  becoming  integral 
parts  of  other  bodies,  it  supposes  that  the  constant 


(6)  Rambam  apud  Pocockium  in  Notis  Misccllan. 
Port.  Mos.  p.  125. 


380 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  IL 


care  of  Providence  is  exerted  to  maintain  the  incorrup- 
tibility of  tliose  individual  germs,  or  stamina,  so  as  to 
])rcvcnt  their  assimilation  with  each  other.  Now,  if 
tlioy  have  this  by  original  quality,  then  the  same  (luality 
may  just  as  easily  be  supposed  to  appertain  to  every 
particle  which  composes  a  liuman  body ;  so  that  though 
it  be  used  for  food,  it  sliall  not  be  capable  of  assimila- 
tion, in  any  circumstanees,  with  another  human  body. 
But  if  these  germs,  or  stamina,  liave  not  tliis  (puility 
by  their  original  nature,  they  can'oiily  bo  jirevented 
from  assimilating  with  each  other  by  I  hat  operation  of 
God  wtiich  is  present  to  all  liis  works,  and  wliich  must 
always  be  directed  to  secure  the  execution  of  his  own 
ultimate  designs.  If  this  view  be  adopted,  then,  if  the 
resort  must  at  last  be  to  the  supcrmtendence  of  a 
Being  of  infinite  power  and  wisdom,  there  is  no  greater 
difficulty  in  supposing  that  his  care  to  secure  this  ob- 
ject shall  extend  to  a  million  tlian  to  a  thousand  parti- 
cles of  matter.  This  is,  in  fact,  the  true  and  rational 
answer  to  the  objection  that  the  same  piece  of  matter 
may  happen  to  be  a  part  of  two  or  more  bodies,  as  in 
the  instances  of  men  feeding  upon  animals  which  have 
fed  upon  men,  and  of  men  feeding  upon  one  another. 
The  question  here  is  one  which  simply  respects  the 
frustrating  a  final  jiurpose  of  the  Almighty  by  an  ope- 
ration of  nature.  To  suppose  that  lie  cannot  prevent 
this,  is  to  deny  his  power;  to  suppose  him  inattentive 
to  it,  is  to  suppose  him  indifferent  to  his  own  designs ; 
and  to  assume  that  he  employs  care  to  prevent  it,  is  to 
assume  nothing  greater,  nothing  in  fact  so  great,  as 
many  instances  of  control,  which  are  always  occurring ; 
as,  for  instance,  the  regulation  of  the  proportion  of  the 
sexes  in  human  births,  which  cannot  be  attributed  to 
chance,  but  must  either  be  reliirred  to  superintendence, 
or  to  some  original  law. 

Thus  these  theories  afford  no  reUef  to  the  only  real 
difficulty  involved  in  the  doctrine,  but  leave  the  whole 
case  still  to  be  resolved  into  the  almighty  power  of 
God.  But  they  involve  themselves  in  llie  fatal  objec- 
tion, that  they  are  plainly  in  opposition  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Scriptures.    For, 

1.  There  is  no  resurrection  of  the  body  on  this  hypo- 
thesis, because  the  germ,  or  stamina,  can  in  no  good 
sense  be  called  "  tlie  boihj."  If  a  finger,  or  even  a  Imib, 
is  not  the  body,  much  less  can  these  minul-jr  parts  be 
entitled  to  this  appellation. 

2.  There  is,  on  these  theories,  no  resurrection  at  all. 
For  if  the  preserved  part  be  a  germ,  and  the  analogy  of 
germination  be  adopted;  then  we  have  no  longer  a 


re.ivrreclinH  from  death,  but  a  vegetation  from  a  sus- 
pended i)rinciiile  ol' secret  life.  If  the  stamina  of  Leib- 
nitz, be  contended  for,  then  the  body,  into  which  the 
soul  enters  at  the  resurrection,  with  the  exception  of 
these  minute  stamina,  is  provided  for  it  by  the  addition 
and  aggregation  of  new  matter,  and  we  have  a  creation, 
not  a  resiirrcctirm. 

3.  If  bodies  in  either  of  .these  modes,  are  to  be  framed 
for  the  soul,  by  the  addition  of  a  large  mass  of  new 
matter,  tlie  resurrection  is  made  substantially  the 
same  witli  the  pagan  notion  of  the  metemiisychosis ; 
and  if  St.  Paul  at  Aihcns,  preached  not  "  Jesus  and 
the  resurrection,"  but  .lesus  and  a  transmigration  into 
a  new  body,  it  will  be  diincult  to  account  for  his  hearers 
scoffing  at  a  doctrine  which  had  received  the  sanction 
of  several  of  their  own  philosophic  authorities. 

Another  objection  to  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
has  been  drawn  from  the  changes  of  its  substance 
during  life.  The  answer  to  this  is,  that  allowing  a 
frequent  and  total  change  of  the  substance  of  the  body 
(which,  however,  is  but  an  hypothesis)  to  take  place, 
it  affects  not  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  which  is,  that 
the  body  which  is  laid  in  the  grave  shall  be  raised  up. 
But  then,  wo  are  told,  that  if  our  bodies  have  in  fact 
undergone  successive  changes  during  life,  the  bodies 
in  which  we  have  sinned  or  performed  rewardable  ac- 
tions, may  not  be,  in  many  instances,  the  same  bodies 
as  those  which  will  be  actually  rewarded  or  punished. 
We  answer,  that  rewards  and  punishments  have  their 
relation  to  the  body,  not  so  mucli  as  it  is  the  subject, 
but  the  instrument  of  reward  and  punishment.  It  is 
the  soul  only  which  perceives  pain  or  pleasure,  which 
suffers  or  enjoys,  and  is,  therefore,  the  only  rewardable 
svbject.  Were  we,  therefore,  to  admit  such  corporeal 
mutations  as  are  assumed  in  this  objection,  they  affect 
not  the  case  of  our  accountability.  The  personal  iden- 
tity or  sameness  of  a  rational  being,  as  Mr.  Locke  has 
observed,  consists  in  self-consciousness:  "  By  this 
every  one  is  to  himself  what  he  calls  self,  without  con- 
sidering whether  that  self  be  continued  in  the  same  or 
divers  substances.  It  was  by  the  same  self  which  re- 
flects on  an  action  done  many  ycar.f  ago,  that  the  ac- 
tion was  performed."  If  there  were  indeeil  any  weight 
in  this  objection,  it  would  affect  the  proceedings  of 
human  criminal  courts  in  all  cases  of  offences  commit- 
ted at  some  distance  of  time ;  but  it  contradicts  the 
common  sense,  because  it  contradicts  the  comiuon  con- 
sciousness and  experience  of  mankind. 


(381) 

PART  THIRD. 

THE  MORALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 


CHAPTER  I. 
The  Moral  Law. 

Of  the  Law  of  God,  as  the  subject  of  a  Divine  and 
adequately  authenticated  revelation,  some  observations 
were  made  in  the  first  part  of  this  work.  That  such 
a  law  exists,  so  communicated  to  mankind,  and  con- 
tained in  the  Holy  Scriptures  ; — that  we  are  under  obli- 
gation to  obey  it  as  the  declared  will  of  our  Creator  and 
Lord  ; — that  this  obligation  is  grounded  upon  our  natu- 
ral relation  to  liim  as  creatures  made  by  his  power, 
and  dependent  upon  his  bounty,  are  jjoints  which  need 
not,  therefore,  be  again  adverted  to,  nor  is  it  necessary 
to  dwell  upon  the  circumstances  and  degrees  of  its 
manifestation  to  men,  under  those  former  dispensations 
of  the  true  religion  which  preceded  Christianity.  We 
have  exhibited  the  leading  poctiunks  of  the  Scriptures, 
as  they  are  found  in  that  perfected  system  of  revealed 
religion,  which  we  owe  to  our  Saviour,  and  to  his 
apostles,  who  wrote  under  the  inspiration  of  that  Holy 
Spirit  whom  he  sent  forth  "  to  lead  them  into  all  truth  ;" 
and  we  shall  now  find  in  the  discourses  of  our  Lord, 
and  in  the  apostolical  writings,  a  system  of  moral  prin- 
ciples, virtues,  and  duties,  equalling  in  fulness  and 
perfection  that  great  body  of  doctrinal  truth  which 
is  contained  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  deriving  from 
it  its  vital  influence  and  efficacy. 

It  is,  however,  to  be  noticed,  that  the  Morals  of  the 
New  Testament  are  not  proposed  to  us  in  the  form  of  a 
regular  code.  Even  in  the  books  of  Moses,  which  have 
the  legislative  form  to  a  great  extent,  all  the  i)rinciples 
and  duties  which  constituted  the  full  character  of  "  godli- 
ness," under  that  dispensation,  are  not  made  tlie  sulsjects 
of  formal  injunction  by  particular  precepts.  They  are 
partly  infolded  in  general  princiides,  or  often  take  the 
form  of  injunction  in  an  apparently  incidental  manner, 
or  are  matters  of  obvious  inference.  A  preceding  code 
of  traditionary  moral  law  is  also  all  along  supposed  in 
the  writings  of  Moses  and  the  jirophets,  as  well  as  a 
consuetudinary  ritual  and  a  doctrinal  theology;  both 
transmitted  from  the  patriarchs.  This,  too,  is  emi- 
nently the  case  with  Christianity.  It  supposes  that  all 
who  believed  in  Christ  admitted  the  Divine  authority 
of  the  Old  Testament ;  and  it  assumes  the  perpetual 
authority  of  its  morals,  as  well  as  the  truth  of  its  fun- 
damental theology.  The  constant  allusions  in  the  New 
Testament  to  the  moral  rules  of  the  Jews  and  patri- 
archs, either  expres.sly  as  precepts,  or  as  the  data  of 
argument,  sufficiently  guard  us  against  the  notion, 
that  what  has  not  in  so  many  words  been  re-enacted 
by  Christ  and  liis  apo.stles  is  of  no  authority  among 
Christians.  In  a  great  number  of  instances,  however, 
the  form  is  directly  preceptive,  so  as  to  have  all  the  ex- 
plicitness  and  force  of  a  regular  code  of  law  ;  and  is, 
as  much  as  a  regular  code  could  be,  a  declaration  of  the 
sovereign  will  of  Christ,  enforced  by  the  sanctions  of 
eternal  life  and  death. 

This,  however,  is  a  point  on  which  a  few  confirma- 
tory observations  may  be  usefully  adduced. 

No  part  of  the  preceding  dispensation,  designated 
generally  by  the  appellation  of  "  thk  law,"  is  repealed 
in  the  New  Testament,  but  what  is  obviously  ceremo- 
nial, typical,  and  incapable  of  coexisting  with  Chris- 
tianity. Our  Lord,  in  his  ihscourse  with  the  Samaritan 
woman  declares,  that  the  hour  of  the  abolition  of  the  tem- 
ple worship  was  come ;  the  apostle  Paul,  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  teaches  us  tliat  the  Levitical  services 
were  but  shadows,  the  substance  and  end  of  which  is 
Christ ;  and  the  ancient  visible  church,  as  constituted 
upon  the  ground  of  natural  descent  from  Abraham, 
was  abolished  by  the  esiablishinent  of  a  spiritual  body 
of  believers  to  take  its  place. 


No  precepts  of  a  purely  political  nature,  that  is, 
which  respect  the  civil  subjection  of  the  Jews  to  their 
theocracy,  are,  therefore,  of  any  force  to  us  as  laws, 
although  tlicy  may  have,  in  many  cases,  the  greatest 
authority  as  principks.  No  ceremonial  precepts  can 
bo  binding,  since  they  were  restrained  to  a  period  ter- 
minating with  the  death  and  resurrection  of  (;hrist ; 
nor  are  even  the  patriarchal  rites  of  circumcision  and 
the  passovor  obligatory  upon  Christians,  since  wo 
have  sufficient  evidence,  that  they  were  of  an  adum- 
brative character,  and  were  laid  aside  by  the  first  in- 
spired teachers  of  Christianity. 

With  the  MORAL  prkcepts  which  abound  in  the  Old 
Testament  the  case  is  very  diflerent,  as  sufficiently  ap- 
pears from  the  diirerent  and  even  contrary  manner  in 
which  they  are  always  spoken  of  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles.  Wlien  our  Lord,  in  his  sermon  on  the  mount, 
says,  "  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law  or 
the  prophets ;  I  am  not  come  to  destroy  the  law,  but 
to  fulfil ;"  that  is,  to  confirm  or  establish  it: — Ihe  en- 
tire scope  of  Ids  discourse  sliows,  that  he  is  speaking 
exclusively  of  the  moral  precepts  of  the  law,  emi- 
nently so  called,  and  of  the  moral  injunctions  of  the  pro- 
phets founded  upon  them,  and  to  which  he  thus  gives 
an  equal  authority.  And  in  so  solemn  a  manner  does  he 
enforce  this,  that  he  adds,  doubtless  as  foreseeing  that 
attempts  would  be  made  by  deceiving  or  deceived  men 
professing  his  religion,  to  lessen  the  authority  of  the 
moral  law, — "  Whosoever,  therefore,  shall  break  one 
of  these  least  commandments,  and  shall  teach  men  so, 
he  .shall  be  called  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;" 
that  is,  as  St.  Chrysostoin  interprets,  "  he  shall  be  the 
farthest  from  attaining  heaven  and  happiness,  which 
imports  that  he  shall  not  attain  it  at  all." 

In  like  manner,  St.  Paul,  after  having  strenuously 
maintained  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone, 
anticipates  an  objection  by  aslung,  "  Do  we  then  make 
void  the  law  through  faith  V  and  subjoins,  "  God  for- 
bid, yea  we  establish  the  law  :"  meaning  by  "  the  law," 
as  the  context  and  his  argument  show,  the  moral,  and 
not  the  ceremonial  law. 

After  such  declarations,  it  is  worse  than  trifling  for 
any  to  contend,  that  in  order  to  establish  the  authority 
of  the  moral  law  of  the  Jews  over  Christians,  it  ought 
to  have  been  formally  re-enacted.  To  this,  however, 
we  may  farther  reply,  not  only  that  many  important 
moral  principles  and  rules  found  in  the  Old  Testament 
were  never  /ormaUy  enacted  among  the  Jews,  were 
traditional  from  an  earher  age,  and  received  at  diflerent 
times  the  more  indirect  atuhority  of  the  inspired  recog- 
nition ;  but  to  put  the  matter  in  a  stronger  light,  that 
all  the  leading  moral  precepts  of  the  Jewish  Scrip- 
lures  are,  in  point  of  fact,  proposed  in  a  manner 
which  has  the  full  force  of^  formal  re-enactment,  as 
the  laws  of  the  Christian  church.  This  argument, 
from  the  want  of  formal  re-enactment,  has  therefore  no 
weight.  The  summary  of  the  law  and  tlie  projiliets, 
which  is  to  love  God  with  all  our  heart,  and  to  servo 
him  with  all  our  strength,  and  to  love  our  neighbour  as 
our.selves,  is  unquestionably  enjoined,  and  even  re-en- 
acted by  the  Christian  Lawgiver.  When  our  Lord  is 
explicitly  asked  by  "one  wlio  came  unto  him  and  said, 
(Jood  Master,  what  good  thing  shall  I  do,  that  I  may 
have  eternal  life  V  The  answer  given  shows  that  the 
moral  law  contained  in  the  Decalogue  is  so  in  force 
under  the  Christian  dispensation,  that  obedience  to  it  is 
necessary  to  final  salvation  : — "  If  thou  wilt  enter  into 
life,  keep  the  commandments."  And  that  nothing  ce- 
remonial is  intended  by  this  term  is  manifest  from  what 
follows.  "He  saith  unto  liim.  Which'  Jesus  said. 
Thou  Shalt  do  no  murder.  Thou  shall  not  commit 
adultery.    Thou  ehalt  not  atcal,"  ioc,  Matt.  xix.  17— 


382 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  IIL 


19.  Hero,  also,  wt-  have  all  the  lorcc  of  a  Coniial  ri'- 
cnactmont  ol"  the  Decalogue,  a  part  of  it  being  evidently 
put  for  the  whole.  Nor  were  it  difficult  to  jiroiluce 
passages  from  the  discourses  of  C  Christ  andthewTitings 
of  the  apostles,  which  enjoin  all  the  precepts  of  this 
law  taken  seiKiratcIy,  by  their  authority,  as  indispensa- 
ble parts  ofChristian  duty,  and  that,  too,  under  their 
ori'^inal  sanctions  of  life  and  death  ;  so  that  the  two 
circumstances  which  form  the  true  character  of  a  law 
ill  its  highest  sense,  divine  authoiutv  and  penal 
sANcTio.Ns,  are  found  as  truly  in  the  New  Testament 
as  in  the  Old.  It  will  not,  for  instance,  be  contended 
•iu'it  the  New  Testament  does  not  enjoin  the  acknow- 
ledgment and  worship  of  one  nod  alone;  nor  that  it 
does  not  prohibit  idolatry  ;  nor  that  it  does  not  level  its 
maledictions  against  false  and  profane  swearing;  nor 
that  the  apostle  Paul  does  not  use  the  very  words  of  the 
filth  commandment  perceptively,  when  ho  says,  Eph. 
vi.  2,  "  Honour  thy  lather  and  mother,  whicih  is  the 
first  commandment  with  ])romise ;"  nor  that  murder, 
adultery,  theft,  false  witness,  and  covetousness  are 
not  all  prohil)ited  under  pain  of  exclusion  from  the 
kinsdom  of  Cino.  Thus,  then,  we  have  the  whole  De- 
ral()i;ui-'  brought  into  the  Christian  code  of  morals,  by  a 
distinct  iij|Uiic!ion  of  its  separate  precepts,  and  by  their 
recognition  as  of  peBmanent  and  unchangeable  obliga- 
tion :  the  fourth  commandment,  respecting  the  Sabbath 
only,  being  so  far  excepted,  that  its  injunction  is  not  so 
expressly  marked.  This,  however,  is  no  exception  in 
fact ;  lor  besides  that  its  original  place  in  the  two  tables 
sulliciently  distinguishes  it  from  all  positive,  ceremo- 
nial and  typical  precepts,  and  gives  it  a  moral  character , 
in  respect  of  its  ends,  which  are,  first,  mercy  to  servants 
and  cattle ;  and  second,  the  ivorskip  of  Almighty  God, 
undisturbed  by  worldly  interruptions  and  cares ;  it  is 
necessarily  included  in  that  "  law,"  which  our  Lord  de- 
clares he  came  not  to  destroy  or  abrogate ;  in  that  "  law" 
wliichSt.  Paul  declares  to  be  "  established  by  faith,"  and 
among  those  "commandments"  which  our  Lord  declares 
mustbe  "  kejit,"  if  any  one  would  "  enter  into  life."  To 
this,  also,  the  practice  of  the  apostles  is  to  be  added,  who 
did  not  cease  themselves  from  keeping  one  day  in  seven 
holy,  nor  teach  others  so  to  do ;  but  gave  to  •'  the  Lord's 
day"  that  eminence  and  sanctity  in  the  Christian  church 
which  the  seventh  day  had  in  the  Jewish,  by  conse- 
crating it  to  holy  uses  ;  an  alteration  not  afiecting  the 
precept  at  all,  except  in  an  unessential  circumstance 
(if,-  indeed,  in  that),  and  in  which  we  may  suppose  them 
to  act  under  Divine  suggestion. 

Thus,  then,  we  have  the  obligation  of  the  whole  De- 
calogue as  fully  established  in  the  New  Testament  as 
in  the  Old  as  if  it  had  been  formally  re-enacted  ;  and 
that  no  formal  re-enactment  of  it  took  place,  is  itself  a 
liresunijitive  proof  that  it  was  never  regarded  by  the 
Lawgiver  as  temporary,  which  the  formality  of  republi- 
calioii  iniirlit  have  supposed. 

It  is  iiii|Kjrl.int  to  remark,  however,  that  although  the 
moral  l;iws  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation  pass  into  the 
(Jhristiau  code,  they  stand  there  in  other  and  higher  cir- 
cumstances ;  so  that  the  New  Testament  is  a  more 
pcrl'ccl  disiiensationof  the  knowledge  of  the  moral  will 
of  Go<l  than  the  Old.     In  particular, 

L  They  are  more  ex[iressl)  e\t<'iidedto  the  heart,  as 
by  our  Lord,  in  his  sernioii  on  the  mount ;  whoteaclics 
us  that  the  thought  and  inward  ]iiirpose  of  any  oflence 
is  a  violation  of  the  law  prohibiting  its  external  and 
visible  commission. 

2.  The  principles  on  which  they  arefound(^d  are  car- 
ried out  in  Ihe  New  Testament  into  a  greater  variety 
of  duties,  which,  by  cmbra<;ing  more  jierfectly  the  social 
and  civil  relations  of  life,  are  of  a  more  universal  cha- 
racter. 

3.  There  is  a  much  more  enlarged  injunction  of  posi- 
tive and  particular  virtues,  e.spccially  those  which  con- 
stitute the  (,'hristian  temper. 

4.  Uy  all  overt  acts  bcinginscparably  connected  with 
corresponding  principles  in  the  heart,  in  order  to  con- 
Hlitule  acceptable  obedience,  which  principles  suppose 
the  regeneration  of  the  soul  by  the  Holy  Cliost.  This 
moral  renovation  is,  therefore,  held  out  as  luTessary 
to  our  s.ilvation,  and  promised  as  a  part  of  the  grace  of 
our  redciiijition  by  Christ. 

5.  liy  being  connected  with  promises  of  Divuie  assist- 
aiico,  which  is  peculiar  to  a  law  coniieclid  with  evan- 
gelical iirovisloiis. 

f>.  IJy  their  having  a  living  illuatralioii  lu  the  pexleci 
and  practical  example  of  Clirisi. 


7.  By  the  higher  sanctions  derived  from  the  clearer 
revelation  of  a  iutnre  state,  and  the  more  explicit  pro- 
mises of  eternal  life,  and  tlireatciiings  of  eternal  pu- 
nishment. 

It  follows  from  this,  that  we  have  in  the  Gospel  the 
most  complete  and  perfect  revelation  of  moral  law  ever 
given  to  men;  and  a  more  exact  manifestation  of  the 
brightnesis,  perfection,  and  glory  of  that  law,  under 
which  angels  and  our  progenitors  in  Paradise  were 
placed,  and  which  it  is  at  once  the  delight  and  interest 
of  the  most  perfect  and  happy  beings  to  obey. 

It  has,  however,  fared  with  morals  as  with  doctrines, 
that  they  have  been  often,  and  by  a  strange  perversity, 
studied,  without  any  reference  to  the  authority  of  the 
Scriptures.  As  we  have  had  systems  of  natural  re- 
LinioN  <lrawn  out  of  the  materials  furnished  by  the 
Siriptures,  and  then  placed  to  the  sole  account  of  hu- 
man reason  ;  so  we  have  also  various  systems  of  morals 
drawn,  as  far  as  the  authors  thought  fit,  from  the  saine 
source,  and  ]mt  forth  under  the  tillc  of  moual  philo- 
sopiiy,  implying  too  often,  or  at  least  sanctioning  the 
inference,  that  the  unassisted  jxiwers  of  m.an  are  equally 
adequate  to  the  discovery  of  doctrine  and  duty ;  or,  at 
best,  that  Christianity  but  perfects  what  uninspired 
men  are  able  not  only  to  commence,  but  'to  carry  on- 
ward to  a  considerable  approach  to  perfection.  This 
observation  may  be  made  as  to  both, — that  whatever  is 
found  correct  in  doctrine,  and  pure  in  morals,  in  ancient 
writers  or  systems,  may  be  traced  to  indirect  revela- 
tion ;  and  that,  so  far  as  mere  reason  has  applied  itself 
to  discovery  in  either,  it  has  generally  gone  astray.  The 
modern  systems  of  natural  religion  and  ethics  are  su- 
perior to  the  ancient,  not  because  the  reason  of  their 
framers  is  superior,  but  because  they  have  had  the  ad- 
vantage of  a  light  from  Christianity,  which  they  have 
not  been  candid  enough  generally  to  acknowledge. 
For  those  who  have  written  on  such  subjects  with  a 
view  to  lower  the  value  of  the  Holy  Scriiuurcs,  tho 
remarks  in  the  first  part  of  this  work  must  suflice ; 
but  of  that  class  of  moral  philosojihers,  who  hold  the 
authority  of  the  Sacred  Books,  and  yet  sediUously  omit 
all  reference  to  them,  it  may  be  incjuired  what  they 
jirojiose  by  disjoining  morals  from  Christianity,  anil 
considering  them  as  a  separate  science?  Authority 
they  cannot  gain,  for  no  obligation  to  duty  can  be  so 
high  as  the  command  of  God  ;  nor  can  that  authority 
be  applied  in  so  direct  a  manner,  as  by  a  revelation  of 
his  will :  and  as  for  the  perfection  of  their  system, 
since  they  discover  no  duties  not  already  enjoined  in 
the  Scriptures,  or  grounded  upon  some  general  princi- 
ples they  contain,  lliey  can  find  no  apology  from  the 
additions  they  make  to  our  moral  knowledge,  to  put 
Christianity,  on  all  such  subjects,  wholly  out  of  sight. 

All  attempts  to  teach  morals  independent  of  Chris- 
tianity, oven  by  those  who  receive  it  as  a  Divine  reve- 
lation must,  notwithstanding  the  grt'at  names  wliich 
have  sanctioned  the  practice,  be  considered  as  of  mis- 
chievous tendency,  althougtithe  design  may  have  been 
laudable,  and  the  labour,  in  some  subordinate  respects, 
not  without  utility : 

1.  Because  they  silently  convey  the  impression,  that 
liuman  reason,  without  assistance,  is  suflicient  to  dis- 
cover the  full  duty  of  man  towards  God  and  towards 
Ills  fellow-creatures. 

2.  Because  they  inqjly  a  deficiency  in  the  moral  code 
of  our  religion,  which  docs  not  exist ;  the  fact  being 
that,  although  these  sjstems  borrow  much  from  Chris- 
tianity, they  do  not  take  in  the  whole  of  its  moral  prin- 
ciples ;  and  therefore,  so  far  as  they  arc  accepted  as 
substitutes,  displace  what  is  perfect  for  what  is  im- 
perfect. 

3.  Because  they  turn  the  attention  from  what  is  fact, 
the  revealed  law  of  (Jod,  with  its  appropriate  sanc- 
tions, and  i>lacc  tho  obligation  to  obedience  cither  on 
fitiKiss,  beauty,  general  interest,  or  the  natural  autUority 
of  truth,  which  are  all  matters  of  ojiinion  ;  or,  if  they 
ultimately  rel'er  it  to  the  will  of  God,  yet  they  iyi/er 
that  will  iliniugh  various  reasonings  and  speculations, 
which  ill  Ihiiiiselvcs  are  still  diallers  of  opinion,  and 
as  to  which  men  will  feel  themselves  to  be  in  some  de- 
gree free. 

4.  The  duties  they  enjoin  arc  cither  merely  outward 
in  the  act,  and  so  lliey  disconnect  them  from  internal 
l)riiiciples  and  liabils,  without  which  they  arc  not  ac- 
ceptable to  God,  and  but  the  shadows  of  real  virtue, 
however  beneficial  they  may  be  to  men  ;  or  else,  they 
assuiiie  iliai   liiiiiiuii  nature  is  able  to  engraft  tliosu 


Ciup.  I.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


38S 


principles  and  habits  upon  itself,  and  to  practise  them 
without  abatement  and  inlerrupiion ;  a  notion  which  is 
contradicted  by  those  very  S(Tipture3  they  hoM  to  be 
of  Divine  authority. 

5.  Their  separation  of  the  dnctrines  of  religion  from  its 
morals  leails  to  an  entirely  didercnt  process  of  promot- 
iin;  morality  among  men,  to  that  which  the  infinite  wis- 
dom and  iroudness  of  (;od  has  established  in  the  Gos- 
pel, 'rhi'v  lay  down  the  rule  of  conduct,  and  recom- 
mend it  from  its  excellence  per  se,  or  its  influence  upon 
individuals  and  upon  society,  or  perhaps  because  it  is 
manifusled  to  lie  the  will  of  the  Supreme  Ueing,  indi- 
cated from  the  constitution  of  human  nature  and  the 
relalions  of  men.  But  Christianity  rigidly  connects 
its  doctrines  with  its  morals.  Its  doctrine  of  man's 
moral  weakness  is  made  use  of  to  lead  him  to  distrust 
his  own  eulficiency  ;  its  doctrine  of  the  atonement 
shows  at  once  the  infinite  evil  of  Bin,  and  encourages 
men  to  seek  deliverance  from  its  power.  Its  doctrine 
of  regeneration,  by  the  influence  of  the  Holy  cSpirit, 
implies  the  entire  destruction  of  the  love  of  evil,  and 
the  direction  of  the  whole  alfection  of  the  soul  to  uni- 
versal virtue.  Its  doctrine  of  prayer  opens  to  man  a 
fellowship  with  God,  invigorating  to  every  virtue.  The 
e.xami)le  of  Christ,  the  imitation  of  which  is  made  ob- 
ligatory upon  us,  is  in  itself  a  moral  system  in  action 
and  in  principle ;  and  the  revelation  of  a  future  judg- 
ment brings  the  whole  weight  of  the  control  of  future 
rewards  and  punishments  to  bear  upon  the  motives 
and  actions  of  men,  and  is  the  source  of  that  fear  of 
olfending  God,  which  is  the  constant  guard  of  virtue, 
when  human  motives  would  in  a  multitude  of  cases 
avail  nothing. 

It  may  indeed  be  asked,  whether  the  teaching  of  mo- 
rals must  then  in  all  cases  be  kept  in  connexion  with 
religion  ?  and  whether  the  philosophy  of  virtues  and  of 
vices,  with  the  lower  motives  by  wliich  they  are  urged 
upon  men,  may  not  be  usefully  investigated!  We  an- 
swer, that  if  the  end  proposed  by  this  is  not  altogether 
speculative,  but  something  practical ;  if  the  case  of  an 
immoral  world  is  taken  up  by  moralists  with  reference 
to  its  cure,  or  even  to  its  emendation  in  any  effectual 
degree,  the  whole  is  then  resolved  into  this  simple  ques- 
tion— whether  a  weaker  instrument  shall  be  preferred 
to  that  which  is  powerful  and  eflfective  ?  Certain  it  is, 
that  the  great  end  of  Christianity,  so  far  as  its  influence 
upon  society  goes,  is  to  moralize  mankind ;  but  its  infi- 
nitely wise  Author  has  established  and  authorized  but 
ONK  process  for  the  correction  of  the  practical  evils  of 
the  world,  and  that  is,  the  teaching  and  enforcement 
of  THB  WHOLE  TRUTH  as  it  Stands  in  his  own  Revela- 
tions; and  to  this  only  has  he  promised  his  special 
blessing.  A  distinct  class  of  ethical  teachers,  imitat- 
ing heathen  pliilosophers  in  the  principles  and  modes 
of  moral  tuition,  is,  in  a  Christian  country,  a  violent 
anomaly  ;  and  implies  an  absurd  return  to  the  twilight 
of  knowledge,  after  the  sun  itself  has  arisen  upon  the 
world. 

Within  proper  guards,  and  in  strict  connexion  with 
the  whule  Christian  system,  what  is  called  Moral  Phi- 
losophy is  not,  however,  to  be  undervalued ;  and  from 
many  of  the  writers  above  alluded  to,  much  useful  in- 
struction may  be  collected  ;  which,  though  of  but  little 
efficacy  in  itself,  may  be  invigorated  by  uniting  it  with 
the  vital  and  energetic  doctrines  of  religion,  and  may 
thus  become  directive  to  the  conduct  of  the  serious 
Christian.  Understanding,  then,  by  Moral  Philosophy, 
not  that  pride  of  science  wliich  borrows  the  discoveries 
of  the  Scriptures,  and  then  e.xhibits  itself  as  their  rival, 
or  affects  to  supply  their  deficiencies  ;  but  as  a  modest 
scrutiny  into  the  reasons  on  which  the  moral  precepts 
of  revelation  may  be  grounded,  and  a  wi.se  and  honest 
application  of  its  moral  principles  to  particular  cases, 
it  is  a  branch  of  science  which  may  be  usefully  culti- 
vated in  connexion  with  Christianity. 
S  With  respect  to  the  reasons  on  which  moral  precepts 
rest,  we  may  make  a  remark  similar  to  that  offered  in 
a  former  part  of  this  work,  on  the  doctrines  of  revela- 
tion. Some  of  those  doctrines  rest  wholly  on  the  au- 
thority of  the  Revealer  ;  olliers  are  accompanied  with 
a  manifest  rational  cvidunce ;  and  a  third  class  may 
partially  disclose  their  rntionalc  to  the  patient  and  pious 
inquirer.  Yet  the  authority  of  each  class  as  a  subject 
of  faith  is  the  same  ;  it  rests  upon  the  character  of  God 
and  his  relations  to  us ;  and  that  doctrine  is  equally 
binding,  which  is  enjoined  on  our  faith  without  other 
rational  evidence  thau  that  which  proves  it  to  be  a 


part  of  a  revelation  from  heaven,  as  that  which  exer- 
cises and  delights  our  rational  faculties  by  a  discUisuro 
of  the  internal  evidence  of  its  truth.  When  God  has 
permitted  us  to  "  turn  aside"  to  sec  some  "  great  sight" 
of  manifested  wisdom,  we  are  to  obey  the  invitation  ; 
but  still  we  are  always  to  remember  that  the  authority 
of  a  revealed  truth  stands  on  infinitely  higher  ground 
than  our  perception  of  its  reasonableness. 

So  also  as  to  the  moral  iirecejus  of  the  liibic,  the  ra- 
tional evidence  is  atlurdcd  in  dillerent  degrees,  and  it 
is  both  allowable  and  laudable  in  us  to  investigate  and 
collect  it ;  but  still  ^vith  this  caution,  that  the  authority 
of  such  injunctions  is  not  to  be  regulated  by  our  jier- 
ception  of  their  reasons,  although  the  reasons,  when 
apparent,  may  be  piously  applied  to  commend  the  au- 
thority. The  discoveries  we  may  make  of  fitness  or 
any  other  quality  in  a  precept  cannot  be  the  highest 
reason  of  our  obedience  ;  but  it  may  be  a  reason  for 
obeying  with  accelerated  alacrity.  The  obligation  of 
the  Sabbath  would  be  the  same  were  no  obvious  rea- 
sons of  mercy  and  piety  connected  with  it ;  but  the  in- 
fluence of  the  precept  upon  our  interests  and  that  of 
the  community  commends  the  precept  to  our  affections 
as  well  as  to  our  sense  of  duty. 

With  respect  to  the  application  of  general  precepts, 
that  practical  wisdom  which  is  the  result  of  large  and 
comprehensive  observation  has  an  important  office. 
The  precepts  of  a  universal  Revelation  must  necessa- 
rily be,  for  the  most  part,  general,  because  if  rules  had 
been  given  for  each  case  in  detail,  then  truly,  as  St. 
John  observes,  "  the  world  could  not  have  contained 
the  books  written."  The  application  of  these  general 
principles  to  that  variety  of  cases  which  arises  in  human 
affairs,  is  the  work  of  the  Christian  Preacher,  and  the 
Christian  Moralist.  Where  there  is  honesty  of  mind, 
ordinarily  there  can  be  no  difficulty  in  this;  and  iu 
cases  which  involve  some  thfficulty,  when  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  law  is  made,  as  it  always  ought,  to 
favour  the  rule  ;  and  when,  in  doubtful  cases,  the  safer 
course  is  adopted,  such  is  the  explicit  character  of  the 
general  principles  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  that  no  one 
can  go  astray.  The  Moral  Vliilosophy  which  treats  of 
exceptions  to  general  rules,  is  always  to  be  watched 
with  jealousy ;  and  ought  to  be  shunned  when  it  pre- 
sumes to  form  rules  out  of  sujiposed  exceptions.  This 
is  affecting  to  be  wiser  than  the  I/awgiver;  and  such 
philosophy  assumes  an  authority  in  the  control  of  hu- 
man conduct  to  which  it  has  no  title,  and  steps  in 
between  individuals  and  their  consciences  in  cases 
where  Almighty  (lod  himself  has  not  chosen  to  relieve 
them ;  and  where  they  are  specially  left,  as  all  some- 
times are,  to  "  Him  with  whom  they  have  to  do,"  with- 
out the  intervention  of  any  third  party.  Systems  of 
Casuistry  and  Cases  of  Conscience  have  happily  gone 
into  general  disuse.  That  they  have  done  more  harm 
upon  the  whole  than  good,  and  defiled  more  consciences 
than  they  have  relieved,  cannot  be  doubted  by  any  one 
who  has  largely  examined  them.  They  have  passed 
away  just  in  proportion  as  the  Scriptures  themselves 
have  been  circulated  through  society,  and  as  that 
preaching  has  been  most  prevalent  which  enforces  tho 
doctrine  of  Supreme  Love  to  God  and  our  Neighbour, 
as  the  sum  of  the  Law  and  of  the  Gosjiel.  They  most 
abounded  in  the  Romish  Church,  as  best  befitting  its 
system  of  darkness  and  delusion  ;(7)  and  though 
works  of  this  kind  are  Ibund  among  Protestants  in  a 
better  form,  they  have  gradually  and  happily  fallen  into 
neglect. 

A  few  words  may  here  be  offered  on  what  has  been 
termed  the  ground  of  Moral  Obligation. 

Some  writers  have  placed  this  in  "  the  eternal  and 
necessary  fitness  of  things;"  which  leaves  the  matter 
open  to  the  varying  conclusions  which  different  indi- 
viduals may  draw,  as  to  this  eternal  and  necessary 
fitness ;  and  still  farther,  leaves  that  very  natural  ques- 
tion quite  unanswered, — Why  is  any  one  obliged  to  act 
according  to  the  fitness  of  things  ? 

Others  have  referred  to  a  supposed  original  percep- 
tion of  what  is  right  and  wrong ;  a  kind  of  fixed  and 
permanent  and  uiialterabio  moral  sense,  by  which  the 
qualities  of  actions  are  at  once  determined ;  and  from 
the  supposed  universal  existence  of  this  perception, 
they  have  argued  the  obligation  to  act  accordingly. 
This  scheme,  which  seems  to  confound  that  in  human 


(7)  M.  le  Foore,  prci:eptor  of  Louis  XIII..  not  unaptly 
called  Casuistry,  "  the  art  of  quibbling  with  God." 


384 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  III. 


nature  to  which  an  aiipeal  may  be  made  when  the  un- 
dcrstandinj;  is  cnlif^hteiicd  by  real  truth,  with  a  dis- 
criminating and  directive  principle  acting  indejiondently 
of  instruction,  is  also  iinsatislaetory.  For  the  moral 
sense  is,  in  fact,  found  under  the  control  of  ignorance 
and  error ;  nor  does  it  possess  a  sensitiveness  in  all 
cases  in  proportion  to  the  truth  received  into  the  under- 
standing. The  worst  crimes  have  often  been  com- 
mitted with  a  conviction  of  their  being  right,  as  in  the 
case  of  religious  persecutions ;  and  absence  of  the 
habit  of  attending  to  the  quality  of  our  ai;tions  often 
renders  the  abstract  truth  laid  up  in  the  understanding 
useless,  as  to  its  influence  upon  the  conscience.  But 
il'  all  that  is  said  of  this  moral  sense  were  true,  still  it 
would  not  establish  the  principle  of  obligation.  That 
supposes  sujierior  authority  ;  and  should  we  allow  the 
moral  sense  to  act  uniformly,  still  how  is  the  obUg:ation 
to  perform  what  it  approves  to  be  demonstrated,  unless 
some  higher  consideration  be  added  to  the  case? 

More  modern  moralists  have  taken  the  tendency  of 
any  course  of  action  to  jiroduce  the  greatest  good  upon 
the  whole  as  the  source  of  moral  obligation;  and  with 
this  they  often  connect  the  will  of  God,  of  which  they 
consider  this  general  tendency  to  be  the  manifestation. 
It  were  better,  surely,  to  refer  at  once  to  the  will  of 
God,  as  revealed  by  himself,  without  encumbering  tho 
subject  witli  the  circuitous,  and,  at  best,  doubtful  pro- 
cess of  first  considering  what  is  good  upon  the  whole, 
and  then  inferring  that  this  must  needs  be  the  will  of  a 
wise  and  benevolent  Being.  The  objection,  too,  holds 
in  this  case,  that  this  theory  leaves  it  still  a  mer«  mat- 
ter of  opinion,  in  which  an  interested  party  is  to  be  the 
judge,  whether  an  action  be  upon  the  whole  good ;  and 
gives  a  rule  which  would  be  with  difliculty  applied  to 
some  cases,  and  is  scarcely  at  all  applicable  to  many 
others  which  may  be  supposed. 

The  only  satisfactory  answer  which  the  question  as 
to  the  source  of  moral  obligation  can  receive,  is,  that 
it  is  found  in  the  will  of  God.  For  since  the  ques- 
tion respects  the  duty  of  a  created  being  with  reference 
to  his  Creator,  nothing  can  be  more  conclusive  than 
that  the  Creator  has  an  absolute  right  to  the  obedience 
of  his  creatures ;  and  that  the  creature  is  in  duty 
obliged  to  obey  Him  from  whom  it  not  only  has  re- 
ceived being,  but  by  whom  that  being  is  constantly 
sustained.  It  has  indeed  been  said,  that  even  if  it  be 
admitted,  that  I  am  obliged  to  obey  the  will  of  God,  the 
question  is  still  open,  "  Why  am  I  obliged  to  obey  his 
will  ?"  and  that  this  brings  us  round  to  the  former  an- 
swer, because  he  can  only  will  what  is  upon  the  whole 
best  for  his  creatures.  But  this  is  confounding  that 
which  may  be,  and  doubtless  is,  a  rule  to  God  in  the 
commands  which  he  issues,  with  that  which  really 
obliges  the  creature.  Now,  that  which  in  truth  obliges 
the  creature  is  not  the  nature  of  the  command.s  is- 
sued by  God,  but  the  relation  in  which  the  creature 
itself  stands  to  God.  If  a  creature  can  have  no  exist- 
ence, nor  any  power  or  faculty  independently  of  God, 
it  can  have  no  right  to  einjiloy  its  faculties  independ- 
ently of  him ;  and  if  it  have  no  right  to  employ  its  fa- 
culties in  an  independent  manner,  the  right  to  rule  its 
conduct  must  rest  with  the  Creator  alone ;  and  from 
this  results  the  obligation  of  the  creature  to  obey. 

Such  is  the  princiide  assumed  in  the  Scriptures, 
where  the  creative  and  rectoral  relations  of  God  are 
inseparably  united,  and  the  olillgalioii  of  obedience  is 
ma<le  to  Ibllow  upon  the  lUi-l  ol  our  existence ;  and  if 
the  will  of  God,  as  the  soun-e  of  obligation,  be  so  ob- 
vious a  rule,  the  only  remaining  question  is,  whether 
we  shall  receive  that  will  as  it  is  expressly  revealed  by 
himself:  or,  wilfully  forgetting  that  such  a  revelation 
has  been  made,  we  shall  proceed  to  infer  it  by  various 
jirocesses  of  induction  \  The  answer  to  this  might 
iiave  been  salely  left  to  the  common  sense  of  mankind, 
had  not  the  vanity  of  philosophi/iing  so  often  inlerjioseil 
to  perplex  so  plain  a  point. 

We  must  not  hero  confound  the  will  of  God  as  the 
source  of  moral  obligation,  with  the  notion  that  right 
and  wrong  have  no  existence  but  as  they  are  so  con- 
stituted by  tlie  will  of  God.  They  must  have  their 
foundation  in  the  reality  of  things.  What  moral  rec- 
titude is,  and  why  it  obliges,  are  cpiile  distinct  ques- 
tions. It  is  to  tlie  latter  only  that  the  iireiciling  obser- 
vations apply.  As  to  the  former,  the  liillowing  re- 
marks, from  a  recent  inlelligcul  publication,  are  very 
satisfactory; — 

"Virtue, as  it  regards  man,  is  the  confuriiuiy  or  har- 


mony ol'  his  aircctions  and  actions  with  the  various 
relations  in  which  he  has  been  placed, — of  which  con- 
lormity  the  perlect  intellect  of  God,  guided  in  its  ex- 
ercise by  hia  infinitely  holy  nature,  is  the  only  infalli- 
ble judge. 

"  We  sustain  variotis  relations  to  God  himself.  He 
is  our  Creator, — our  Preserver, — our  Benefactor, — our 
Governor.  'He  is  the  framer  of  our  bodies,  and  the 
Father  of  our  spirits.'  He  sustains  us  '  by  the  word 
of  his  power ;'  lor,  as  we  are  necessarily  dependent  be- 
ings, our  continued  existence  is  a  khid  of  prolonged 
creation.  We  owe  all  that  we  possess  to  Him;  and 
our  future  blessings  must  flow  from  his  kindness. 
Now  there  are  obviously  certain  alTectioiis  and  actions 
which  harmonize  or  correspond  with  these  relations. 
To  love  and  obey  God  manifestly  hetit  our  relation  to 
him,  as  that  great  Being  trom  whom  our  existence  as 
well  as  all  our  comforts  flow.  He  who  .showers  his  bless- 
ings upon  us  ought  to  possess  our  affections  ;  he  who 
formed  us  has  a  right  to  our  obedience.  It  is  not  stated 
merely,  let  it  be  observed,  that  it  is  impossible  to  contem- 
plate our  relation  to  God  without  perceiving  that  we 
are  morally  bound  to  love  and  obey  him  (though  that 
is  a  truth  of  great  importance) ;  for  I  do  not  consent  lo 
the  proi)riety  of  the  rejiresentation,  that  virtue  depends 
either  upon  our  perceptions  or  our  feelings.  There  is  a 
real  harmony  between  the  relations  in  which  we  stand 
to  God,  and  the  feelings  and  conduct  to  which  reference 
has  been  made;  and  therefore  the  human  mind  has 
been  formed  capable  of  perceiving  and  feeling  it. 

"  We  s^iistai7i  various  relations  to  each  other.  God 
has  formed  '  of  one  blood  all  the  families  of  the  earth.' 
Mutual  love  and  brotherly  kindness,  the  fruit  of  love, 
are  required  by  this  relation, — they  harmonize  or  cor- 
respond with  it.  We  are  cliildren  ;  we  are  loved,  and 
guarded,  and  supported,  and  tended  with  unwearied 
assiduity  by  our  parents.  FiUal  affection  and  filial 
obedience  are  demanded  by  this  relation  ;  no  other  state 
of  mind,  no  other  conduct,  will  harmonize  with  it.  We 
are,  perhaps,  on  the  other  hand,  parents.  Instrument- 
ally  at  least  we  have  imparted  existence  to  our  child- 
ren ;  they  depend  on  us  for  protection,  support,  &c. ; 
and  to  render  that  support,  is  required  by  the  relation 
we  bear  to  them.  It  is,  however,  needless  to  specify 
the  various  relations  in  which  we  stand  to  each  other. 
With  reference  to  all  I  again  say,  that  they  necessarily 
involve  obligations  to  certain  states  of  mind,  and  cer- 
tain modes  of  conduct,  as  liarmonizing  with  the  rela- 
tions ;  and  that  rectitude  is  the  confbrmity  of  the  cha- 
racter and  conduct  of  an  individual  with  the  relations  in 
which  he  stands  to  the  beings  by  whom  he  is  surrounded. 

"  It  is  by  no  means  certain  to  me,  that  this  harmony 
between  the  a(;tions  and  the  relations  of  a  moral  agent, 
is  not  what  we  arc  to  understand  by  that  '  conformity 
to  the  fitness  of  things,'  in  which  some  writers  have 
made  the  essence  of  virtue  to  consist.  Against  tliis 
doctrine,  it  has  been  objected,  that  it  is  indefinite,  if  not 
absurd;  because,  as  it  is  alleged,  it  represents  an  action 
as  right  and  fit,  without  stating  what  it  is  fit  for,— an 
absurdity  as  great,  says  the  object  or, as  it  would  be  to 
say  that  '  the  angles  at  the  base  of  an  isosceles  trian- 
gle are  equal  witlwut  adding  to  one  another,  or  to  any 
other  angle.'  IJr.  Itrown  also,  in  arguing  against  this 
doctrine,  says,  '  There  must  be  a  principle  of  moral 
regard,  independent  of  reason,  or  reason  may  in  vain 
see  a  thousand  fitnesses,  and  a  thousand  truths  ;  .and 
would  be  warmed  with  the  same  lively  emotions  of 
indignation  against  an  inaccurate  timepiece  or  an  error 
in  arithmetic  calculation,  as  against  the  wretch  who 
robbed,  by  every  fraud  that  could  elude  the  law,  those 
who  had  already  little  of  which  they  could  be  deprived, 
that  he  might  riot  a  little  more  luxuriously,  while  the 
helpless,  whom  he  had  plundered,  were  starving  around 
him.'  Now,  why  may  wo  not  say,  in  answer  to  the 
former  objector,  that  the  conformity  of  an  action  with 
the  rel.iiionsof  the  agent  is  the  fitness  for  which  Clarke 
contends?  And  why  may  not  we  rejily  lo  Ur.  Brown, 
that,— allowing,  as  we  do,  the  necessity  of  that  sus- 
ceptibility of  moral  emotion  for  which  ho  contends,— 
the  emcitioa  of  approbation  which  arises  on  the  con- 
templation of  a  virtuou.s  action  is  not  the  virtue  of  the 
action,  nor  the  jierception  of  its  accordance  with  the 
relations  of  the  agent,  lurr  tiik  a(  i  oRHANrK  itself? 
'That  a  being,'  says  Dewar,  'endowed  with  certain 
powiTs,  is  bound  lo  love  and  obey  the  Creator  and  Pre- 
server of  all,  is  truth,  whet  lier  I  perceive  it  or  no;  and  we 
eaiuiot  perceive  it  posbible  tlial  it  can  ever  be  reversed." 


Chap.  II.] 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


385 


"  AH  Ihe  relations  to  which  reference  has  been  made 
arc,  in  one  sense,  arbitrary.  Our  existence  as  crea- 
tures is  to  be  ascriljcil  to  tlie  mere  good  pleasure  of 
(!od.  The  relations  wliicli  hind  society  tof^ether,  the 
conjugal,  parental,  filial  relation,  depend  entirely  upon 
the  sovereign  will  of  Him  who  gave  us  our  being ;  but 
the  conduct  to  which  these  relations  oblige,  is  by  no 
means  arbitrary.'  Having  determined  to  constitute  the 
relations,  He  could  not  but  enjoin  upon  us  the  conduct 
which  his  word  prescribes,  tie  was  under  no  obliga- 
tion to  create  us  at  all ;  but,  having  given  us  existence, 
lie  could  not  fail  to  command  us  to  love  and  obey  him. 
There  is  a  harmony  between  these  relations,  and  these 
duties,— a  harmony  which  is  not  only  perceived  by  us, 
^for  to  state  that  merely,  would  seem  to  make  our  per- 
ceptions the  rule,  if  not  the  foundation,  of  duty,— but 
which  is  perceived  by  the  perfect  intellect  of  God  him- 
self. And  since  the  relations  we  sustain  were  consti- 
tuted by  God,  since  he  is  the  Judge  of  the  affections  and 
conduct  which  harmoni/.o  with  these  relations,— ^Aai 
lohicli  appears  right  to  Hun,  being'  right  on  that  ac- 
count,—rectitude  inay  he  regarded  as  confnrmitxj  to 
the  moral  nature  of  God,  the  ultimate  standard  of 
itir/iie."(S) 

To  the  revealed  will  of  God  we  may  now  turn  for 
information  on  the  interesting  subject  of  morals,  and 
we  shall  find  that  the  ethics  of  Christianity  have  a 
glory  and  perliiction  which  philosophy  has  never  height- 
ened, an<l  which  its  only  true  oiKce  is  to  display  and 
keep  before  the  attention  of  mankind. 


CHAPTER  II. 
The  Ddtiks  we  owe  to  God. 

The  duties  we  owe  to  God  are  in  Scripture  .summed 
np  in  the  word  "  Godliness,"  the  foundation  of  which, 
and  of  duties  of  every  other  kind,  is  that  eutire 

8rB\ii:iSioN  TO  Gon,  which  sprhigs  from  a  due  sense 
of  that  relation  in  which  we  stand  to  him,  as  creatures. 

We  have  just  seen  that  the  right  of  an  absolute  sove- 
reignty over  us  must,  in  the  reason  of  the  case,  e.xist 
exclusively  in  Him  that  made  us;  and  it  is  the  percep- 
tion and  recognition  of  tiiis,  as  a  practical  habit  of  the 
mind,  wliich  renders  outward  acts  of  obedience  sincere 
and  religious.  The  will  of  God  is  the  only  rule  to 
man,  in  every  thing  on  which  that  will  has  declared 
itself;  and,  as  it  lays  its  injunctions  upon  the  heart  as 
well  as  the  life,  the  rule  is  equally  in  force  when  it  di- 
rects our  opinions,  our  motives,  and  affections,  as 
when  it  enjoins  or  prohibits  external  acts.  We  are  his 
because  he  made  us  ;  and  to  this  is  added  the  confirma- 
tion of  this  right  by  our  redemption :  "  Ye  are  not 
your  own,  but  bought  with  a  price  ;  wherefore  glorify 
God  in  your  bodies  and  spirits,  which  are  his."  These 
ideas  of  absolute  right  to  command  on  the  part  of  God, 
and  of  absolute  obligation  to  universal  obedience  on  the 
part  of  man,  are  united  in  the  profession  of  St.  Paul, 
"  Whose  I  am  and  whom  I  serve  ;"  and  from  the  grand 
fundamental  principle  of  "  godliness"  both  in  the  Old 
and  Ncvv  Testaments,  the  will  of  God  being  laid  down 
in  each,  both  as  the  highest  reason  and  the  most  pow- 
erful motive  to  obedience.  The  application  of  this  prin- 
ciple so  established  by  the  Scriptures  will  show  how 
greatly  superior  is  the  ground  on  which  (Christianity 
places  moral  virtue  to  that  of  any  other  system.     For, 

1.  The  will  of  God,  which  is  the  rule  of  duty,  is  au- 
thenticated by  the  whole  of  that  stupendous  evidence 
which  proves  the  Scriptures  to  be  of  Divine  original. 

2.  That  will  at  once  defines  and  euforces  every 
branch  of  inward  and  outward  purity,  rectitude,  and 
benevolence. 

3.  It  annuls  by  its  authority  every  other  rule  of  con- 
duct contrary  to  itself,  whether  it  arise  from  custom,  or 
from  the  example,  persuasion,  or  opinions  of  others. 

4.  It  is  a  rule  which  admits  not  of  being  lowered  to 
the  weak  and  fallen  state  of  human  nature ;  but,  con- 
necting itself  with  a  gracious  dispensation  of  super- 
natural help,  it  directs  Ihe  morally  imbecile  to  that  re- 
medy, and  holds  every  one  guilty  of  the  violation  of  all 
that  he  is  by  nature  and  habit  unable  to  perlbrm,  il 
that  remedy  be  neglected . 

5.  It  accommodates  not  i.'sclf  to  the  interests  or  even 
safety  of  men;  but  requires   that  interest,   honour, 


(8)  P.ivNB'd  Elements  of  Mental  and  Moral  Science. 
lib 


liberty,  and  life  should  be  surrendered,  rather  than  it 

should  sustain  any  violation. 

6.  It  admits  no  exceptions  in  obedience ;  but  re- 
(luires  it  whole  and  entire ;  so  that  outward  virtue  can- 
not be  taken  in  the  place  of  that  which  has  its  seat  in 
the  heart ;  and  it  allows  no  acts  lo  be  reaJly  virtuous, 
but  those  which  spring  from  a  willing  and  submissive 
mind,  and  are  done  upon  the  vital  principle  of  a  dis- 
tinct recognition  of  our  rightful  subjection  to  God. 

Love  to  God.  To  serve  and  obey  God  on  the  con- 
viction that  It  is  right  to  serve  and  obey  him,  is  in 
Christianity  joined  with  that  love  to  God  which  gives 
life  and  a;iiination  to  service,  and  renders  it  the  means 
of  exalting  our  pleasures,  at  the  same  time  that  it  ac- 
cords with  our  convictions.  The  supreme  love  of  God 
is  I  lie  chief,  therefore,  of  what  have  been  called  our 
/heopathetic  affections.  It  is  the  sum  and  the  end  of 
law  ;  and  though  lost  by  us  in  Adam,  is  restored  to  us 
by  Christ.  When  it  regards  God  absolutely,  and  in  him- 
self, as  a  Being  of  infinite  and  harmonious  perfections 
and  moral  beauties,  it  is  that  movement  of  the  soul  to- 
wards him  which  is  produced  by  admiration,  approval, 
and  delight.  When  it  regards  him  relatively,  it  fixes 
ujion  the  ceaseless  emanations  of  his  goodness  to  us  in 
the  continuance  of  the  existence  which  he  at  first  bc- 
stowid  ;  the  circumstances  which  render  that  exist- 
ence felicitous;  and,  above  all,  Ujion  that  "great  love 
wherewith  he  loved  us,"  manifested  in  the  gill  of  liis 
Son  lor  our  redemption,  and  in  saving  us  by  his  grace ; 
or,  in  the  forcible  language  of  St.  Paul,  upon  "  the  ex- 
ceeding riclies  of  his  grace  in  his  kindness  to  us 
through  Christ  Jesus."  Under  all  these  views  an  un- 
bounded gratitude  overflows  the  heart  which  is  influ- 
enced by  this  spiritual  affection.  But  the  love  of  God 
is  more  than  a  sentiment  of  gratitude.  It  rejoices  in 
his  perfections  and  glories,  and  devoutly  contemplates 
them  as  the  highest  and  most  interesting  subjects  of 
thought ;  it  keeps  the  idea  of  this  supremely-beloved 
object  constantly  present  to  the  mind ;  it  turns  to  it  with 
adoring  ardour  from  the  business  and  distractions  of  life ; 
it  connects  it  with  every  scene  of  majesty  and  beauty 
in  nature,  and  with  every  event  of  general  and  par- 
ticular providence :  it  brings  the  soul  into  fellowship 
with  God,  real  and  sensible,  because  vita! ;  it  moulds 
the  other  afleclions  into  conformity  with  what  God 
himself  wills  or  prohibits,  loves  or  hates;  it  produces 
an  unbounded  desire  to  please  him,  and  to  be  accepted 
of  him  in  all  things ;  it  is  jealous  of  his  honour,  un- 
wearied in  his  service,  quick  to  prompt  to  every  sacri- 
fice in  the  cause  of  his  truth  and  his  Church  ;  and  it 
renders  all  such  sacrifices,  even  when  carried  to  the 
extent  of  suffering  and  death,  unreluctant  and  cheer- 
ful. It  chooses  God  as  the  chief  good  of  the  soul,  the 
enjoyment  of  which  assures  its  perfect  and  eternal  in- 
terest and  happiness.  "  Whom  have  I  in  heaven  but 
thee  .'  and  there  is  none  upon  earth  that  I  desire  beside 
thee,"  is  the  language  of  every  heart,  when  its  love  of 
God  is  true  in  princiiile  and  supreme  in  degree. 

If,  then,  the  will  of  God  is  the  perfect  rule  of  morals ; 
and  if  supreme  and  perfect  love  to  God  must  produce 
a  prompt,  an  unwearied,  a  delightful  subjection  to  his 
will,  or  rather,  an  entire  and  most  free  choice  of  it  as 
tiie  rule  of  all  our  jirinciples,  affections,  and  actions ; 
the  importance  of  this  affection  in  securing  that  obe- 
dience to  the  law  of  God  in  which  trtte  morality  con- 
sists, is  manifest ;  and  we  clearly  perceive  the  reason 
why  an  inspired  writer  has  affirmed  that  "  love  is  the 
fulfilling  of  the  law."  The  necessity  of  keeping  this 
subject  before  us  under  those  views  in  which  it  is 
placed  in  the  Christian  system,  and  of  not  surrender- 
ing it  to  mere  philosophy,  is,  however,  an  imjiortant 
consideration.  Witli  the  philosopher,  the  love  of  (iod 
may  be  the  mere  approval  of  the  intellect ;  or  a  senti- 
ment which  results  from  the  contemplation  of  infinite 
perfection,  manifesting  itself  in  acts  of  power  and 
goodness.  In  the  Scriptures,  it  is  much  more  than 
either,  and  is  produced  and  manitained  by  a  diflferent 
process.  We  are  there  taught  that  "  the  carnal  mind 
is  enmity  to  God,"  and  is  not  of  course  capable  of 
loving  God.  Yet  this  carnal  mind  may  consist  with 
deep  attainments  in  jihilosophy,  and  with  strongly  im- 
liassioiicd  iMKtic  sentiment.  The  mere  ai)proval  ol  the 
undiTsiaiiiliML',  and  the  susceplibilty  of  being  impressed 
with  t(<  liir's  of  admiralion,  awe,  and  even  pleasure, 
when  the  character  of  God  is  manilcsted  in  his  works, 
as  both  mav  be  Ibund  in  the  carnal  mind  which  is  en- 
nutv  to  God'  are  not  iherelore  the  love  of  God.    They 


386 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


are  ])rinciplc8  wliicli  enter  into  that  love,  since  il  can- 
not exist  without  them ;  but  they  may  exist  wiltiout 
this  aflection  itself,  and  be  found  in  a  vicious  anil  un- 
changed nature.  The  love  of  God  is  a  fruit  of  the 
Holy  Spirit ;  that  is,  it  is  implanted  by  him  only  in  the 
souls  which  he  1ms  regenerated;  and  as  that  which 
excites  its  exercise  is  chiefly,  and  in  the  first  place,  a 
sense  of  the  benefits  bestowed  by  the  grace  of  God  in 
our  redemption,  and  a  well-grounded  persuasion  of  our 
personal  interest  in  those  benefits,  it  necessarily  pre- 
supposes our  personal  reconciliation  to  God  through 
faith  in  the  atonement  of  Christ,  and  that  attestation 
of  it  to  the  heart  by  the  spirit  of  Adoption  of  which  we 
have  before  spoken.  We  here  see,  then,  another  proof 
of  the  necessary  connexion  of  Christian  morals  with 
Christian  doctrine,  and  how  imperfect  and  deceptive 
every  system  must  be  wlncli  Nr|i;irates  them.  Love  is 
essential  to  true  obedicmr ;  lur  \v-lifn  the  Apostle  de- 
clares love  to  be  "thefullllliiit;  ol  llie  law,"  he  declares, 
in  eft'ect,  that  the  law  cannot  be  fuUilled  without  love; 
and  thai  every  action  which  has  not  this  for  its  princi- 
ple, however  virtuous  in  its  show,  fails  of  accomplish- 
ing the  preci-|ils  winch  are  obligatory  upon  us.  but 
this  love  to  (Jod  I'aiinot  be  felt  so  long  as  we  are  sen- 
.sible  of  his  wiiith  and  are  in  dread  of  his  judgments. 
These  feelings  are  incompatible  with  each  other,  and 
we  must  be  assured  of  his  reconciliation  to  us,  before 
we  are  capable  of  loving  him.  Thus  the  very  exist- 
ence of  the  love  of  God  implies  the  doctrines  of  the 
atonement,  repentance,  Hiith,  and  the  gift  of  the  Spirit 
of  Adoption  to  believers ;  and  unless  it  be  taught  in 
this  connexioM  and  through  this  process  of  experience, 
it  will  be  exiiiliiird  only  as  a  bright  and  beauteous  ob- 
ject to  which  nuiii  lias  no  access;  or  a  fictitious  and 
imitative  seiitimcntalism  will  be  substituted  for  it,  to 
the  delusion  of  the  souls  of  men. 

A  third  leading  duty  is, 

Tritst  in  Goi).  All  creatures  are  dependent  upon 
God  for  being  and  for  well  being.  Inanimate  and  irra- 
tional beings  hold  their  existence  and  the  benefits 
which  may  accompany  it,  independently  of  any  condi- 
tions to  be  iierliirmed  on  their  part.  Kational  creatures 
are  placed  under  another  rule,  and  their  felicity  rests 
only  ui)on  their  obedience.  Whether,  as  to  those  in- 
telligences who  have  never  sinned,  siiccific  exercises 
of  trust  are  recjuired  as  a  duty  comprehended  in  their 
general  obedience  we  know  not.  But  as  to  men,  the 
whole  Scripture  shows,  that  faith  or  trust  is  a  duty  of 
the  fir.^t  class,  and  that  they  "  stand  only  by  faith." 
Whelher  the  reason  of  this  may  he  the  importance  to 
Ihern.selves  of  being  continually  impressed  with  their 
dependence  upon  God,  so  that  tluy  iri;iy  lly  to  him  at  all 
times,  and  escape  the  disappoinliiients  of  self-con- 
fidence, and  creature  reliances  ;  or  that,  as  all  good  ac- 
tually comes  from  God,  he  ought  to  be  recognised  as 
its  source,  so  that  all  creatures  may  glorify  him ;  or 
whether  other  and  more  secret  reasons  may  also  be 
included  ;  the  fact  that  tins  duty  is  solemnly  enjoined 
as  an  essential  part  of  true  religion,  cannot  be  doubted. 
Nor  can  the  connexion  of  this  liabit  of  devoutly  con- 
fiding in  God  with  our  peace  of  mind  be  overlooked. 
We  have  so  many  proofs  of  the  weakness  both  of  our 
intellectual  and  physical  powers,  and  see  ourselves 
90  liable  to  the  influence  of  combinations  of  circum- 
stances which  we  cannot  control,  and  of  accidents 
which  we  cannot  resist,  that,  unless  we  had  assurances 
of  being  guided,  upheld,  and  defended  by  a  Supreme 
Power,  we  might  become,  and  I  hat  not  tinreasonably, 
a  prey  to  <-onsl.int  a|i|inlic'iisioiis,  and  llu^  sjiort  of  the 
most  saddening  anlicipalions  nl'ilie  iinaglnation.  Our 
sole  remedy  IVoui  lliesr  would,  in  lUii,  only  be  found 
in  inscnsiliilit)  and  lh(ini:lillrssiii>s  ;  lorto  a  rellecting 
andawakc'iii'il  nnnd.ncilliMi;,'  can  shut  out  uneasy  fears 
but  lailh  in  (iod.  In  all  av;rs,  llnirfore,  this  has  been 
the  resource  of  devout  men  :  "God  is  our  refuge  and 
strength,  a  very  present  help  in  trouble  ;  therefore  will 
we  not  fear,"  &c.  Psalm  xlvi.  1.  "  Our  fathers  trusted 
in  thee,  and  thou  didst  deliver  them  ; — they  cried  unto 
thee  and  were  delivered ;  they  trusted  in  thee  and  were 
not  confounded."  And  from  our  Lord's  sermon  on  the 
inoniit  it  is  ch^ar,  that  one  end  of  his  Ir.i.  hin;;  was  to 
delivcT  men  from  the  piercing  anxiein  s  w  inrii  iiic  |i(;r- 
plexitics  of  this  life  are  ajit  to  produce,  \'\  cim  unraging 
lliem  to  confide  in  the  care  and  bounty  ol  ihcir  "  Hea- 
venly Father." 

Our  trust  in  God  is  enjoined  in  as  many  respects  as 
he  hae  been  pleased  to  give  us  assurances  of  help,  and 


[Part  IIJ. 

promises  of  favour,  in  his  own  word.  Beyond  ttef, 
trust  would  be  presumption,  as  not  having  authority  i 
and  to  the  full  extent  in  which  his  gracious  puqioses 
towards  us  are  manifested,  it  becomes  a  duly.  And 
here  too  the  same  connexion  of  this  duty  with  the 
leading  doetrincs  of  our  redemption,  which  we  have 
remarked  under  the  last  particular,  also  displays  itself. 
If  morals  be  taught  independent  ol^  religion,  either  affi- 
ance in  God  must  be  excluded  from  the  list  of  du- 
ties towards  God,  or  otherwise  it  will  be  inculcated 
without  elTect.  A  man  who  is  conscious  of  unremitted 
sins,  and  Avho  must  therefore  regard  the  administra- 
tion of  the  Ruler  of  the  world,  as  to  him  punitive  and 
vengeful,  can  find  no  ground  on  which  to  rest  his  trust. 
All  that  lie  can  do  is  to  hope  that  his  relations  to  this 
Being  may  in  future  become  more  favourable  ;  but,  for 
the  present,  his  fears  must  prevent  the  exercise  of  his 
faith.  What  course  then  lies  before  him,  but  in  the 
first  instance  to  seek  the  restoration  of  the  favour  of 
his  offended  God,  in  that  method  which  he  has  pre- 
scribed, namely,  by  repentance  towards  God,  and  faitU 
in  our  Lord  .Jesus  f 'hrist  ?  Till  a  scriptural  assurance 
is  obtained  of  that  change  in  his  relations  to  God  which 
is  efi'eeted  by  the  free  and  gracious  act  of  forgiveness, 
all  the  reasons  of  general  trust  in  the  care,  benediction, 
and  guidance  of  God,  are  vain  as  to  him,  because  they 
are  not  applicable  to  liis  case.  But  when  friendship  is 
restored  between  the  parties,  faith,  liowever  unlimited, 
has  the  highest  reason.  It  is  then  "  a  sure  confidence 
in  the  mercy  of  God  through  Christ,"  as  that  mercy 
manifests  itself  in  all  the  promises  which  God  has 
been  pleased  to  make  to  his  children,  and  in  all  those 
condcscetiding  relations  with  which  ho  has  been 
pleased  to  invest  himself,  that  tinder  such  manifesta- 
tions he  might  win  and  secure  our  reliance.  It  is  then 
Uie  confidence  not  merely  of  creatures  in  a  beneficent 
Creator,  or  of  subjects  in  a  gracious  Sovereign,  but  of 
children  in  a  Parent.  It  respects  the  supply  of  every 
want,  temporal  and  eternal ;  the  wise  anil  gracious  or- 
dering of  our  concerns  ;  the  warding  oil',  or  the  miti- 
gation of  calamities  and  afllictions :  oiur  preserva- 
tion from  all  that  can,  vpon  the  whole,  be  injurious  to 
us ;  our  guidance  tlirough  life ;  our  hope  in  death  ;  and 
our  future  feUcity  in  another  world.  This  trust  is  a 
duty,  because  it  is  a  subject  of  command ;  and  also 
because  after  such  demonstrations  of  kindness,  dis- 
trust would  imply  a  dishonourable  denial  of  the  love 
and  faithfulness  of  God,  and  often  also  a  criminal  de- 
pendence upon  the  creature.  It  is  a  habit  essential  to 
piety.  On  that  condition  we  "obtain  promises,"  by 
making  tlicm  the  subjects  of  prayer  ;  by  its  influence, 
anxielies  desiructive  to  that  calm  contempialive  habit 
of  wliich  true  religion  is  both  the  oflspring  and  the 
nurse  are  expelled  from  the  heart ;  a  spiritual  charac- 
ter is  thus  given  to  man,  who  walks  as  seeing  "  Him 
who  is  invisible;"  and  a  noble  and  cheerful  courage 
is  infused  iiuo  the  soul,  which  elevates  it  above  all  cow- 
ardly shrinking  from  dillicully,  .-ntl'enng,  pain,  and 
death,  and  allbrds  a  practical  exemplification  of  the 
exhortation  of  one  who  had  tried  the  value  of  this 
grace  in  a  great  variety  of  exigencies  :  "  Wait  upon 
the  Lord,  be  of  gooti  courage,  and  he  shall  strengthen 
thine  heart ;  wait,  I  say,  upon  the  Lord." 

TiiK  Pkar  of  Gou  is  associated  with  Love  and 
Trust  in  every  part  of  Holy  Scripture ;  and  is  enjoined 
upon  us  as  another  of  our  leading  duties. 

This,  however,  is  not  a  servile  passion  ;  for  then  it 
could  not  consist  with  love  to  (iod,  and  with  delight 
and  alliance  in  him.  It  is  true  that  "  the  fear  which 
haili  tcirnunt ;"  that  which  is  accompanied  with  painful 
a]i|H-(liiiisions  of  his  displeasure  arising  from  a  just 
conviction  of  our  personal  liability  to  it,  is  enjoined 
upon  the  careless  and  the  impious.  To  produce  this, 
the  word  of  God  fulniii'ates  in  threatenings,  and  his 
judgments  march  thiougli  the  earth,  exliibiting  terrible 
examples  of  vengeance  auainst  one  nation  or  individual 
for  the  admonitiiiii  01  mliers.  But  that  fear  of  God 
which  arises  from  appreliension  of  personal  jmnish- 
ment  is  not  designed  to  be  the  habit  of  the  mind ; 
nor  is  it  included  in  the  lrc()uent  phrase  "  the  fear  of 
the  Lord,"  when  that  is  used  lo  express  the  whole  of 
liractical  religion,  or  its  leading  principles.  In  that 
case  Its  nalnre  is,  in  part,  expressi  il  liy  the  term  "  Re- 
verence," which  is  a  due  ami  hiimbling  sense  of  the 
Divine  Majesty,  jirodticed  and  inamtaincd  in  a  mind 
regenerateil  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  devout  meditations 
upon  the  iicrfcclionti  of  his  infimlc  nature,  his  etciruity 


Chap.  II.] 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


387 


and  omniscience,  liis  constant  presence  with  us  in 
every  place,  ttie  (l(i)tlis  of  liis  counsels,  the  might  of 
his  power,  the  holiness,  truth,  and  justice  of  his  moral 
character ;  and  on  the  manifestations  of  these  glories 
in  the  works  of  that  mighty  visible  nature  with  which 
we  are  surrounded,  in  tlie  government  of  angels, 
devils,  and  men,  and  in  the  revelations  of  his  inspired 
word. 

With  this  deeply  reverential  awe  of  God,  is,  however, 
constantly  joined  in  Scripture,  a  jiersuasion  of  our 
conditional  liability  to  his  displeasure.  For  since  all 
who  have  obtained  his  rnercy  and  favour  by  Christ,  re- 
ceive those  blessings  through  an  atonement,  which 
itself  demonstrates  tliat  we  are  under  a  righteous  ad- 
ministration, and  that  neither  is  the  law  of  God  re- 
pealed, nor  does  his  justice  sleep ;  and  farther,  since 
the  saving  benefits  of  that  atonement  are  conditional, 
and  we  ourselves  have  the  power  to  turn  aside  the  be- 
nefit of  its  interposition  from  us,  or  to  forfeit  it  when 
once  received,  in  whole  or  in  part,  it  is  clear  that  while 
there  is  a  full  provision  for  our  deliverance  from  the 
"  spirit  of  bondage  unto  fear,"  there  is  sufficient  rea- 
son why  we  ought  to  be  so  impressed  with  our  spirit- 
ual dangers,  as  to  produce  in  us  that  cautionary  fear  of 
the  holiness,  justice,  and  power  of  God,  which  shall 
deter  us  from  Dtrending,aiid  lead  us  often  to  view,  with 
a  restraining  and  salutary  dread,  those  consequences 
of  unfaithfulness  and  disobedience  to  which,  at  least 
while  we  remain  on  earth,  we  are  liable.  Powerful, 
therefore,  as  are  the  reasons  by  which  the  scriptural 
revelation  of  the  rnercy  and  benevolence  of  God  en- 
Ibrces  a  firm  atliance  in  him,  it  exhorts  us  not  to  be 
"  high-minded,"  but  to  "  fear ;"  to  "  fear,"  lest  we 
"  come  short"  of  the  "  promise"  of  entering  "  into  his 
rest ;"  to  be  in  "  the  fear  of  the  Lord  all  the  day  long ;" 
and  to  pass  the  whole  time  of  our  "  sojourning"  liere 
"  in  fear." 

Tliis  scriptural  view  of  the  fear  of  God,  as  combin- 
ing both  reverence  of  the  Divine  Majesty,  and  a  suita- 
ble apprehension  of  our  r.onditional  liability  to  his  dis- 
pleasure, is  of  large  practical  influence. 

It  restrains  our  iliith  from  degenerating  into  presump- 
tion ;  our  love  into  familiarity  ;  our  joy  into  careless- 
ness. It  nurtures  humility,  watchfulness,  and  the  spi- 
rit of  prayer.  It  induces  a  reverent  habit  of  thinking 
and  speaking  of  God,  and  gives  solemnity  to  the  exer- 
cises of  devotion.  It  presents  sin  to  us  under  its  true 
aspect,  as  dangerous,  as  well  as  corrupting  to  the  soul ; 
as  darkening  our  prosi)ects  in  a  future  life,  as  well  as 
injurious  to  our  peace  in  the  present ;  and  it  gives 
strength  and  efficacy  to  that  most  important  practical 
moral  principle,  the  constant  reference  of  our  inward 
habits  of  thought  and  feeling,  and  our  outward  actions 
to  the  approbation  of  God. 

Upon  these  internal  principles,  that  moral  habit  and 
state,  which  is  often  expressed  by  the  term  holiness, 
rests.  Separate  from  these  principles,  it  can  only  con- 
sist in  visible  acts,  imjierfect  in  themselves,  because  not 
vital,  and  however  commended  by  men,  abominable  to 
God  who  trieth  the  heart.  But  when  such  acts  proceed 
from  these  sources,  they  are  proportioned  to  the  strength 
and  purity  of  the  principle  which  originates  them,  ex- 
eei)t  as  in  some  cases  they  may  be  influenced  and  dete- 
riorated by  an  uninformed  or  weak  judgment.  An  en- 
tire submission  to  God  ;  a  "  perfect  love"  to  him  ;  firm 
afliance  in  his  covenant  engagements;  and  that  fear 
which  abases  the  spirit  before  God,  and  departs  even 
from  "  the  appearance  of  evil,"  when  joined  with  a 
right  understanding  of  the  word  of  God,  render  "  the 
man  of  God  perfect,"  and  "  thoroughly  furnish  him  to 
every  good  work." 

Besides  these  inward  principles  and  affections,  there 
are,  however,  several  other  habits  and  acts,  a  public  per- 
formance of  which,  as  well  as  their  more  secret  exer- 
cises, have  been  termed  by  divines  our  external  du- 
ties towards  God ;  the  term  "  external"  being,  how- 
ever, so  used  as  not  to  exclude  those  exercises  of  the 
heart  from  which  they  must  all  spring  if  acceptable  to 
God.    The  first  is. 

Prayer,  which  is  a  solemn  addressing  of  our  minds 
to  God,  as  the  Fountain  of  being  and  happiness,  the 
Ruler  of  the  world,  and  the  Father  of  the  family  of 
man.  It  includes  in  it  the  acknowledgment  of  the  di- 
vine perfections  and  sovereignty ;  thankfulness  for  the 
mercies  we  have  received  ;  jicnitential  confession  of 
our  sins;  and  an  earnest  entreaty  of  blesshigs,  belli  for 
ourselves  and  others.  When  vocal,  it  is  au  external  act, 
Bb2 


but  supposes  the  correspondence  of  the  will  and  affec- 
tion ;  yet  it  may  be  purely  mental,  all  the  acts  of  which 
It  is  composed  being  often  conceived  in  the  mind,  when 
not  clothed  in  words. 

That  the  iiractice  of  prayer  is  enjoined  upon  us  in 
Scripture,  is  sufficiently  proved  by  a  few  quotations  : 
"Ask,  and  it  shall  be  given  jou;  seek,  and  ye  shall 
find  ;  knock,  and  it  shall  be  oix^ned,"  Matthew  vii.  7. 
"  Watch  ye,  therefore,  and  pray  always,"  Luke  xxi.  3C. 
'•  Be  careful  for  nothing  ;  but,  in  every  thing  by  prayer 
and  supplication  with  tlianksgiving,  let  your  requests 
be^made  known  unto  God,"  Phil.  iv.  6.  "  Pray  without 
ceasing,"  1  Thess.  v.  17.  That  prayer  necessarily  in- 
cludes earnestness,  and  that  perseverance  which  is  in- 
spired by  strong  desire,  is  evident  from  the  Jews  being 
so  severely  reproved  for  "  drawing  near  to  God  with 
their  lips,  while  their  hearts  were  far  from  him  :"— 
from  the  general  rule  of  our  Lord  laid  down  in  his  con- 
versation with  the  woman  of  Sychar :  "  God  is  a  Spirit ; 
and  they  that  worship  him,  must  worship  him  in  spirit 
and  in  truth,"  John  iv.  21,— and,  from  Romans  xii.  12, 
"  Continuing  instant  in  prayer."  Here  the  term,  -Kpoo- 
KapT€povi/T£s,  is  very  energetic,  and  denotes,  as  Chry- 
sostorn  observes,  "  fervent,  jicrsevering,  and  earnest 
prayer."  Our  Lord  also  delivered  a  parable  to  teach  us 
that  we  ought  "  to  pray  and  not  faint ;"  and  we  have 
examples  of  the  success  of  reiterating  our  petitions, 
when  for  some  lime  they  appear  disregarded.  One  of 
these  is  afforded  in  the  case  of  the  woman  of  Canaan,  a 
first  and  a  second  time  repulsed  by  our  Lord ;  and 
another  occurs  in  2  Cor.  xii.  8,  9,  "  For  this  I  besought 
the  Lord  thrice  that  it  might  depart  from  me ;  and  he 
said  unto  me.  My  grace  is  sufficient  for  thee,"  cfcc. — 
This  passage  also  aflbrds  an  instance  of  praying  dis- 
tinctly for  particular  blessings,  a  practice  whichaccords 
also  with  the  direction  in  Plid.  iv.  6,  to  make  our  "  re- 
<iuests  known  unto  God,"  which  includes  not  only  our 
desires  for  good  generally ;  but  also  those  particular 
requests  which  are  suggested  by  special  circumstances. 
Directions  to  pray  for  national  and  public  blessings  oc- 
cur in  Psalm  cxxii.  6,  "  Pray  for  the  peace  of  Jerusa- 
lem, they  shall  prosper  that  love  thee  :"  in  Zech.  x.  1, 
"  Ask  ye  of  the  Lord  rain  in  the  time  of  the  latter  rain  ; 
so  the  Lord  shall  make  bright  clouds"  (or  lightnings), 
"  and  give  them  showers  of  rain,  to  every  one  grass  in 
the  field  :"  in  1  Tim.  ii.  1—3,  "  I  exhort,  therefore,  that, 
first  of  all,  supplications,  prayers,  intercessions,  and 
giving  of  thanks,  be  made  for  all  men  ;  lor  kings,  and 
for  all  that  are  in  authority,  that  we  may  lead  a  quiet 
and  peaceable  life  in  all  godliness  and  honesty  :  for  this 
is  good  and  acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God  our  Saviour," 
&c.  More  particular  intercession  for  others  is  also  au- 
thorized and  enjoined  :  "  Peter  was  therefore  kept  in 
prison ;  but  prayer  was  made  without  ceasing  of  the 
Church  unto  God  for  him,"  Acts  xii.  5.  "  Now  I  be- 
seech you,  brethren,  for  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ's  sake, 
and  for  the  love  of  the  Spirit,  that  ye  strive  together 
with  me  in  your  prayers  to  God  tor  me  ;  that  I  may  be 
delivered  from  them  that  do  not  believe  in  Judea,"  <kc. 
Rom.  XV.  30.  "  Confess  your  laults  one  to  another,  and 
pray  one  for  another,  that  ye  may  be  heal  ed,"  James  v.  1 6. 
It  follows,  therefore,  from  these  scriptural  jiassages, 
that  prayer  is  a  duty  ;  that  it  is  made  a  condition  of  our 
receiving  good  at  the  hand  of  God:  that  every  case  of 
personal  jiressure,  or  need,  may  be  made  the  subject  of 
prayer ;  that  we  are  to  intercede  for  all  immediately 
connected  with  us,  for  the  Church,  for  our  country,  and 
for  all  mankind  ;  that  both  temiwral  and  spiritual  bles- 
sings may  be  the  subject  of  our  sui)plications ;  and  that 
these  great  and  solemn  exercises  are  to  be  accompa- 
nied with  grateful  thanksgivings  to  God  as  the  author 
of  all  blessings  already  bestowed,  and  llie  benevolent 
object  of  our  hope  as  to  future  interpositions  and  sup- 
plies. Prayer,  in  its  particular  Clirisiian  view,  is  briefly 
and  well  defined  in  the  Westminster  Catechism, — 
"  Prayer  is  the  offering  of  our  desires  to  God  for  things 
agreeable  to  his  will,  in  the  name  of  Christ,  with  <-on  - 
fession  of  our  sins,  and  a  thankful  acknowledgment'  of 
his  mercies. 

The  REASON  on  which  this  great  and  efficacious  duty 
rests  has  been  a  subject  of  some  debate.  On  this  point, 
however,  we  have  nothing  explicitly  stated  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. From  them  we  learn  only,  that  God  has  ap- 
pointed it ;  that  he  enjoins  it  to  he  offered  in  faith,  that 
i.s,  faith  in  Christ,  whose  atoneni'uit  is  the  meritorious 
and  procuring  cause  of  all  the  blessings  to  which  our 
desires  can  be  directed;  and  tliut  prayer  so  offered  is  aa 


388 


THEOLOGICAL  L\STITUTES. 


[Part  III. 


iiiilispcnsaWc  condition  of  our  obtaining  (tie  lilcssin^rK 
for  wtiicli  wi!  ask.  As  a  matter  of  iiiRrciicc,  liii\vr\(T, 
we  may  discover  some  gliiripsos  of  tlir  riusim  in  itic 
Divine  Mind  on  wliich  its  appointment  rests.  Tliat 
reason  has  sometimes  been  said  to  lie  tlio  moral  jireiia- 
ration  and  state  of  litne.ss  produced  in  tlie  soul  for  tlie 
reception  of  tlir  Divine  mercies  wjiicliltn' act,  and  more 
especially,  tlie  lialiit  of  prayer,  iimst  induce.  Against 
this  slaiiils  the  strong  and,  in  a  scriptural  view,  the  fa- 
tal ()l)jection,  that  an  eilicieiicy  is  thus  ascribed  to  tlic 
mere  act  of  a  creature  to  produce  those  great  and,  in 
many  respects,  radical  changes  in  the  character  of  man, 
which  we  an;  lauglit,  by  mspired  autliority,  to  refer  to 
the  direct  inlliu'iicrsofihe  iloly  Sjiirit.  What  is  ittliat 
fits  man  for  l()rgivencss,  but"  suiii)le  repentance?  yet 
that  is  e.\|iressly  said  to  be  the  "ir;/?"  of  Clirist,  and 
suppo.ses  strong  operations  ot  the  illuminating  and  con- 
vincing Spirit  (if  Truth,  the  Lord  and  Giver  of  spiritual 
life  ;  and  if  the  iiutc  acts  and  habit  of  prayer  had  ef- 
(iciency  eiiongh  to  produce  a  scriptural  re|ientance,  then 
every  tbrmahst  allendiiig  with  ordinary  seriousness  to 
his  devotions,  must  in  consequence  beconsc  a  penitent. 
Again,  if  we  pray  lor  spiritual  ble.s.sings  aright,  that  is, 
■with  an  earnestness  of  desire  which  arises  from  a  due 
aiiprehension  of  their  importance,  and  a  preference  of 
them  to  all  earthly  good,  who  does  not  tux  that  this  im- 
plies such  a  deliverance  from  the  earthly  and  carnal 
disposition  which  characterizes  our  degenerate  nature, 
that  an  agency  far  above  our  own,  however  we  may 
employ  it,  must  be  supposed  ;  or  else,  if  our  own  prayers 
couhl  be  eUlcient  U|)  to  this  point,  wo  might,  by  the  con- 
tinual ajiplicalioii  of  this  instrument,  complete  our  re- 
generation, iiiilcpciideiil  of  that  grace  of  God,  which, 
alter  all,  this  theory  brings  in.  It  may  indeed  be  said 
that  the  grace  of  God  operates  by  our  prayers  to  pro- 
duce in  iLS  a  stale  of  moral  litness  to  receive  the  bless- 
ings we  asV.  But  this  gives  up  the  point  contended 
for,  the  moral  ( (liciciicy  of  prayer;  and  refers  the  elii- 
ciency  to  anollur  agent  working  by  our  prayers  as  an 
inslruinent.  Still,  however,  it  may  be  affirmed,  that 
the  Scriptures  nowhere  represent  prayer  as  an  instru- 
ment lor  unproving  onr  moral  state,  though  in  the  hands 
of  Divine  grace,  in  any  other  way  than  as  the  means 
of  bringing  into  the  soul  new  supplies  ot  s])iritual  life 
and  strength.  It  is  therefore  more  properly  to  be  con- 
sidered as  a  condition  of  our  obtaining  tliat  grace  by 
which  such  eU'ects  are  wrought,  than  as  the  instru- 
ment by  whicli  it  cllects  them.  In  fact,  all  genuine  acts 
of  prayer  depend  upon  a  grace  previously  bestowed, 
ami  from  which  alone  the  dis]M)silion  and  the  jiower  to 
pray  proceed.  So  it  w.is  said  of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  "  lie- 
hold,  he  prayeth  !"  lie  jirayed  in  fact  then  for  the  tirst 
time;  but  that  was  in  conse<iuence  of  the  illumination 
of  his  mind  as  to  his  spiritual  danger  effected  by  the 
miracle  on  tin;  way  to  Damascus,  and  the  grace  of(;od 
vvhicli  aiiunipaiiird  ihe  miracle'.  Nor  does  the  miracu- 
Iinis  character  of  the  means  by  which  conviction  was 
produced  in  his  mind,  alfect  the  relevancy  of  this  to  or- 
dinary cases.  By  whatever  means  (Jod  may  be  pleased 
to  fasten  the  conviction  of  our  spiritual  danger  upon 
our  mind.s,  and  to  awaken  us  out  of  the  long  sleep  of 
sin,  that  conviction  must  precede  real  prayer,  and 
comes  I'rom  the  influence  of  his  grace,  rendering  the 
means  of  conviction  etfectual.  Thus  it  is  not  the 
prayer  which  produces  the  conviction,  but  the  convic- 
tion which  gives  birth  to  the  prayi'r ;  and  if  we  pursue 
the  matter  hito  its  snb.se(iuenl  stages,  we  shall  come  to 
the  same  result.  We  pray  for  what  we  feel  we  want ; 
that  is,  for  something  not  in  our  possession  ;  we  obtain 
thi.s  either  by  impartution  from  (.'od,  to  whom  we  look 
up  as  the  only  Being  able  to  bestow  the  good  for  which 
we  ask  lum;  or  else  we  obtain  it,  according  to  this 
theory,  by  some  moral  efliciency  being  given  to  the  ex- 
ercise of  pra>  ing  to  work  it  in  us.  Now,  the  latter  hy- 
pothesis IS  ill  many  cases  manifestly  absurd.  We  ask 
(or  pardon  ot  sin,  tiir  instance;  but  that  is  an  act  of  (Jixl 
done  yi^r  us,(iuite  distinct  from  any  moral  cliange  wlni-h 
j)raycrmay  be  siiid  to  produce  in  us,  whatever  elliciency 
we  may  ascril*  to  it ;  for  no  sucVi  change  in  e.s  can  be 
pardon,  since  that  must  proceed  from  the  (larty  olfended. 
We  ask  for  iniTcase  of  spinliial  streiigtli ;  and  prayer 
ia  the  e.\i)ressioii  of  that  want.  But  if  it  supply  this 
want  by  its  own  moral  elliciency,  it  must  supply  it  in 
proportion  to  its  intensity  and  earncstni:ss ;  winch  in- 
tensity and  earnestness  can  only  be  called  forth  by  the 
degree  in  which  the  want  is  telt,  so  that  the  ca.se  sup- 
posed is  couiradiciory  and  absurd,  iuj  it  makes  the  sense 


of  want  to  be  in  proportion  to  tlic  supply  which  ought 
to  ;ili;iie  or  remove  it.  And  if  it  be  urged,  that  prayer 
at  b  ast  produces  in  us  a  litness  lor  the  supjily  of  spirit- 
ual sireiigtli,  because  it  is  excited  by  a  sense  of  our 
wants,  the  aiiswi  r  is,  that  the  fitness  contended  for  con- 
sists in  that  sense  of  want  itself,  which  must  be  pro- 
duced in  us  by  the  ■preritnis  agency  of  grace,  or  wc 
should  never  pray  for  supplies.  There  is,  in  fact,  nothing 
in  prayer  siinjily  which  appears  to  have  any  adapta- 
tion, as  an  instrument,  to  etlect  a  moral  change  m 
man,  although  it  should  be  supposed  to  be  made  use  of 
by  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  word  of  God 
is  properly  an  iiisiniment,  because  it  contains  the  doc- 
trine which  that  Spirii  explains  and  applies,  and  the 
motives  to  faith  anil  obedience  which  he  enforces  upon 
the  conscience  and  affections;  and  though  prayer 
brings  these  truths  and  motives  before  us,  jirayer  can- 
not properly  be  said  to  be  an  instrument  of  our  rege- 
neration, because  that  which  is  thus  brought  by  prayer 
to  bear  upon  our  case  is  the  word  ol  (fod  itself  introduced 
into  our  prayers,  which  derive  their  sole  influence  iit 
that  respect  Irom  that  circumstance.  Prayer  simply  is 
the  applicaiion  of  an  iiisvdlicient  to  a  sulhcient  Being 
tor  tlie  good  winch  the  fbrnier  cannot  otherwise  obtain, 
and  winch  the  latter  only  can  supply;  and  as  that  sup- 
ply is  depenilcnt  upon  prayer,  and  in  Ihe  nature  of  the 
thing  conseipient,  prayer  can  in  no  good  sense  be  said 
to  be  the  instrument  of  supplying  oar  wants,  or  fitting 
us  liir  their  supply,  e\c(>pt  relatively,  as  a  mere  condi- 
tion u|i|ioiiitrd  by  the  donor. 

If  we  must  iniiuire  into  the  reason  of  the  appoint- 
ment of  prayer,  and  it  can  scarcely  be  considered  as  a 
])urely  arbitrary  institution,  that  reason  seems  to  be, 
the  preservation  in  the  niin(ls  of  men  of  a  solemn  and 
impressive  sense  of  (Joil's  agency  in  the  world,  and  the 
dejieiuU  nee  ofall  creatures  uiionhim.  I'erfectly  pure  and 
glorifiiil  beings,  no  longer  m  a  state  of  probation,  and 
tlHrcliire  e.\]iosed  to  no  teni]itations,  may  not  need  this 
inslilulion  ;  but  men  in  their  fallen  state  are  constantly 
prone  to  Ibrget  God ;  to  rest  in  the  agency  of  second 
causes  ;  and  to  build  upon  a  suflicieiicy  in  themselves. 
This  is  at  once  a  denial  to  God  of  the  glory  which  he 
rightly  claims,  and  a  destructive  delusion  to  creature-s, 
who.  111  loisaking  (Jod  as  the  object  of  their  constant 
alliance,  irusi  lint  in  broken  reeds,  and  attempt  to  drink 
from  "  limUeii  cisterns  which  can  hold  no  water."  It 
is  then  eipiallx  in  niercv  to  us,  us  in  res|>ect  to  bis  own 
honouraiid  acknowlid;;m(nl,  that  the  Divine  lieinghas 
suspended  so  many  o\'  Ins  blessings,  and  those  of  the 
highest  necessity  to  us,  upon  the  exircise  ot  prayer ; 
an  act  which  acknowledges  his  nnconlrollalilc  agency, 
and  the  dependence  of  all  creatures  upon  liim,  our  nisiilfi- 
ciciicy,  and  Ins  fulness;  and  hiys  the  Ibnnclaiion  of  that 
habit  of  gratitude  and  lliiiiiUsgiving  which  is  at  once  so 
meliorating  to  our  own  feelings,  and  so  conducive  to  a 
cheerful  obedience  to  the  will  of  Gixl.  And  if  this  rea- 
son lor  the  injunction  of  prayer  is  nowhere  in  Scrip- 
ture stated  in  so  many  words,  it  is  a  principle  uniformly 
sup|iosed  as  the  louniiation  of  the  whole  scheme  of  re- 
ligion wliicli  tliev  have  reveiiled. 

To  this  duty  oli|ections  have  been  sometimes  oflered, 
at  which  it  may  be  W(il  at  least  to  glance. 

One  has  bi'en  gromidrd  upon  a  supposed  predestina- 
tion of  all  things  which  come  to  pass  ;  and  the  argu- 
ment is,  that  as  this  eslalilished  predetermination  of  all 
things  cannot  be  altered,  pi-a\  er,  which  supposes  that 
God  will  depart  from  it,  is  vain  and  useless.  The  an- 
swer which  a  pious  prcdestmarian  would  give  to  this 
objection  is.  That  the  argument  drawn  lioin  the  predes- 
tination of  God  lies  with  the  same  force  against  every 
other  human  efliirt  as  against  prayer ;  and  that  na 
G'od's  predetermination  to  give  food  to  man  does  not 
render  the  <ultivation  of  the  earth  useless  and  imper- 
tinent, so  licit  her  does  the  predestniation  of  things  shut 
out  the  iiccessily  and  eiiicacy  of  prayer.  It  would  also 
be  urged,  that  tied  has  ordained  the  means  as  well  as 
the  end  ;  and  altbcMmh  he  is  an  iiinliaimeable  Being,  it 
is  a  part  of  the  nnchaiiL'eable  sysieni  whicli  be  has  es- 
tablished, that  prayer  shall  be  heard  and  accepted. 

Those  who  have  not  these  views  of  iiredestination 
will  answer  the  olijection  differently  ;  for  if  the  pre- 
mises of  such  a  predestination  as  is  assumed  by  the  ob- 
jection, and  conceded  in  the  answiT,  be  allowed,  the 
answer  is  unsatisfactory.  The  Scrijilures  repn;sent 
God,  for  instance,  as  purpnsins;  to  inflict  a  judgment 
upon  an  individual  or  a  nation,  which  purpose  is 
often  changed  by  prayer.    In  this  case  cither  Cod's 


Chap.  11.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


389 


[lurimsa  must  he  tlonicd,  and  then  his  tliroatonings  aro 
reilucfd  to  words  without  nu-'aiiiiig ;  or  tho  purpose 
must  be  alkiwod,  iu  wliicli  rase  either  pniyer  breaks  in 
upon  pnilesliuation,  if  UTiderstood  absol\il<;ly,  or  it  is 
vain  and  useless.  To  the  olyection  so  drawn  out  it  is 
clear  tliat  no  answer  is  given  by  saying  that  the  ineans 
as  well  as  the  end  are  predestinated,  since  pra>er  iu 
such  eases  is  nota  means  to  tlie  end,  but  an  instrument 
of  thwarting  it;  or  is  a  means  to  one  end  m  opposition 
to  another  end,  which,  if  ecjually  predestinated  witli 
the  same  absoluteness,  is  a  contradiclion. 

The  true  answer  is,  that  althou^'h  (Jod  has  abso- 
lutely predetermined  some  tilings,  tliere  are  others, 
which  respect  his  government  of  free  and  accountable 
agents,  which  he  has  but  conditionally  predetermined. 
Tlie  true  immutability  of  God,  wc  have  already 
6howed,(9)  consists  not  in  his  adherence  to  his  jmr- 
piisfx,  but  in  his  never  changing  the  principles  of  his 
administration;  and  he  may  therefore  in  perfect  ac- 
cordance with  his  preordination  of  things,  and  the  im- 
iimlability  of  liis  nature,  purpose  to  do  under  certain 
conditions  dependent  upon  the  free  agency  of  man, 
what  he  will  not  do  under  others;  and  for  this  rea- 
son, that  an  immutable  adherence  to  the  priuciplfs  of 
&  wise,  just,  and  gracious  government,  requires  it. 
Prayer  is  in  Scripture  made  one  of  these  conditions ; 
and  if  God  has  established  it  as  one  of  the  principles  of 
liis  moral  government  to  accept  prayer,  in  every  case 
ill  which  he  has  given  us  authority  to  ask,  he  has  not, 
we  may  be  assured,  entangled  his  actual  government 
uf  the  world  with  the  bonds  of  such  an  eternal  predes- 
tination of  particular  events,  as  either  to  reduce  prayer 
lti  a  mere  form  of  words,  or  not  to  be  able  himself,  con- 
sistently with  his  decrees,  to  answer  it,  whenever  it 
is  encouraged  by  his  express  engagements. 

A  second  objection  is,  that  as  (;od  is  infinitely  wise 
and  good,  his  wisdom  and  justice  will  h^id  him  to  be- 
stow "  whatever  is  fit  for  us  without  praying  ;  and  if 
any  thing  be  not  fit  for  us,  we  cannot  obtain  it  by  pray- 
ing." To  this  Dr.  Paley  very  well  replies,(l)  "  that 
it  may  be  agreeable  to  perfect  wisdom  to  grant  that  to 
our  prayers  which  it  would  not  have  been  agreeable  to 
the  same  wisdom  to  have  given  us  without  praying 
for."  'J'liis,  independent  of  the  question  of  the  author- 
ity of  the  Scriptures,  which  e.xplicitly  enjoin  prayer,  is 
the  best  answer  which  can  be  given  to  the  objection; 
and  it  is  no  small  confirmation  of  it  that  it  is  obvious  to 
every  reflecting  man,  that  for  (iod  lo  withhold  favours 
till  asked  for,  "  lends,"  as  the  samo  writer  observes, 
"  to  encourage  devotion  among  his  rational  creatures, 
and  to  keep  up  and  circulate  a  knowledge  and  sen.se  of 
lh(!ir  dependence  upon  Hi.m." 

Hut  it  is  urged,  "  God  will  always  do  what  is  best 
from  the  moral  perfection  of  his  nature,  whether  we 
pray  or  not."  This  objection,  however,  supposes  that 
there  is  but  one  mode  of  acting  for  the  best,  and  tliat 
the  Divine  will  is  necessarily  determined  to  that  mode 
only;  "  both  which  positions,"  says  I'aley,  "  presume 
a  knowledge  of  universal  nature,  much  beyond  what 
we  are  capable  of  attaining."  It  is,  indeed,  a  very  uii- 
satisfactory  mode  of  speaking,  to  say,  God  will  always 
do  what  is  best ;  since  we  can  conceive  him  capable  in 
all  cases  of  doing  what  is  still  better  for  the  creature, 
and  also  that  the  creature  is  capable  of  receiving  more 
and  more  from  his  infinite  fulness  for  ever.  All  that 
can  be  rationally  meant  by  such  a  jihrase  is,  that,  in 
the  circumstances  of  the  case,  God  will  always  do 
what  is  most  consistent  with  his  own  wisdom,  holi- 
ness, and  goodness ;  but  then  the  disposition  to  pray 
and  the  act  of  praying  add  a  new  circumstance  to  every 
ease,  and  often  bring  many  other  new  circumstances 
along  with  them.  It  supposes  humility,  contrition,  and 
trust  on  the  part  of  the  creature;  and  an  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  power  and  compassion  of  (iod,  and  ol  the 
merit  of  the  atonement  of  ('hrist :  .all  whicli  arc  iruiiii- 
festly  new  positions,  so  to  speak,  of  the  circuinstances 
of  the  creature,  which,  upon  the  very  principle  of  the 
objection,  rationally  understood,  m\ist  be  taken  into 
consideration. 

But  if  the  efficacy  of  prayer  as  to  ourselves  be 
granted,  its  influence  upon  the  case  of  others  is  said  to 
be  more  difficult  to  conceive.  This  may  be  allowed 
without  at  all  aflecting  the  duty.  Those  who  bow  to 
(he  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  will  see,  that  the  duty 
of  praying  for  ourselves  and  for  others  rests  upon  the 


(0)  Tart  II.  chap.  38. 


(1)  Morall'hilos'nihy. 


same  Divine  appointment ;  and  to  {\\a?«:  who  ask  for 
the  reason  of  such  intercession  iu  behalf  of  olliers,  it  is 
sufficient  to  reply,  that  the  eliicacy  of  prayer  being  es- 
tablished ill  one  case,  there  is  the  same  rea.son  to  con- 
clude that  our  prayers  may  benefit  others,  as  any  other 
effort  we  may  use.  It  can  only  he  by  Divine  appoint- 
ment that  one  creature  is  iiiiidc  (lepcndint  upon  another 
fi)r  any  advantage,  since  il  \\:is  dimliilcss  in  Hit-  power 
of  the  Creator  to  have  reiidrrcil  c;iiili  independent  of  all 
but  himself.  Whatever  reason,  therefore,  might  lead 
him  to  connect  and  interweave  the  interests  of  one  man 
with  the  benevolence  of  another,  will  be  the  leading 
rea.son  for  that  kind  of  mulual  dependence  which  is 
implied  in  the  benefit  of  mutual  jirayer.  Were  it  only 
that  a  previous  sympathy,  charity,  and  good-will,  are 
implied  in  the  duty,  and  must,  indeed,  be  enlliv.-iled  iu 
order  to  it,  and  be  strengthened  ijy  il,  I  lie  wisdum  and 
benevolence  of  the  institution  would,  it  is  presumed, 
be  ajipanjiit  to  every  well  constituted  mind.  'I'liat  all 
prayer  for  others  must  jiroceed  upon  a  less  perfect 
knowledge  of  them  than  we  have  of  ourselves,  is  cer- 
tain :  that  all  our  petitions  must  bo,  even  in  our  own 
mind,  more  conditional  than  those  which  resjiecl  our- 
selves, though  many  of  these  must  be  subjected  to  the 
principles  of  a  general  administration,  which  we  but 
partially  apprehend ;  and  that  all  spiritual  influences 
upon  others,  when  they  are  the  subject  of  our  prayers, 
will  be  understood  by  us  as  liable  to  the  control  of 
their  free  agency,  must  also  be  conceded,  and  therefore, 
when  others  are  concerned,  our  prayers  may  olleli  be 
partially  or  wholly  fruitless.  He  who  believes  the 
Scriptures  will,  however,  be  encouraged  by  the  decla- 
ration, that  "  the  efl'ectual  fervent  prayerofarighleons 
man,"  lor  his  fellow-creatures,  "  availeth  invrli ;"  and 
he  who  demands  something  beyond  mere  antlioiitative 
declaration,  as  he  cannot  deny  that  prayer  is  one  of 
those  instruments  by  which  another  may  be  In  iieliled, 
must  acknowledge  thai,  like  the  giving  of  emiii.sel,  it 
may  be  of  great  utility  in  some  iiases,  although  it  should 
fail  in  others;  and  that  as  no  man  can  tell  liow  muili 
good  counsel  may  influence  another,  or  in  many  cruses 
say  whether  it  has  ultimately  failed  or  not,  so  it  is  with 
prayer.  It  is  a  part  of  the  Divine  plan,  as  revealed  hi 
liis  Word,  to  give  many  blessings  to  man  inde)ieiiileii( 
of  his  own  prayers,  leaving  the  subse()ueiit  iinpnive- 
meiit  of  them  to  himself.  They  are  given  in  honour  of 
the  intercession  of  (Christ,  man's  great  "  Advocate ;" 
and  they  are  given,  subordinately,  in  acceptance  of  the 
prayers  of  Christ's  Church,  and  of  righteous  individuals. 
And  when  many,  or  few,  devout  individuals  become 
thus  the  itistruinents  of  good  to  coinmuiiities,  or  |i> 
wliole  nations,  there  is  no  greater  mystery  in  this  than 
in  the  obvious  fact,  that  the  hapiiiness  or  inisiTy  of 
large  masses  of  mankind  is  often  greatly  alfeelcd  by 
the  wisdom  or  the  errors,  the  skill  or  the  incompelenee, 
the  good  or  the  bad  conduct  of  a  lew  persons,  and  often 
of  one. 

The  general  duty  of  prayer  is  usually  distributed  into 
fimr  branches, — Ejacidulunj,  Vriviilf,  Smial,  and  Pub- 
lic; each  of  which  is  of  such  iiniiorlanee  as  to  re(juire 
a  separate  consideration. 

Ejacjulaiorv  Prayer  is  the  term  given  to  those 
secret  and  frequent  aspirations  of  the  heart  to  Goil  liir 
general  or  particular  blessings,  by  which  a  just  sense  of 
our  habitual  dependence  upon  God,  and  of  our  wants  and 
dangers,  may  be  expressed,  at  those  intervals  when 
the  thoughts  can  detach  themselves  from  the  affairs  of 
life,  though  but  for  a  moment,  while  we  are  still  em- 
ployed in  them.  It  includes,  loo,  all  tlw.se  short  and 
occasional  effusions  of  gratitude  and  silent  ascriptions 
of  praise,  which  the  remembrance  of  God's  mercies 
will  excite  in  a  devotional  spirit,  under  the  same  cir- 
cumstances. Both,  however,  presuiiiiosc  what  divine  s 
have  called  "  the  spirit  of  prayer,"  vvliieh  springs  rmiu 
asense  of  our  dependence  upon  (iorl,  and  is  a  breniliing 
of  the  desires  after  intercourse  of  tliouglit  and  afli:ctioii 
with  Him,  accomjianied  with  a  revereiilial  and  encou- 
raging sense  of  his  constant  presence  with  us.  The 
cultivation  of  this  spirit  is  clearly  enjoined  upon  us  as 
a  duty  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  who  exhorts  us  to  "  pray 
without  ceasing,  and  in  every  thing  give  thanks;"  and 
also  to  "  setour  affections  upon  things  above ;"— exhort- 
ations which  imply  a  holy  and  devotional  frame  and  tem- 
per of  mind,  and  not  merely  acts  of  prayerjperfbrmed  ,^^ 
intervals.  The  high  and  unspeakable  advantagesofthi.s 
habit  are,  that  it  induces  a  watchful  and  guarded  mind  ; 
preveiitB  religioQ  from  deteriorati/ig  into  fomi  with- 


390 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  III 


out  life;  unites  the  soul  to  Go<l,  its  light  and  strength; 
induces  conliinial  supplies  of  Divine  inlluence  ;  and 
opposes  an  ciriM'l  nal  liarricr,  by  the  grace  thus  aK<iuire(l, 
against  the  eiicroaclimcnts  of  worldly  anxieties,  aiKl 
the  force  of  temptations.  The  existence  of  this  spirit 
of  prayer  and  thanksgiving  is  one  of  the  f^and  distinc- 
tions between  nominal  and  real  Christians;  and  by  it 
the  measure  of  vital  and  effective  (Uinstianiiy  enjoyed 
by  any  individual  may  ordinarily  be  determined. 

Private  Prayer.  This,  as  a  duty,  rests  upon  the 
examples  of  good  men  in  Scrii)ture ;  ujion  several 
passages  of  an  injunctive  character  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ;  and,  in  the  New,  upon  the  express  words  of 
our  Loril,  which,  while  they  suppose  the  practice  of 
individual  prayer  to  have  been  generally  acknowledged 
as  obligatory,  enjoin  that  it  should  be  strictly  private. 
"  But  thou,  when  thou  prayest,  enter  into  thy  closet(2j, 
and  when  thou  hast  shut  tlie  door,  pray  to  thy  Father 
■which  is  in  secret,  ami  thy  Father  which  seeth  in  se- 
cret shall  reward  thee  openly."  In  this  respect  also, 
Christ  has  himself  placed  us  under  the  obligation  of 
his  own  example ;  the  Evangelists  having  been  inspired 
to  put  on  record  several  instances  of  his  retirement 
into  absolute  privacy,  that  he  might  "  pray."  The  rea- 
son for  this  institution  of  private  devotion  appears  to 
have  been  to  incite  us  to  a  friendly  and  contiding  in- 
tercourse with  God  in  all  those  particular  cases  which 
most  concern  our  feelings  and  our  interests;  and  it  is 
a  most  alfecting  instance  of  the  oondescension  and  sym- 
pathy of  God,  that  we  are  thus  allowed  to  use  a  free- 
dom with  him,  in  "  pouring  out  our  hearts,"  which  we 
could  not  do  with  our  best  and  dearest  friends.  It  is 
also  most  worthy  of  our  notice,  that  when  this  duty  is 
enjoined  upon  us  by  our  Lord,  he  presents  the  Divine 
Being  before  us  under  a  relation  most  of  all  adapted  to  in- 
spire that  unlimited  confidence  with  which  he  would 
have  us  to  approach  him: — "Pray  to  thy  Father 
which  is  in  secret."  Thus  is  the  dread  of  his  Omni- 
science, indicated  by  his  "  seeing  :n  secret,"  and  of 
those  other  overwhelming  attributes  which  Omnipre- 
sence and  Omniscience  cannot  fail  to  suggest,  miti- 
gated, or  only  employed  to  inspire  greater  freedom,  and 
a  stronger  alliance. 

Family  Prayer.  Paley  states  the  peculiar  use  of 
family  iirayer  to  consist  in  its  inllueuce  upon  servants 
and  children,  whose  attention  may  be  more  easily  com- 
manded by  tills  than  by  public  worship.  "  The  exam- 
ple and  authority  of  a  master  and  father  act,  also,  in 
this  way  with  greater  force ;  and  the  ardour  of  devotion 
is  better  supported,  and  the  sympathy  more  easily  pro- 
pagated through  a  small  assembly,  connected  by  the 
affections  of  domestic  society,  than  in  the  presence  of 
a  mixed  congregation."  There  is,  doubtless,  weight 
in  these  remarks  ;  but  they  are  defective,  both  in  not 
stating  the  ohlto:atmi  of  this  important  duty,  and  in  not 
fully  exhibiting  its  advantages. 

The  absence  of  an  express  precept  for  family  wor- 
ship has,  it  is  true,  been  urged  against  its  obligation 
even  by  some  who  have  still  considered  it  as  a  iiruden- 
tial  and  useful  ordinance.  Hut  the  strict  oldigation  of 
go  important  a  duty  is  not  to  he  concedeil  for  a  mo- 
ment, since  it  so  plainly  arises  out  of  the  very  constitu- 
tion of  a  lUmiiy;  and  is  coiilirmcd  by  the  earliest  ex- 
amples of  the  church  of  (;od.  On  the  fir.st  of  these 
points  the  Ibllowing  observations,  from  a  very  able  and 
interesting  work, (3)  are  of  great  weight: — 

"  The  disposition  of  some  men,  professing  Christi- 
anity, to  ask  peremptorily  for  a  partirular  precept  in 
all  cases  of  incumbent  moral  duty,  is  one  which  every 
Christian  would  do  well  to  exaimiie;  not  only  that  he 
may  never  be  troubled  with  it  hmisclf,  Init  lliiU  he  may 
be  at  no  loss  in  answering  such  a  man,  if  he  is  called 
to  converse  with  him.  The  particular  duty  to  which  he 
refers,— say,  for  example,  family  worship,— is  compa- 
ratively of  small  account.  His  question  itself  is  indica- 
tive not  merely  of  great  ignorance ;  it  is  symptomatic  of 
the  want  of  religious  principle.  When  a  man  says 
that  he  can  (iiih)  he  bound  to  such  a  duty,  a  moral  duty, 
by  a  posiiivi'  and  |)arlicular  precept,  1  am  saiisficd  that 
he  could  not  perform  it,  in  ooediCMce  to  any  jirecept 
whatever  ;  nor  could  he  even  now,  though  he  were  to 
try.    The  truth  is,  that  this  inan  has  no  disposition  to- 

(2)  Ki{  TO  raiiiciov.  Kuinoel  observes,  that  the  word 
"  answers  to  the  Hebrew  n''7^i  -i"  upper  room  set 
apart  lor  retirement  and  prayer,   among  the  Orientals." 

(3)  Andkrson,  Oa  the  Dmncstic  CuiistUotiuii. 


wards  such  worship,  and  he  rather  requires  to  be  in- 
formed of  the  groun<l8  of  all  such  obligation. 

"  The  duty  of  lamily  devotion,  therefore,  let  it  be 
remembered,  though  it  had  been  minutely  enjoined  as 
to  both  substance  and  season,  would  not,  after  all,  have 
been  founded  only  on  such  injunctions.  1  want  the 
reader  thoroughly  to  understand  the  character  of  a 
(;iirislian,  the  r.onstitiilion  of  tho.  family;  and  out  of 
this  character  and  that  constitution,  he  will  find  cer- 
tain duties  to  arise  ?ifcr.s-.var(7;/ ;  that  is,  they  are  essen- 
tial to  the  continuance  and  well-being  of  himself  as  a 
(Christian  parent,  and  of  the  constitution  over  which  he 
is  set.  In  this  case  there  can  be  no  question  as  to  their 
obligation,  and  for  a  precept  there  is  no  necessity. 
The  Almighty,  in  his  word,  has  not  only  said  nothing 
in  vain,  but  nothing  except  what  is  necessary.  Now, 
as  to  family  worship,  for  a  particular  jirecept  1  have  no 
wish  ;  no,  not  even  for  the  sake  f)f  o//«t.v.  because  I 
am  i)eryuaded  that  the  (;hristian,  in  his  sober  senses, 
will  naturally  obey,  and  no  other  can. 

"  To  apply,  however,  this  request  for  a  precise  pre- 
cept to  some  other  branches  of  family  duty :  Wliat 
would  be  thought  of  me,  were  I  to  demand  an  express 
prceejit  to  enforce  my  obligation  to  feed  my  children, 
and  another  to  oblige  me  to  clothe  them  ?  one  to  express 
my  obligation  to  teach  them  the  use  of  letters,  and  an- 
other to  secure  my  training  them  to  lawful  or  creditable 
professions  or  employments  ?  '  All'this,'  very  properly 
you  might  reply,  '  is  absurd  in  the  highest  degree  ;  your 
obligation  rests  on  much  higher  ground  ;  nay,  doth  not 
nature  itself  teach  you  in  this,  and  much  more  than 
this  P  '  Very  true,'  I  reply ;  '  and  is  renev^cd  nature, 
then,  not  to  teach  me  fiir  more  still?  To  what  otlier 
nature  are  such  words  as  these  addressed  ! — Whatso- 
ever things  are  true,  whatsoever  things  are  honest, 
whatsoever  things  are  just,  whatsoever  things  are  pure, 
whatsoever  things  are  lovely,  whatsoever  things  are 
of  good  report,  if  there  be  any  virtue,  and  if  there  be 
any  praise,  think  on  these  thi7igs.' 

"  Indei)endently,  however,  of  all  this  evidence  with 
any  rational  Christian  parent,  I  may  confirm  and  esta- 
blish his  mind  on  much  higher  grounil  than  even  that 
which  these  pointed  examples  aflbrd.  To  such  a  parent 
I  might  say,  '  Without  hesitation  you  will  admit  that 
your  obligations  to  your  fiimily  are  to  be  measured  now, 
and  on  the  day  of  final  account,  by  ytuir  capacity.— aa 
a  man  by  your  natural,  as  a  Christian  by  your  spiritual, 
capacity  ?  and,  however  you  may  Icel  conscious  of  fall- 
ing short  daily,  that  you  are  under  oblmation  to  honour 
God  to  the  utmost  limit  of  this  capacity  !  You  will 
also  allow  that,  standing  where  you  do,  you  arc  not 
now,  like  a  solitary  orphan  without  relatives,  to  be  re- 
garded only  as  a  single  individual.  God  himself,  your 
(;reator,  your  Saviour,  and  your  .ludge,  regards  you  as 
Ihe  head  of  a.  family  ;  and,  therefore,  in  po.ssession  of 
a  sacred  trust;  you  have  the  care  of  souls?  Now  if 
you  really  do  measure  obligation  by  capacity,  then  you 
will  also  at  once  allow,  that  you  must  do  w-hat  you  can, 
that  He  may,  from  your  family,  have  as  much  honour 
as  possible. 

" '  Without  hesitation  you  will  also  allow  that  God 
daily  pre.serves  you  ?  And  does  he  not  also  preserve 
your  family  ?  Hut  if  he  preserves,  he  has  a  right  of 
projierty  in  each  and  all  under  your  roof  Shall  He  not, 
therefore,  have  from  you  acknowledgement  of  this  ? 
If  daily  he  preserves,  shall  he  not  bi;  daily  acknow- 
ledged ?  And  if  acknowledged  at  all,  how  ought  he  to 
be  so,  if  not  upon  your  knees  ?  And  how  can  they 
know  this,  if  they  do  not  hear  it  ? 

" '  Without  hesitation  you  will  also  allow  that  you 
are  a  social  as  \vell  as  a  reasonable  being  ?  And  often 
have  you,  thercfo'-e,  felt  how  much  the  soothing  influ- 
ence of  their  sweet  society  has  sustained  you  under 
your  cares  and  trials,  and  grief  itself  O  '.  surely  then, 
as  a  social  being,  you  owe  to  them  social  worship ;  nor 
.should  you  ever  forget,  that,  in  ancient  days,  ilien'  wa.t 
social  worship  h(!rc  belbre  it  could  be  any  where  else.'" 

The  same  excellent  writer  has  not.  In  his  subsequent 
argument,  given  to  the  last  remark  in  the  above  quota- 
tion all  the  force  which  it  demands ;  for  that  social 
worship  existed  belbre  worshi|)  more  (iroperly  calletl 
public,  that  is,  worship  in  indiscriiinnale  assemblies, 
is  the  point  which,  when  followed  out,  most  fully  esta- 
blishes the  obligation.  A  great  part,  at  least,  of  the 
worship  of  the  patriarchal  times  was  domestic.  The 
worship  of  God  was  observed  in  the  families  of  Abra- 
ham, Jacob,  and  Job ;  nay,  the  liigliest  sj>ecics  of  wor- 


Chap.  II.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


391 


ship,  tlie  offeriii!!  of  sarriflccs,  which  it  couhi  not  have 
been  witlinui  IJiviiie  !i|i])iniitnient.  It  arose,  tlierefbre, 
out  of  the  original  constiiuiion  of  a  family,  that  the  fa- 
ther and  natural  head  was  invcsteil  \yith  a  sacred  and 
religious  character,  and  that  with  reference  to  his  fa- 
mily ;  and  if  this  has  never  been  revoked  by  subsequent 
prohibition  ;  but  on  the  contrary,  if  its  continuance  has 
been  subsequently  recognised ;  then  the  family  priest- 
hood continues  in  force,  and  stands  on  the  same  ground 
as  several  other  religious  obligations,  wliicli  have  passed 
from  one  dispensation  of  revealed  religion  to  another, 
without  express  re-enactment. 

Let  us,  then,  inquire,  whether  any  such  revocation  of 
this  ofBce,  as  originally  vested  in  the  father  of  a  family, 
took  i)lace  after  the  appointment  of  a  particular  order 
of  priests  under  the  Mosaic  economy.  It  is  true  that 
7tato/irt/ sacrifices  were  ottered  by  the  Aaronical  priests, 
and  perhaps  some  of  those  consuetudinary  sacrifices, 
which,  in  the  patriarchal  ages,  were  offered  by  the 
heads  of  families,  and  had  refierence  specially  to  the 
general  dispensation  of  religion  under  which  every 
family  was  eijually  placed ;  yet  the  passover  was  a 
solemn  religious  act,  the  domestic  nature  of  which  is 
plainly  marked,  and  it  was  to  be  an  ordinance  for  ever, 
and  'therefore  was  not  taken  out  of  the  hands  of  the 
heads  of  families  by  the  institution  of  the  Aaronical 
priesthood,  although  the  ceremony  comprehended  seve- 
ral direct  acts  of  worship.  The  solemn  instruction  of 
the  family  is  also  in  the  Law  of  Moses  enjoined  upon 
the  father,  "  Thou  shalt  teach  them  diligently  to  thy 
children ;"  and  he  was  also  directed  to  teach  them  the 
import  of  the  different  festivals,  and  other  commemo- 
rative institutions.  Thus  the  original  relation  of  the 
father  to  his  family,  which  exi.sted  in  the  patriarchal 
age,  is  seen  still  in  existence,  though  changed  in  some 
of  its  circumstances  by  the  law.  He  is  still  the  reli- 
gious teacher ;  still  he  offers  prayers  for  them  to  God ; 
and  still  "  blesses," — an  act  which  imports  both  prayer, 
praise,  and  iifficial  benediction.  So  the  family  of  Jesse 
had  a  yearly  sacrifice,  1  Sam.  xx.  6.  !So  l)avid,  al- 
though not  a  Priest,  returned  to  "  bless  his  household ;" 
and  onr  Ix)rdfilled  the  office  of  the  master  of  a  family,  as 
appears  from  his  eating  the  passover  with  his  disci- 
ples, and  presiding  as  such  over  the  whole  rife :  And 
although  the  pa.ssage,  "  Pour  out  thy  fury  upon  the 
Heathen,  and  upon  ihe  familiex  which  call  not  upon 
thy  name,"  .Jer.  x.  25,  does  not  perhaps  decidedly  refer 
to  acts  of  domestic  worship,  yet  it  is  probable  that  the 
phraseology  was  influenced  by  that  practice  among  the 
pious  Jews  themselves; — neither  did  the  Heathen  na- 
tionally, nor  in  their  families,  acknowledge  God.  IVor 
is  it  a  trifling  confirmation  of  the  ancient  practice  of  a 
formal  and  visible  domestic  religion,  that  in  Paganism, 
which  corrupted  the  forms  of  the  true  religion,  and  es- 
pecially those  of  the  patriarchal  dispensation,  we  see 
the  signs  of  a  family,  as  well  as  a  public  idolatry,  as 
exhibited  in  their  private  "  chambers  of  imagery,"  their 
household  deities ;  and  the  religious  ceremonies  which 
it  was  incumbent  ujion  the  head  of  every  house  to  per- 
form. 

The  sacred  character  and  office  of  the  father  and 
master  of  a  household  passed  from  Judaism  into  Chris- 
tianity ;  for  here,  also,  we  find  nothing  which  revokes 
and  repeals  it.  A  duty  so  well  understood  both  among 
Jews  and  even  Heathens,  as  that  the  head  of  the  house 
ought  to  influence  its  religious  character,  needed  no 
special  injunction.  The  father  or  rn.aster  who  believed 
was  baptized,  and  all  his  "  house ;"  the  first  religious 
societies  were  chiefly  domestic ;  and  the  antiquity  of 
domestic  religious  services  among  Christians  leaves  it 
unquestionable,  that,  when  the  number  of  Christians 
increased  so  as  to  require  a  separate  assembly  in  some 
common  room  or  church,  the  domestic  worship  was  not 
superseded.  But  for  the  division  of  verses  in  the  fourth 
chapterof  the  Epistle  tothe  Colossians,  it  would  scarcely 
have  been  suspected  that  the  first  and  second  verses 
contained  two  distinct  and  unconnected  precepts, — 
"  Masters,  give  unto  your  servants  that  which  is  just 
and  equal,  knowing  that  ye  also  have  a  Master  in 
heaven;  continue  in  prayer  and  watch  in  the  same 
with  thanksgiving;"  a  collocation  of  persons  and  du- 
ties which  seems  to  intimate  that  the  sense  of  the 
Apostle  was,  that  the  "  servant,"  the  slave,  should  par- 
take of  the  benefit  of  those  continual  prayers  and  daily 
thanksgivings  which  it  is  enjoined  upon  the  master  to 
oJTcr. 

As  the  obligation  to  this  branch  of  devotion  is  passed 


over  by  Paley,  so  the  ailvantnffpn  of  family  worship 
are  but  very  imperfectly  stated  by  hini.  The  offering 
of  prayer  to  God  in  a  family  cannot  but  lay  the  ground 
of  a  sjiecial  regard  to  its  interests  and  concerns  on  the 
part  of  Him,  who  is  thus  constantly  acknowledged ; 
and  the  advantage,  therefore,  is  more  than  a  mere  sen- 
timental one ;  and  more  than  that  of  giving  effect  to 
the  "  master's  example."  The  blessings  of  j^rovidence 
and  of  grace ;  defence  against  evil,oriieculiar  supjiorts 
luider  it ;  may  thus  be  e.xjiectcd  fiom  Him  who  has 
said,  "In  all  thy  ways  acknowledge  him,  and  He  shall 
direct  thy  paths ;"  and  that  when  two  or  three  are  met 
in  his  name,  He  is  "in  the  midst  of  them."  The  fa- 
mily is  a  "  church  in  a  house ;"  and  its  ministrations, 
as  they  are  acceptable  to  God,  cannot  but  be  followed  by 
his  direct  blessing. 

Public  Pravkr,  under  wliich  we  include  the  assem- 
bling of  ourselves  together  for  every  branch  of  public 
worship. 

The  scriptural  obligation  of  this  is  partly  founded  upon 
example  and  partly  upon  precept ;  so  that  no  person 
who  admits  that  authority,  can  question  this  great  duty 
without  manifest  and  criminal  inconsistency.  The  in- 
stitution of  public  vi'orship  under  the  law ;  the  prac- 
tice of  synagogue  worship  among  the  Jews,  from  at 
least  the  time  of  Ezra,(4)  cannot  be  questioned  ;  both 
which  were  sanctioned  by  the  practice  of  our  Lord  and 
his  Apostles.  The  course  of  the  synagogue  worship 
became  indeed  the  model  of  that  of  the  ClirisliHii 
Church.  It  consisted  in  prayer,  reading  and  ex]. laming 
the  Scriptures,  and  singing  of  psalms ;  and  thus  one  of 
the  most  important  means  of  instructing  nations,  and 
of  spreading  and  maintaining  the  influence  of  morals 
and  religion  among  a  people,  passed  from  the  Jews  into 
all  Christian  countries. 

The  preceptive  authority  for  our  regular  attendance 
upon  public  worship  is  either  in/en iitial  or  dinrt. 
The  command  to  publish  the  Gospel  includes  the  obli- 
gation "of  assembling  to  hear  it;  the  name  by  which 
a  Christian  society  is  designated  in  .Scripture  is  a 
Clmrch;  which  signifies  an  "  assembly"  for  the  trans- 
action of  some  bu.siness ;  and,  in  the  case  of  a  Chris- 
tian a.s.sembly,  the  business  must  be  necessarily  spirit- 
ual, and  include  the  sacred  exerci.ses  of  prayer,  praise, 
and  hearing  the  Scriptures.  But  we  have  more  direct 
precepts,  although  the  practice  was  obviously  continued 
from  Judaism,  and  wa.s  therefore  consuetudinary. 
Some  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul  are  commanded  to  be 
read  in  the  Churches.  The  singing  of  psalms,  hymns, 
and  spiritual  songs,  is  enjoined  as  an  act  of  solemn 
worship  "to  the  Lord  ;"  and  St.  Paul  cautions  the  He- 
brews that  they  "  forsake  not  the  assembling  ol  them- 
selves together."  The  practice  of  the  primitive  age  is 
also  manifest  from  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  The 
Lord's  Supper  was  celebrated  by  the  body  of  believers 
collectively  ;  and  this  Apostle  prescribes  to  the  Corinth- 
ians regulations  for  the  exercises  of  prayer  and  pro- 
phesyings,  "  when  they  came  together  in  the  church," 
—the  assembly.  The  statedness  and  order  of  these 
"holy  offices"  in  the  primitive  Church,  appears  also 
from  the  Apostolical  Epistle  of  St.  Clement  :  "  V^'e 
ought  also,  looking  into  the  depths  of  the  Divine  know- 
ledge, to  do  all  things  in  order,  whatsoever  ti!e  lohk 
hath  commanded  to  be  done.  We  ought  to  make  our 
oblations,  and  perform  our  holy  offices,  at  their  aiipointed 
seasons;  Ibr  tiiese  he  hath  commanded  to-be  done,  not 
irregularly  or  by  chance,  but  at  determinate  times  and 
hours;  as  he  hath  likevvise  ordained  by  hifi  Siiiinine 
Will,  where,  and  by  what  persons,  they  shall  lie  pcv- 
formed;  that  so  all  things  being  done  according  to  liis 
pleasure,  may  he  acceptable  in  his  sight."  This  pas- 
sage is  remarkable  for  urging  a  Divine  authority  for 
the  pubhc  services  of  the  Church,  by  which  St.  Cle- 
ment, no  doubt,  means  the  authority  oi'  the  inspired  di- 
rections of  the  Apostles. 

The  ends  of  the  institution'of  public  worship  are  of 
such  obvious  importance,  that  it  must  ever  be  consi- 
dered as  one  of  the  most  condescending  and  gracious 
dispensations  of  God  to  man.  By  this  his  Church  con- 
fesses his  name  before  the  world;  by  this  the  public 
teaching  of  his  word  is  associated  with  acts  calculated 


(4)  Some  writers  contend  that  synagogues  were  as 
old  as  the  ceremonial  law.  That  they  were  anritnt  is 
proved  from  Acts  xv.  21, — "  Moses  of  old  time  hath  in 
every  city  them  that  preach  him,  being  read  in  the  syna- 
gogues every  Sabbath  day." 


392 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


to  affect  tho  mind  with  that  solemnity  which  is  the  best 
preparation  for  hearinu  it  to  edification.  It  is  thus  that 
the  Ignorant  and  vicious  arc  collected  together,  and  in- 
structed and  warned;  the  invitations  of  mercy  are 
published  to  the  guilty,  and  the  sorrowful  and  aillictcd 
are  comforted.  In  these  assemblies  f;od,  by  his  Holy 
Spirit,  ditruses  his  vital  and  sanctifying  inllucncc,  ami 
takes  the  devout  into  a  fellowship  with  hiiiiscif,  Iroiii 
which  they  derive  strength  to  do  and  to  snllir  his  will 
in  the  various  scenes  of  life,  while  lie  thus  all()rds  them 
a  foretaste  of  the  deep  and  hallowed  pleasures  which 
are  reserved  for  them  at  '•  his  right  hind  lor  evermore." 
Prayers  and  intercessions  arc  here  lieani  for  national 
and  pubUc  interests;  and  while  the  benefit  of  these 
exercises  descends  upon  a  country,  all  are  kept  sensible 
of  the  dependence  of  every  public  and  personal  inte- 
rest upon  God.  I'raise  calls  forth  the  grateful  emotions, 
and  gives  cheerfulness  to  piety  ;  and  that  "  instruction 
in  righteousness,"  which  is  so  perpetually  rejicated, 
diffuses  the  principles  of  morality  and  religion  through- 
out society ;  enlightens  and  gives  activity  to  conscience ; 
raises  the  standard  of  morals  ;  attaches  shame  to  vice, 
and  praise  to  virtue ;  and  thus  exerts  a  powerfully  pu- 
rifying influence  upon  mankind.  Laws  thus  receive  a 
force,  which,  in  other  circumstances,  they  could  not  ac- 
quire even  were  they  enacted  in  as  great  perlection  ; 
and  the  administration  of  justice  is  aided  by  the  strong- 
est possible  obligation  and  sanction  being  given  to  legal 
oaths.  The  domestic  relations  are  rendered  more 
strong  and  interesting  by  the  very  habit  of  the  attend- 
ance of  families  upon  the  sacred  services  of  the  sanc- 
tuary of  the  Lord;  and  the  rich  and  the  jioor  niecting 
together  there,  and  standing  on  the  same  common 
ground  of  sinners  before  God,  eiiually  dependent  upon 
him,  and  equally  suing  for  his  mercy,  has  a  powerful, 
though  often  an  insensible,  influence  in  humbling  the 
pride  which  is  nourished  by  superior  rank,  and  in  rais- 
ing the  lower  classes  above  abjectnes.s  of  spirit,  without 
injuring  their  humility.  Piety,  benevolence,  and  patri- 
otism are  equally  dependent  for  their  purity  and  vigour 
upon  the  regular  and  devout  worship  of  God  in  the 
simplicity  of  the  Christian  dispensation. 

A  few  words  on  liturgies  or  forms  of  prayer  may 
here  have  a  proper  place. 

The  necessity  of  adhering  to  the  simplicity  of  the 
first  age  of  the  Church,  as  to  worship,  need  scarcely  be 
defended  by  argument.  If  no  liberty  were  intended  to 
he  given  to  accommodate  the  modes  of  worship  to  the 
circumstances  of  different  people  and  times,  we  should, 
no  doubt,  have  had  some  express  directory  on  the  sub- 
ject in  Scripture;  but  in  the  exercise  of  tliis  liberty 
steady  regard  is  to  be  paid  to  the  spirit,  and  genius,  and 
simple  character  of  (^hristianity,  and  a  respectful  de- 
ference to  the  practice  of  the  .\postles  and  their  imme- 
diate successors.  Without  these,  formality  and  super- 
stition, to  both  of  which  human  nature  is  very  liable, 
are  apt  to  be  induced  ;  and  when  once  they  enter  they 
increase,  as  the  history  of  the  Chu  rch  sufficiently  shows, 
indefinitely,  until  true  religion  is  buried  beneath  the 
mass  of  observances  which  have  been  introduced  as 
her  aids  and  handmaids.  Our  Lord's  own  words  arc 
here  directly  ajiplicable  and  Important :  (;od  is  a  Spirit ; 
and  they  that  worship  him  must  worship  liiiii  in  sjilrit 
and  in  truth."  The  worship  must  be  adapted  to  the 
spiritual  nature  of  God,  and  to  his  reveal' d  pcrliclicins. 
To  such  a  Being  the  number  of  prayers,  the  quantity 
of  worship  so  to  speak,  to  which  corrupt  clinrclies 
have  attached  so  much  iinportaiK'e,  can  be  of  no  value. 
Asa  Spirit,  he  seeks  the  wdrsliqi  of  Ihe  spirit  of  man  ; 
and  regards  nothing  exti;riial  in  that  worshi|i  but  as  it 
is  the  expression  of  those  emotions  of  humility,  faith, 
gratituile,  and  hope,  which  are  the  princijilcs  he  conde- 
Bcendingly  apjiroves  in  man.  "  True"  v,orship,  we  are 
also  taught  by  these  words,  is  the  worshi])  of  the  heart ; 
it  springs  from  humility,  faith,  gratitude,  and  hope; 
and  its  final  cause,  or  end,  is  to  better  man,  by  bringing 
upon  his  affections  the  sanctifying  and  comlbrting  in- 
Jluence  of  grace.  The  modes  ol'  worship  wliiih  best 
promote  this  end,  and  most  efrectiially  call  tlicsr  princi- 
ples into  exercise,  are  those  therelbre  wliirli  ln'st  accord 
with  our  Lord's  rule;  and  if  in  the  Apostolic  age  we 
see  this  end  of  worship  most  directly  accomplislu(i,,'md 
these  emotions  most  vigorously  and  with  greatest  jiurity 
excited,  the  novelties  of  human  invention  can  aild  no- 
thing to  the  effect,  and  for  that  very  reason  have  greatly 
diminished  it.  In  the  Latin  and  (Jreek  Churches  wo 
eo«  a  striking  coaformity  in  ttic  vestments,  tho  proces- 


[Part  hi, 

sions,  the  pictures,  and  injages,  and  other  parts  of  a 
complex  and  gorgeous  ceremonial,  to  the  .kwish typical 
worship,  and  to  that  of  the  (Jciitilcs,  whu  h  was  an  imi- 
tation of  it  without  typical  meaning,  liul  it  is  not  even 
pretended  that  in  these  circumstances  it  is  founded 
upon  primitive  practice;  or,  if  pretended,  this  is  obvi- 
ously an  impudent  assumiition. 

Liturgies,  or  forms  of  iiervi.ce,  do  not  certainly  come 
uiid(;r  tins  censure,  except  when  they  contain  sujicrsti- 
tious  acts  of  devotion  to  saints,  or  are  so  conqilicated, 
numerous,  and  lengthened,  that  the  only  iirinciple  to 
which  they  can  be  nlerred  is  the  common,  but  unwor- 
thy notion,  that  the  Divine  Ueiiig  is  rendered  placable 
by  continued  service  ;  or  that  the  wearisome  exercise 
of  vocal  prayers,  continued  for  long  periods,  and  in 
painful  postiire.s,  is  a  necessary  penance  to  man,  and, 
as  such,  acc(  ptable  to  God.  In  those  Relbrmed  Churches 
oft  hristeiidoni  in  which  tliey  are  used,  they  have  been 
greatly  abridged,  as  well  as  purified  from  the  corrup- 
tions of  the  middle  ages.  In  some  they  are  more  co- 
pious than  in  others,  while  many  religious  societies 
have  rejected  their  use  altogether ;  and  in  a  few  they 
are  so  used  as  to  alTord  comiietent  space  also  for  extem- 
pore devotion. 

I'he  advocates  and  opponents  of  the  use  of  forms  of 
prayer  in  public  worship  have  both  run  into  great  ex- 
tremes, and  attempted  generally  to  prove  too  much 
against  each  other. 

If  the  use  of  forms  of  prayer  in  prose  be  objected  to, 
their  use  in  verse  ought  to  be  rejected  on  the  same 
[irinciiile ;  and  extemporaneous  psalms  and  hymns 
must,  lor  consistency's  sake,  be  required  of  a  minister, 
as  well  as  extemporaneous  jirayers ;  or  the  practice  of 
singing,  as  a  part  of  (iod's  wor.ship,  must  be  given  up. 
Again  :  If  the  objection  to  the  use  of  a  form  of  prayer 
be  not  in  its  matter  ;  butmerely  as  it  contains  petitions 
not  compo.sed  by  ourselves,  or  by  the  oliiciating  minis- 
ter on  the  occasion  ;  the  same  objection  would  lie  to  our 
using  any  petitions  found  in  the  Psalms  or  other  devo- 
tional parts  of  Scrqiture,  although  adajited  to  our  case, 
and  expressed  hi  words  far  more  fitting  than  our  own. 
If  we  ttiink  preeomposed  prayers  incompatible  with  de- 
votion, we  make  it  essential  io  devotion  that  we  should 
frame  our  desires  into  our  own  words ;  whereas 
nothing  can  be  more  plain,  than  that  whoever  has  com- 
])Osed  ilie  words,  if  they  correspond  with  our  desires, 
they  become  the  prayer  of  our  hearts,  and  are,  as  such, 
acceptable  to  God.  The  objection  to  iietitionary  forma 
composed  by  others,  supjioses  also  that  we  know  ttie 
things  which  it  is  proper  lor  us  to  ask  without  the  as- 
sistance of  others.  This  may  be  sometimes  the  case  ; 
but  as  we  must  be  taught  what  to  pray  for  by  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  so,  in  proportion  as  we  understand  what 
we  are  authorized  to  pray  for  by  those  Scriptures, 
our  prayers  become  more  varied,  and  distinct,  and  com- 
prehensive, and,  therefore,  edifying.  Itut  all  helps  to 
the  understanding  of  the  Scriptures,  as  to  what  they 
encourage  us  to  ask  of  (Jod,  is  a  help  to  us  in  prayer. 
Thus  the  exi)osition  of  Christian  privileges  and  bles- 
sings from  the  ])ulpit,  aflbrds  us  this  assistance ;  thus 
the  jinblic  extempore  jirayers  we  hear  offered  by  minis- 
ters and  enlightened  Christians,  assist  us  in  the  same 
respect ;  and  the  written  and  recorded  prayers  of  the 
wi.se  and  pious  in  different  ages,  fullil  the  same  oflice, 
and  to  so  great  an  extent,  that  scarcely  any  who  oiler 
extempore  prayer  escape  falling  nilo  pliiases  and  terms 
of  expression,  or  even  enure  iKtiiioiis,  wlinh  have  been 
originally  derived  from  liturgies.  Kveii  in  extemi>ore 
services,  the  child  accustomed  to  the  modes  of  preca- 
tory ex]>ression  used  by  the  parent,  and  the  people  to 
those  of  their  ministers,  imitate  them  unconsciously; 
finding  the  desires  of  their  hearts  already  imbodied  in 
suitable  and  iiii|iri  ssive  words. 

The  objection,  therefore,  to  Ihe  use  of  forms  of  prayer, 
when  absolute,  is  absurd,  and  involves  principles  whi<h 
no  one  acts  ujion,  or  can  act  upon.  It  also  disregards 
example  and  antiquity.  The  high  jiricst  of  the  Jews 
jironounced  yearly  a  form  of  benediction.  The  Psalms 
of  David,  and  other  insjiired  Hebrew  Poets,  whether 
chanted  or  read,  makes  no  difference,  were  comjicsed 
lor  tho  use  of  the  sanctuary,  and  liirmed  a  pan  of  the 
regular  devotions  of  the  people.  Poriiis  of  prayer  were 
u.sed  in  the  synagogue  service  of  the  .lews,  which, 
though  multiplied  in  subse(iuent  times,  so  as  to  render 
the  service  tedious  and  supcrstilKuis,  had  among  them 
some  that  were  in  use  between  the  return  from  the 
captivity  and  the  Christian  era,  and  were  therefore 


Chap,  ll.j 


THEOLOGICAL   LNSTITUTES. 


393 


sanctioned  by  the  iiraoticc  of  our  Lord  and  his  Aiio.s- 
tles.(5)  John  Baptist  ai)iiiars  also  to  have  given  a  Ibnii 
of  prayer  to  his  disciples,  in  wtiii-h  he  was  I'ollowed  liy 
our  Lord.  The  latter  lias  indeed  been  questioned,  and 
were  it  to  be  argued  that  our  Lord  uitendcd  thai  I'onn 
of  prayer  alone  to  be  used,  too  much  would  be  proved 
by  the  advocates  of  forms.  On  the  other  hand,  al- 
though the  words, "  after  this  tnaiintT  jtray  ye,"  intimate 
that  the  Lord's  Prayer  was  given  as  a  model  of  prayer, 
so  the  words  in  another  Evangelist,  "  When  ye  jiray, 
say,"  as  fully  indicate  an  intention  to  prescribe  a  liirm. 
It  seems,  therefore,  fair,  to  consider  the  Lord's  Prayer  as 
intended  both  as  a  model  and  a.  form ;  and  he  must  be 
very  fastidious  who,  though  he  uses  it  as  the  model  of 
his  own  prayers,  by  paraplirasing  its  petitions  in  his 
own  words,  should  scruple  to  use  it  in  its  native  siiia- 
plicity  and  Ibrce  as  a  form.  That  its  use  as  a  form, 
though  not  its  exclusive  use,  was  originally  intended 
by  our  Lord,  appears,  I  think,  very  clearly,  from  the 
disciples  desiring  to  be  taught  to  pray,  "  as  John  taught 
his  disciples."  If,  as  it  has  been  alleged,  the  Jewish 
Rabbles,  at  so  early  a  period,  were  in  the  custom  of  giv- 
ing short  ibrms  of  prayer  to  their  disciples,  to  be  used 
in  the  form  given,  or  to  be  enlarged  upon  by  the  pupil 
at  his  pleasure,  this  would  fully  explain  the  request  of 
the  disciples.  However,  without  laying  much  stress 
upon  the  antiquity  of  this  practice,  we  may  urge,  that 
if  John  Baptist  gave  a  form  of  prayer  to  his  followers, 
the  conduct  of  our  Lord  in  teaching  his  disciples  to  pray, 
by  what  is  manifestly  a  regularly  connected  series  of 
petitions,  is  accordant  with  their  request ;  but  if  the 
Baptist  only  taught  what  topics  ought  to  be  introduced 
in  prayer,  and  the  disciples  of  Jesus  wished  to  be  in- 
structed in  like  manner,  it  is  dilficult  to  account  for 
their  request  being  granted,  not  by  his  giving  directions 
as  to  the  topics  of  prayer,  but  by  his  uttering  a  regular 
prayer  itself.  That  oiir  Lord  intended  that  prayer  to  be 
used  as  adapted  to  that  period  of  his  dispensation ;  and 
that  the  petitions  in  that  form  are  admirably  applicable 
to  every  period  of  Christianity,  and  may  be  used 
profitably  ;  and  that  its  use  implies  a  devout  resjiect 
to  the  words  of  Him  "  who  spake  as  never  man 
si)ake  ;"  are  points  from  which  there  does  not  appeal- 
any  reasonable  ground  of  dissent. 

The  practice  of  the  primitive  Church  may  also  be 
urged  in  favoiu-  of  ]>iturgies.  Founded  as  the  early  wor- 
ship of  Christians  was,  upon  the  model  of  the  syna- 
gogue, the  use  of  short  Ibrrns  of  prayer,  or  collects,  by 
them,  is  at  least  probable.  It  must  indeed  be  granted 
that  extended  and  regular  liturgies  were  of  a  later 
date ;  and  that  extemjiore  prayers  were  constantly  of- 
fered in  their  assemblies  for  public  worship.  This 
appears  clear  enough  from  several  passages  in  St. 
Paul's  Epistles,  and  the  writings  of  the  Fathers ;  so 
that  no  liturgical  service  can  be  so  framed  as  entirely 
to  shut  out,  or  not  to  leave  convenient  space  for,  extem- 
pore prayer  by  the  minister  without  departing  from  the 
earliest  models.  But  the  Lord's  Prayer  apjiears  to  have 
been  in  frequent  use  in  the  earliest  times,  and  a  series 
of  collects  ;  wliich  seems  allowed  even  by  Lord  King, 
although  he  proves  that  the  practice  for  the  minister 
to  pray  "  according  to  his  ability,"(fi)  that  is,  to  use  his 
gifts  in  extempore  prayer,  was  a  constant  part  of  the 
public  worship  in  the  first  ages. 

JIuch,  therefore,  is  evidently  left  to  wisdom  and 
prudence  in  a  case  where  we  have  no  explicit  direction 
in  the  Scriptures  ;  and  as  a  general  rule  to  be  modified 
by  circumstances,  we  may  perhaps  with  safety  alfirm, 
that  the  best  mode  of  pubUc  worship  is  that  which 
unites  a  brief  scriptural  liturgy  with  extempore 
prayers  by  the  minister.  This  v.-iJi  more  clearly  ap- 
licar  if  we  consider  the  exceedingly  futile  character  of 
those  objections  which  have  been  reciprocally  employed 
by  the  opponents  and  advocates  of  forms,  when  they 
have  carried  their  views  to  an  extreme. 

To  public  liturgies  it  has  been  objected,  that  "  forms 
of  prayer  composed  in  one  age  become  unfit  for  another, 
by  the  unavoidable  change  of  language,  circumstances, 
and  opinions."  To  this  it  may  be  answered,  1.  That 
whatever  weight  there  may  be  in  the  objection,  it  can 
only  apply  to  cases  where  the  form  is,  in  all  its  parts, 
made   imperative  upon    the    officiating  minister;    or 

(5)  Pridbaux's  CmuLCxion.    Fol.  edit.  vol.  i.  p.  304. 

(6)  This  expression  occurs  in  Justin  Martyr's  Se- 
cond Apology,  where  he  particularly  describes  the 
mode  of  primitive  worship. 


where  the  Church  imposing  it,  neglects  to  accommo- 
date the  liturgy  to  meet  all  such  changes,  when  iniio- 
rent.  2.  That  the  general  language  of  no  form  of 
]iraycr  among  ourselves,  has  bec(jnie  obsolete  in  point 
ot'  fact ;  a  few  expressions  only  being,  according  to 
modern  notions,  uncouth,  or  unusual.  3.  That  the  pe- 
titions they  contain  are  suited,  more  or  less,  to  all  men, 
at  all  times,  whatever  may  be  their  "  circumstances;" 
and  that  as  to  '•  opinions,"  if  they  so  change  in  a  Church 
as  to  become  unscriptural,  it  is  an  advantage  arising 
out  of  a  public  form,  that  it  is  auxiliary  to  the  Scrip- 
tures in  bearing  testimony  against  them;  that  a  natural 
reverence  for  ancient  tbrnis  tends  to  ])reser\'e  their 
use,  after  opinions  have  become  lax  ;  and  that  they 
are  sometimes  the  means  of  recovering  a  Church  froiii 
error. 

Another  objection  is,  that  the  perpetual  repetition  of 
the  same  form  of  words  produces  weariness  and  inat- 
tentivencss  in  the  congregation.  There  is  some  truth 
in  this  ;  but  it  is  often  carried  much  too  far.  A  devo- 
tional mind  wdl  not  weary  in  the  repetition  o(  a  scrip- 
tural and  well-arranged  liturgy,  if  not  too  long  to  be 
sustained  by  the  infirmity  of  the  body.  Whether  forms 
are  used,  or  extempore  prayer  be  jiractised,  eflbrt  and 
application  of  mind  are  necessary  in  the  hearer  to  enter 
into  the  spirit  of  the  words  ;  and  each  mode  is  weari- 
some to  the  careless  and  indcvout,  though  not,  we 
grant,  in  equal  degrees.  The  objection,  as  far  as  it  has 
any  weight,  would  be  reduced  to  nothing,  were  the 
liturgy  repeated  only  at  one  service  on  the  Sabbath,  so 
that  at  the  others  the  mini.'^ter  might  be  left  at  liberty 
to  pray  with  more  direct  reference  to  the  special 
circumstances  of  the  people,  the  Church,  and  the 
world. 

The  general  character  which  all  Ibrms  of  prayer  must 
take,  is  a  third  objection  ;  but  this  is  not  true  absolutely 
of  any  liturgy,  and  much  less  of  that  of  the  Church  of 
England.  All  prayer  must,  and  ought  to  be,  general, 
because  we  ask  for  blessings  which  all  others  need 
as  much  as  ourselves  ;  but  that  particularity  which 
goes  into  the  difl^erent  parts  of  a  Christian's  religious 
experience  and  conriicts,  dangers  and  duties,  is  Ibund 
very  forcibly  and  feehngly  expressed  in  that  liturgy. 
That  greater  particularity  is  often  needed  than  this  ex- 
cellent form  of  prayer  contains,  must,  however,  be 
allowed  ;  and  this,  as  well  as  ])rayer  suited  to  occa- 
sional circumstances,  might  be  supplied  by  the  more 
frequent  use  of  extempore  jirajcr,  without  displacing 
the  liturgy  itself.  The  objection  therelbre,  has  no 
force,  except  when  extempore  prayer  is  excluded,  or 
confined  within  too  narrow  a  limit. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  indiscriminate  advocates  of 
liturgies  have  carried  their  objections  to  extempore 
prayer  to  a  very  absurd  extreme.  Without  a  liturgy 
the  folly  and  enthusiasm  of  many,  they  say,  is  in  dan- 
ger of  producing  extravagant  or  impious  addresses  to 
God  ;  that  a  congregation  is  confused  between  their  at- 
tention to  the  minister,  and  their  own  devotion,  being 
ignorant  of  each  petition  before  they  hear  it ;  and  to 
this  they  add  the  labouring  recollection  or  tumultuous 
delivery  of  many  extempore  speakers.  The  first  and 
third  of  these  objections  can  have  force  only  where 
foolish,  enthusiastic,  and  incompetent  Ministers  are  em- 
ployed ;  and  so  the  evil,  which  can  but  rarely  exist,  is 
easily  remedied.  The  second  objection  lay  as  forcibly 
against  the  inspired  prayers  of  the  Scriptures  at  the 
time  they  were  first  uttered,  as  against  extempore 
prayers  now ;  and  it  would  lie  against  the  use  of  the 
collects,  and  occasional  unfamiliar  forms  of  prayer  in- 
troduced into  the  regular  liturgy,  in  the  case  of  all  who 
are  not  able  to  read,  or  who  happen  not  to  have 
prayerbooks.  We  may  also  observe,  that  if  evHs  of  so 
serious  a  kind  are  the  necessary  results  of  extempore 
praying;  if  devotion  is  liindered,  and  pain  and  confu- 
sion of  mind  produced ;  and  impiety  and  enthusiasm 
promoted  ;  it  is  rather  singular  that  extempore  prayer 
should  have  been  so  constantly  practised  in  the  priiiii- 
tive  Church,  and  that  it  should  not  have  been  wholly 
prohibited  to  the  Clergy  on  all  occasions,  in  later  times. 
The  facts,  however,  of  our  own  age  prove  that  there  is, 
to  say  the  least,  an  equal  degree  of  devotion,  an  equal 
absence  of  confusedness  of  thought  in  the  worshippers, 
where  no  liturgy  is  used,  as  where  extemjioie  prayer  is 
unknown.  Instances  of  folly  and  enthusiasm  are  also 
but  few  in  the  ministry  of  such  (;hurclios  ;  and  when 
they  occur  they  have  a  better  remedy  than  entire]}  to 
c.\clude  extempore  prayers  by  liturgies,  and  thus  to 


394 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTltUTES. 


[Part  IIL 


shut  out  the  great  benefits  of  that  mode  of  worship, 
for  the  loss  of  which  no  exclusive  form  of  service  can 
atone. 

The  whole,  we  think,  comes  to  this, — that  there  are 
advantages  in  each  mudc  of  worship ;  and  that,  when 
combined  prudently,  the  public  service  of  the  sanctuary 
has  its  most  perfect  constitution.  Much,  however,  in 
the  practice  of  Churches  is  to  be  regulated  by  due  re- 
spect to  dilfurenees  of  opinion,  and  even  tojjrejudice,  on 
a  point  upon  which  we  are  left  at  liberty  by  tlie  Scrip- 
tures, and  which  must  therefore  be  ranlved  among  thin.i^s 
prudential.  Here,  as  in  many  other  t:iin2s.  Christians 
must  give  place  to  each  other,  and  do  all  things  "in 
charity." 

Praisk  and  thanksgivino  are  implied  in  prayer, 
and  included  indeed  in  our  definition  of  that  duty,  as 
given  above.  But  besides  those  ascri;itions  of  praise 
and  expressions  of  gratitude,  which  are  to  be  mingled 
with  the  precatory  part  of  our  devotions,  solemn  psalms 
and  hymns  of  praise,  to  be  sung  with  the  voice,  and 
accompanied  with  the  melody  of  the  heart,  are  of  Apos- 
tolic injunction,  and  form  an  important  and  exhilarating 
part  of  the  worship  of  God,  whether  public  or  social. 
It  is  thus  that  God  is  pul)!icly  acknowledged  as  the 
great  source  of  all  good,  and  the  end  to  which  all  good 
ought  again  (o  tend  in  love  and  obedience ;  and  the 
practice  of  stirring  uj)  our  hearts  to  a  thankful  remem- 
brance of  His  goodness  is  equally  important  in  its 
moral  influence  upon  our  feelings  now,  and  as  it  tends 
to  prepare  us  for  our  eternal  enjoyment  hereafter. 
"  Prayer,"  says  a  divine  of  the  English  t'hurch, 
"  awakens  in  us  a  sorrowful  sense  of  wants  and  imper- 
fections, and  confession  induces  a  sad  remembrance  of 
our  guilt  and  miscarriages ;  but  thanksgiving  has 
nothing  in  it  but  a  warm  sense  of  the  mightiest  love, 
and  the  most  endearing  goodness,  as  it  is  the  overflow 
of  a  heart  full  of  love,  the  free  sally  and  emission  of 
soul,  that  is  captivated  and  endeared  by  kindness.  To 
laud  and  magnify  the  Lord  is  the  end  for  which  we  were 
born,  and  the  heaven  for  which  we  were  designed,  and 
when  we  are  arrived  to  such  a  vigorous  sense  of  Divine 
love  as  the  blessed  inhabitants  of  heaven  have  attained, 
we  shall  need  no  otlu^r  pleasure  or  enjoyment  to  make 
us  for  ever  happy,  but  only  to  shig  eternal  praises  to 
God  and  the  1-amb ;  the  vigorous  relish  of  whose  un- 
speakable goodness  to  us  will  so  inflame  our  love,  and 
animate  our  gratitude,  that  to  eternal  ages  we  shall 
never  be  able  to  refrain  from  breaking  out  iiuo  new 
songs  of  praise,  and  then  every  new  song  will  create  a 
new  pleasure,  and  every  new  pleasure  create  a  new 
song."(7) 


CHAPTER  HI. 
The  DnxiKS  we  owe  to  God. — The  Lord's  Day. 

As  we  have  just  been  treating  of  the  public  worship 
of  Almighty  God,  so  we  may  litly  add  some  remarks 
upon  the  consecration  of  one  day  in  seven  for  that  ser- 
vice, that  it  may  be  longer  coiuinued  than  on  days  in 
which  the  business  of  life  calls  for  our  exertions,  and 
our  minds  be  kept  free  from  its  distractions. 

The  obligation  of  a  Sabbatical  institution  upon  Chris- 
tians, as  well  as  the  extent  of  it,  have  bciMi  the  suli|i'cts 
of  much  controversy.  Christian  (!hnriliis  tlicinsclvcs 
have  dilfered ;  and  the  theologians  of  ibe  same  (  linrcli. 
Much  has  been  written  ui)on  the  subject  on  each  side, 
and  much  research  and  learning  employed,  sometimes 
to  darken  a  very  plain  subject. 

Ttie  circumstance,  that  the  observance  of  a  Sabbath 
is  no  where,  in  so  manij  words;  enjoined  ujion  Chris- 
tians, by  our  Lord  and  his  apostles,  has  been  assumed 
as  the  reason  for  so  great  a  licens(>  of  criticism  and 
argument  as  that  which  has  been  olbn  iiululgi'il  in  to 
unsettle  the  strictness  of  the  obli^jatioii  of  this  duty. 
Its  obligation  has  been  represented  as  standing  upon 
the  ground  of  inference  only,  and  ihirclbrc  of  human 
opinion  ;  and  thus  the  opinion  against  .•<abli;iti(;il  insti- 
tutions has  been  held  up  as  equally  W(ii;biv  with  the 
opinion  in  their  favour;  and  the  lilicrty  wlmii  ims  been 
claimed,  has  been  too  often  hastily  cDuclinlcd  to  be 
Christian  liberty.  This,  however,  is  travelling  much 
too  fast ;  for  if  the  case  were  as  much  a  matter  of  in- 
ference, as  such  persons  would  have  it,  it  does  not  Ibl- 


(7)  Ur.  Scott. 


low  that  every  inference  is  alike  good ;  or  that  the 
opposing  inlerenccs  have  an  equal  force  of  truth,  any 
more  than  of  jiiety. 

The  question  respects  the  will  of  God  as  to  this  par- 
ticular ]  loint, — Whether  one  day  in  .seven  is  to  be  wholly 
devoted  to  religion,  exclusive  of  worldly  business  and 
worldly  pleasures.  i\ow,  there  are  but  two  ways  in 
which  the  will  of  God  can  he  collected  from  his  word; 
either  by  some  explicit  injunction  upon  all,  or  by  inci- 
dental eircum.stances.  Let  us  then  allow  for  a  moment 
that  we  have  no  such  explicit  injunction  ;  yet  we  have 
certainly  none  to  the  contrary :  Let  us  allow  that  we 
have  only  for  our  guidance  in  inferring  the  wUl  of  God 
in  this  particular,  certain  circumstances  declarative  of 
his  will;  yet  this  important  conclusion  is  inevitable, 
that  all  such  indicative  circumstances  are  in  favour  of 
a  Sabbatical  institution,  and  that  there  is  not  one  which 
exhibits  any  thing  contrary  to  it.  The  seventh  day 
was  hallowed  at  the  close  of  the  creation  ;  its  sanctity 
was  afterward  marked  by  the  withholding  of  the  manna 
on  that  day,  and  the  provision  of  a  double  supply  on 
the  sixth,  and  that  previous  to  the  giving  of  the  law 
from  Sinai :  It  was  then  made  a  part  of  that  great  epi- 
tome of  religious  and  moral  duty,  wliich  God  wrote 
with  his  own  linger  on  tables  of  stone  ;  it  was  a  part 
of  the  public  ipolitical  law  of  the  only  jicople  to  whom 
Almighty  Ciod  ever  made  liimself  a  political  Head  and 
Ruler  ;  its  observance  is  connected  throughout  the  pro- 
lilietic  age  \vith  the  highest  promises,  its  violations  with 
the  severest  maledictions ;  it  was  among  the  Jews  in 
our  Lord's  time  a  day  of  solemn  religious  assembling, 
and  was  so  observed  by  Him ;  when  changed  to  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  it  was  the  day  on  w  hich  the  first 
Christians  assembled  ;  it  was  called,  by  way  of  emi- 
nence, "  the  Lord's  day  ;"  and  we  have  inspired  autho- 
rity to  say,  that,  both  under  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment dispensations,  it  is  used  as  an  expressive  type  of 
the  heavenly  and  eternal  rest.  Now,  against  all  these 
circumstances  so  strongly  declarative  of  the  will  of 
God,  as  to  the  observance  of  a  Sabbatical  institution, 
what  circumstance  or  passage  of  Scripture  can  be  op- 
posed, as  bearing  upon  it  a  contrary  indication  !  Truly 
not  one ;  except  those  passages  in  St.  Paul,  in  which 
he  speaks  of  Jewish  Sabbaths,  with  their  liCvitical  rites, 
and  of  a  distinction  of  days,  both  of  which  marked  a 
weak  or  a  criminal  adherence  to  the  abolished  ceremo- 
nial disiiensaiion  ;  but  which  touch  not  the  Sabbath  as 
a  branch  of  the  moral  law,  or  as  it  was  changed,  by  the 
authority  of  the  Apostles,  to  the  first  day  of  the  week. 

If,  then,  we  were  left  to  determine  the  point  by  in- 
ference merely,  how  powerful  is  the  inference  as  to 
what  is  the  will  of  God  with  respect  to  the  keeping  of 
the  Sabbath  on  the  one  hand,  and  how  totally  unsup- 
ported is  the  oiiposile  inference  on  the  other  1 

It  may  also  be  observed,  that  those  who  will  so 
strenuously  insist  upon  the  absence  of  an  express 
command  as  to  the  Sabbath  in  the  writings  of  the  Evan- 
gelists and  Apostles,  as  explicit  as  that  of  the  Decalogue, 
assume  that  the  will  of  God  is  only  ol)lii.'atory  when 
manift;sted  in  some  one  mode,  which  //k;/ judge  to  be 
most  fit.  But  this  is  a  monstrous  hypothesis ;  for  how- 
ever the  will  of  God  may  be  manifested,  if  it  is  with 
such  clearness  as  to  exclude  all  reasonable  doubt,  it  is 
equally  obligatory  as  when  it  assumes  the  formality  of 
legal  promulgation.  Thus  the  Bible  is  not  all  in  the 
form  of  express  and  authoritative  command  ;  it  teaches 
by  examples,  by  proverbs,  by  songs,  by  incidental  allu- 
sions and  occurrences ;  and  yet  is,  throughout,  a  mani- 
festation of  the  will  of  God  as  to  morals  and  religion 
in  their  various  branches,  and  if  disregarded,  it  will  be 
so  at  every  man's  peril. 

But  strong  as  this  ground  is,  we  quit  it  for  a  still 
stronger.  It  is  wholly  a  mistake,  that  the  Sabbath, 
because  not  re-eiuuled  with  tb(  I'urmality  of  the  Deca- 
logue, is  not  cNiilu'illy  eiijiiineil  u|ioii  Christians,  and 
that  the  tisiimony  of  Scripture  to  .such  an  injunction  is 
not  uneiiuivocal  and  irrefragable.  We  shall  soon  prove 
that  the  Sabbath  was  appointed  at  the  creation  of  the 
world,  and  consequently  lor  all  men,  and  therelbre  for 
Cbrislians  ;  since  there  was  never  any  repeal  of  the 
original  nistiMition.  To  Ibis  we  add,  that  if  the  moral 
law  lie  the  l.iw  of  Cbrislians,  then  is  the  Sabbath  as 
explicitly  enjoined  upon  them  as  upon  the  Jews.  But 
that  the  moral  law  is  our  law,  as  well  as  the  law  of 
the  Jews,  all  but  Antinoinians  must  acknowledge ; 
and  few,  we  suppose,  will  be  inclined  to  run  into  the 
fearful  mazes  of  that  error,  in  order  to  eujijiort  la.x 


Chap.  III.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


395 


notions  as  to  the  obligation  of  the  Sabbath,  into  which, 
however,  tliey  must  lie  plunged,  if  they  deny  the  law 
of  the  Decalogue  to  bo  binding  upon  us.  That  it  is  so 
bound  upon  us,  a  few  passages  of  Scripture  will  i)rove 
as  well  as  many. 

Our  Lord  declares,  that  he  came  not  to  destroy  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets,  but  to  fulfil.  Take  it,  that  by 
the  "  Law,"  he  meant  botli  the  moral  and  tiie  ceremo- 
nial ;  ceremonial  law  could  only  be  lullillcd  in  him,  by 
realizing  its  types ;  and  moral  law,  by  upiioldiu','  its 
authority.  For  "  the  Prophets,"  they  admit  of  n  similar 
distinction;  they  either  enjoin  morality,  or  uiu  •  ;iro- 
phecies  of  Clirist;  the  latter  of  which  we.-p  faifilicd  in 
the  sense  of  accomplishment,  the  fcrmer  by  being 
sanctioned  and  enlbrced.  Tiiat  the  observance  of  the 
Sabbath  is  a  part  of  the  moral  law,  is  clear  from  its 
being  found  in  the  Decalogue,  the  doctrine  of  which 
our  Lord  sums  up  in  the  moral  duties  of  ioving  God 
and  our  neighbour ;  and  for  this  reason  the  injunctions 
of  the  Proi)hets,  on  the  subject  of  tlie  Sabbath,  are  to  be 
regarded  as  a  part  of  their  moral  teaching.(8)  Some 
divines  have,  it  is  true,  called  the  observance  of  the 
Sabbath  a  positive,  and  not  a  moral  precept.  If  it  were 
so,  its  obligation  is  precisely  the  same,  in  all  cases 
where  God  himself  has  not  relaxed  it ;  and  if  a  positive 
precept  only,  it  has  surely  a  special  eminence  given  to  it, 
by  being  placed  in  the  list  of  the  Ten  Coimtiandments, 
and  being  capable,  with  them,  of  an  epitome  which  re- 
solves them  into  the  love  of  God  and  our  neighboiir.(9) 
The  truth  seems  to  be,  that  it  is  a  mixed  ])recept,  and 
not  wholly  positive ;  but  intimately,  perhaps  essen- 
tially, connected  with  several  moral  principles,  of 
homage  to  God,  and  mercy  to  men  ;  with  the  obligation 
of  religious  worship,  of  public  religious  worship,  and 
of  undistracted  public  worship :  and  this  will  account 
for  its  collocation  in  the  Decalogue  with  the  highest 
duties  of  religion,  and  tlie  leading  rules  of  personal 
and  social  morality. 

The  passage  from  our  Lord's  .Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
with  its  context,  is  a  sufficiently  explicit  enforcement 
of  the  moral  law,  generally,  upon  his  followers  ;  but 
when  he  says,  "  The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,"  he 
clearly  refers  to  its  original  institution  as  a  universal 
law,  and  not  to  its  obligation  upon  the  Jews  only,  in 
con.seiiuence  of  the  enactments  of  the  law  of  Moses. 
It  "  was  made  for  ma«,"  not  as  he  may  be  a  .lew  or  a 
Christian,  but  as  man,  a  creature  bound  to  love,worship, 
and  obey  his  God  and  Maker,  and  on  his  trial  for  eternity. 

Another  explicit  proof  that  the  law  of  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments, and,  consequently,  the  law  of  the  Sabbath, 
is  obligatory  upon  Christians,  is  found  in  the  answer 
of  the  Apostle  to  an  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  justili- 
cation  by  faith,  Rom.  iii.  31,  "  Do  we  then  make  void 
the  law  through  fitith  ?"  which  is  equivalent  to  asking, 
Does  Christianity  teach,  that  the  law  is  no  longer  obli- 
gatory on  Christians,  because  it  teaches  that  no  man 
can  be  justified  by  it?  To  this  he  answers,  in  the 
most  solemn  form  of  expression,  "  God  forbid ;  yea,  we 
establish  the  law.''  Now,  the  sense  in  which  the 
Apostle  uses  the  term  "  the  law,"  in  this  argument,  is 
indubitably  marked  in  cliap.  vU.  7,  "  I  had  not  known 
sin  but  by  the  law ;  for  I  had  not  known  lust,  except 
tke  law  had  said,  Tliou  shalt  not  covet :"  which  being  a 
plain  reference  to  the  tenth  command  of  the  Decalogue, 
as  plainly  shows  that  the  Decalogue  is  "  the  laiv"  of 
which  he  speaks.  This,  then,  is  the  law  which  is  "  es- 
tablished" by  the  Gospel ;  and  this  can  mean  nothing 
else  than  the  establishment  and  confirmation  of  its 
authority  as  the  rule  of  all  inward  and  outward  holi- 
ness. Whoever,  therefore,  denies  the  obligation  of  the 
Sabbath  on  Christians,  denies  the  obligation  of  the 
whole  Decalogue  ;  and  there  is  no  real  medium  between 
the  acknowledgment  of  the  Divine  authority  of  this 
sacred  institution,  as  a  universal  law,  and  that  gross 
corruption  of  Christianity,  generally  designated  Anti- 
nomianism. 

Nor  is  there  any  force  in  the  dilemma  into  wliich  the 
Anti-Sabbatarians  would  push  us,  when  they  argue, 
that,  if  the  case  be  so,  then  are  we  bound  to  the  same 
circumstantial  exactitude  of  obedience  as  to  this  com- 
mand, as  to  the  other  precepts  of  the  Decalogue  ;  and, 
therefore,  that  we  are  bound  to  observe  the  seventh 
(lay,  reckoning  from  Saturday,  as  the  Sabliath-day. 
But,  as  the  command  is_  partly  positive,  and  partly 


(8)  Sec  this  stated  more  at  large,  Part  iii.  chaj).  I. 

(9)  See  p.  237. 


moral,  it  may  have  circumstances  which  are  capable 
of  being  altered  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  moral 
principles  on  which  it  rests,  and  the  moral  ends  which 
it  pro))oscs.  Such  circumstances  are  not  indeed  to  be 
judged  of  on  our  own  authority.  Wc  must  either  have 
such  general  principles  ibr  our  guidance  as  have  been 
revealed  by  God,  and  cannot  therefore  be  questioned, 
or  some  special  authority  from  which  there  can  be  no 
just  appeal.  Now,  though  there  is  not  on  record  any 
Divine  command  issued  to  the  Apostles,  to  change  the 
Sabbath  from  the  day  on  which  it  was  held  by  the 
.lews,  to  the  first  day  of  the  week  ;  yet,  when  we  see 
that  this  was  done  in  the  Apostolic  age,  and  that  St. 
Paul  speaks  of  the  Jewish  Sabbaths  as  not  being  obli- 
gatory upon  Christians,  while  he  yet  contends  that  the 
whole  moral  law  is  obligatory  upon  them  ;  the  liiir  in- 
ference is,  that  tliis  change  of  the  day  was  made  by 
Divine  direction.  It  is  at  least  more  than  inference, 
that  the  change  was  made  under  the  sanction  of  in- 
spired men,  and  those  men,  the  appointed  rulers  in 
the  Church  of  Christ,  whose  business  it  was  to  "  set 
all  things  in  order,"  which  pertained  to  its  worshij)  and 
moral  government.  We  may  rest  well  enough,  there- 
fore, satisfied  with  this,— tliat  as  a  Sabbath  is  obligatory 
upon  us,  we  act  under  Apostolic  authorityTor  observing 
it  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  and  thus  commemorate 
at  once  the  creation  and  the  redemption  of  the  world. 

Thus,  even  if  it  were  conceded,  that  the  change  of 
the  day  was  made  by  the  agrceiaeiit  of  the  Apostles, 
without  express  directions  from  Clirist  (which  is  not 
probable),  it  is  certain  that  it  was  not  done  without 
express  authority  confided  to  them  by  Christ ;  but  it 
would  not  even  follow  from  this  change,  that  they  did 
in  reality  make  any  alteration  in  the  law  of  the  Sab- 
bath, either  as  it  stood  at  the  time  of  its  original  insti- 
tution at  the  close  of  the  creation,  or  in  the  Decalogue 
of  Moses.  The  same  portion  of  time  which  constituted 
the  seventh  day  from  the  creation,  could  not  be  ob- 
served in  all  parts  of  the  earth  ;  and  it  is  not  probable, 
therefore,  that  the  original  law  expresses  more,  than 
that  a  seventh  day,  or  one  day  in  seven, the  seventh 
dav  after  six  days  of  labour,  should  be  thus  appro- 
priated, from  whatever  point  the  enumeration  might 
set  out,  or  the  hebdomadal  cycle  begin.  For  if  more 
had  been  intended,  then  it  would  have  been  necessary 
to  establish  a  rule  for  the  reckoning  of  days  them- 
selves, which  has  been  dillerent  in  difierent  nations ; 
some  reckoning  from  evening  to  evening,  as  the  Jews 
now  do;  others  from  midnight  to  midnight,  &c.  So 
that  those  persons  in  Europe,  and  in  America,  who 
hold  their  Sabbath  on  Saturday,  under  the  notion  of 
exactly  conforming  to  the  Old  Testament,  and  yet  cal- 
culate the  days  from  midnight  to  midnight,  have  no 
assurance  at  all  that  they  do  not  desecrate  a  part  of  the 
original  Sabbath,  which  might  begin,  as  the  Jewish 
Sabbath  now, on  Friday  evening;  and,  on  the  contrary, 
hallow  a  portion  of  a  common  day,  by  extending  the 
Sabbath  beyond  Saturday  evening.  Even  if  this  were 
ascertained,  the  differences  of  latitude  and  longitude 
would  throw  the  whole  into  disorder ;  and  it  is  not 
probable  tliat  a  universal  law  should  have  been  fet- 
tered with  that  circumstantial  exactness,  which  would 
have  rendered  difficult  and  sometimes  doubtful  astro- 
nomical calculations  necessary  in  order  to  its  being 
obeyed  according  to  the  intention  of  the  Lawgiver. 
Accordingly  we  find,  says  Mr.  Ilolden,  that 

"  In  the  original  institution  it  is  stated  in  general 
terms,  that  God  blessed  and  sanctified  the  seventh  day, 
which  must  undoubtedly  imply  the  sanctity  of  every  se- 
venth day ;  but  not  that  it  is  to  be  subsequently  reckoned 
from  the  first  demiurgic  day.  Had  this  been  included 
in  the  command  of  the  Almighty,  something,  it  is  pro- 
bable, would  have  been  added  declaratory  of  the  inten- 
tion ;  whereas  expressions  the  most  undefined  are  em- 
ployed; not  a  syllable  is  uttered  concerning  the  order 
and  number  of  the  days  ;  and  it  cannot  reasonably  be 
disputed  that  the  command  is  truly  obeyed  by  the  sepa- 
ration of  every  seventh  day,  from  common  to  sacred 
purposes,  at  whatever  given  time  the  cycle  may  com- 
mence. The  ilifference  in  the  mode  of  expression  here 
from  that  which  the  sacred  historian  has  used  in  the 
first  chapter,  is  very  remarkable.  At  the  conclusion 
of  each  division  of  the  work  of  creation,  he  says, '  The 
evening  and  the  morning  were  the  first  day,'  and  so 
on ;  but  at  the  termination  of  the  whole,  he  merely 
calls  it  the  seventh  day  ;  a  diversity  of  phrase,  which, 
as  it  would  be  inconsistent  with  every  idea  of  inspira- 


396 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  IIJ. 


tion  to  suppose  it  umlesigned,  must  liave  been  intendid 
to  (lonoto  a  day  leaving  it  to  each  prnplc  as  to  what 
manner  it  is  to  bo  reckoned.  The  term  ol)vi()usly  im- 
ports tlic  jieriod  of  tli«  eanli's  rot.-itioii  round  its  axis, 
while  it  is  left  undetermined,  wlieMier  it  sliall  be 
counted  from  evening  or  morning,  from  noon  or  miil- 
night.  Tlie  terms  of  the  law  are,  '  Remember  tlie  Sab- 
bath-day to  keep  it  holy.  Six  days  shall  thou  labour, 
and  do  all  tliy  work ;  but  the  seventh  day  is  tlie  Sab- 
bath of  the  Lord  thy  God. — For  in  six  days  llie  Lord 
made  heaven  and  earth,  the  sea  and  all  that  in  them 
is,  and  rested  the  seventh  day ;  wherefore  the  Lord 
blessed  the  Sabbath-day,  and  hallowed  it.'  With  re- 
spect to  time,  it  is  hero  mentioned  in  the  same  indefinite 
manner  as  at  its  primeval  inslUution,  nothing  more 
being  expressly  required  than  to  observe  a  day  of  sacred 
rest  after  every  six  days  of  hibour.  The  seventh  day 
is  to  be  kept  holy ;  but  not  a  word  is  said  as  to  what 
epoch  the  commencement  of  the  series  is  to  be  referred ; 
nor  could  the  Hebrews  liave  determined  from  the 
Decalogue  what  day  of  the  week  was  to  be  kojit  as 
their  Sabbath.  The  precept  is  not,  'Remember  the 
seventh  day  of  the  week,  to  keep  it  holy,  but  '  Remem- 
ber the  Sabbath-day,  to  keep  it  holy ;'  and  in  the  fol- 
lowing explication  of  these  expressions,  it  is  not  said 
that  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  is  the  Sabbath,  but 
without  restriction,  '  The  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath 
of  the  Lord  thy  God ;'  not  the  seventh  according  to  any 
particular  method  of  computing  the  septenary  cycle ; 
but,  in  reference  to  the  six  before  mentioned,  every 
seventh  day  in  rotation  after  six  of  labour."(l) 

Thus  that  part  of  the  Jewish  law,  the  Decalogue, 
which,  on  the  authority  of  the  New  Testament,  we 
have  shown  to  be  obligatory  upon  Christians,  leaves 
the  computation  of  the  hebdomadal  cycle  undetermined ; 
and,  after  six  days  of  labour,  enjoins  the  seventh  as  the 
Sabbath,  to  which  the  Christian  practice  as  exactly 
conforms  as  the  Jewish.  It  is  not,  however,  left  to 
every  individual  to  determine  which  day  should  be  his 
Sabbath,  though  he  should  fulfil  the  law  so  far  as  to 
abstract  the  seventh  part  of  Itis  time  from  labour.  It 
was  ordained  for  worsliip,  for  public  worship ;  and  it 
is  therefore  necessary  that  the  Sabbath  should  be  uni- 
formly observed  by  a  whole  community  at  the  same 
time.  The  Divine  Legislator  of  the  Jews  interposed 
for  this  end,  by  special  direction,  as  to  his  people.  The 
first  Sabbath  kept  in  the  wilderness  was  calculated 
from  the  first  day  in  which  the  manna  fell ;  and  with 
no  apparent  reference  to  the  creation  of  the  world.  IJy 
Apostolic  authority,  it  is  now  fixed  to  be  held  on  the 
first  day  of  the  week  ;  and  thus  one  of  the  great  ends 
for  which  it  was  established,  that  it  should  be  a  day  of 
"holy  convocation,"  is  secured. 

The  above  observations  proceed  upon  the  ground, 
that  the  Sabbath,  according  to  the  fair  interpretation  of 
the  words  of  Moses,  was  instituted  upon  the  creation 
of  the  world.  But  we  have  had  divines  of  considerable 
eminence  m  the  English  Church,  who  have  attempted 
to  (lisi)rove  this.  The  reason  of  the  zeal  displayed  by 
some  of  them  on  this  question  may  be  easily  explauied. 

All  the  Churches  of  the  Reformation  did  not  indeed 
agree  in  their  views  of  the  Sabbath ;  but  the;  Reformers 
ol'  Enghuid  and  Scotland  generally  adopted  the  strict 
and  scriptural  view  ;  and  after  them  the  I'nrilans.  The 
opponents  of  the  Puritans,  in  their  eoiuroversies  with 
them,  and  especially  after  the  Restoration,  associated  a 
strict  observance  of  the  Salibath  with  hypocrisy  and 
disaffection  ;  and  no  small  degree  of  ingiMiuity  and 
learning  was  employed  to  prove  ilial,  in  the  intervals 
of  public  worship,  pleasure  or  business  might  be  law- 
fully j)ursued  ;  and  that  this  Christian  festival  stands 
on  entirely  different  grounds  from  lliat  of  the  Jewish 
Sabbath.  The  appointment  of  a  s.ilibalh  for  man,  at 
the  cluse  of  tlui  creation,  was  niilViendly  to  lliis  notion  ; 
and  an  elUirt  Ihenlun^  was  m.ide  Ici  I'xiilain  away  the 
te.stimony  of  ^Muses  in  the  book  iitCeiu'sis,  by  alle;:ing 
that  the  .Sabbath  is  there  mentioned  by  ;;;«/iy/\/\  or  an- 
ticipation. Of  the  arguments  of  Ihis  i  lass  ol  Divines, 
I'aley  availed  himself  in  his  "  Mor.d  I'liilosopliy,"  and 
lias  become  the  most  popular  authority  on  this  side  of 
the  ipii'stion. 

Tahy's  argument  is  well  summed  uji,  and  satisf'ac- 
toril>'  answered,  in  the  able  work  which  has  been 
aliove  (pioted. 
"  Among  those  who  have  held  that  tlic  Pcntateuchal 


(l)ll0Li)iiN  mi  Uic  Habbath- 


record,  above  cited,  ia  proleptical,  and  that  the  Sabbath 
is  to  be  considered  a  part  of'  the  peculiar  laws  of  the 
Jewish  polity,  no  one  has  displayed  more  ability  than 
Dr.  I'aley.  Others  on  the  same  side  have  exliibited  far 
more  extensive  learning,  and  have  exercised  much 
more  patient  research ;  but  for  acuteness  of  intellect, 
for  coolness  of  judgment,  and  a  habit  of  iierspicacious 
reasoning,  he  has  been  rarely,  if  ever,  excelled.  The 
arguments  which  he  has  aiiproved,  must  be  allowed  to 
be  the  chief  strength  of  the  cause  ;  and,  as  he  is  at 
once  the  most  judicious  and  most  popular  of  its  advo- 
cates, all  that  he  has  advanced  demands  a  careful  and 
candid  examination.  The  doctrine  which  he  maintains 
is,  that  the  Sabbath  was  not  instituted  at  the  creation ; 
that  it  was  designed  for  the  Jews  only ;  that  the  asseni- 
blivg  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week  for  the  purpose  of 
public  worship,  is  a  law  of  Christianity,  of  Divine  ap- 
pointment ;  but  that  the  resting  on  it  longer  than  is 
necessary  for  attendance  on  these  assemblies,  is  an 
ordinance  of  human  institution  ;  binding,  nevertheless, 
upon  the  conscience  of  every  individual  of  a  country  in 
which  a  weekly  Sabbath  is  estahli.slutd,  for  the  sake  of 
the  beneficial  purposes  which  the  jmblic  and  regular 
observance  of  it  promotes,  and  recommended,  perhajis, 
in  some  degree,  to  the  Divine  approbation,  by  the  re- 
semblance it  bears  to  what  God  was  pleased  to  make  a 
solemn  part  of  the  law  which  he  delivered  to  the  peojile 
of  Israel,  and  by  its  subserviency  to  many  of  the  same 
uses.  Such  is  the  doctrine  of  this  very  able  writer  in 
his  Moral  and  Political  Philosophy ;  a  doctrine  which 
places  the  Sabbath  on  the  footing  of  civil  laws,  recom- 
mended by  their  expediency,  and  which,  being  sanc- 
tioned by  so  high  an  authority,  has  probably  given 
great  encouragement  to  the  lax  notions  concerning  the 
Sabbath  wliich  unhappily  prevail. 

"  Dr.  Palcy's  principal  argument  is,  that  the  first  in- 
stitution of  the  Sabbath  took  place  during  the  sojourn- 
ing of  the  Jews  in  the  wilderness.  Upon  the  eoniplaint 
of  the  people  for  want  of  food,  God  was  pleased  to  pro- 
vide for  their  relief  by  a  miraculous  supply  of  manna, 
which  was  found  every  morning  upon  the  ground  about 
the  camp  :  '  And  they  gathered  it  every  morning,  every 
man  according  to  his  eating ;  and  when  llie  sun  waxed 
hot,  it  melted.  And  it  came  to  pass,  that  on  the  sixth 
day  they  gathered  twice  as  much  bread,  two  oiners  for 
one  man  ;  and  all  the  rulers  of  the  congregation  came 
and  told  Moses.  And  he  said  unto  them.  This  is  that 
which  the  Lord  hath  said.  To-morrow  is  the  rest  of  the 
holy  Sabbath  inilo  the  Lord :  Rake  that  wliich  ye  will 
bake  to-day,  and  seeth  that  ye  will  seeth  ;  and  that 
w  hich  rernaincth  over  lay  up  for  you,  to  be  kept  until 
the  morning.  And  they  laid  it  up  till  the  morning,  as 
Moses  bade ;  and  it  did  not  stink  (as  it  had  done  be- 
fore, when  some  of  them  left  it  till  the  morning),  nei- 
ther was  there  any  worm  therein.  And  Mo.scs  said, 
Eat  that  to-day ;  for  to-day  is  a  Sabbath  unto  the 
Lord ;  to-day  ye  shall  not  find  it  in  the  field.  Six  days 
ye  shall  gather  it ;  but  on  the  seventh  day,  which  is 
the  Sabbath,  in  it  there  shall  be  none.  And  it  came  to 
pass,  that  there  went  out  some  of  the  people  on  the 
seventh  day  for  to  gather,  and  they  found  none.  And 
the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  How  long  rcf^ise  ye  to  keep 
my  commandments,  and  my  laws  !  See,  for  that  the 
Lord  hath  given  you  the  Sabbath,  therelbfc  he  giveth 
you  on  the  sixth  day  the  bread  of  two  days ;  abide  ye 
every  man  in  his  place ;  let  no  man  go  out  of  his  place 
on  the  seventh  day.  So  the  peo]ile  rested  on  the 
seventh  day.' 

"  From  this  passage.  Dr.  Palcy  infers  that  the  Sab- 
bath was  first  instituted  in  the  wilderness  ;  hut  to  pre- 
clude the  jiossibility  of  misreiireseniing  his  argument, 
I  will  (piole  his  own  words  :  'Now,  in  my  opinion,  the 
transaction  in  the  wilderness  above  recited,  was  the 
first  ac'lnal  iiistiliilioii  of  llie  Salili.ith.  For  if  the  Sab- 
bath had  bieii  instiniled  al  tlie  lime  of  th(^  creation,  as 
file  words  in  Genesis  may  seem  al  first  sight  to  import; 
and  if  it  had  been  oliserved  all  along  from  that  lime  to 
th(^  dejiarlurc^  of  the  Jews  out  of  Egypt,  a  jieriod  of 
about  two  ilionsaiid  five  hundred  years;  it  appears  un- 
acconnlable  ilial  no  mention  of  it,  no  occasion  of  even 
the  obsciiresi  allusion  to  it,  should  occur,  either  in  the 
general  history  of  file  world  before  the  call  of  Abra- 
ham, which  conlain.s,  we  admit,  only  a  few  memoirs 
of  its  early  ages,  and  those  extremely  abridged;  or, 
which  is  more  to  be  wondcroil  at,  in  that  of  the  lives 
of  the  first  three  Jewish  patriarchs,  which,  in  many 
carts  of  the  account,  is  suUiciuiitly  ciicuinstaiiiial  and 


Chap.  III.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


397 


domestic.  Nor  is  thcro,  in  the  passage  above  quoted 
from  the  sixteenth  chapter  of  Exodus,  any  intimation 
that  the  Sabbath,  when  ajipointed  to  be  observed,  was 
only  the  revival  of  an  ancient  institution,  which  had 
been  neglected,  forgotten,  or  suspended  :  nor  is  any 
such  neglect  imputed  either  to  the  inhabilants  of  the 
old  world,  or  to  any  part  of  the  family  of  Noah  ;  nor, 
lastly,  is  any  permission  recorded  to  dispense  with  the 
institution  during  the  captivity  of  the  Jews  in  Egypt, 
or  on  any  other  public  emergency.' 

"As  to  the  first  part  of  this  reasoning,  if  it  were 
granted  that  in  the  history  of  the  patriarchal  ages 
no  mention  is  made  of  the  Sabbath,  ;nor  even  the 
obscurest  allusion  to  it,  it  woidd  be  unfair  to  con- 
clude that  it  was  not  api)ointed  previous  to  the  de- 
parture of  the  children  of  Israel  from  Egypt.  If 
instituted  at  the  creation,  the  memory  of  it  might 
have  been  forgotten  in  the  lapse  of  time,  and  the 
growing  corruption  of  the  world ;  or,  what  is  more 
probable,  it  might  have  been  observed  by  the  patriarchs, 
though  no  mention  is  made  of  it  in  the  narrative  of 
theirlives,  which,  however  circumstantial  in  some  par- 
ticulars, is,  upon  the  whole,  very  brief  and  compen- 
dious. There  are  omissions  in  the  sacred  history  much 
more  extraordinary.  Excepting  Jacob's  supplication  at 
Bethel,  scarcely  a  single  allusion  to  prayer  is  to  be 
found  in  all  the  Pentateuch  ;  yet,  considering  the  emi- 
nent piety  of  the  worthies  recorded  in  it,  we  cannot 
doubt  the  frequency  of  their  devotional  exercises.  Cir- 
cumcision being  the  sign  of  God's  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham, was  beyond  all  question  punctually  observed  by 
the  Israelites,  yet,  from  their  settlement  in  Canaan,  no 
particular  instance  is  recorded  of  it  till  the  circumci- 
sion of  Christ,  comprehending  a  period  of  about  one 
thousand  five  hundred  years.  No  express  mention  of 
the  Sabbath  occurs  in  the  books  of  Joshua,  Judges, 
Ruth,  the  first  and  second  of  Samuel,  or  the  first  of 
Kings,  though  it  was,  doubtless,  regidarly  observed  all 
the  time  included  in  these  histories.  In  the  second 
book  of  Khigs,  and  the  first  and  second  of  Chronicles, 
it  is  mentioned  only  twelve  times,  and  some  of  them 
are  merely  repetitions  of  the  same  instance.  If  the 
Sabbath  is  so  seldom  spoken  of  in  this  long  liistorical 
scries,  it  can  be  nothing  wonderful  if  it  should  not  be 
mentioned  in  the  sununary  accoimt  of  the  patriarchal 
ages. 

"  But  though  the  Sabbath  is  not  expressly  mentioned 
in  the  history  of  the  antediluvian  and  patriarchal  ages, 
the  ob.servance  of  it  seeins  to  be  intimated  by  the  divi- 
sion of  time  into  weeks.  In  relating  the  catastrophe 
of  the  flood,  the  historian  informs  us,  that  Noah,  at  the 
end  of  forty  days,  opened  the  window  of  the  ark  ;  '  and 
he  stayed  yet  other  seven  days,  and  again  he  sent  forth 
the  dove  out  of  the  ark;  and  the  dove  came  in  to  him 
in  the  evening,  and  lo,  in  her  mouth  was  an  olive  leaf 
plucked  oflT.  So  Noah  knew  that  the  waters  were 
abated  from  off  the  earth.  And  he  stayed  yet  other 
seven  days,  and  sent  forth  the  dove,  which  returned 
not  again  unto  him  any  more.'  The  term  '  week'  is 
used  by  Laban  in  reference  to  the  nuptials  of  Leah, 
when  he  says,  '  Fulfil  her  week,  and  we  will  give  thee 
this  also,  for  the  service  which  thou  shall  serve  with 
me  yet  seven  other  years.'  A  week  of  days  is  here 
plainly  signified,  the  same  portion  of  time  which,  in 
succeeding  ages,  was  set  apart  for  nuptial  festivities, 
as  appears  from  the  book  of  Essther,  where  the  marriage 
feast  of  Vashti  lasted  seven  days,  and  more  particularly 
from  the  account  of  Samson's  marriage  feast.  Joseph 
and  his  brethren  mourned  for  their  father  Jacob  seven 
days. 

"That  the  computation  of  time  by  weeks  obtained 
from  the  most  remote  antiquity,  appears  from  the  tra- 
ditionary and  written  records  of  all  nations,  the  nume- 
rous and  undeniable  testimonies  of  which  have  been 
so  often  collected  and  displayed,  that  it  would  be  worse 
than  useless  to  repeat  them. 

"  Combining  all  these  testimonies  together,  they  fully 
establish  the  primitive  custom  of  measuring  time  by 
the  division  of  weeks  ;  and  prevailing  as  it  did  among 
nations  separated  by  distance,  having  no  mutual  inter- 
course, and  wholly  distinct  in  manners,  it  must  have 
originated  from  one  common  source,  which  cannot  rea- 
sonably be  suppo.sed  any  other  than  the  memory  of  the 
creation  preserved  in  the  Noahic  fannly,  and  handed 
down  to  their  po.sterities.  The  computation  by  day-s, 
months,  and  years,  arises  from  olivious  causes,— the 
revolution  of  the  moon,  and  the  annual  and  diurnal  re- 


volutions of  the  sun;  but  the  division  of  lime  by  pe- 
riods of  seven  days  has  no  foundation  in  any  natural 
or  visible  septenary  change;  it  must,  therefore,  have 
originated  from  some  positive  a])pointment,  or  some  tra- 
dition anterior  to  the  dispersion  of  mankind,  which 
cannot  well  be  any  other  than  the  memory  of  the  crea- 
tion and  primeval  blessing  of  tlie  seventh  day. 

"Dr.  Paley's  next  argument  is,  that  'there  is  not  in 
the  sixteenth  chapter  of  Exodus  any  intimation  that  the 
Sabbath,  when  appointed  to  be  observed,  was  only  the 
revival  of  an  ancient  institution  which  had  been  ne- 
glected, forgotten,  or  suspended.'  The  contrary,  how- 
ever, seems  the  more  natural  inference  from  the  narra- 
tive. It  is  mentioned  exactly  in  the  way  an  historian 
would,  who  had  occasion  to  speak  of  a  well-known 
institution.  For  instance,  when  tlie  people  were  asto- 
nished at  the  double  supply  of  manna  on  the  sixth  day, 
Moses  observes,  '  This  is  that  which  the  Lord  hath  said, 
To-morrow  is  the  rest  of  the  holy  Sabbath  unto  the 
Lord  ;'  which,  as  far  as  we  know,  was  never  said  pre- 
viously to  this  transaction,  but  at  the  close  of  the  crea- 
tion. This,  surely,  is  the  language  of  a  man  referring 
to  a  matter  with  which  the  people  were  already  ac- 
quainted, and  recalling  it  to  their  remembrance.  In 
the  fillh  verse,  God  pronuses  on  the  sixth  day  twice  as 
much  as  they  gatlier  daily.  For  this  no  reason  is  given, 
which  seems  to  imply  that  it  was  already  known  to  the 
children  of  Israel.  Such  a  promise,  without  some  cause 
being  assigned  for  so  extraordinary  a  circumstance, 
would  have  been  strange  indeed  ;  and  if  the  reason  had 
been  that  the  seventh  day  was  now  for  the  first  time 
to  be  appointed  a  festival,  in  which  no  work  was  to  be 
done,  would  not  the  aiuhor  have  stated  this  circum- 
stance ?  Again,  it  is  said,  '  Six  days  ye  shall  gather 
it ;  but  on  the  seventh  day,  which  is  the  Sabbath,  in  it 
there  shall  be  none  ;'  and  '  for  that  the  Lord  hath  given 
you  the  Sabbath,  therefore  he  giveth  you  on  the  sixth 
day  the  bread  of  two  days.'  Here  the  Sabbath  is 
spoken  of  as  an  ordinance  with  which  the  people  were 
familiar.  A  double  quantity  of  manna  was  given  on 
the  sixth  day,  because  the  following  day,  as  they  well 
knew,  was  the  Sabbath,  in  which  God  rested  from  hia 
work,  and  which  was  to  be  kept  as  a  day  of  rest,  and 
holy  10  the  Lord.  It  is  likewise  mentioned  incidentally, 
as  it  were,  in  the  recital  of  the  miraculous  supply  of 
manna,  without  any  notice  of  its  being  enjoined  upon 
tliat  occasion  lor  the  first  time ;  which  would  be  a  very 
surprising  circumstance,  had  it  been  the  original  esta- 
blishment of  the  Sabbath.  In  short,  the  entire  phrase- 
ology in  the  account  of  this  remarkable  transaction 
accords  with  the  supposition,  and  with  it  alone,  that 
the  Sabbath  had  been  long  established,  and  was  well 
known  to  the  Israelites. 

"  That  no  neglect  of  the  Sabbath  is  '  imputed  either 
to  the  inhabitants  of  the  old  world,  or  to  any  of  the 
family  of  Noah,'  is  very  true  ;  but  so  far  from  there 
being  any  proof  of  such  negligence,  there  is,  on  the 
contrary,  as  we  have  seen,  much  reason  for  believing 
that  it  was  duly  observed  by  the  pious  Sethites  of  the 
old  world,  and  after  the  deluge  by  the  virtuous  line  of 
Shem.  True  likewise  it  is,  that  there  is  not  '  any  per- 
mission recorded  to  dispense  with  the  institution  during 
the  captivity  of  the  Jews  in  Egypt,  or  on  any  other 
public  emergency.'  But  where  is  the  evidence  that 
such  a  permission  would  be  consistent  with  the  Di- 
vine wisdom  ?  And  if  not,  none  such  would  either  be 
given  or  recorded.  At  any  rate,  it  is  difficult  to  see 
how  the  silence  of  Scripture,  concerning  such  a  cir- 
cumstance, can  furnish  an  argument  in  vindication  of 
the  ophiionthat  the  Sabbath  was  first  apjiointcd  in  the 
wilderness.  To  allege  it  lor  this  purpose  is  just  as  in- 
conclusive as  it  would  be  to  argue  that  the  Sabbath  was 
instituted  subsequent  to  the  return  of  the  Jews  from 
Babylonia,  because  neither  the  observance  of  it,  nor 
any  permission  to  dispense  with  it,  during  the  capti- 
vity, is  recorded  in  Scripture. 

"  The  passage  in  the  second  chapter  of  Genesis  is 
next  adduced  by  Dr.  Paley,  and  he  pronounces  it  not 
inconsistent  with  his  opinion  ;  '  for  as  the  seventh  day 
was  erected  into  a  Sabbath  on  account  of  God's  resting 
upon  that  day  from  the  work  of  creation,  it  was  natural 
enough  in  the  historian,  when  he  had  related  the  his- 
tory of  the  creation,  and  of  God's  ceasing  from  it  on 
the  seventh  day,  to  add,  '  and  God  blessed  the  seventh 
day,  and  sanctilicd  it,  because  that  on  it  he  had  rested 
from  all  his  work  which  (;od  had  created  and  made;' 
although  the  blessing  and  sanctilication,  (hat  is,  (lie 


398 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES, 


[Part  IIL 


religious  distinction  and  iipproi)riation  of  that  day,  were 
not  actually  made  till  inariy  ages  allerward.  The 
\Vords  do  not  assert  that  Ciod  lhi:n  '  blessed'  and  '  sanc- 
lilied'  the  seventh  day,  bul  that  he  blessed  and  sancli- 
lied  it  for  that  reiixon ;  and  il'  any  ask,  why  the  Sab- 
bath, or  sanciitication  of  the  seventh  day,  was  then 
mentioned,  if  it  were  not  then  appointed,  the  answer  is 
at  hand  :  the  order  of  connexion,  and  not  of  time,  in- 
troduced the  mention  of  the  Sabbath  in  the  history  of 
the  subject  which  it  was  ordained  to  commemorate.' 

"  That  the  Hebrew  historian,  in  the  passage  here  re- 
ferred to,  uses  a  prolepsis  or  anticiiKition,  and  alludes 
to  the  Mosaical  institution  of  the  Siibbath,  is  main- 
tained by  some  of  the  ancient  Fathi-rs,  by  Waehner, 
Heidegger,  Beaiisobre,  by  I.e  (Urc,  Kdsenmuller,  Ged- 
des,  Dawson,  and  other  comincntdturs,  and  by  the  ge- 
neral stream  of  those  writers  who  regard  the  Sabbath 
as  peculiar  to  the  Jews.  Yet  tins  opinion  is  built  upon 
the  assumption  that  the  Hook  of  Conesis  was  not 
written  till  after  the  giving  of  the  law,  which  may  bo 
the  fact,  but  of  which  most  umiuestionably  there  is  no 
proof.  Hut  waiving  this  consideration,  it  is  scarcely 
Iio.ssible  to  conceive  a  greater  violence  to  the  sacred 
text  than  is  ollered  by  this  interpretation.  It  attributes 
to  the  inspired  author  the  absurd  assertion,  that  God 
rested  on  the  seventh  day  from  all  his  works  which  he 
had  made,  and  thkrefore,  about  two  thousand  five 
hundred  years  after,  God  blessed  and  sanctilied  the 
seventh  day.  It  may  be  as  well  imagined  that  God  had 
finished  his  work  on  the  seventh  day,  but  rested  on 
some  other  seventh  day,  a.s  that  he  rested  the  day  Ibl- 
lowing  the  work  of  creation,  and  allerward  blessed 
and  sanctified  another.  Not  the  slightest  evidence  ai)- 
Iiears  for  believing  that  Moses  (()llowed  '  the  order  of 
conne.vion,  and  not  of  time  ;'  lor  no  reasonable  motive 
can  be  assigned  for  then  introducing  the  mention  of  it, 
if  it  was  not  then  appointed.  The  design  of  the  sacred 
historian  clearly  is,  to  give  a  faithful  account  of  the 
origin  of  the  world,  and  both  the  resting  on  the  seventh 
day,  and  the  blessing  it,  have  too  close  a  connexion  to 
be  separated.  If  the  one  took  place  iminediately  after 
the  work  of  creation  was  concluded,  so  did  the  other. 
To  the  account  of  the  prodttction  of  the  universe  the 
whole  narrative  is  confined  ;  there  is  no  intimation  of 
KUbseiiuent  events,  nor  the  most  distant  allusion  to 
Jewi.sh  ceremonies  ;  and  it  would  be  most  astonishing 
if  the  writer  deserted  his  grand  object  to  mention  one 
of  the  Hebrew  ordinances,  wliich  was  not  appointed 
till  ages  afterward. 

"  Hut  according  to  Dr.  Geddes,  the  opinion  of  a  pro- 
lepsis derives  some  confirmation  from  the  original  He- 
brew, which  he  renders,  '  On  the  si.xth  day  God  com- 
pleted all  the  work  which  he  had  to  do,  and  on  the 
sKVKNTH  day  ceased  from  doing  any  of  his  works. 
God,  therefore,  blessed  the  seventh  day,  and  made  it 
holy,  because  on  it  he  ceased  from  all  Ins  works  which 
he  had  ordained  to  do.'  This  version,  he  says,  is  '  in 
the  supposition  that  the  writer  refers  X.o  the  Jewish 
Sabbath  ;'  of  course  it  was  designedly  adai)ted  to  an 
hypothesis;  but,  notwithstanding  this  suspicious  cir- 
cumstance, it  is  not  easy  to  determine  how  it  diflers  in 
sense  from  the  received  translation,  as  it  leaves  the 
question  entirely  undecided  ichen  this  blessing  and 
sanctification  took  place.  The  proposed  version,  how- 
ever, is  opposed  by  those  in  the  Polyglott,  and  by  the 
generality  of  translators,  who  render  the  panicle  vau 
at  the  begiiuiing  of  the  third  verse  as  a  coimlativc,  not 
as  an  illative  ;  and  it  is  surprising  how  a  sound  Hebrew 
scholar  can  translate  it  otherwise.  In  short,  nothing 
can  be  more  violent  and  unnatural  than  the  proleptical 
juterprelation;  and  if  we  add,  that  it  rests  upon  the 
uiiprovcil  a«sMniption,  that  the  record  in  question  was 
writirii  itlhr  the  delivery  of  the  law,  it  must  appear  so 
devoid  111  rriii'Ml  sujiport,  as  not  to  require  a  moment's 
hesitaliiin  iii  rejecting  it. "(2) 

So  salisl:uiorilydoes  it  appfear  that  the  institution  of 
the  Sabbath  is  historically  narrated  in  Genesis  ;  and  it 
follows  from  thence,  that  the  lawof  the  Siibbath  is  uni- 
versal, and  not  peculiar  to  the  Jews.  (Joil  blessed  and 
sanctified  it,  not  certainly  for  himself,  but  for  his  rrca- 
tures  ;  that  it  might  l)e  a  day  of  special  blessing  to  them, 
and  ha  set  apart,  not  only  from  unholy  acts,  lor  they  are 
forbidden  on  every  day ;  but  from  common  uses.  It 
was  tlius  stamped  with  a  hallowed  character  from  the 


('2)  HoLUEN  0)1  the  Sabbath. 


commencement,  and  in  works  of  a  hallowed  character 
ought  il  therelbre  to  be  employed. 

'I'he  obligation  of  a  Sabbatical  observance  upon 
(-'hrislians  being  thus  established,  the  inquiry  which 
naturally  follows  is.  In  what  manner  is  tins  gnat  fes- 
tival, at  once  so  ancient  ami  so  veiieralile,  and  intended 
to  commemorate  events  so  illustrious  and  so  iiiqiortant 
to  mankind,  to  be  celebrated  .'  Many  have  spoken  of 
the  difficulty  of  settling  rules  of  this  kind  ;  but  this  will 
ordinarily  vanish,  if  we  consent  to  be  guided  fully  by 
the  principles  of  Scrijiture. 

We  allow  that  it  requires  judgment,  and  prudence, 
and  charity,  and  above  all,  a  mind  well  disposed  to  the 
spiritual  employment  of  the  Sabbath,  to  make  a  riglit 
application  of  the  law.  Hut  this  is  the  case  with  other 
lireccpis  also;  such,  for  instance,  as  the  loving  our 
neighbour  as  ourselves:  with  respect  to  which  we 
seldom  hear  any  complaint  of  dilhcully  in  the  ajipUca- 
tion.  Hut  even  if  some  want  of  sjiecial  direction 
should  be  felt,  this  can  only  all'ect  minor  details;  and 
probably  the  matter  lias  been  so  left  by  the  Lawgiver, 
to  "  try  us,  and  i)rovc  us,  and  to  know  what  is  in  our 
heart."  Something  may  have  been  reser\'ed,  in  this  case, 
for  the  exercise  of  spontaneous  obedience  ;  for  that  ge- 
nerous construction  of  the  precept  which  will  be  die 
tated  by  devotion  and  gratitude  ;  and  for  the  operation 
of  a  feeling  of  indignant  shame,  that  the  only  day 
which  God  has  reserved  for  himself  should  be  grudged 
to  him,  and  trenched  upon  by  every  petty  excuse  of 
convenience,  interest,  or  sloth,  and  pared  down,  and 
negotiated  for,  in  the  spirit  of  one  who  seeks  to  over- 
reach another.  Of  this  we  may  be  assured, — that  he 
who  is  most  anxious  to  find  exceptions  to  the  general 
rule,  will  in  most  cases  be  a  defaulter  upon  even  Ids 
own  estimate  of  the  general  duty. 

The  only  real  difiiculties  with  which  men  have  en- 
tangled themselves,  have  arisen  from  the  want  of  clear 
and  decided  views  of  the  law  of  the  Sal)bath,  as  it  is  a 
matter  of  express  revelation.  There  are  two  extremes, 
either  of  which  must  be  fertile  of  perplexity.  The  first 
is,  to  regard  the  Sabbath  as  a  prudential  institution, 
adopted  by  the  primitive  church,  and  resting  upon  civil 
and  ecclesiastical  authority  ;  a  notion  which  has  been 
above  refuted.  For  if  this  theory  be  adojitcd,  it  is  im- 
possible to  find  satisfactory  rules,  either  in  the  Old  or 
New  Testament,  apjilicable  to  the  su'jject ;  and  we 
may  therelbn;  cease  to  wonder  at  that  variety  of  opi- 
nions, and  those  vacillations  between  duty  and  hcense, 
which  have  been  found  in  difi'ereiit  churches,  and 
among  their  theological  writers.  'I'he  difficulty  of  es- 
tablislung  any  rule  at  all  to  which  conscience  is  strictly 
amenable,  is  then  evident,  and  indeed  entirely  insuper- 
able ;  and  men  in  vain  attempt  to  make  a  partial  Sab- 
bath by  their  own  authority,  when  they  reject  "  the  day 
which  the  Lord  hath  made."  If,  on  the  other  hand,  a 
projier  distinction  is  not  jircserved  between  the  moral 
law  of  the  Jews,  wliich  re-enacts  the  still  more  ancient 
institution  of  the  Sabbath  (a  law  we  have  seen  to  be 
obligatory  upon  all  Christians  to  the  end  of  time),  and 
the  pulitical  and  ceremonial  law  of  that  people,  wliich 
contains  particular  rules  as  to  the  observance  of  the 
Sabbath  ,  fixing  both  the  day  on  which  it  was  to  be 
held,  viz.  the  seventh  of  the  week,  and  issuing  certain 
proliibitioiis  not  apjiln^able  to  all  people  ;  wliich  branch 
of  the  Mosaic  law  was  brought  to  an  end  by  Christ, — 
difficulties  will  arise  from  this  quarter.  One  difficulty 
will  respect  the  day ;  another,  the  hour  of  the  diurnal 
circle  from  which  the  Sabbath  must  commence.  Other 
difiicullies  will  arise  from  the  inconvenience  or  impos- 
sibility of  accommodating  the  Judaical  precepts  to 
countries  and  manners  totally  dissimilar ;  and  others, 
from  the  degree  of  civil  delinquency  ami  punitiveness 
with  which  violations  of  the  Sabbath  ought  to  be 
marked  in  a  (Christian  state.  The  kindling  of  fires,  for 
instance,  in  their  dwellings,  was  lorbnlden  to  the  Jews  ; 
but  lor  extending  this  to  harsher  climales  there  is  no 
authority.  This  rule  would  make  the  Sabbath  a  day 
of  bodily  suffering,  and,  in  some  cases,  of  danger  to 
health,  which  is  inconsistent  with  that  merciful  and 
festival  character,  which  the  Sabbath  was  designed 
every  where  to  bear.  The  same  observation  may  apply 
to  the  cooking  of  victuals,  which  was  also  prohibited 
to  the  Jews  by  express  command,  'i'o  the  gathering 
of  sticks  on  the  Sabbath  the  penalty  of  death  was  as- 
signed, on  one  oci  asion,  liir  reasims  jirobably  arising 
out  of  the  thcocraiical  j;overnmeiii  of  the  Jews;  but 
surely  this  is  no  iirecedeiil  for  inaknig  the  violation  of 


CUAP.  IV.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


399 


the  Sabbath  a  capital  crime  in  the  code  of  a  Christian 
country. 

Between  ttic  Decalo!,Tic  and  the  political  and  ceremo- 
nial laws  which  followed,  there  is  a  marked  distinc- 
tion. They  were  given  at  two  dilferent  limes,  and  in 
a  different  manner;  and,  above  all,  the  former  is  re- 
ferred to  in  (he  New  Testament  as  of  perpetual  obliga- 
tion; the  other  as  peculiar,  and  as  abolished  by  Christ. 
It  does  not  follow,  however,  from  this,  that  those  pre- 
cepts in  the  Levitical  code,  which  relate  to  the  Sabbath, 
are  of  no  use  to  us.  They  show  us  how  the  general 
law  was  carried  into  its  detail  of  application  by  the 
great  Legislator,  who  condescended  to  be  at  once  a 
civil  and  an  ecclesiastical  Governor  of  a  chosen  peo- 
ple ;  and  though  they  are  not  in  all  respects  bmding 
upon  us  in  their  full  form,  they  all  imboily  general  in- 
terpretations of  the  fourth  command  of  the  Decalogue, 
to  which,  as  far  as  they  are  applicable  to  a  people  other- 
wise circumstanced,  respect  is  reverently  and  devoutly 
to  be  had.  The  prohibition  to  buy  and  sell  on  the  Sab- 
bath is  as  apjilicable  to  us  as  to  the  Jews  ;  so  is  that 
against  travelling  on  the  Sabbath,  except  for  the  pur- 
poses of  religion,  which  was  allowed  to  them  also.  If 
we  may  lawfully  kindle  fires  in  our  dwellings,  yet  we 
may  learn,  from  the  law  peculiar  to  the  Jews,  to  keep 
domestic  services  under  restraint ;  if  we  may  cook 
victuals  for  necessity  and  comfort,  we  are  to  be  re- 
strained from  feasting ;  if  violations  of  the  Sabbath 
are  not  to  be  made  capital  crimes  by  Christian  govern- 
ors, the  enforcement  of  a  decent  external  observance 
of  the  resi  of  the  Sabbath  is  a  lawful  use  of  power,  and 
a  part  of  the  duty  of  a  Christian  magistrate. 

But  the  rules  by  which  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath 
is  clearly  e.\i)lained  will  be  found  in  abundant  copious- 
ness and  evidence  in  the  original  command;  in  the 
Decalogue ;  in  incidental  passages  of  Scripture,  which 
refer  not  so  much  to  the  pohtical  law  of  the  Jews,  as  to 
the  universal  moral  code ;  and  in  the  discourses  and 
acts  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles  :  so  that,  independent 
of  the  Levitical  code,  we  have  abundant  guidance.  It 
is  a  day  of  resl  from  worldly  pursuits  ;  a  day  sanctified, 
that  is,  set  apart  for  holy  uses,  which  are  the  proper 
and  the  only  lawful  occupations  of  the  day;  it  is  a  day 
of  public  worship,  or,  as  it  is  expressed  in  the  Mosaic 
law,  "  of  holy  convocation,"  or  assembly ; — a  day  for 
the  exercise  of  mercy  to  man  and  beast ; — a  day  for  the 
devout  commemoration,  by  religious  acts  and  medita- 
tions, of  the  creation  and  redemption  of  the  world ; 
and,  consequently,  for  the  cultivation  of  that  spirU 
which  is  suitable  to  such  exercises,  by  laying  aside  all 
worldly  cares  and  plecisures ;  to  which  holy  exercises 
there  is  to  be  a  full  appropriation  of  the  seventh  part  of 
our  time;  necessary  sleep,  and  engagements  of  real 
necessity,  as  explained  by  our  Saviour,  only  being  ex- 
cluded. 

Works  of  charity  and  rnercy  were  not  excluded  by 
the  rigour  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  much  less  by  the  Chris- 
tian Dispensation.  The  rule  of  doing  good  on  the  Sab- 
bath day  has,  however,  sometimes  been  interpreted 
with  too  much  laxity,  without  considering  that  such 
acts  form  no  part  of  the  reason  for  which  that  day  was 
sanctified,  and  that  they  are  therefore  to  be  grounded 
upon  the  necessity  of  immediate  exertion.  The  secu- 
larity  connected  with  certain  public  charities  has  often 
been  pushed  beyond  this  rule  of  necessity,  and  as  such 
has  become  unlawful. 

The  reason  generally  given  for  this  is,  that  men 
cannot  be  found  to  give  time  on  the  week  day  to  the 
management  of  such  charities ;  and  they  will  never  be 
found,  while  the  rule  is  brought  down  to  convcnieace. 
Men's  principles  are  to  be  raised,  and  not  the  command 
lowered.  And  when  ministers  perseveringly  do  their 
duty,  and  but  a  few  conscientious  persons  support 
them,  the  whole  will  be  found  practicable  and  easy. 
Charities  are  pressed  either  upon  our  feelings  or  our 
interests,  and  sometimes  on  both ;  and  when  they  be- 
come really  urgent,  time  will  be  found  for  their  ma- 
nagement, without  "  robbing  God,"  and  laying  down 
that  most  debasing  of  all  principles,  that  our  sacrifices 
are  to  cost  us  nothing.  The  teaching  of  writing  in 
Sunday  schools  has  been  pleaded  for  on  the  same  as- 
sumed ground  of  necessity  ;  but  in  all  well  and  reli- 
giously conducted  institutions  of  this  kind,  it  has  been 
found  quite  practicable  to  accomplish  the  object  in  a 
lawful  manner ;  and  even  if  it  had  not,  there  was  no 
obligation  binding  as  to  that  practice,  equal  to  that 
which  buids  us  to  obey  the  law  of  God.    It  is  a  work 


which  comes  not  under  any  of  our  Lord's  exceptions  : 
it  may  be  a  benevolent  thing  ;  but  it  has  in  it  no  cha- 
racter of  mercy,  either  to  the  bodies  or  to  the  soids  of 
men. 

As  to  amusements  and  recreations,  which,  when  "  in- 
nocenX,"  that  is,  we  suppose,  not  '•  immoral,"  are  some- 
times pleaded  for  by  persons  who  advocate  the  serious 
observance  of  the  Lord's  day,  but  a  few  words  are  ne- 
cessary. If  to  public  worship  we  are  to  add  a  more 
than  ordinary  attention  to  the  duties  of  the  family  and 
the  closet,  which  all  such  persons  allow,  then  there  is 
little  time  for  recreation  and  amusement ;  and  if  there 
were,  the  heart  which  is  truly  impressed  with  duties 
so  sacred,  and  has  entered  into  their  spirit,  can  have  no 
relish  for  them.  Against  every  temptation  of  this  kind, 
the  words  of  the  pious  Archbishop  Dawes  may  serve 
as  a  salutary  admonition : — 

"  Dost  thou  re(]uire  of  me,  O  Lord,  but  one  day  in 
seven  for  thy  more  especial  service,  when  as  all  my 
times,  all  my  days,  are  thy  due  tribute,  and  shall  I 
grudge  thee  that  one  day  .'  Have  I  but  one  day  in  the 
week,  a  peculiar  season  of  nurturing  and  training  up 
my  soul  for  heavenly  hapjiiness,  and  shall  I  think  the 
whole  of  tills  too  much,  and  judge  my  duties  at  an  end, 
when  the  public  offices  of  the  Church  are  only  ended  ? 
Ah  !  where,  in  such  a  case,  is  my  ze^l,  my  sincerity, 
my  constancy,  and  perseverance  of  holy  obedience.' 
Where  my  love  unto,  my  delight  and  relish  in  pious 
performances  ?  Would  those  that  are  thus  but  half 
Christians  be  content  to  be  half  saved?  Would  tho.se 
who  are  thus  not  far  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  be 
willing  to  be  utterly  excluded  thence  for  arriving  no 
nearer  to  a  due  observance  of  the  Lord's  day  ?  Am  I  so 
afraid  of  sabbatixing  with  the  Jews,  that  I  carelessly 
omit  keeping  the  day  as  a  good  Christian  ?  Where  can 
be  the  harm  of  overdoing  in  God's  worsliip,  suppose  I 
could  overdo  ?  But  when  my  Saviour  has  told  me,  after 
I  have  done  all,  I  am  still  an  unprofitable  servant,  where 
is  the  hazard,  where  the  possibility,  of  doing  too  much  ; 
whereas  in  doing  too  little,  in  falling  short  of  perlbrming 
a  due  obedience  on  the  Sabbath,  I  may  also  fall  short  of 
eternal  life  ?" 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Morals. — Duties  to  our  Neighbour. 

Whkn  our  duty  to  others  is  summed  up  in  the  general 
epitome  of  the  second  table,  "Thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbour  as  thyself;"  although  love  must  be  so  taken 
as  to  include  many  other  principles  and  acts,  yet  wc 
are  thereby  taught  the  source  from  which  they  truly 
spring,  when  performed  evangelically,  and  also  that 
UNIVERSAL  CHARITY  is  to  be  the  habitual  and  reigning 
afTection  of  the  heart,  in  all  our  relations  to  our  fellow- 
creatures. 

This  affection  is  to  be  con.sidered  in  its  source. 

That  source  is  a  regenerated  state  of  mind.  We 
have  shown  that  the  love  of  God  springs  from  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  those  who  are  justified  by  feuth  in 
Christ,  and  that  every  sentiment  which,  in  any  other 
circumstances,  assumes  this  designation,  is  imperfect 
or  simulated.  We  make  the  same  remark  as  to  the 
love  of  our  neighbour.  It  is  an  imperfect  or  simulated 
sentiment,  if  it  flow  not  from  the  love  of  God,  the  sure 
mark  of  a  regenerate  nature.  We  here  also  see  the  su- 
perior character  of  Christian  morals,  and  of  moral.s 
when  kept  in  connexion,  as  they  ought  always  to  be, 
with  the  doctrines  of  the  Gaspel,  and  their  operation  in 
the  heart.  There  may,  indeed,  be  a  degree  of  natural 
benevolence ;  the  indirect  influence  of  a  benevolent  na- 
ture may  counteract  the  selfish  and  the  malevolent 
feelings  ;  and  education,  when  well  directed,  will  come 
in  to  the  aid  of  nature.  Yet  the  principle,  as  a  religious 
one,  and  in  its  full  operation,  can  only  result  from  a 
supernatural  change  of  our  nature,  because  that  only 
can  subdue  those  affections  which  counteract  benevo- 
lence and  charity  in  their  efficient  and  habitual  mani- 
festations. 

This  affection  is  also  to  be  considered  in  respect  of 

what  it  EXCLUDES. 

It  excludes  all  anser  beyond  that  degree  of  resentment 
wfiich  a  culpable  action  in  another  may  call  forth,  in 
order  to  mark  the  sense  we  enlcrlain  of  its  evil,  and  to 
impress  that  evil  upon  the  olfender  so  lliat  wc  may 
lead  him  to  repent  of  it,  and  IbrsaUc  it.    This  scciiis  tlw 


400 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  IIL 


proper  rule  by  wliich  to  distinguish  lawful  anger  from 
thatwliii'li  is  coiitmrylo  cliarity,  ami  llic^rclbrc  malevo- 
lent ami  sinful.  It  cxcluilcs  imjiliicabilitu  ;  for  if  we 
Oo  not  proniptly  and  generously  forgive  others  their 
trespasses,  this  is  di'eiiied  to  he  so  jrreat  a  violation  of 
that  law  of  love;  wlnih  ought  to  bind  rneu  together, 
that  our  heavenly  Father  will  not  forgive  us.  It  ex- 
cludes all  revem^c ;  so  that  we  are  to  exact  no  punish- 
ment of  another  for  offences  against  ourselves :  and 
though  it  be  lawful  to  call  in  the  penalties  of  the  laws 
for  crimes  against  society,  yet  this  is  never  to  be  done 
on  the  principle  of  private  revenge;  but  on  the  ptiblic 
ground,  that  law  and  government  are  ordained  of  God, 
which  produces  a  case  that  conies  under  the  inspired 
rule,  "  Vengeance  is  mine ;  1  will  repay,  saith  the 
1,ord."  It  excludes  all  ;)rp?»(;/'-(;;  by  which  is  meant  a 
harsh  construction  of  men's  motives  and  characters 
ujion  surmise,  or  partial  knowledge  of  the  facts,  accom- 
panied with  an  inclination  to  form  an  ill  opinion  of 
them  in  the  absence  of  i)roiier  evidence.  This  appears 
to  be  what  the  Apostle  I'aul  means,  when  he  says, 
"  Charity  thinketh  no  evil."  It  excludes  all  ceimorioiis- 
ness  or  evil  xpeakiiig,  when  the  end  is  not  the  correction 
of  the  offender,  or  when  a  declaration  of  the  truth  as  to 
one  por.son  is  not  required  by  our  love  and  duty  to  an- 
other; for  whenever  the  end  is  merely  to  lowera  person 
in  the  estimation  of  others,  it  is  resolvable  solely  into  a 
splenetic  and  immoral  feeling.  It  excludes  all  those 
agi^Tessions,  whether  petty  or  more  weighty,  which 
may  be  made  upon  the  mterests  of  another,  when  the 
law  of  the  case,  or  even  the  abstract  right,  might  not 
be  against  our  claim.  These  are  always  complex  eases, 
and  can  but  occasionally  occur ;  but  the  rule  which 
binds  us  to  do  unto  others  as  we  would  they  .should  do 
unto  us,  binds  us  to  act  upon  the  benevolent  view  of 
tue  case,  and  to  forego  the  rigidness  of  right.  Finally, 
it  excludes,  as  limitations  to  its  exercise,  all  those  nrii- 
JiciiiL  diittiiictions  which  have  been  created  by  men,  or 
by  providential  arrangements,  or  by  accidental  circum- 
.stances.  Men  of  all  nations,  of  all  colours,  of  all  con- 
ditions, are  the  objects  of  the  unlimited  precept,  •'  Thou 
Shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself."  Kiml  feelings  pro- 
duced by  natural  instincts,  by  intercourse,  by  country, 
may  call  the  love  of  our  neighbour  into  warmer  cxerci.se 
as  to  individuals  or  classes  of  men,  or  these  may  be 
considered  as  distinct  and  special,  though  similar  affec- 
tions superadded  to  this  uiiiver.sal  charity ;  but  as  to  all 
men,  this  charity  is  an  efficient  affection,  excluding  all 
ill  will,  and  all  injury. 

But  its  Ai'TivK  EXPiiKssioN  remains  to  be  considered. 

It  is  not  a  merely  negative  affection  ;  but  it  brings 
forth  rich  and  varied  fruit.  It  produces  a  feeling  of 
delii^lU  in  the  happiness  of  others,  and  thus  destroys 
envy  ;  it  is  the  source  of  sympalliij  and  compassion ; 
it  opens  the  hand  in  UbrrnlUy  lor  the  supply  of  the 
wants  of  others  ;  it  gives  checrf  illness  to  every  service 
undertaken  in  the  cause  of  others;  it  resists  the  wrong 
which  rnay  be  inflicted  ujion  them;  and  it  will  run 
hazards  of  health  and  life  for  their  sakes.  It  has  special 
respect  to  tln'  :<iniiliial  interests  and  salvation  of  mi'.n; 
and  thus  it  insiiucts,  jh  rsuades,  reproves  the  ignorant 
and  vicious;  counsels  the  simple;  comforts  tin;  doubt- 
ing and  perplexed  ;  and  rejoices  in  those  gills  and  graces 
of  others,  by  wlin-h  society  may  be  enlighlened  and 
jmrified.  The  zeal  of  Ajioslles,  liie  patience  of  Martyrs, 
the  travels  and  labours  of  Kvangelists  in  the  first  ages, 
were  all  animated  by  this  allerlioii ;  an<l  the  earnestness 
of  I'reachers  in  all  ages,  and  the  more  |)nvate  labours 
(if  Christians  for  the  benefit  of  the  souls  of  men,  with 
the  operations  of  those  voluntary  associations  which 
send  Ibrth  iVIissionaries  to  the  Heathen,  or  distribute 
Bibles  and  Tracts,  or  conduct  Schools,  are  all  its  visible 
expressions  before  the  world.  A  principle  of  philan- 
thropy may  be  conceived  to  exist  independent  of  the 
influence  of  active  and  cfTicient  <  hrisiianily  ;  but  it  has 
always  exiiended  itself  either  in  gooil  wishi*  or,  at 
most,  in  feeble  efforts,  chielly  directed  to  the  mitigation 
of  a  little  temporary  external  evil.  Ex<-ept  in  connexiini 
with  religion,  and  that  the  religion  of  the  liearl,  wrought 
and  maintained  there,  by  the  acknowledged  inlhieiices 
of  the  Ilol}  Sjilrit,  thi!  love  of  mankind  has  never  ex- 
hibited itscjjf  miller  such  views  and  acts  as  those  we 
have  just  referred  to.  It  has  never  been  found  in  cha- 
racters/ta<«,rrt^/(/ selfish  and  obilurate;  has  never  dis- 
posed men  to  itiaku  great  and  painful  sacrifices  ti\r 
oihi.r.-i;  never  sympathized  with  spiritual  wrelclird- 
iieaa ,  never  been  culled  forth  into  ilij  Uiglieiit  exerciser 


by  considerations  drawn  from  the  immortal  relations  of 
man  to  eternity ;  never  originated  fargc  plans  for  the 
illumination  and  moral  culture  of  society ;  never  fixed 
upon  the  grand  object  to  which  it  is  now  bending  tiie 
hearts,  the  interests,  and  the  hopes  of  the  universal 
(.ihurcli,  the  conversion  of  the  world.  Philanthropy, 
in  systems  of  mere  ethics,  like  their  love  of  God,  is  a 
greatly  infer ior  pniici])le  to  that  which  is  enjoined  by 
Ghristianity,  and  iiiluseil  by  its  hilluence ; — another 
proof  of  the  folly  of  separating  morals  from  revealed 
truth,  and  of  the  necessity  of  cultivating  them  upon 
evangelical  principles. 

The  same  conclusion  will  be  established,  if  we  con- 
sider tho.se  WORKS  OF  MKRcv  which  the  principle  of 
imiversal  philanthropy  will  dictate,  and  wliich  form  a 
large  portion  of  our  "  duty  to  our  neighbour."  It  is  more 
the  design  of  this  partof  the  i)resent  work,  toexhibitthe 
jieculiar  nature  and  perfection  of  the  morals  of  Chris- 
tianity, than  to  consider  moral  duties  in  detail ;  and, 
therefore,  it  is  only  necessary  to  assume  what  is  obvious 
to  all,  that  the  exercise  of  practical  mercy  to  the  needy 
and  miserable,  is  a  moral  duty  clearly  revealed,  includ- 
ing also  the  api)lieation  of  a  part  of  our  pro|)erty  to 
benefit  mankind  in  other  respects,  as  we  have  oppor- 
tunity. But  let  us  ask,  under  what  rules  can  the 
quantum  of  our  exertions  in  doing  good  to  others  bo 
determined,  except  by  the  authority  of  revealed  religion  ? 
It  is  clear  that  there  is  an  antagonist  principle  of  selfish- 
ness in  man,  which  counteracts  our  charities  ;  and  that 
the  demands  of  personal  gratification,  and  of  family 
interests,  and  of  show  and  exjiense  in  our  modes  of 
living,  are  apt  to  take  uji  so  large  a  share  of  what  re- 
mains alter  our  necessities,  and  the  lawful  demands  of 
station,  and  a  jirudent  provision  for  old  age  and  for  our 
families  afler  our  decease,  are  met,  that  a  very  small 
))ortion  is  wont  to  be  considered  as  lawfully  disposable, 
under  all  these  considerations,  for  pvirjwses  of  general 
beneficence.  If  we  have  no  rules  or  principles,  it  is 
clear  that  the  most  limited  efforts  may  pass  for  very 
meritorious  acts  ;  or  that  they  will  be  left  to  be  mea- 
sured only  by  the  different  degrees  of  natural  compa.s- 
sion  in  man,  or  by  some  immoral  principle,  such  as  the 
love  of  human  praise.  There  is  nothing  in  any  mere 
system  of  morals  to  direct  in  such  cases;  certainly 
nothing  to  compel  cither  the  principles  or  the  heart. 
Here  then  we  shall  see  also  in  how  ditrerent  a  predica- 
ment this  interesting  branch  of  morality  stands,  when 
kept  in  close  and  inseparable  connexion  with  Chris- 
tianity. It  is  true,  that  we  have  no  specific  rule  as  to 
the  quantum  of  our  givings  in  the  ScrijUures  ;  and  the 
reason  of  this  is  not  inapparent.  Such  a  rule  must 
have  been  branched  out  into  an  inconvenient  number  of 
detailed  directions  to  meet  every  particular  ca.se ;  it 
mu.st  have  respected  the  different  and  changing  states 
of  society  and  civilization ;  it  must  have  controlled 
men's  savings  as  well  as  givings,  because  the  latter 
are  dependent  upon  them;  it  must  have  prescribed 
modes  of  dress,  and  modes  of  living :  all  which  would 
have  left  cases  still  partially  touched  or  wholly  unpro- 
vided for,  and  the  niulli|ilicity  of  rules  might  have  been 
a  trap  to  our  consileiK-es,  raihir  than  the  means  of  di- 
recting them.  There  is  also  a  more  general  rea.son  for 
this  omission.  The  exercise  of  mercy  is  a  work  of  the 
alTections ;  it  must  have,  therefore,  something  free  and 
spontaneous  in  it ;  and  it  was  designed  to  be  voluntiu-y, 
that  the  moral  efl'ect  proiluced  upon  society  might  be  to 
biiiil  men  together  in  a  .seller  bond,  and  to  call  forth 
reciprocally  good  aifections.  To  this  the  stern  character 
of  particular  laws  would  have  been  inimical.  Chris- 
tianity teaches  mercy,  by  general  princijilcs,  which  at 
once  sulliciently  direct  and  leave  to  the  heart  the  ftec 
play  of  its  affections. 

Tlie  general  law  is  express  and  unequivocal :  "  As 
ye  have  o|>|iorl  unity  do  good  unto  all  men,  and  esin'cially 
tothiiii  that  are  of  i  he  household  of  faith."  "To  do  good 
and  to  comnniniraii'  Ibrgit  not,  for  with  such  sacrifices 
God  is  well  pleased.  "  A  most  imi)ortant  and  influen- 
tial principle,  to  be  found  in  no  mere  system  of  ethics, 
is  also  contained  in  the  revelation  of  a  particular  rela- 
tion in  which  we  all  stand  to  Goil,  and  on  which  we 
must  be  judged  at  the  last  day.  We  are  "  elewards," 
"  servants,"  to  whom  the  great  Master  has  committed 
his  "  goods,"  to  b(!  ii.sed  according  to  his  e1rection.s. 
Wc  have  nothing,  Ihercfbre,  of  our  own,  no  right  in 
property,  except  urnler  the  conditions  on  which  it  is 
commilted  to  us;  and  wc  must  give  an  account  lor  our 
use  of  It,  aceurdiiig  to  tilt  rule.     A  riUe  of  projiortioii 


Chap.  IV.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


401 


is  also  in  various  passages  of  Scripture  expressly  laid 
down.  "  Where  little  is  given,  little  is  required ; 
where  much  is  given,  much  is  required."  "  For  if 
tliere  be  first  a  willing  mind,  it  is  accepted  according 
to  what  a  man  hath,  and  not  according  to  what  he 
hath  not."  It  is  a  farther  rule,  that  our  charities 
should  be  both  cheerful  and  abundant.  "  See  that  ye 
abound  in  this  grace  also,"  "  not  grudgingly,  or  of  ne- 
nessily,  for  (.Jod  loveth  a  cheerful  giver."  The.se  gene- 
ral rules  and  principles  being  laid  down,  the  ap|)eal  is 
made  to  the  heart,  and  men  are  left  to  the  iullucnce  of 
the  spiritual  and  grateful  affections  excited  there.  All 
the  venerable  e.xamples  of  Scripture  are  brought  to 
bear  upon  the  free  and  liberal  exercises  of  beneficence, 
crowned  with  tlie  example  of  our  Saviour :  "  Ye  know 
the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that,  though  he 
was  rich,  yet  for  your  sakes  he  became  poor,  that  ye 
tlirough  his  poverty  might  become  rich."  An  appeal  is 
made  to  man's  gratitude  for  the  blessings  of  Provi- 
dence to  himself,  and  he  is  enjoined  to  give  "  as  the 
Lord  hath  prospered  him."  Our  fellow-creatures  are 
constantly  presented  to  us  under  tender  relations,  as 
our  "  brethren;"  or,  more  particularly, as  "  of  the  house- 
hold of  faith."  Special  promises  are  made  of  God's 
favour  and  blessing,  as  the  reward  of  such  acts  in  the 
present  life  :  "  And  God  is  able  to  make  all  grace  abound 
towards  you,  that  ye,  always  having  all  sufficiency  in 
all  things,  may  abound  to  every  good  work;"  and 
finally,  although  every  notion  of  merit  is  excluded,  yet 
the  rewards  of  eternity  are  represented  as  to  be  gra- 
ciously dispen.sed,  so  as  specially  to  distinguish  and 
honour  every  "  work  of  faith,"  and  "  labour  of  love." 
Under  so  powerful  an  authority,  so  explicit  a  general 
directory,  and  so  effectual  an  excitement,  is  tliis  branch 
of  morality  placed  by  the  Gospel. 

As  our  religion  enjoins  charity,  so  also  it  prescribes 
jusTUE.  As  a  mutual  dependence  has  been  esta- 
blished among  men,  so  also  there  are  mutual  rights, 
in  the  rendering  of  which  to  eacli  other,  justice,  when 
considered  as  a  social  virtue,  consists. 

Various  definitions  and  descriptions  of  justice  are 
found  among  moralists  and  jurists,  of  different  degrees 
of  importance  and  utility  to  those  who  write,  and  to 
those  who  study,  formal  treatises  on  its  collective  or 
separate  branches.  The  distribution  of  justice  into 
Ethical,  Economical,  and  Political,  is  more  suited  to 
our  purpose,  and  is  sufficiently  comprehensive.  The 
first  considers  all  mankind  as  on  a  level ;  the  second 
regards  tliein  as  associated  into  families,  under  the 
several  relations  of  husband  and  wife,  parents  and 
children,  masters  and  servants;  and  the  third  com- 
prehends them  as  united  into  public  stales,  and  obliged 
to  certain  duties,  either  as  magistrates  or  people.  On 
all  ttiese  the  rules  of  conduct  in  Scripture  are  explicit 
and  forcible. 

BTnicAr.  JusTirE,  as  it  considers  mankind  as  on  a 
level,  chiefly  therefore  respects  what  are  usually  called 
men's  natural  rights,  which  are  briefly  summed  up  in 
three, — life,  property,  and  liberty. 

The  natural  right  to  Life  is  guarded  by  the  precept, 
"  Thou  Shalt  not  kill ;"  and  it  is  also  limited  by  the 
more  ancient  injunction  to  the  sons  of  Noah,  "  Whoso 
sheddetli  man's  blood,  by  man  shall  his  blood  be  shed." 
In  a  state  of  society,  indeed,  this  right  may  be  Airther 
limited  by  a  govemmant,  and  capital  punishments  be 
extended  to  other  crimes  (as  we  see  in  the  Mosaic 
law),  provided  the  law  be  equally  binding  on  ail  of- 
fenders, and  rest  upon  the  neces.sity  of  the  case,  as  de- 
ternuned  by  the  good  of  the  whole  eonimunity ;  and 
also  that  in  every  country  professing  Christianity,  the 
merciful  as  well  as  the  righteous  character  of  that  re- 
ligion be  suffered  to  impress  itself  upon  its  legishition. 
But  against  all  individual  aulhority  the  life  of  man  is 
ab.solutely  secured;  and  not  only  so,  but  anger,  which 
is  the  lirst  princijile  of  violence,  and  wluch  proceeds  *  Montesquieu  says,  "  it  is  false  that  kiUing  in  war 
first  to  malignity  and  revenge,  and  then  to  pcr.sonal  in-  ■  is  lawful,  unless  in  a  case  of  absolute  necessity ;  but 
juries,  is  prohibited,  under  the  penalty  of  the  Uiviiie    when  a  man  has  made  another  his  slave,  he  cannot  be 


upon  all,  cmtcris  paribus;  and  every  Individual  whose 
right  of  property  is  thus  interfered  with  must  have  liia 
due  share  of  the  common  advantage.  Against  indi- 
vidual aggression  the  right  of  projierty  is  secured  by 
the  Divine  law,  "  Thou  shalt  not  steal ;"  and  by  an- 
other law  which  carries  the  restraint  up  to  the  very 
principle  of  justice  in  the  heart,  "  Tliou  shalt  not  covet ;" 
covetousness  being  tliat  corrupt  afllction  from  which 
injuries  done  to  others  in  their  property  arise.  The 
Christian  injunction,  to  be  "  content  with  such  things 
as  we  have,"  is  another  important  security.  The  rule 
which  binds  rulers  and  governments  in  their  interfe- 
rences with  this  natural  right  of  property,  comes  under 
the  head  of  political  justice. 

Liberty  is  another  natural  right,  which,  by  individual 
authority,  at  least,  cannot  be  interfered  with.  Hence 
"  man  stealing,"  the  object  of  which  is  to  reduce  an- 
other to  slavery,  by  obtaining  forcible  possession  of 
his  person,  and  compelling  his  labour,  is  ranked  with 
crimes  of  the  greatest  magnitude  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment ;  and  against  it  the  special  vengeance  of  God  is 
threatened.  By  the  Jewish  law,  also,  it  was  punished 
with  death.  How  far  the  natural  right  which  every 
man  has  to  his  own  liberty  may,  like  the  natural 
right  to  property,  be  restrained  by  public  authority,  is 
a  point  on  which  different  opinions  have  been  held. 
Prisoners  of  war  were  formerly  considered  to  be  abso- 
lute captives,  the  right  of  which  claim  is  Involved  ia 
the  question  of  the  right  of  war.  Where  one  can  be 
jnstilied,  so  may  the  other ;  since  a  surrender  of  the 
person  in  war  is  the  commutation  of  liberty  for  life.* 
Ill  the  more  humane  practice  of  modern  warfare,  an 
exchange  of  prisoners  is  effected ;  but  even  this  sup- 
poses an  acquired  right  on  each  side  in  the  prisoners, 
and  a  commutation  by  an  exchange.  Sliould  the  pro- 
geny of  such  prisoners  of  war,  doomed,  as  by  ancient 
custom,  to  perpetual  servitude,  be  also  kept  in  slavery, 
and  the  purchase  of  slaves  also  be  practised,  the  ques- 
tion wliich  then  arises  is  one  which  tries  the  whole 
case  of  slavery,  as  far  as  public  law  is  concerned. 
Among  the  patriarchs  there  was  a  mild  sjiecies  of  do- 
mestic servitude,  distinct  from  that  of  captives  of  war. 
Among  the  Jews,  a  Hebrew  might  be  sold  for  debt,  or 
sell  himself  when  poor,  but  only  till  the  year  of  re- 
lease. After  that,  his  continuation  in  a  state  of  slavery 
was  perfectly  voluntary.  Tlie  Jews  might,  however, 
hoid  foreigners  as  slaves  for  life.  Michaelis  has  well 
observed,  that,  by  the  restrictions  of  his  law,  Moses 
remarkably  mitigated  the  rigours  of  slavery.  "  This 
is,  as  it  were,  the  spirit  of  his  laws  respecting  it.  He 
ajqiears  to  have  regarded  it  as  a  hardship,  and  to  have 
disapproved  of  its  severities.  Hence  we  find  him,  in 
Deut.  xxiii.  15,  16,  ordaining  that  no  foreign  servant, 
who  sought  for  refuge  among  the  Israelites,  should  be 
delivered  up  to  liis  master."(3)  This  view  of  the  case, 
we  may  add,  will  probably  afford  the  reason  why 
slavery  was  at  all  allowed  under  the  Jewish  dispensa- 
tion. The  general  state  of  society  in  the  surrounding 
nations  niiglit  perhaps  render  it  a  necessary  evil ;  but 
in  other  countries  it  existed  in  forms  harsh  and  oppres- 
sive, while  the  merciful  nature  of  the  Mosaic  Institute 
inii)ressed  upon  it  a  mild  and  mitigated  character,  in 
recognition  of  man's  natural  rights,  and  as  an  example 
to  other  countries.  And  to  show  how  great  a  contrast 
with  our  modern  colonial  slavery,  the  case  of  slaves 
among  the  .Jews  presented,  we  may  remark,  that  all 
foreign  slaves  were  circumcised,  and  therefore  initiated 
into  the  true  religion  ;  that  they  had  the  full  and  strict 
advantage  of  (he  Sabbath  confirmed  to  them  by  express 
statute ;  that  they  had  access  to  the  solemn  religious 
festivals  of  the  Jews,  and  partook  of  the  feasts  made 
upon  the  otferings  ;  that  they  could  jiossess  property, 
as  apjiears  from  Lev.  xxv.  49,  and  2  Sam.  ix.  10 ;  and 


wrath ;  a  lofty  proof  of  the  superior  character  of  the 
Christian  rule  of  ju.stice. 

In  Property,  lawfully  acquired,  that  is,  acquired  with- 
out injury  to  others,  every  man  has  also  a  natural  right. 
This  right  also  may  be  restrained  in  society,  without 
injustice,  seeing  it  is  but  the  price  which  every  man  pays 
for  protection,  and  other  advantages  of  the  social  state ; 
but  here  also  the  necessity  of  the  case,  restinir  upon  the 
benefit  of  the  coinmuiJity,istobelhe  rule  of  this  modifi- 
cation of  the  natural  claim.  The  lawtoojausi  liec<iually 
C  c 


said  to  have  been  under  a  necessity  of  taking  away  his 
life,  since  he  actually  did  not  take  it  away.  War  gives 
no  other  right  over  prisoners  than  to  disable  them  from 
doing  any  farther  harm,  by  .securing  their  persons." — 
And  '■  if  a  prisoner  of  war  is  not  to  be  reduced  to 
slavery,  much  less  aie  his  children."  This  reason, 
therefore,  with  others,  assigned  by  the  civilians  in  jus- 
tification of  slavery,  he  concludes  is  "false."  Spirit 
nf  Laws,  book  .\v.  ch.  ii. — Amkrkan  Kditors. 
(3)  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  Moses. 


402 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


[Part  III, 


that  all  tho  fruits  which  grew  spoiitiineouKly  during 
the  Sabbatical  year  were  given  to  tlicni,  and  to  the  indi- 
gent. Michaelis  has  also  showed,  that  not  only  was 
the  ox  not  muzzled  when  truailiiig  out  the  corn,  but 
thai  the  slaves  and  day-labourers  might  cat  without 
restraint  of  the  fruits  they  were  gatheriiif;  in  their 
inahtcr's  service,  and  drink  of  the  wine  they  pressed 
froui  the  wine-iiresB.(4)  The  Jewish  law  may  there- 
fore be  considered  not  so  much  as  controlling  tho  natural 
rifiht  which  iiiaii  has  to  liberty,  and  so  authorizing  tho 
inlraction  id'  that  right  under  certain  circumstances, 
hut  as  cDiiiiiur  in  to  regulate  and  to  sollen  a  state  of 
things  already  existing,  and  grown  into  general  prac- 
tice. All,  therefore,  that  can  be  f.iirly  inferred  from 
the  e.xistence  of  slavery  under  that  law  is,  that  a  legis- 
lature, in  certain  cases,  may  be  justilied  m  mitigating, 
rather  than  abolishing,  that  evil.  JJut  even  here,  since 
the  Legislator  was  in  fait  ( ;od,  whose  right  to  dispose  of 
liis  creatures  cannot  be  iiiiestioiied,  and  since  also  the 
nations  neighbouring  to  the  Jews  were  under  a  male- 
diction becau.se  of  their  idolatries,  the  Jewish  law  can 
be  no  rule  to  a  Christian  state;  and  all  arguments 
drawn  from  it  in  favour  of  perjietual  slavery,  suppose 
that  a  mere  earthly  legislature  is  invested  with  the 
powers  and  prerogatives  of  the  Divine  Legislator  of 
the  Jews,  which  of  course  vitiates  the  whole  reasoning. 
As  to  the  existence  of  slavery  in  Christian  states, 
every  government,  as  soon  as  it  professes  to  be  Chris- 
tian, binds  itself  to  be  regulated  by  the  principles  of 
the  New  Testament ;  and  though  a  part  of  its  subjects 
sliould  at  that  time  be  in  a  state  of  servitude,  and  their 
suildeii  emancipation  might  be  obviously  an  injury  to 
society  at  large,  it  is  hound  to  show  that  its  spirit  and 
tendency  is  as  inimical  to  slavery  as  is  the  Christianity 
which  it  professes.  All  the  injustice  and  oppression 
again.st  which  it  can  guard  that  condition,  and  all  the 
mitigating  regulations  it  can  adopt,  are  obligatory  upon 
it ;  and  since  also  every  Christian  slave  is  enjoined  by 
Apostolic  authority  to  choo.se  freedom,  when  it  is  pos- 
sible to  attain  it,  as  being  a  better  state,  and  more  be- 
fitting a  Christian  man,  so  is  every  Christian  master 
bound,  by  the  principle  of  loving  his  neighbour,  and 
more  especially  his  "  brother  in  Christ,"  as  him.self, 
to  jiroinote  his  passing  into  that  better  and  more  Chris- 
tian slate.  To  the  instruction  of  the  slaves  in  religion 
would  every  such  Christian  government  also  be  bound, 
and  still  farther  to  adopt  measures  for  the  linal  extinc- 
tion of  slavery ;  the  rule  of  its  proceeding  in  tliis  ease 
being  the  accomplishment  of  this  object  as  soon  as  is 
compatible  with  the  real  welfare  of  the  enslaved  por- 
tion of  its  subjects  themselves,  and  not  the  considera- 
tion of  the  losses  which  might  be  sustained  by  their 
proprietors,  which,  however,  ought  to  be  compensated 
by  other  means,  as  far  as  they  are  just,  and  equitably 
estimated. 

If  this  be  the  mode  of  proceeding  clearly  pointed  out 
by  Christianity  to  a  state  on  its  first  becoming  Chris- 
tian, when  previously,  and  for  ages,  the  practice  of 
slavery  had  grown  up  with  it ;  how  much  more  forci- 
bly does  it  imjiose  its  obligation  upon  nations  involved 
in  the  guilt  of  the  modern  African  slavery  !  They  pro- 
fessed Christianity  when  they  commenced  the  practice. 
They  entered  upon  a  trallic  which  ab  initio  was,  upon 
their  own  principles,  unjust  and  cruel.  They  had  no 
rights  of  war  to  plead  against  the  natural  rights  of  the 
first  captives ;  who  were  in  fact  stolen,  or  purchased 
from  the  stealers,  knowing  them  to  be  so.  The  govern- 
ments themselves  never  acijuired  any  right  of  property 
in  the  parents ;  they  have  none  in  their  descendants, 
and  can  acquire  none ;  as  the  thief  who  steals  cattle 
cannot,  should  he  feed  and  defend  them,  acquire  any 
right  of  property,  either  in  them  or  the  stock  they  may 
produce,  although  he  should  be  at  the  charge  of  rear- 
ing them.  These  governments  not  having  a  right  of 
property  in  their  colonial  slaves,  could  not  transfer  any 
right  of  property  in  them  to  their  present  masters,  for 
it  could  not  give  what  it  never  had  ;  nor,  by  its  con- 
uivanie  at  the  robberies  and  purcha.ses  of  stolen  human 
beings,  alter  the  essential  injustice  of  the  transaction. 
All  such  governments  are  therefore  clearly  hound,  as 
they  tear  Cod  and  dread  his  displeasure,  to  restore  all 
their  slaves  to  the  condition  of  free  men.  Restoration 
to  their  friends  and  country  is  now  out  of  the  question ; 
they  are  bound  to  protect  them  where  they  hre,  and 
have  the  right  to  exact  their  obedience  to  good  laws  in 


return  ;  but  property  in  them  they  cannot  obtain,  their 
natural  right  to  liberty  is  untouched  and  inviolable. 
The  manner  in  which  this  right  is  to  be  restored,  we 
grant,  is  in  the  power  of  such  goveniments  to  deter- 
mine, provided  that  proceeding  be  regulated  by  the 
principles  above  laid  down, — first,  that  the  emanci- 
pation be  sincerely  determined  upon,  at  some  lime  fu- 
ture :  secondly,  that  it  be  not  delayed  beyond  the  period 
which  the  gcrural  interest  of  the  slaves  tliemselvcs 
prescribes,  and  which  is  to  be  judged  of  benevolently, 
and  without  any  bias  of  judgment,  giving  the  advantage 
of  every  doubt  to  the  injured  party  :  thirdly,  that  all 
possible  means  be  adopted  to  render  freedom  a  good  to 
them.  It  is  only  under  such  circumstances  that  the 
continuance  of  slavery  among  us  can  cease  to  be  a 
national  sin,  calling  down,  as  it  has  done,  and  must 
do  until  a  process  of  emancipation  be  honestly  com- 
menced, the  just  displeasure  of  God.  What  compen- 
sations may  be  justly  claimed  from  the  governments, 
that  is,  the  iiublic  of  those  countries  who  have  entan- 
gled themselves  in  this  species  of  unjust  dealing,  by 
those  who  have  purchased  men  and  women  whom  no 
one  had  the  right  to  sell,  and  no  one  had  the  right  to 
buy,  is  a  perfectly  distinct  question,  and  ought  not  to 
turn  repentance  and  justice  out  of  their  course,  or  de- 
lay their  operations  for  a  moment.  Perhaps,  such  is 
the  unfruitful  nature  of  all  wrong,  that  it  may  be 
found,  that,  as  free  labourers,  the  slaves  would  be  of 
eiiual  or  more  value  to  those  who  employ  them  thaa 
at  present.  If  otherwise,  as  in  some  degree  "  all  have 
sinned,"  the  real  loss  ought  to  be  borne  by  all,  when 
that  loss  is  fairly  and  unpartially  ascertained  ;  but  of 
which  loss,  the  slave  interest,  if  we  may  so  call  it, 
ought  in  justice  to  bear  more  than  au  equal  share,  as 
having  had  the  greatest  gain.* 

The  rules  ol  Christian  justice  thus  secure  the  three 
great  natural  rights  of  man  ;  but  it  may  be  inquired 
whether  he  has  himself  the  power  of  surrendering  them 
at  his  own  option  ? 
And  First,  with  respect  to  Life. 
Since  governineiit  is  an  institution  of  God,  it  seems 
obligatory  upon  all  men  to  live  in  a  social  state ;  and, 
if  so,  to  each  is  conceded  the  right  of  putting  his  life 
to  hazard,  when  called  ujion  by  his  goveniment  to  de- 
fend that  state  from  domestic  rebellion  or  foreign  war. 
So  also  we  have  the  power  to  hazard  our  lives  to  save 
a  fellow-creature  from  perishing.  In  times  of  perse- 
cution for  religion,  we  are  enjoined  by  our  Lord  to  flee 
from  one  city  to  another ;  but  when  flight  is  cut  olT,  we 
have  the  power  to  surrender  life  rather  than  betray  our 
allegiance  to  Christ.  According  to  the  Apostle's  rule, 
"  we  ought  to  lay  down  our  lives  for  the  brethren  ;" 
that  is,  for  the  (Jliureh  and  the  cause  of  religion.  In 
this  case,  and  in  some  others,  accompanied  with  dan- 
ger to  life,  when  a  plain  rule  of  duty  is  seen  to  be  bind- 
ing upon  us,  we  are  not  only  at  liberty  to  take  the  risk, 
but  are  bound  to  do  it ;  since  it  is  more  our  duty  to  obey 
God  than  to  take  care  of  our  health  and  life.  These  in- 
stances of  devotion  have  been  by  some  writers  called 
"suicides  of  duty,"  a  phrase  which  may  well  be  dis- 
pensed with,  although  tho  sentiment  implied  in  it  ia 
correct. 

On  suicide,  properly  so  called,  that  is,  self  murder, 
our  modern  moralists  have  added  little  to  what  is  ad- 
vanced by  the  ethical  writers  of  Greece  and  Uome,  to 
prove  its  unlawfulness ;  for,  though  suicide  was  much 
practised  in  those  ancient  states,  and  sometimes  com- 
mended, especially  by  the  Stoics,  it  was  occasionally 
condemned.  "  We  men,"  says  I'lato,  "  are  all  by  the 
appointment  of  God  in  a  certain  prison  or  custody, 
which  we  ought  not  to  break  out  of,  or  run  away."  So 
likewise  Cicero:  "God,  the  supreme  Governor  of  all 
things,  forbids  us  to  dejiart  hence  without  his  order. — 
All  pious  men  ought  to  have  paiienictocDiitiiiue  in  the 
body,  as  long  as  (Jod  shall  please,  who  sent  us  hither; 
and  not  Ibrce  themselves  out  of  the  world  before  he 
calls  liir  them,  k-st  they  be  found  deserters  of  the  sta- 
tion apjiointed  them  by  God." 

This  IS  the  rea.soning  which  has  generally  satisfied 
our  moralists  on  this  subject,  with  the  exception  of 
some  infidel  sophists,  and  two  or  three  writers  of  para- 


(1)  Commentanes  ori.  the  Laws  of  Moses,  art.  I'M). 


*  The  above  paragraphs,  under  the  last  head,  were 
obviously  written  with  a  view  to  States  in  which 
Christianity,  as  a  system,  is  Ibrmally  established  by 
law.  and  in  which  the  acts  of  the  government  are  o(Il- 
cially  ba.sed  on  ilus  principle.— Amkbicau  Ediiors. 


Chap.  IV.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


403 


doxes  in  the  established  Cliurcli,  who  have  dofeinled 
suicide,  or  airected  to  do  so.  Paley  has  added  some 
oilier  consideratious,  drawn  from  lus  doctrine  of  gene- 
ral tendency,  and  from  the  duties  which  are  deserted, 
tlie  injuries  brought  upon  others,  &c.;  but  the  whole 
only  shows,  that  merely  ethical  reasoning  furnishes  but 
a  feeble  barrier  against  this  olfence  against  God,  against 
society,  and  against  ourselves,  independent  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  There  the  prohibitions  of  a  Divine  law 
Ue  directly  against  this  act,  and  also  the  whole  spirit 
of  that  economy  under  which  we  are  placed  by  Al- 
mighty God. 

It  is  very  true,  that,  in  the  Old  Testament  history,  we 
have  a  few  instances  of  suicide  among  the  .lews,  which 
were  not  marked  by  any  penal  visitation,  as  among  mo- 
dern nations,  upon  the  remains  of  the  deceased ;  such 
as  the  denial  of  honourable  sepulture,  &c.  But  this 
arose  from  the  absence  of  all  penalty  in  such  cases  in 
the  Mosaic  law.  In  this  there  was  great  reason  ;  for 
the  subject  himself  is  by  his  own  direful  act  put  beyond 
the  reach  of  human  visitation ;  and  every  dishonour 
done  to  the  inanimate  corse  is  only  punishment  in- 
flicted upon  the  innocent  survivors,  who,  in  most  cases, 
have  a  large  measure  of  suffering  already  entailed 
upon  them.  This  was  probably  the  iiumane  reason  for 
the  silence  of  the  Mosaic  law  as  to  the  punishment  of 
suicide. 

But,  as  the  Law  of  the  two  Tables  is  of  general  moral 
obligation,  although  a  part  also  of  the  municipal  law  of  the 
Jews ;  as  it  concerned  them  as  creatures,  as  well  as 
subjects  of  the  theocracy  ;  it  takes  cognizance  of  acts 
not  merely  a.s  prejudicial  to  society,  but  as  offensive  to 
God,  and  in  opposition  to  his  will  as  the  ruler  of  the 
world.  The  precept,  therefore,  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill," 
must  be  taken  to  forbid,  not  only  murder,  properly  so 
called,  which  is  a  crime  against  society,  to  be  reached 
by  human  penalties,  but  also  self-destruction,  which, 
though  a  crime  also  in  a  lower  degree  against  society, 
no  human  penalties  can  visit,  but  is  left,  since  the  of- 
fender is  out  of  the  reach  of  man,  wholly  to  the  retri- 
bution of  God.  The  absence  of  all  pnst  mortein  penal- 
ties against  suicide  in  the  Mosaic  law,  is  no  proof, 
therefore,  that  it  is  not  included  in  the  prohibition, 
"  Thou  shalt  not  kill,"  any  more  than  the  absence  of 
all  penalties  in  the  same  law  against  a  covetous  dispo- 
sition, proves  any  thing  against  the  precept,  "  Thou 
shalt  not  covet,"  being  interpreted  to  extend  to  the  heart 
of  man,  although  violences,  tliefts,  and  other  instances 
of  covetousness,  in  action  only,  are  restrained  in  the 
Mosaic  law  by  positive  penalties.  Some  have  urged  it, 
however,  as  a  great  absurdity,  to  allege  this  command- 
ment as  a  prohibition  of  suicide.  "  When  a  Christian 
moralist,"  says  Dr.  Whately,  "  is  called  on  (or  a  direct 
scriptural  precept  against  suicide,  instead  of  replying 
that  the  Bible  is  not  meant  for  a  complete  code  ailawa, 
but  for  a  system  of  motives  and  principles,  the  answer 
frequently  given  is,  '  Thou  shalt  do  no  murder.'  Sui- 
cide, if  any  one  considers  the  nature,  and  not  the  name 
of  it  (self  murder),  evidently  wants  the  essential  cha- 
racteristic of  murder,  viz.  the  hurt  and  injury  done  to 
ones  neighbour,  in  depriving  hun  of  life,  as  well  as  to 
others  by  the  insecurity  tliey  are  in  oonseiiueiice  liable 
to  feel  ."(5)  All  this  might  be  correct  enough,  but  lor 
one  error  into  which  the  writer  has  fallen,— that  of  as- 
suming that  the  precept  is,  "  Thou  shalt  do  no  murder ;" 
for  if  that  were  the  term  used  in  the  strict  sense,  we 
need  not  bo  told  that  ^fticide  is  not  murder,  which  is 
only  saying  that  the  killing  one's  self  is  not  the  kill- 
ing" another.  The  authorized  translation  uses  the 
word  "  kill,"  '•  thou  shalt  not  kill,"  as  better  rendering 
the  Hebrew  word,  which  has  a  similar  latitude  of  mean- 
ing, and  is  used  to  express  fortuitous  homicide,  and  the 
act  of  depriving  of  life  generally,  as  well  as  murder, 
properly  so  called.  That  the  prohibition  respects  the 
killing  of  others  with  criminal  intent,  all  agree,  and 
Moses  describes(6)  the  circumstances  which  make 
that  killing  so  criminal  as  to  be  punishable  with  death ; 
but  that  he  included  the  different  kinds  of  homicide 
within  the  prohibition,  is  equally  certain,  because  tlie 
Mosaic  law  takes  cognizance  of  homicide,  and  jirovidi-s 
for  the  due  examination  of  its  circumstances  by  llie 
Judges,  and  recognises  the  custom  of  the  Goel,  or 
avenging  of  blood,  and  provides  cities  of  refuge  lor  the 
homicide ;  a  provision  which,  however  merciful,  led 
the  incautious  maiislayer  subject  to  risks  and  inconve- 


(3)  Elements  of  Logic.        (6)  Numbers  i.  35. 


nicnces  which  had  the  nature  of  penalties.  So  tender 
was  this  law  of  the  life  of  man  I  Moses,  however,  as 
a  legislator,  apjilying  this  great  moral  table  of  laws  to 
practical  legislation,  could  not  extend  the  penalties 
under  this  prohibition  farther  than  to  these  two  cases, 
because  in  cases  of  suicide  the  offender  is  out  of  the 
reach  of  human  power ;  but,  as  we  see  the  precept  ex- 
tended beyond  the  case  of  murder  with  criminal  inten- 
tion, to  homicide,  and  that  the  word  u.sed  in  the  pro- 
hibition "  Thou  shalt  not  kill"  is  so  indefinite  as  to 
comprehend  every  act  by  which  man  is  deprived  of 
life,  when  it  has  no  authority  from  God ;  it  has  been 
very  properly  extended  by  divines  and  scriptural  mo- 
ralists, not  only  to  homicide,  but  from  that  to  suicide. 
This,  indeed,  appears  to  be  its  import,  that  it  prohi- 
bits the  taking  away  of  human  lite  in  all  cases,  without 
authority  from  God,  which  authority  he  has  lodged  with 
human  governments,  the  "  powers  ordained  by  him"  for 
the  regulation  of  mankhid,  in  what  relates  to  the  peace 
and  Welfare  of  society ;  and,  whenever  the  life  of  man 
is  taken  away,  except  in  cases  sanctioned  by  human 
governments,  proceeding  upon  the  rules  and  jirinciples 
of  the  word  of  God,  then  the  precept  "  Thou  shalt  not 
kill,"  is  directly  violated.  Dr.  Whately,  in  the  passage 
above  adverted  to,  objects  to  suicide  being  called  self- 
murder,  because  this  criminal  act  has  not  the  qualities 
of  that  by  which  the  life  of  another  is  intentionally  and 
maUciously  taken  away ;  but  if  the  deliberate  and  in- 
tentional deprivation  of  another  of  life,  without  autho- 
rity from  the  Divine  Law,  and  from  humau  laws  esta- 
blished upon  them,  be  that  which,  in  fact,  constitutes 
"murder,"  then  is  suicide  entitled  to  be  branded  with 
the  same  odious  appellation.  The  circumstances  must, 
of  necessity,  differ;  but  the  act  itself  has  essentially 
the  same  criminality,  though  not  in  the  same  degree,— it 
is  the  taking  away  of  the  lite  of  a  human  being,  without 
the  authority  of  God,  the  maker  and  jiroprielor  of  all, 
and  therefore  in  opposition  to,  and  defiance  of,  his  au- 
thority. That  suicide  has  very  deservedly  received  the 
■morally  descriptive  appellation  of  self-murder,  will  also 
appear  from  the  reason  given,  in  the  first  prohibition 
against  murder,  for  making  this  species  of  violence  a 
capital  crime.  In  the  precepts  delivered  to  the  sons  of 
Noah,  and,  therefore,  through  them,  to  all  their  descend- 
ants, that  is,  lo  all  mankind,  that  against  murder  is  thus 
delivered,(7)  "  Whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood,  by  man 
shall  his  blood  be  shed,  for  in  the  image  of  God  made 
he  7nany  There  is  in  this  reason  a  manifest  reference 
to  the  dignity  put  upon  human  nature,  by  its  being  en- 
dowed with  a  rational  and  immortal  spirit.  The  crime 
of  murder  is  made  to  lie,  therefore,  not  merely  in  the 
putting  to  death  the  animal  part  of  man's  nature,  for 
tins  is  merged  in  a  higher  consideration,  which  seems 
to  be,  the  indignity  done  to  the  noblest  of  the  works  of 
God  ;  and  particularly,  the  value  of  life  to  an  immortal 
being,  accountable  in  another  state  lor  the  actions  done 
in  this,  and  which  ought,  for  this  very  reason,  to  be 
specially  guarded,  since  death  introduces  him  into 
changeless  and  eternal  relations,  which  were  not  to  lie 
at  the  mercy  of  human  passions.  Such  moralists  as 
the  writer  above  quoted,  would  restrain  the  essential 
characteristics  of  an  act  of  murder  to  the  "  hurt  done  lo 
a  neighbour  in  depriving  him  of  life,"  and  the  "  insecu- 
rity" indicted  upon  society;  but  in  thi.s  ancient  and  uni- 
versal law,  it  is  made  eniinenlly  to  consist  in  con- 
tempt of  the  image  of  God  in  man,  and  its  interference 
with  man's  immortal  interests  and  relations  as  a  death- 
less spirit ;  and  if  so,  then  suicide  bears  upon  it  these 
deep  and  awful  characteristics  of  murder.  It  is  much 
more  wisely  said  by  Bishop  Kidder,  in  his  remarks 
upon  this  passage,  that  the  reason  given, — "  for  in  the 
image  of  God  made  he  man,"— is  a  farther  aggravation 
of  the  sin  of  murder.  It  is  a  great  trespass  upon  God, 
as  it  destroys  his  likeness;  and  sdfinurder,  ujion  this 
account,  is  forbidden  as  well  as  the  killing  of  others. 

Whatever  weight  may  be  due  to  the  considerations 
urged  by  the  moralists  above  quoted  against  this  crime, 
—and  every  motive  which  may  deter  men  from  listening 
to  the  first  temptation  to  so  direful  an  act,  is  important, 
—yet  the  guards  of  Christianity  must  be  acknowledged 
to  be  of  a  more  powerful  kind.  For  the  principles 
of  our  religion  cannot  be  understood  without  our  per- 
ceiving, that,  of  almost  all  o:her  crimes,  wilful  suicide 
ought  most  to  be  dreaded.  It  is  a  sin  against  (Jod's  nu- 
thoritij.    He  is  "  the  God  of  our  life ;"  in  "  his  hand  our 


(7)  Geuesis  ix.  fi. 


404 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  III. 


breath  is  ;  and  wc  nsurp  his  Bovercignty  when  we  pre- 
sume to  dispose  (if  it.  As  resulting  irom  the  jiressuro 
of  mortilicatioiis  of  spirit,  or  the  troubles  of  life,  it 
becomes  a  sin,  as  arraigning  his  providential  wisdom 
and  goodness.  It  implies  cither  an  atheistic  denial  of 
God's  government,  or  a  rebellious  opposition  to  his  per- 
missive acts  or  direct  appointments;  it  cannot  he  com- 
mitted, Ihereliire,  when  the  mind  is  sound,  but  in  the 
ab.scnce  of  all  the  Christian  virtues,  of  humility,  self- 
denial,  patience,  and  the  fe;ir  and  loveof  God,  and  only 
under  the  inlluence  of  pride,  worldliness,  Ibrgetfulness 
of  God,  and  contempt  of  him.  It  hides  from  the  mind 
the  realities  of  a  future  judgment,  or  it  defies  them; 
and  it  is  consummated  by  the  character  of  unpardon- 
abtcncss,  because  it  places  the  criiiiinal  at  once  beyond 
the  reach  of  mercy. 

If  no  man  has  the  right  then,  to  disfiose  of  his  own 
life  by  suicide,  he  has  no  right  to  hazard  it  in  duels.  The 
silence  of  the  pul|iits  in  those  quarters  where  only  the 
warning  voice  of  the  Christian  Preacher  can  be  heard 
by  that  class  of  persons  most  addicted  to  this  crime,  is 
exceefiingly  disgraceful ;  for  there  can  be  little  doubt 
that  the  jialliating  views  of  this  practice  taken  by  some 
elliical  writers  of  celebrity,  together  with  the  loose  rea- 
sonings of  men  of  the  world,  have,  from  this  neglect, 
e.\ercised  much  influence  upon  many  minds  ;  and  the 
conseijuence  has  been  that  hundreds,  in  this  iirofes- 
.sedly  Christian  country,  have  fallen  victims  to  false  no- 
tions of  honour,  and  to  imperfect  notions  of  the  obliga- 
tions of  their  religion.  Paley  has  the  credit  of  dealing 
with  this  vice  with  greater  decision  than  many  of  our 
moralists.  He  classes  it  very  justly  with  murder. 
"  Murder  is  forbidden  ;  and  wherever  human  life  is  de- 
liberately taken  away,  otherwise  than  by  public  autho- 
rity, there  is  murder.'\8)  "  If  unauthorized  laws  of  ho- 
nour be  allowed  to  create  exccjitioiis  to  Divine  prohibi- 
tions, there  is  an  end  to  all  morality,  as  founded  in  the 
will  of  the  Deity  ;  and  the  obligation  of  every  duty  may 
at  one  time  or  other,  be  discharged  by  the  caprice  and 
fluctuations  of  fashion."(9)  The  fact  is,  that  we  must 
either  renounce  Christianity,  or  try  all  cases  by  its  rule. 
The  question  of  the  lawfulness  of  duelling  is  thus 
promptly  disposed  of.  If  I  have  received  a  personal  in- 
jury, 1  am  bound  to  forgive  it,  unless  it  be  of  such  a  na- 
ture that  it  becomes  a  duty  to  punish  it  by  due  course 
oi'  law ;  but  even  then  not  in  the  spirit  of  revenge, 
but  out  of  respect  to  the  jieace  and  welliire  of  society. 
If  I  have  given  olfence,  1  am  bound  to  acknowledge  it, 
and  to  make  rejiaraiion  ;  and  if  my  adversary  will  not 
be  satisfied,  and  insists  upon  my  staking  my  life  against 
his  own,  no  considerations  of  rcjiutation  or  disgrace, 
the  good  or  ill  opinion  of  men,  who  form  their  judg- 
iiKMits  in  utter  disregard  to  the  laws  of  God,  can  have 
any  more  weight  in  this,  than  in  any  other  case  of  im- 
morality. The  sin  of  duelling  unites,  in  fact,  the  two 
crimes  of  suicide  and  of  murder.  He  who  falls  in  a 
duel  is  guilty  of  suicide,  by  voluntarily  exposing  him- 
self to  be  slain  ;  he  by  whom  he  falls  is  guilty  of  mur- 
der, as  having  shed  man's  blood  without  authority. — 
Nay,  the  guilt  of  the  two  crimes  unites  in  the  same  per- 
son. He  who  falls  is  a  suicide  in  fact,  and  the  mur- 
derer of  another  in  intention ;  he  by  whom  lie  falls  is  a 
murderer  in  fact,  and  so  far  a  suicide  as  to  have  put  liis 
own  life  into  imminent  peril,  in  contempt  of  God's  au- 
thority over  him.  He  has  contemned  the  "  image  of 
Goil  111  iii:iM."  iioth  in  lunisclf  and  in  his  brother.  And 
vvhui'i:  dnils  arc  not  liital  on  either  side,  the  whole  guilt 
is  chargiTible  upon  Ihe  parties,  as  a  km  purposed  in,  the 
licarl,  although  in  that  case,  there  is  space  lell  for  re- 
pentance. 

Life,  then,  is  not  disposable  at  the  option  of  man,  nor 
his  Proi'KRTv  itself,  without  respect  to  the  rules  of  the 
Divine  law ;  and  here,  too,  wc  shall  perceive  the  fee- 
bleness of  the  considerations  urged,  in  merely  moral 
systems,  to  restrain  prodigal  and  wasteful  expendi- 
ture, hazardous  speculations,  and  even  the  obvious 
evil  of  gambling.  Many  weighty  arguments,  we  grant, 
maybe  drawn  against  all  these  from  the  claims  of  child- 
ren, and  iK'ar  relations,  whose  interests  we  are  bound 
to  regard,  and  whom  we  can  have  no  right  to  exjiose 
even  to  the  chance  of  being  involved  in  tlie  same  ruin 
with  ourselves.  Itut  these  reasons  can  have  little  sway 
with  tho.sc  who  fancy  that  they  can  keep  within  the 
verge  of  extreme  danger,  and  who  will  jilrail  their  "  na- 
tural right"  to  do  what  they  wdl  with  their  own.    In 


(H)  Moral  irnd  I'lililnti!  I'htlo.tiipliy. 


(il)  Ibid. 


cases,  too,  where  there  may  be  no  children  or  depend- 
ent relatives,  the  individual  would  feel  less  disposed  to 
acknowledge  the  force  of  this  class  of  reasons,  or  think 
them  quite  inapplicable  to  his  case.  Hut  Christianity 
enjoins  "  moderation"  of  the  desires,  and  temperance 
in  the  gialificalion  of  the  appetites,  and  in  the  show 
and  splendour  of  life,  even  where  a  state  of  opulence 
can  command  them.  It  has  its  admonitions  against  the 
"  love  of  moifey  ;"  against  "  unUing  to  be  rich,"  except 
as  "  the  Lord  may  prosper  a  man"  in  the  usual  track 
and  course  of  honest  industry, — authoritative  cautions 
which  lie  directly  against  hazardous  speculations  ;  and 
it  warns  such  as  despise  them  of  the  consequent  "  leni])- 
lations"  and  spiritual  "  snares,"  destructive  to  habits 
of  piety,  and  ultimately  to  the  soul,  into  which  they  must 
fall, — considerations  of  vast  moment,  but  peculiar 
to  itself,  and  quite  out  of  the  range  of  those  moral  sys- 
tems which  have  no  respect  to  its  authority.  Against 
gambling,  in  its  most  innocent  forms,  it  sets  its  injunc- 
tion, "  lledeeming  the  time ;"  and  in  its  more  aggravated 
cases,  it  opposes  to  it  not  only  the  above  considerations, 
as  it  springs  from  an  unhallowed  "  love  of  money  ;" 
but  the  whole  of  that  spirit  and  temper  which  it  makes 
to  be  obligatory  ujion  us,  and  which  those  evil  and  often 
diabolical  excitements,  produced  by  this  habit,  so  fear- 
fully violate.  Above  all,  it  makes  property  a  trust,  to 
be  employed  under  the  rules  prescribed  by  Ilim  who, 
as  Sovereign  Projirietor,  has  deposited  it  with  us,  which 
rules  require  its  uae  certainly  (for  the  covetous  are 
excluded  from  the  kingdom  of  God) ;  but  its  use,  first, 
for  the  supply  of  our  wants,  according  to  our  station, 
with  moderation  ;  then,  as  a  provision  lor  children,  and 
dependent  relatives ;  finally,  for  purposes  of  charily 
and  religion,  in  which  "  grace,"  as  before  stated,  it  re- 
quires us  "  to  abound  ;" — and  it  enforces  all  these  by 
placing  us  under  the  responsibility  of  accounting  to 
God  himself,  in  person,  for  the  abuse  or  neglect  of  this 
trust,  at  the  general  judgment. 

With  respect  to  the  third  natural  right,  that  of  Li- 
berty, it  is  a  question  which  can  seldom  or  never  oc- 
cur in  the  present  state  of  society,  whether  a  man  is 
free  to  jiart  with  it  for  a  valuable  consideration.  Under 
the  law  of  Moses,  this  was  certainly  allowed ;  but  a 
Christian  man  stands  on  dilTerent  ground.  To  a  Pagan 
he  would  not  be  at  liberty  to  en.slave  himself,  because 
he  is  not  at  liberty  lo  put  to  hazard  his  soul's  interests, 
which  might  be  interfered  with  by  the  control  given 
to  a  Pagan  over  his  time  and  condnct.  To  a  Christian 
he  could  not  be  at  liberty  to  alienate  himself,  becau.se 
the  spirit  of  Christianity  being  opposed  to  slavery,  the 
one  is  not  at  liberty  to  buy,  nor  the  other  to  seil,  for 
reasons  before  given.  I  conclude,  therefore,  that  no 
man  can  lawfully  divest  himself  absolutely  of  his  per- 
sonal liberty,  for  any  consideration  whatever. 

To  the  natural  rights  of  life,  property,  and  liberty, 
may  be  added  the  right  ofCoNsciKNOK. 

liy  this  is  meant,  the  right  which  a  man  has  to  pro- 
fess his  own  opinions  on  subjects  of  religion,  and  to 
worshi])  God  in  the  mode  which  he  deems  most  accept- 
able to  him.  Whether  thi.s,  however,  be  strictly  a 
natnriU  right,  like  the  three  above  mentioned,  may  be 
a  subject  of  dispute,  for  then  it  would  bo  'universal, 
which  is,  perhaps,  carrying  the  point  too  far.  The 
matter  may  best  be  determined  by  considering  the 
ground  of  that  right,  which  differs  much  from  the 
others  we  have  mentioned.  The  right  to  life  results 
both  from  the  aiijiointment  of  (ioi,  and  the  absence  of  a 
sujierior  or  countervailing  right  in  another  to  deprive 
us  of  it,  until,  at  least,  we  forfeit  that  right  to  some  third 
party,  by  some  voluntarj'  act  of  our  own.  This  also 
applies  to  the  rights  of  property  and  liberty.  The  right 
of  professing  parlicMlar  religious  opinions,  and  prac- 
tising a  iiaitiililar  niudiMif  worship,  can  only  rest  upon 
a  conviction  that  these  arc  duties  eiijiiinril  upon  us  by 
God.  For  since  religion  is  a  matter  which  concerns 
man  and  God,  a  man  must  know  that  it  is  obligatory 
upon  him  as  a  duty,  and  under  fear  of  God's  displea- 
sure, to  proh^ss  his  opinions  openly,  and  to  practise 
some  particular  mode  of  worship. 

To  apply  this  to  the  case  of  persons  all  sincerely  re- 
ceiving the  Bible  as  a  revelation  from  God.  Unques- 
tionably it  is  a  part  of  that  revelation,  that  those  who 
rcceiv(!  its  doctrines  should  profess  and  attempt  to 
prop.jgale  them;  nor  can  Ihcy  profess  them  in  any 
other  WHY  ilmii  thcv  interpret  the  meaning  of  the  book 
wbicli  coiilaiiis  them.  Equally  clear  is  it,  that  Ihe 
worship  ofCioilw  enioinod  upon  iniui,  and  that  pub- 


Chap.  IV.j 


THEOLaGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


405 


licly,  and  In  collective  bodies.  From  these  circum- 
stances, therefore,  it  results  that  it  is  a  duty  which 
man  owes  to  God  to  profess  and  to  endeavour  to  pro- 
pagate his  honest  views  of  the  meaning  of  tlie  Scrip- 
tures, and  to  worship  God  in  the  mode  which  he  sin- 
cerely conceives  is  made  obligatory  U|)on  him,  by  the 
eame  sacred  volume.  It  is  from  this  duty  that  the  right 
of  conscience  tlows,  and  from  this  alone ;  and  it  thus 
becomes  a  right  of  that  nature  which  no  earthly  power 
has  any  authority  to  obstruct,  because  it  can  have  no 
power  to  alter  or  to  destroy  the  obligations  which  Al- 
mighty God,  the  Supreme  Governor,  has  laid  upon  his 
creatures. 

It  does  not,  however,  follow,  from  this  statement 
that  human  governments,  professing  to  be  regulated 
themselves  by  the  principles  of  Christianity,  have  no 
authority  to  take  cognizance  of  the  manner  in  which 
this  right  of  conscience  is  exercised.  They  are  "  or- 
dained of  God"  to  uphold  their  subjects  in  the  e.xercise 
of  their  just  rights  respectively,  and  that  without  par- 
tiality. If,  therefore,  luider  a  plea  of  conscience,  one 
sect  should  interfere  to  obstruct  others  in  a  peaceable 
profession  of  their  opinions,  and  a  peaceable  e.xercise 
of  their  worship ;  or  should  exercise  its  own  so  as  to 
be  vexatiously  intrusive  upon  others,  and  in  defiance 
of  some  rival  sect ;  as,  for  instance,  in  a  Protestant 
country,  if  Roman  Catholics  were  to  carry  the  objects 
of  iheir  idolatry  about  the  streets,  instead  of  contenting 
themselves  with  worshipping  in  their  own  way,  in 
their  own  chapels.  In  all  such  cases  the  goverimient 
might  be  bound,  in  respect  of  the  rights  of  other  classes 
of  Its  subjects,  to  interfere  by  restrahit,  nor  would  it 
then  trespass  upon  the  rights  of  conscience  justly  in- 
terpreted. Again,  since  "  the  powers  that  be  are  or- 
damed  of  God,"  for  "  a  terror  to  evil-doers,  and  a  praise 
to  them  that  do  well ;"  which  evil-doing  and  well-doing 
are  to  be  interpreted  according  to  the  common  sense 
and  agreement  of  mankind,  and  plainly  refer  to  moral 
actions  only;  should  any  sect  or  individual  ignorantly, 
fanatically,  or  corruptly,  so  interpret  the  Scriptures  as 
to  suppose  themselves  free  from  moral  obligation,  and 
then  proceed  to  practise  their  tenets  by  any  such  acts 
as  violate  the  laws  of  well-ordered  society,  or  by  ad- 
mitting indecencies  into  their  modes  of  worship,  as 
some  lunatics  in  former  times  who  used  to  strip  them- 
selves naked  in  their  assemblies;  here,  too,  a  govern- 
ment would  have  the  right  to  disregard  the  plea  of  con- 
science if  set  up,  and  to  restrain  such  acts,  and  the 
teachers  of  them,  as  pernicious  to  society.  But  if  the 
opinions  professed  by  any  sect,  however  erroneous 
they  may  be,  and  however  zealously  a  sound  and  faith- 
ful Christian  might  be  called  by  a  sense  of  duty  to  de- 
nounce them  as  involving  a  corrupt  conscience,  or  no 
conscience  at  all,  and  as  dangerous  or  fatal  to  the  sal- 
vation of  those  that  hold  them,  do  not  interfere  with 
the  peace,  the  morals,  and  good  order  of  society  ;  it  is 
not  within  the  province  of  a  government  to  animadvert 
tijion  them  by  force  of  law;  since  it  was  not  established 
to  judge  of  men's  sincerity  in  religion,  nor  of  the  ten- 
dency of  opinions  as  they  affect  their  salvation,  but  only 
to  uphold  the  morals  and  good  order  of  the  community. 
So,  likewise,  what  has  been  called  by  some  worship, 
lias  been  sometimes  marked  with  great  excesses  of  en- 
thusiasm, and  with  even  ridiculous  follies ;  but  if  the 
peace  of  others,  and  the  morals  of  society,  are  not 
thereby  endangered,  it  is  not  the  part  of  the  magistracy 
to  interfere,  at  least  by  authority. 

In  cases,  however,  where  political  opinions  are  con- 
nected with  religious  notions,  and  the  plea  of  con- 
science is  set  up  as  an  "  unalienable  right,"  to  sanction 
their  propagation,  a  government  may  be  justified  in 
interposing,  not  indeed  on  the  ground  that  it  judges  the 
conscience  to  be  erring  and  corrupt,  but  for  its  own 
just  support  when  endangered  by  such  opinions.  Sects 
of  religious  republicans  have  sometimes  appeared  un- 
der a  monarchical  government, — the  Fifth  Monarchy 
fanatics  for  instance,  who,  according  to  their  interpre- 
tation of  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  regarded  the  existence 
of  all  earthly  monarchies  as  inimical  to  it,  and,  believ- 
ing that  the  period  of  its  establishment  was  come, 
thought  it  impiety  to  acknowledge  any  earthly  sove- 
reign, as  being  contrary  to  their  allegiance  to  Christ. 
When  such  notions  are  confined  to  a  few  persons,  it  is 
■wise  in  a  government  to  leave  them  to  their  own  ab- 
surdities as  their  most  potent  cure;  but  should  a  fana- 
ticism of  this  kind  seize  upon  a  multitude,  and  render 
them  restless  and  seditious,  the  state  would  be  justi- 1 


fiable  in  restraining  them  by  Ibrce,  although  a  mis- 
taken conscience  might  be  mixed  "up  with  the  error. 
We  may  therefore  conclude,  that  as  to  religious  sects, 
the  plea  of  conscience  docs  not  take  their  conduct  out 
of  the  cognizance  of  the  civil  magistrate,  when  the  peace, 
the  morality,  and  safety  of  society  are  infringed  upon ; 
but  that  otherwise,  the  rights  of  conscience  are  invio- 
lable, even  when  it  is  obviously  erroneous,  and,  reli- 
giously considered,  as  to  the  individual  dangerous. 
The  case  then  is  one  which  is  to  be  dealt  with  by  in- 
struction and  moral  suasion.  It  belongs  to  public  in- 
.iructers,  and  to  all  well-informed  persons,  to  correct 
an  ignorant  and  perverse  conscience,  by  friendly  and 
co-npassionate  admonition  ;  and  the  power  of  the  ma- 
gistrate is  only  lawfully  interposed,  when  the  eflect 
complained  of  so  falls  upon  society  as  to  infringe  upon 
the  rights  of  others,  or  upon  the  public  morals  and 
peace ;  but  even  then  the  facts  ought  to  be  obvious,  and 
not  constructive. 

The  case  of  those  who  reject  the  revelation  of  the 
Scriptures  must  be  considered  on  its  own  merits. 

Simple  Deism,  in  a  Christian  country,  may  lay  a 
foundation  for  such  a  plea  of  conscience  as  the  xtatc 
ought  to  admit,  although  it  should  be  rejected  by  a 
sound  theologian.  The  Deist  derives  his  religion  by 
inference  from  what  he  supposes  discoverable  of  the  at- 
tributes and  will  of  God  from  nature  and  the  course  of 
the  Divine  government.  Should  he  conclude,  that 
among  such  indications  of  the  will  of  God  there  are 
those  which  make  it  his  duty  to  profess  his  opinions, 
to  attack  the  evidences  of  our  Divine  revelatio*  as  of 
insufficient  proof,  and  to  worship  God  in  a  manner  more 
agreeable  to  his  system,  it  would  be  too  delicate  an 
interference  of  a  government  with  a  question  of  con- 
science, to  be  allowed  to  make  itself  the  judge  whether 
any  such  conviction  could  be  conscientiously  enter- 
tained ;  although  by  divines,  in  their  character  of  pub- 
lic instructers,  this  would  properly  be  denied.  Abso- 
lutely to  shut  out,  by  penal  laws,  all  discussion  on  the 
evidences  of  Divine  revelation,  would  probably  make 
.secret  infidels  in  such  numbers  as  would  more  than 
counterbalance  the  advantage  winch  would  be  gained, 
and  that  by  the  suspicion  which  it  would  excite.  But 
this  principle  would  not  extend  to  the  protection  of 
any  doctrine  directly  subversive  of  justice,  chastity,  or 
humanity ;  for  then  society  would  be  attacked,  and  the 
natural  as  well  as  civil  rights  of  man  invaded.  Nor 
can  ojiprobious  and  blasphemous  attacks  upon  Chris- 
tianity be  covered  by  a  plea  of  conscience  and  right, 
since  these  are  not  neces.«ary  to  argument.  If  is  evi- 
dent, that  conscience,  in  the  most  liberal  construction 
of  the  term,  cannot  be  pleaded  in  their  behalf;  and  they 
are  not  innocent  even  as  to  society. 

To  those  systems  which  deny  the  immortality  of  the 
.soul,  and  consequently,  a  state  of  future  retribution, 
and  which  assume  any  of  the  forms  of  Atheism,  no  tole- 
ration can,  consistently  with  duty,  be  extended  by  a 
Christian  government.  The  reasons  of  this  exception 
are,  1.  That  the  very  basis  of  its  jurisprudence,  which 
is  founded  upon  a  belief  in  God,  the  sanctity  of  oaths, 
and  a  future  state,  is  assaulted  by  such  doctrines,  and 
that  it  cannot  -coexist  with  them:  2.  That  they  are  sub- 
versive of  the  morals  of  the  people:  and,  3.  That  no 
conscience  can  be  pleaded  by  their  votaries  for  the 
avowal  of  such  tenets.  When  the  existence  of  a  God 
and  his  moral  government  are  denied,  no  conscience 
can  exist  to  require  the  publication  of  such  tenets  ;  for 
this  cannot  be  a  duty  imposed  upon  them  by  God,  since 
they  deny  his  existence.  No  right  of  conscience  is 
therefore  violated  when  they  are  restrained  by  civil 
penalties.  Such  persons  cannot  have  the  advantages 
of  society,  witliout  submitting  to  the  principles  on  which 
it  is  founded;  and  as  they  profess  to  believe  that  they 
are  not  accountable  beings,  their  silence  cannot  be  a 
guilt  to  them;  they  give  up  the  argument  drawn  from 
conscience,  and  from  its  rights,  which  have  no  exist- 
ence at  all  but  as  founded  upon  revealkd  duty. 

The  second  branch  of  justice  we  have  denominated 
Economical;  it  respects  those  relations  which  grow 
out  of  the  existence  of  men  infamilies. 

The  first  is  that  of  Husband  and  Wife,  and  arises  out 
of  the  institution  of  marriage. 

The  foundation  of  the  marriage  union  is  the  will  of 
God  that  the  human  race  should  "  increase  and  mul- 
tiply," but  only  through  a  chaste  and  restricted  con 
junction  of  one  man  and  one  woman,  united  by  their 
ii:oe  VUW8  in  a  bond  mado  by  the  Divine  law  indisso- 


406 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  III. 


luble,  except  by  denth  or  by  adultery.  The  will  of  God 
as  to  marriage  is,  however,  general,  and  is  not  so  ex- 
pressed as  to  lay  an  imperative  obligation  to  marry 
upon  every  one  in  all  circumstances. 

There  was  no  need  of  the  law  being  directed  to  each 
individual  as  such,  .since  the  instincts  of  nature  and 
the  affection  of  love  planted  in  human  beings  were 
sufficient  to  guarantee  its  general  observance.  The 
very  bond  of  marriage  too  bemg  the  preference  founded 
upon  love,  rendered  the  act  one  in  which  choice  and 
feeling  were  to  have  great  influence;  nor  could  a  pru- 
dent regard  to  circumstances  be  excluded.  Cases  were 
possible  in  which  such  a  preference  as  is  essential  to 
the  felicity  and  advantages  of  that  state  might  not  be 
excited,  nor  the  due  degree  of  affection  to  warrant  the 
union  called  forth.  There  might  be  cases  in  which 
circumstances  might  be  inimical  to  the  full  discharge 
of  some  of  the  duties  of  that  state ;  as  the  comfortable 
maintenance  of  a  wife,  and  a  proper  provision  for 
children.  Some  individuals  would  also  be  called  by 
Providence  to  duties  in  the  church  and  in  the  world, 
wliich  might  better  be  performed  in  a  single  and  un- 
fettered life ;  and  seasons  of  persecution,  as  we  are 
taught  by  St.  Paul,  have  rendered  it  an  act  of  Christian 
prudence  to  abstain  even  from  this  honourable  estate. 
The  general  rule,  however,  is  in  favour  of  marriage ; 
and  all  exceptions  seem  to  require  justification  on 
some  principle  grounded  upon  an  equal  or  a.  parainount 
obligation. 

One  intention  of  marriage  in  its  original  institution 
was,  tiin  production  of  the  greatest  number  of  healthy 
children  ;  and  that  it  secures  this  object,  is  proved  from 
the  universal  fact,  that  population  increases  more,  and 
is  of  better  quality  where  marriage  is  established  and 
its  sacred  laws  are  observed,  than  where  the  inter- 
course of  the  sexes  is  promiscuous.  A  second  end 
was  the  establishment  of  the  interesting  and  influen- 
tial relations  of  acknowledged  children  and  parents, 
from  which  tlie  most  endearing,  meliorating,  and  pure 
afTections  result,  and  which  could  not  exist  without 
marriage.  It  is  indeed  scarcely  possible  even  to  sketch 
the  numerous  and  important  effects  of  this  sacred  in- 
stitution, which  at  once  displays,  in  the  most  affecting 
manner,  the  Divine  benevolence  and  the  Divine  wis- 
dom. It  secures  the  preservation  and  tender  nature  of 
children,  by  concentrating  an  affection  upon  thern, 
which  is  dissipated  and  lost  wherever  fornication  pre- 
vails. It  creates  conjugal  tenderness,  filial  piety,  the 
attachment  of  brothers  and  sisters,  and  of  collateral 
relations.  It  softens  the  feelings,  and  increases  the 
benevolence  of  .society  at  large,  by  bringing  all  these 
affections  to  operate  powerfully  within  each  of  those 
domestic  and  family  circles  of  which  society  is  com- 
posed. It  excite.s  industry  and  economy ;  and  secures 
the  communication  of  moral  knowledge,  and  the  incul- 
cation of  civility,  and  early  habits  of  submission  to  au- 
thority, by  which  men  are  fitted  to  become  the  subjects 
of  a  public  government,  and  without  which,  perhaps, 
no  government  could  be  sustained  but  by  brute  force, 
or  it  may  be,  not  sustained  at  all.  These  are  some  of 
the  innumerable  benefits  by  which  marriage  promotes 
human  happiness,  and  the  peace  and  strength  of  the 
community  at  large. 

The  institution  ol'  marriage  not  only  excludes  the  pro- 
miscuous intercourse  of  the  sexes,  but  polygamy  also ; 
a  practice  almost  equally  fatal  to  the  kind  afiections,  to 
education,  to  morals,  and  to  purity.  Theargument  of  our 
Lord  with  the  Pharisees,  on  the  subject  of  divorce,  Matt, 
xix.,  assumes  it  as  even  acknowledged  by  the  .lews,  that 
marriage  was  not  only  of  Divine  iiustitution,  but  tliat  it 
consisted  in  the  union  of  two  only, — "  tiny  twain  shall 
be  one  flesh."  This  was  the  law  of  marriage  given  at 
first,  not  to  Adam  and  Eve  only,  but  prospectively  to 
all  their  descendants.  The  fir.st  instance  of  polygamy 
was  that  of  Lainech,  and  this  lias  no  sanction  from 
the  Sicripturc  ;  wliich  may  be  ob.served  of  other  in- 
stances in  the  Old  Testament.  They  were  opjiosed  to 
the  original  law,  and  in  all  cases  appear  to  havi'  Imu'u 
punished  with  many  afflictive  visitations.  Tiii>  .Mosaic 
law,  although  polygamy  appears  to  have  bei'u  prai-ijstid 
under  it,  gives  no  direct  countenance  to  thi'  practice; 
which  intimates  that,  as  in  case  of  divorce,  tlie  conni- 
xanee  was  not  intended  to  displace  the  original  institu- 
tion. Hence,  in  the  langii;i(;r  of  llie  Old  Testanjent, 
as  well  as  of  the  New,  tlic  terms  linsband  and  wife  in 
the  singular  number  continually  occur ;  and  a  iiassagc 
ia  the  prophet  Malachi  is  so  remarkable,  as  to  warrant 


the  conclusion,  that  among  the  pious  Jews,  the  original 
law  was  never  who'ly  out  of  sight.  "  Yet  ye  say, 
Wherefore?  Uecause  tlie  Lord  hath  been  witness  be- 
tween thee  and  the  wife  of  thy  youth,  against  whom 
thou  hast  dealt  treacherously,  yet  she  is  thy  compa- 
nion, and  the  wife  of  thy  covenant.  And  did  not  he 
make  one  ?" — (one  woman) — "  Yet  had  he  the  residue 
of  the  spirit  ?" — (and  thcrelbre  could  have  made  more 
than  one) — "  And  wherefore  one  ?"  "  That  he  might 
seek  a  godly  seed,"  is  the  answer,  which  strongly 
shows  how  closely  connected  in  the  prophet's  mind 
were  the  circumstances  of  piety  in  the  offspring  and 
the  restraint  of  marriage  to  one  wife  only ;  for  he  thus 
glances  at  one  of  the  obvious  evils  of  polygamy,  its  de- 
teriorating moral  influence  upon  children.  If,  how- 
ever, in  some  instances  the  practice  of  the  Jews  fell 
short  of  the  strictness  of  the  original  law  of  marriage, 
that  law  is  now  fully  restored  by  Christ.  In  a  dis- 
course with  the  Pharisees,  he  not  only  re-enacts  that 
law,  but  guards  against  its  evasion  by  the  practice  of 
divorce  ;  and  as.sert3  the  marriage  union  to  be  indisso- 
luble by  any  thing  but  adultery.  The  argument  of  our 
Lord  in  this  discourse  is,  indeed,  equally  conclusive 
against  polygamy  and  against  the  practice  of  divorce ; 
for  "  if,"  says  Dr.  Paley,  "  whoever  putteth  away  his 
wife  and  marrieth  another  committeth  adultery,  he  who 
marrieth  another,  the  first  wife  being  living,  is  no  less 
guilty  of  adultery  ;  because  the  adultery  does  not  con- 
sist in  the  repudiation  of  the  first  wife  ;  for,  however 
cruel  and  unjust  that  may  be,  it  is  not  adultery;  but 
in  entering  into  a  second  marriage,  during  the  legal 
existence  and  obligation  of  the  first." 

Nature  itself  comes  in  also  as  a  confirmation  of  this 
original  law.  In  births,  there  is  a  small  surplusage 
of  males  over  females;  which,  being  reduced  by  the 
more  precarious  life  of  males,  and  by  the  accidents  to 
which  more  than  females  they  are  expo.sed  from  wars 
and  dangerous  employments,  brings  the  number  of 
males  and  females  to  a  par,  and  shows  that  in  the  order 
of  Providence  a  man  ought  to  have  but  one  wife  ;  and 
that,  where  polygamy  is  not  allowed,  every  woman  may 
have  a  husband.  This  equality,  too,  is  found  in  all 
countries;  although  some  licentious  writers  have  at- 
temiited  to  deny  it  upon  unsound  evidence. 

Another  end  of  marriage  was  the  prevention  of  forni- 
cation ;  and  as  this  is  done,  not  only  by  providing  for 
a  lawf^ul  gratification  of  the  sexual  apjielite,  but  more 
especially  by  that  mutual  affection  upon  which  mar- 
riages, when  contracted  according  to  the  will  of  God, 
are  founded,  this  conjunction  necessarily  requires  that 
degree  of  love  between  the  contracting  parties  which 
l)roduces  a  preference  of  each  other  above  every  man 
or  woman  in  the  world.  Wherever  this  degree  of  affec- 
tion does  not  exist,  it  may  therefore  be  concluded  that 
the  right  of  marriage  is  profaned,  and  the  greatest  secu- 
rity for  the  accomplishment  of  its  moral  ends  weakened 
or  destroyed.  Interest,  compliance  with  the  views  of 
family  connexions,  caprice,  or  corporal  attractions,  it 
may  be  therefore  concluded,  are  not  in  themselves  law- 
ful grounds  of  marriage,  as  tending,  without  affection, 
to  frustrate  the  intention  of  God  in  its  institution ;  to 
which  end  all  are  bound  to  subje<:t  themselves.  On 
the  other  hand,  since  love  is  ol^en  a  delusive  and  sickly 
affection,  exceedingly  temporary  and  uncertain,  when 
it  is  unconnected  with  judgment  and  prudence  ;  and 
:ilso  because  marriages  are  for  the  most  part  contracted 
by  the  young  and  inexperienced,  whose  passions  are 
then  strongest  when  their  judgments  are  most  imma- 
ture; in  no  step  in  life  is  the  counsel  of  others  more 
necessary,  and  in  no  case  ought  it  to  be  sought  with 
greater  docility  than  in  this.  A  proper  respect  to  the 
circuiri.slances  of  age,  fitness,  &c.  ought  never  to  be 
sui)erseded  by  the  plea  of  mere  alfectioii ;  although  no 
circuiiistancc:^  can  justify  marriage  without  that  degree 
of  affection  which  [iroduces  an  ab.solule  jireference. 

Wbetlicr  niarrmge  be  a  civil  or  a  religious  contract 
has  been  a  subject  of  dispute.  The  truth  seems  to  be 
that  it  is  both.  It  has  its  cngagemenis  to  men,  and  its 
vows  to  (Jod.  A  Christian  Slate  recomiis.'s  marriage 
as  a  branch  of  public  nioraliiy,  and  a  .Miurce  of  civil 
peace  and  strength.  It  is  connectt-il  with  the  peace  of 
society  by  assigning  one  woman  to  one  man,  and  the 
State  protects  him,  therefore,  in  her  exclusive  posses- 
sion. Christianity,  by  allowing  divorce  in  the  event 
of  adultery,  supposes,  also,  that  the  crime  must  be 
proved  by  proper  evidence  before  the  civil  magistrate ; 
and  lest  divorce  should  be  the  result  of  unfounded  sua- 


Chap.  IV.J 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


407 


picion,  or  be  made  a  cover  for  license,  the  decision  of 
ihe  case  could  safely  be  lodged  nowhere  else.  Marriage, 
too,  as  placing  one  imnian  being  more  completely 
under  the  power  of  another  than  any  other  relation, 
requires  laws  for  the  protection  of  those  who  arc  thus 
so  exposed  to  injury.  The  distribution  of  society  into 
families,  also,  can  only  be  an  instrument  for  promoting 
the  order  of  the  community,  by  the  cognizance  which 
the  law  takes  of  tlie  head  of  a  family,  and  by  making 
him  responsible,  to  a  certain  extent,  for  the  conduct  of 
those  under  his  influence.  Questions  of  property  are 
also  involved  in  marriage  and  its  issue.  The  law  must, 
therefore,  for  these  and  many  other  weighty  reasons, 
be  cognizant  of  marriage ;  must  prescribe  various  regu- 
lations respecting  it ;  reciuire  publicity  of  the  contract ; 
and  guard  some  of  the  great  injunctions  of  religion  in 
the  matter  by  penalties.  In  no  well  ordered  state  can 
marriage,  therefore,  be  so  exclusively  left  to  religion  as 
to  shut  out  the  cognizance  and  control  of  the  State. 
But  then  those  who  would  have  the  whole  matter  to 
lie  between  the  parties  themselves  and  the  civil  magis- 
trate, appear  wholly  to  Ibrget  that  marriage  is  a  solemn 
religious  act,  in  which  vows  are  made  to  God  by  both 
persons,  who,  when  the  rite  is  projterly  understood, 
engage  to  abide  by  all  those  laws  with  which  he  has 
guarded  the  institution ;  to  love  and  cherish  each  other ; 
and  to  remain  faithful  to  each  other  until  death.  For 
if,  at  least,  they  profess  belief  in  Christianity,  whatever 
duties  are  laid  upon  husbands  and  wives  in  Holy  Scrip- 
lure,  they  engage  to  obey,  by  the  very  act  of  their  con- 
tracting marriage.  The  question,  then,  is  whether  such 
vows  to  God  as  are  necessarily  involved  in  marriage, 
are  to  be  left  between  the  parties  and  God  privately,  or 
whether  they  ought  to  be  publicly  made  before  his  mi- 
nisters and  the  Church.  On  this  the  Scriptures  are 
silent;  but  though  Michaelis  has  showed(l)  that  the 
Priests  under  the  law  were  not  appointed  to  celebrate 
marriage  ;  yet  in  the  practice  of  the  modern  Jews,  it  is 
a  religious  ceremony,  the  chief  Rabbi  of  the  synagogue 
being  present,  and  prayers  being  appointed  for  the  occa- 
sion.(2)  This  renders  it  probable  that  the  character 
of  the  ceremony  under  the  law,  from  the  most  ancient 
times,  was  a  religious  one.  The  more  direct  connexion 
of  marriage  with  religion  in  Christian  States,  by  assign- 
ing its  celebration  to  the  ministers  of  religion,  appears 
to  be  a  very  beneficial  custom,  and  one  which  the  State 
has  a  right  to  enjoin.  For  since  the  welfare  and  morals 
of  society  are  so  much  interested  in  the  performance 
of  the  mutual  duties  of  the  married  state;  and  since 
those  duties  have  a  religious  as  viell  as  a  civil  charac- 
ter, it  is  most  proper  that  some  provision  should  be 
made  for  explaining  those  duties  ;  and  for  this  a  stand- 
itig  form  of  marriage  is  best  adapted.  By  acts  of  reli- 
gion, also,  they  are  more  solemnly  impressed  upon  the 
parties.  When  this  is  prescribed  in  any  State,  it  be- 
comes a  Christian  cheerfully,  and  even  ihankluUy,  to 
comply  with  a  custom  of  so  important  a  tendency,  as 


matter  of  conscientiou.s  subjection  to  lawllil  authority, 
although  no  scriptural  jirecept  can  be  pleaded  for  it. 
That  the  ceremony  should  be  confined  to  the  clergy  of 
an  established  Church  is  a  dilferent  consideration. 
We  are  inclined  to  think  that  the  religious  effect  would 
be  greater,  were  the  ministers  of  each  religious  body 
to  be  authorized  by  the  State  to  celebrate  marriages 
among  their  own  people,  due  provision  being  made  for 
the  regular  and  secure  registry  of  them,  and  to  prevent 
the  civil  laws  respecting  marriage  from  being  evaded. 

When  this  important  contract  is  once  made,  then 
certain  rights  are  acquired  by  the  parties  mutually, 
who  are  also  bound  by  reciprocal  duties,  in  the  fulfil- 
ment of  which  the  practical  "  righteousness"  of  each 
consists.  Here,  also,  the  superior  character  of  the 
morals  of  the  New  Testament,  as  well  as  their  higher 
authority,  is  illustrated.  It  may,  indeed,  be  within  the 
scope  of  mere  moralists  to  show  that  fidelity,  and  affec- 
tion, and  all  the  courtesies  necessary  to  maintain  affec- 
tion, are  rationally  obligatory  upon  those  who  are  con- 
nected by  the  nuptial  bond;  but  in  Christianity  that 
fidelity  is  guarded  by  the  express  law,  "  Thou  shalt  not 
commit  adultery  ;"  and  by  our  Lord's  exposition  of  the 
spirit  of  that  law,  which  forbids  the  indulgence  of 
loose  thoughts  and  desires,  and  places  the  purity  of 
the  heart  under  the  guardianship  of  that  hallowed  fear 
which  his  authority  tends  to  inspire.  Affection,  too,  is 
made  a  matter  of  diligent  cultivation  upon  considera- 
tions, and  by  a  standard  peculiar  to  our  religion.  Hus- 
bands are  placed  in  a  relation  to  their  wives  similar  to 
that  which  Christ  bears  to  his  Church,  and  his  exam- 
ple is  thus  made  their  rule :  As  Clirist  "  gave  himself," 
his  life,  "  for  the  Church,"  Eplt.  v.  25,  so  are  they  to 
hazard  life  for  their  wives.  As  Christ  saves  his  Church, 
so  is  it  the  bounden  duty  of  husbands  to  endeavour,  by 
every  possible  means,  to  promote  the  religious  edifica- 
tion and  salvation  of  their  wives.  The  connexion  is 
thus  exalted  into  a  religiousone ;  and  when  love  which 
knows  no  abatement,  protection  at  the  hazard  of  lite, 
and  a  tender  and  constant  solicitude  for  the  salvation 
of  a  wile  are  thus  enjoined,  the  greatest  possible  secu- 
rity is  established  for  the  exercise  of  kindness  and 
fidelity.  The  oneness  of  this  union  is  also  more  forci- 
bly stated  in  Scripture  than  any  where  beside  :  "  They 
twain  shall  be  one  flesh."  "  So  ought  men  to  love  their 
wives  as  their  own  bodies ;  he  that  lovelh  his  wife  loreth 
himself.  For  no  man  ever  yet  hated  his  own  flesh, 
but  nourisheth  and  cherisheth  it,  even  as  the  Lord  the 
Church."  Precept  and  illustration  can  go  no  higher 
than  this;  and  nothing  evidently  is  wantmg  either  of 
direction  or  authority  to  raise  the  state  of  marriage  into 
the  highest,  most  endearing,  and  sanctified  relation  in 
which  two  human  beings  can  stand  to  each  other. 
The  duties  of  wives  are  reciprocal  to  those  of  husbands. 
The  outline  in  the  note  below(3)  comprises  both :  it 
presents  a  series  of  obligations  which  are  obviously 
drawn  from  the  New  Testament ;  but  which  notltiu^ 


(1)  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  Muses. 
(3)  Particular  duties  of  wives. 
Subjection,  the  generall  head  of  all  wives  duties. 

Acknowledgment  of  an  husbands  superioritie. 

A  due  csteeme  of  her  owne  husband  as  the  best  for  her, 

and  worthy  of  honour  on  her  part. 
An  inward  wive-like  fear. 
An  outward  reverend  carriage  towards  her  husband, 

vvhich  consisteth  in  a  wive-like  sobrietie,  mildnesse, 

curtissie,  and  modestie  in  apparel. 

Reverend  speech  to  and  of  her  husband 
Obedience. 

Forbearing  to  do  without  or  against  her  husbands  con- 
sent such  things  as  he  hath  power  to  order,  as,  to 
dispose  and  order  ttie  common  goods  of  the  familie, 
and  the  allowance  for  it,  or  children,  servants,  cattell, 
guests,  journies,  &:c. 

A  ready  yielding  to  what  her  husband  would  have  done. 
This  is  manifested  by  a  wiUingnesse  to  dwell  wliere 
he  will,  to  come  when  he  calls,  and  to  do  what  he 
requireth. 

A  patient  bearing  of  any  reproofe,  and  a  ready  redress- 
ing of  that  for  which  she  is  justly  reproved. 

Ccnientnieut  with  her  husbands  present  estate. 


(2)  Allen's  Modem  Judaism. 

PARTICULAR  DUTIES  OF  HUSBANDS. 

Wisdwne  and  love,  the  generall  heads  of  all  husbands 
duties. 

Acknowledgment  of  a  wives  neere  conjunction  and  fel- 
lowship with  her  husband. 

A  good  esteeme  of  his  o^vne  wife  as  the  best  for  him, 
and  worthy  of  love  on  his  part. 

An  inward  intire  affection. 

An  outward  amiable  carriage  towards  his  wife,  which 
consisteth  in  an  husband-like  gravity,  mildnesse, 
courteous  acceptance  of  her  eurtissie,  and  allowing 
her  to  wear  fit  apparel. 

Mild  and  loving  speech  to  and  of  his  wife. 

A  wise  maintaining  his  aulliority,  and  forbearing  to 
exact  all  that  is  in  his  power. 

A  ready  yielding  to  his  wives  request,  and  giving  a 
generall  consent  and  lihcrtie  unto  her  to  order  Ihe 
affaires  of  the  house,  children,  servants,  <fcc.  And  a 
free  allowing  her  something  to  bestow  as  she  seeth 
occasion. 

A  forbearing  to  exact  more  than  his  wife  is  willing  to 
doe,  or  to  force  her  to  dwell  where  it  is  not  meet,  or 
to  enjoyne  her  to  do  things  that  are  unmeet  in  them- 
selves, or  against  her  mind. 

A  wise  ordering  of  reproofe,  not  using  it  without  just 
and  weighty  cause,  and  then  privately  and  meekly. 

A  provident  care  for  liis  wife,  according  to  his  abilities. 


408 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  III. 


except  that  could  t^irnish.  Tho  extract  is  made  from 
an  old  writer,  and,  altliouKh  expressed  in  homely  ])hr:ise, 
will  be  admired  lor  discrimination  and  comjircliunsivo- 
ness. 

The  Duties  of  Children  is  a  branch  of  Clirislian 
morality  which  receives  both  illustration  and  auihority 
in  a  very  remarkable  and  peculiar  manner  from  llie 
Scriptures.  "  Honuur  thy  lather  and  thy  mother,"  is 
a  precept  which  occupies  a  iilace  in  those  Tables  of 
Law  which  were  written  at  first  by  the  finger  of  God ; 
and  is,  as  the  apostle  Paul  notes,  "  the  first  command- 
ment with  promise."  The  meanin;;  of  the  term  ko- 
nour  is  comi)rfihensivc,  and  imi)orts,  as  ajipears  from 
various  pa.ssage.s  m  which  it  oc<urs,  reverence,  affec- 
tion,  and  grateful  obedience.  It  cxjiresses  at  once  a 
principle  and  aftding,  each  of  wliich  must  influence 
the  practice ;  one  binchiig  obedience  U])on  the  con- 
science, the  other  rendering  it  tho  free  eflusion  of  the 
heart ;  one  securing  the  great  points  of  duty,  and  the 
other  giving  rise  to  a  thousand  tender  sentiments  and 
courtesies,  wliich  mutually  meliorate  the  temper,  and 
open  one  of  the  richest  sources  of  domestic  felicity. 

The  honoiu-ing  of  parents  is  likewise  enforced  in 
Scripture  by  a  temporal  promise.  This  is  not  peculiar 
to  the  Law ;  for  when  the  Apostle  refers  to  this  "  as 
the  first  commandment  with  jiromise,  and  adds,  "  that 
it  may  be  well  with  thee,  and  that  thou  mayest  live 
long  on  the  earth,"  Kph.  vi.  3,  4,  he  clearly  intimates 
that  this  promise  is  carried  forward  into  the  Christian 
dispensation  ;  and  though  it  is  undoubtedly  modified 
by  the  circumstances  of  an  economy  which  is  not  so 
much  founded  ujion  temporal  pronuses  as  the  I^aw,  it 
retains  its  full  force  as  a  general  declaration  of  special 
favour  on  the  part  of  God.  This  duty  also  derives  a 
most  influential  and  alTccting  illustration  from  the  con- 
duct of  our  Lord,  who  was  himself  an  instance  of  sub- 
jection to  parents ;  of  the  kindest  behaviour  to  them  ; 
and  who,  amid  his  agonies  on  the  cross,  commended 
his  weeping  mother  to  the  special  regard  of  the  beloved 
disciple  .John,  charging  him  with  her  care  and  support 
as  a  "  son"  in  his  own  stead.  In  no  system  of  mere 
ethics,  certainly,  is  this  great  duty,  on  which  so  much 
of  human  interest  and  felicity  depends,  and  which  ex- 
erts so  much  influence  npon  society,  thus  illustrated, 
and  thus  enforced. 

The  duties  of  children  may  be  thus  sketched. 

Love,  which  is  founded  upon  esteem  and  reverence, 
comprises  gratitude  also ;  no  small  degree  of  which 
is  obligatory  upon  every  child  for  the  unwearied  cares. 


labours,  and  kindness  of  parental  affection.  In  the 
few  unhappy  instances  in  which  esteem  lor  a  parent 
can  have  little  place,  gratitude  at  least  ought  to  rc- 
njain  ;  nor  can  any  case  arise  in  which  the  obligation 
lit, filial  Imc can  be  cancelled. 

Reverenck,  which  consists  in  that  honourable  es- 
teem of  parents  which  children  ought  to  cherish  in 
(heir  hearts,  and  from  which  springs,  on  the  one  hand 
the  desire  to  please,  and  on  the  other  the  fear  to  offend. 
The  fear  of  a  child  is,  however,  opposed  to  the  fear  of 
a  slave ;  the  latter  has  respect  cluefly  to  the  punish- 
incut  which  may  be  inflicted ;  but  the  other  being 
mixed  with  love,  and  the  desire  to  be  loved,  has  re- 
spect to  the  offence  which  may  be  taken  by  a  parent, 
his  grief,  and  his  displeasure.  Hence  the  fear  of  God, 
as  a  grace  of  the  Si)irit  in  the  regenerate,  is  compared 
to  the  lear  of  children.  This  reverential  regard  due  to 
parents  has  its  external  expression  in  all  honour  and 
civility,  whether  in  words  or  actions.  The  behaviour 
is  to  be  submissive,  the  speech  respectful,  reproof  ia 
to  be  borne  by  them  with  meekness,  and  the  imjiatience 
of  parents  sustained  in  silence.  Children  are  bound  to 
close  their  eyes  as  much  as  possible  upon  the  fadings 
and  infirmiti<!S  of  the  authors  of  their  being,  and  al- 
ways to  speak  of  them  honourably  among  themselves, 
and  in  the  presence  of  others.  "  The  hearts  of  all  men 
go  along  with  Noah  in  laying  punishment  upon  Ham 
for  his  unnatural  and  profane  derision,  and  love  the 
memory  of  those  sons  that  woiUd  not  see  themselves, 
nor  suffer  others  to  be  the  witnesses  of  the  miscar- 
riages of  their  father."  In  the  dnty  of  "  honouring" 
jiarents  is  also  included  their  support  when  in  neces- 
sity. This  appears  from  our  Lord's  application  of  this 
commandment  of  the  Law  in  his  reproof  of  the  Phari- 
sees, who,  if  they  had  made  a  vow  of  their  property, 
thought  it  then  lawful  to  withhold  assistance  from  their 
parents,  Matt.  xv.  4—6. 
To  aliection  and  reverence  is  to  be  added 
OiiKDiKNcK,  which  is  universal:  "Children,  obey 
yourjiarcnts  in  all  things;"  with  only  one  restriction, 
which  respects  the  consciences  of  children  when  at 
age  to  judge  for  themselves.  The  Apostle  therefore 
adds,  "  in  the  Lord."  That  this  limits  the  obedience  of 
children  to  the  lawful  commands  of  parents,  is  clear 
also  from  our  Lord's  words,  "  If  any  love  father  or 
mother  more  than  me  he  is  not  worthy  of  mc."  God  is 
to  be  loved  and  obeyed  above  all.  In  all  lawful  things 
the  rule  is  absolute ;  and  the  obedience,  like  that  we 
owe  to  God,  ought   to  he  cheerful  and  unwearied. 


Such  a  subjection  as  may  stand  with  her  subjection  to 
Christ. 

Such  a  subjection  as  the  Church  yieldeth  to  Christ, 
which  is  sincere,  pure,  cheerfull,  constant,  for  con- 
science sake. 

ABERRATIONS  OP  WIVES  FROM  THEIR  PARTICULAR 
DUTIES. 

Ambition,  the  generall  ground  of  the  aberrations  of 
w^ives. 

A  conceit  that  wives  arc  their  husbands  equals. 

A  conceit  that  she  could  better  subject  herselfo  to  any 
other  man  than  to  her  owne  husband. 

An  inward  despising  of  her  husband. 

IJnreverend  behaviour  towards  hi^r  husband,  manifested 
by  lightnesse,  suUennesse,  scorncfulnessc,  and  vanity 
in  her  attire. 

llnreverend  speech  to  and  of  her  husband. 

A  stout  standing  on  her  owne  will. 

A  peremptory  undertaking  to  do  things  as  she  list, 
without  and  against  her  hu.sbands  consent.  This  is 
manifested  by  privy  purloyning  his  goods,  taking 
allowance,  ordering  children,  servants,  and  cattell, 
feasting  strangers,  making  journies  and  vows,  as 
herself  listeth. 

An  obstinate  standing  upon  her  owne  will,  making  her 
husband  dwell  where  she  wUl,  and  refusing  to  goe 
when  he  calls,  or  to  doc  any  thing  upon  his  command. 

Disdaino  at  reproofe :  giving  word  for  word  :  and  wax- 
ing wor.se  for  being  rcjiroved. 

Discontent  at  her  husbands  estate. 

Such  a  pleasing  of  her  husband  as  ofTendcth  Christ. 
Such  a  subjection  as  is  most  unUko  to  the  Church's, 
viz.  fixincd,  forced,  fickle,  6ic. 


A  forbearing  to  exact  any  thing  which  stands  not  with 

a  good  conscience. 
Such  a  love  as  Christ  beareth  to  the  Church,  and  man 

to  hirnselte,  which  is  first  fr^,  in  deed  and  truth, 

pure,  chaste,  constant. 

ABERRATIONS  OF  llUSDANDS  FROM  THEIR 
PARTICULAR  Dl'TIES. 

Want  ofivisdome  and  Zone,  the  generall  grounds  of  the 
aberrations  of  husbands. 

Too  mean  account  of  wives. 

A  [irepostcrous  conceit  of  his  owne  wife  to  be  the  worst 
of  all,  and  that  he  could  love  any  but  her. 

A  sMiiiall  (lis]iosition,  without  all  heat  of  alTection. 

An  unbcsceniiiig  carriage  towards  his  wife,  manifested 
by  his  ba.scncss,  tyraiiiiicall  usage  of  her,  loflinessc, 
rasbiirsse,  and  iii;;gardiinesse. 

Harsli,  proud,  ami  bitter  sjjceches  to  and  of  his  wife. 

Losing  of  his  authority. 

Too  much  St  rictncssc  over  his  wife.  This  is  manifested 
by  restraining  her  from  doing  any  thing  without  par- 
ticular and  expresse  consent,  taking  too  strict  account 
of  her,  and  allowing  her  no  more  than  is  needfull 
for  her  owne  private  use. 

Too  lordly  a  standing  upon  the  highest  stepof  his  autho- 
rity :  being  too  frequent,  insolent,  and  peremptory, 
in  commanding  things  frivolous,  unmeet,  and  against 
his  wiles  minde  and  conscience. 

IJashnesse  and  bitlernesse  in  reproving :  and  that  too 
frcijuently  on  slight  occasions,  and  disgracefully  be- 
fore children,  servants,  and  strangers.  i 

A  carclcsse  neglect  of  his  wife,  and  niggardly  dealing 
Willi  lirr,  and  that  in  lirr  wcaknesse. 

A  cniiMii:iiiiliiig  ol  uiil;n\ lull  tilings. 

Such  a  disposition  as  is  most  unlike  to  Christ's,  and  to' 
that  which  a  man  beareth  to  himsclfe,  viz.  compli-| 
meut,  impure,  tor  by  respects,  inconstant,  &.c. 


Chap.  IV.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


409 


Should  it  chance  to  cross  our  inclinations,  this  will  be 
no  excuse  for  hesitancy,  much  less  for  refusal. 

One  of  the  principal  cases  in  which  this  principle  is 
often  most  severely  Iried,  is  that  of  marriage.  The  gene- 
ral rule  clearly  is,  that  neither  son  nor  daughter  ought 
to  marry  against  the  command  of  a  father,  with  whom 
the  prime  authority  of  the  lainily  is  lodged  ;  nor  even 
without  the  consent  of  the  mother,  should  the  father 
be  willing,  if  she  can  find  any  weighty  reason  for  her 
objection  ;  for,  although  the  authority  of  the  mother  is 
subordinate  and  secondary,  yet  is  she  entitled  to  obe- 
dience from  the  child.  There  is,  however,  a  consider- 
able difference  between  marrjang  at  the  comman<l  of  a 
parent,  and  marrying  against  his  prohibition.  In  the 
first  case  children  are  more  at  liberty  than  in  the  other ; 
yet  even  here,  the  wishes  of  ])arents  in  this  respect  are 
to  be  taken  into  most  serious  consideration,  with  a  pre- 
ponderating desire  to  yield  to  them  ;  but  if  a  child  feels 
that  his  affections  still  refuse  to  run  in  the  course  of 
the  parents'  wishes  ;  if  he  is  conscious  that  he  cannot 
love  his  intended  wife  as  "himself,"  as  "his  own 
llesh ;"  he  is  prohibited  by  a  higher  rule,  which  pre- 
sents an  insujierable  barrier  to  his  compliance.  In  this 
case  the  child  is  at  liberty  to  refuse,  if  it  is  done  deli- 
berately, and  expressed  with  modesty  and  proi)er  re- 
gret at  not  being  able  to  comply,  lor  the  reasons  stated  ; 
and  every  parent  ought  to  dispense  freely  with  the 
claim  of  obedience.  But  to  marry  in  opposition  to  a 
parent's  express  prohibition,  is  a  very  grave  case.  The 
general  rule  lies  directly  against  this  act  of  disobedi- 
ence, as  against  all  others,  and  the  violation  of  it  is 
therefore  sin.  And  what  blessing  can  be  expected  to 
follow  such  marriages  ?  or  rather,  what  curse  may  not 
be  feared  to  follow  them?  The  law  of  God  is  trans- 
gressed, and  the  image  of  his  authority  in  parents  is 
despised.  Those  exceptions  to  this  rule  wliich  can  be 
justified  are  very  few. 

In  no  case  but  where  the  parties  have  attained  the 
full  legal  age  of  twenty-one  years,  ought  an  e.xception 
to  be  even  considered  ;  but  it  may  perhaps  be  allowed, 
I.  When  the  sole  objection  of  the  parent  is  the  mar- 
riage of  his  child  with  a  person  fearing  God.  2.  When 
the  sole  reason  given  is  a  wish  to  keep  a  child  unmar- 
ried from  caprice,  interest,  or  other  motive,  wliich  no 
parent  has  a  right  to  recjuire,  when  the  child  is  of  legal 
age.  3.  When  the  objections  are  simply  those  of  pre- 
judice, without  reasonable  ground  ;  but  in  this  case, 
the  child  ought  not  to  assume  to  be  the  sole  judge  of 
the  parent's  reasons ;  and  would  not  be  at  liberty  to 
act,  unless  supported  by  the  opinion  of  impartial  and 
judicious  friends,  whose  advice  and  mediation  ought  to 
be  asked,  in  order  that  in  .so  delicate  an  affair,  he  or  she 
may  proceed  with  a  clear  conscience. 

The  persuading  a  daughter  to  elope  from  her  parents' 
house,  where  the  motive  is  no  other  than  the  wilful 
following  of  personal  affection,  which  spurns  at  pa- 
rental control  and  authority,  must,  therefore,  be  consi- 
dered as  a  great  crime.  It  induces  the  daughter  to  com- 
mit a  very  criminal  act  of  disobedience ;  and,  on  the 
part  of  the  man,  it  is  a  worse  kind  of  felony  than  steal- 
ing the  property  of  another.  "  For  children  are  much 
more  properly  a  man's  own  than  his  goods,  and  the 
more  highly  to  be  esteemed  by  how  much  reasonable 
creatures  are  to  be  preferred  before  senseless  tilings. "(4) 
The  DiTTiKS  ok  Pake.vts  are  e.xhibited  with  equal 
clearness  in  the  Scriptures,  and  contain  a  body  of  most 
important  practical  instructions. 

The  first  duty  is  Love,  which,  although  a  natural 
instinct,  is  yet  to  be  cultivated  and  nourished  by  Chris- 
tians under  a  sense  of  duty,  and  by  frequent  medita- 
tion upon  all  those  important  and  interesting  relations 
in  which  religion  has  placed  them  and  their  offspring. 
The  duty  of  sustentationand  care,  therefore,  under  the 
most  trying  circumstances,  is  imperative  upon  parents ; 
lor,  though  this  is  not  directly  enjoined,  it  is  supposed 
necessarily  to  follow  from  that  parental  love  which  the 
Scriptures  inculcate  ;  and  also,  because  the  denial  of 
either  to  infants  would  destroy  them,  and  thus  the  un- 
natural parent  would  be  involved  in  the  crmie  of 
murder. 

To  this  follows  Inst.iuction,  care  for  the  mind  suc- 
ceeding the  nourishment  and  care  of  the  body.  This 
relates  to  the  providing  such  an  education  for  children 
as  is  suited  to  their  condition,  and  by  which  they  may 
be  fitted  to  gain  a  reputable  livelihood  when  they  are 


(4)  GouoE  on  Relative  Duties, 


of  age  to  apply  themselves  to  busine.ss.  But  it  spe- 
cially relates  to  their  instruction  in  the  doctrines  of 
holy  writ.  This  is  clearly  what  the  Apostle  Taul  means, 
Eph.  vi.  4,  by  directing  parents  to  "  bring  them  up  in 
the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord."    A  parent  is 

considered  in  Scripture  as  a  Priest  in  his  own  family, 
which  is  a  view  of  this  relation  not  to  be  found  in 
ethical  \vriters,  or  deducible  from  any  principles  from 
which  they  would  iiiftr  parental  duties  independently 
of  revelation  ;  and  from  this  it  derives  a  most  exalted 
character.  The  offices  of  sacrifice,  intercession,  and 
religious  instruction  were  all  performed  by  the  Patri- 
archs ;  and,  as  we  have  already  seen,  altlicmgh,  under 
the  Law,  the  offering  of  sacrifices  was  rlRrained  to 
the  appointed  priesthood,  yet  was  it  still  the  duty  of 
the  head  of  the  family  to  bring  his  sacrifices  for  immo- 
lation in  the  prescribed  manner ;  and  so  far  was  the 
institution  of  public  teachers  from  being  designed  to 
supersede  the  father's  office,  that  the  heads  of  the  Jew- 
ish families  are  specially  enjoined  to  teach  the  law  to 
their  children  diligently,  and  daily,  Deut.  vi.  7.  Under 
the  same  view  does  Clinstiaiiity  regard  the  heads  of  its 
families  as  priests  in  their  houses,  offering  spiritual 
gifts  and  sacrifices,  and  as  the  religious  instructers  of 
their  children.  Hence  it  is,  in  the  passage  above 
quoted,  that  fathers  are  commanded  "  to  bring  up  their 
cliildren  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord ;  or, 
in  other  words,  in  the  knowledge  of  the  doctrines,  du- 
ties, motives,  and  hopes  of  the  Christian  religion.  Ttiis 
is  a  work,  therefore,  which  belongs  to  the  very  office 
of  a  father  as  the  Priest  of  his  household,  and  cannot 
be  neglected  by  him,  but  at  liis  own  and  his  children's 
peril.  Nor  is  it  to  be  occasionally  and  cursorily  per- 
formed, but  so  that  the  object  may  be  attained,  namely, 
that  they  may  "  know  the  Scriptures  from  their  child- 
hood," and  have  stored  their  minds  with  their  laws, 
and  doctrines,  and  promises,  as  their  guide  in  future 
life  ;  a  work  which  will  require  at  least  as  much  at- 
tention from  the  Christian  as  from  the  Jewish  parent, 
who  was  commanded  on  this  wise, — "  Thou  shalt  teach 
them  diligently  to  thy  children,  and  thou  shalt  talk  of 
them  when  thou  sittest  in  thy  house,  and  when  thou 
walkest  by  the  way,  when  thou  liest  down,  and  when 
thou  risest  up."  The  practice  of  the  Jews  in  this  re- 
spect appears  to  have  been  adopted  by  the  Christians 
of  the  primitive  Churches,  which  were  composed  of 
both  Jewish  and  Gentile  converts  in  almost  every  place.; 
and  from  them  it  is  probable  that  the  early  customs  of 
teaching  children  to  commit  portions  of  Scripture  to 
memory,  to  repeat  prayers  night  and  morning,  and  to 
approach  their  parents  for  their  blessing,  might  be  de- 
rived. The  last  pleasing  and  impressive  !brm  which  • 
contains  a  recognition  of  the  domestic  Priesthood,  as 
inherent  in  the  head  of  any  family,  has  in  this  country 
grown  of  late  into  disuse,  which  is  much  to  be  re- 
gretted. 

It  is  also  essential  to  the  proper  discharge  of  the  pa- 
rental duty  of  instructing  children,  that  every  means 
.should  be  used  to  render  what  is  taught  infiuential 
upon  the  heart  and  conduct.  It  is,  therefore,  solemnly 
imperative  upon  parents  to  be  "  holy  in  all  manner  of 
conversation,  and  godline.ss,"  and  thus  to  enforce  truth 
by  example.  It  concerns  them,  as  much  as  ministers, 
to  be  anxious  for  the  success  of  their  labours,  and  re- 
cognising the  same  principle  that  "  God  giveth  the  in- 
crease," to  be  abundant  in  prayers  for  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  their  children.  Both  as  a  means  of 
grace,  aud  in  recognition  of  God's  covenant  of  mercy 
with  them  and  their  seed  after  them,  it  behooves  them 
also  to  bring  their  children  to  baptism  in  their  infancy ; 
to  explain  to  them  the  baptismal  covenant  when  they 
are  able  to  understand  it ;  and  to  habituate  them  from 
early  years  to  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  and  to  re- 
gular attendance  on  the  pubhc  worship  of  God. 

The  Government  of  children  is  another  great 
branch  of  parental  duty,  in  which  both  the  parents  are 
bound  cordially  to  unite.  Like  all  other  kinds  of  go- 
vernment appointed  by  God,  the  end  is  the  good  of 
those  subject  to  it ;  and  it  therefore  excludes  all  ca- 
price, vexation,  and  tyranny.  In  the  case  of  parents, 
it  is  eminently  a  government  of  love,  and  therefore, 
although  it  includes  strictness,  it  necessarily  excludes 
severity.  The  mild  and  benevolent  character  of  our 
Divine  religion  displays  itself  here,  as  in  every  other 
instance  where  the  heat  of  temper,  tlie  possession  of 
power,  or  the  ebullitions  of  passion,  might  be  turned 
against  the  weak  and  unprotected.    Tlio  civil  iawe  of 


410 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  IU. 


those  countries  in  which  Christianity  was  first  pro- 
rimlgati'd,  gave  great  power  to  parents  over  tlieir  cliil- 
dren,(.'))  wliieh,  in  ttie  unfeeling  spirit  of  Paganism, 
was  often  harshly,  and  even  cruelly,  useci.  On  the 
contrary,  St.  Paul  enjoins,  "  Ai)d  ye  latliers,  provoke 
not  your  children  to  wrath,"  meaning  plainly,  by  a  ri^jor- 
ous  severity,  an  overbearing  and  tyrannical  behaviour, 
tending  to  exasperate  angry  passions  in  tliem.  So  again, 
"  Fathers,  provolie  not  your  children,  lest  they  be  discou- 
raged," discouraged  from  all  attempts  at  pleasing,  as 
regarding  it  an  impossible  task,  "  and  be  uiiliited  to 
pass  through  the  world  with  advantage,  when  their 
spirits  hav^been  unreasonably  broken  under  an  op- 
pressive y"c,  in  the  earliest  years  of  their  lilc."(6) 
Hut  though  the  parental  government  is  founded  upon 
kindness,  and  can  never  be  separated  from  it,  when 
rightly  understood  and  exercised,  it  is  still  government, 
and  is  a  trust  committed  by  God  to  the  parent,  which 
must  be  faithfully  discharged.  Corporal  correction  is 
not  only  allowed,  but  is  made  a  duty  in  Scripture, 
where  other  means  would  he  inefl'ectnal.  Yet  it  may 
be  laid  down  as  a  certain  principle,  tliat  where  the  au- 
thority of  a  parent  is  exercised  with  constancy  and 
discretion,  and  enforced  by  gravity,  kindness,  and  cha- 
racter, this  will  seldom  be  found  neces.sary  ;  nor,  when 
the  steady  resolution  of  the  parent  to  inflict  it  when 
it  is  demanded  by  the  case,  is  once  known  to  the  duld, 
will  it  need  ollen  to  be  repeated.  Parental  government 
is  also  concerned  in  forming  the  manners  of  children  ; 
in  inculcating  civility,  order,  cleanliness,  industry,  and 
pconomy ;  in  repressnig  extravagant  desires  and  grati- 
fications in  dress  and  amusements  ;  and  in  habituating 
the  will  to  a  ready  submission  to  authority.  It  must 
be  so  supreme,  whatever  the  age  of  children  may  be, 
as  to  control  the  whole  order  and  habits  of  the  family, 
and  to  exclude  all  licentiousness,  riot,  and  unbecoming 
amusements  from  the  house,  lest  the  curse  of  EU 
should  fall  upon  those  who  imitate  his  example  in  not 
reproving  evil  with  sufficient  earnestness,  and  not  re- 
straining it  by  the  effectual  exercise  ot  authority. 

Another  duty  of  parents  is  the  comfortable  settlement 
of  their  children  in  the  world,  as  far  as  their  ability  ex- 
tends. This  includes  the  discreet  choosing  of  a  calling, 
by  which  their  children  may  "  provide  things  honest  in 
the  sight  of  all  men  ;"  taking  especial  care,  however, 
that  their  moral  safety  shall  be  consulted  in  the  choice, 
— a  consideration  which  too  many  disregard,  under  the 
influence  of  carelessness,  or  a  vain  ambition.  The 
"  laying  up  for  children"  is  also  sanctioned  both  by  na- 
ture, and  by  our  religion  ;  but  this  is  not  so  to  be  under- 
stood as  that  the  comforts  of  a  parent,  according  to  his 
rank  in  life,  should  be  abridged  ;  nor  that  it  should 
interfere  with  those  chanties  which  Christianity  has 
made  his  personal  duty. 

The  next  of  these  reciprocal  duties  are  those  of  ser- 
vant and  MASTKR. 

This  is  a  relation  which  will  continue  to  the  end  of 
time.  Equality  of  condition  is  alike  contrary  to  the  na- 
ture of  things,  and  to  the  appointment  of  God.  Some 
must  toil,  and  others  direct ;  some  command,  and 
others  obey  ;  nor  is  this  order  contrary  to  the  real  in- 
terest of  the  multitude,  as  at  first  sight  it  might  appear. 
The  acquisition  of  wealth  by  a  few  adbrds  more  abun- 
dant employment  to  the  many  ;  and  in  a  well  ordered, 
thriving,  and  industrious  state,  excejit  in  seasons  of 
peculiar  distress,  it  is  evident,  that  the  comfurls  of  the 
lower  classes  are  greater  than  could  bo  attained  were 
the  land  equally  divided  among  them,  and  so  left  to 
their  own  cultivation  that  no  one  should  be  the  servant 
of  another.  To  preserve  such  a  state  of  things  would 
be  impossible ;  and  could  it  be  done,  no  arts  but  of 
the  rude.st  kind,  no  manufactures,  and  no  commerce, 
could  exist.  The  very  first  attempt  to  introduce  these 
would  necessarily  create  the  two  classes  of  workmen 
and  employers ;  of  the  many  who  labourwith  the  hands, 
and  the  few  wlio  labour  with  the  mind,  in  directing 
the  operations ;  and  thus  the  equality  would  be  de- 
stroyed. 

It  is  not,  however,  to  be  denied,  that  through  the  bad 
principles  and  violent  passions  of  man,  the  relations  of 
servant  and  master  havr  been  a  source  of  great  evil  and 
misery.  The  more,  therefore,  is  that  religion  to  be 
valued,  which,  since  these    relations  must  exist,  re- 

(5)  By  the  old  Roman  law,  the  father  had  the  power 
of  life  and  death,  as  to  his  children. 
(6)  DoDDRiDOE  on  Volossians  lii.  21. 


strains  the  evil  that  Is  Incident  to  them,  and  shows  how 
they  may  be  made  sources  of  mutual  benevolence  and 
hiipjiiness.  Wherever  the  practical  inlluence  of  reli- 
gion has  not  been  felt,  servants  have  generally  been 
more  or  less  treated  with  contempt,  contumely,  harsh- 
ness, and  oi)])ression.  They,  on  the  coiilrary,  are, 
Irom  their  natural  corrujition,  inclined  to  resent  au- 
thority, to  indulge  sellishness,  and  to  commit  fraud, 
either  by  witliholding  tlie  just  quantum  of  labour,  or  by 
direct  theft.  From  the  conlhct  of  these  evils  in  ser- 
vants and  in  masters,  too  often  result  suspicion,  cun- 
ning, overreaching,  malignant  passions,  contemptuous 
and  irritating  speeches,  the  loss  of  principle  in  the  ser- 
vant, and  of  kind  and  equitable  feeling  on  the  part  of 
the  master. 

The  direct  manner  in  which  the  precepts  of  the  New 
Testament  tend  to  remedy  these  evils,  cannot  but  be 
remarked.  Government  in  masters,  as  well  as  in  fa- 
thers, is  an  appointment  of  (;od,  though  diflering  in 
circumstances ;  and  it  is,  therefore,  to  be  honoured. 
•'  Let  as  many  servants  as  are  under  the  yoke,  count 
their  own  masters  worthy  of  all  Awnowr,"  a  direction 
which  enjoins  both  respectful  thoughts,  and  humility 
and  propriety  of  external  demeanour  towards  them. 
Obedience  to  their  commands  in  all  things  lawful  is 
next  enforced;  which  obedience  is  to  be  grounded  on 
principle  and  conscience ;  on  "  singleness  of  heart,  aa 
unto  Christ;"  thus  serving  a  master  with  the  same 
sincerity,  the  same  desire  to  do  the  appointed  work 
well,  as  IS  required  of  us  by  Christ.  This  service  is 
also  to  be  cheerful,  and  not  wrung  out  merely  by  a 
sense  of  duty ;  "  Not  with  eye  service,  as  men  plea- 
sers  ;"  not  having  respect  simply  to  the  approbation  of 
the  master,  but  "  as  the  servants  of  Christ,"  making 
profession  of  his  religion,  "doing  the  will  of  God,"  in 
this  branch  of  duty,  "  from  the  heart,"  with  alacrity  and 
good  feeling.  The  duties  of  servants,  stated  in  these 
brief  precepts,  might  easily  be  shown  to  comprehend 
every  particular  which  can  be  justly  required  of  per- 
sons in  this  station  ;  and  the  whole  is  enforced  by  a 
sanction  which  could  have  no  place  but  in  a  revelation 
from  God, — "  knowing  that  whatsoever  good  thing  any 
man  doeth,  the  same  shall  he  receive  of  the  Lord, 
whether  he  be  bond  or  free,"  Eph.  vi.  5.  In  other 
words,  even  the  common  duties  of  servants,  when 
faithfully,  cheerfully,  and  piously  performed,  are  by 
Christianity  made  rewardable  actions  ;  "  Of  the  Lord 
ye  shall  receive  a  reward." 

The  duties  of  servants  and  masters  are,  however, 
strictly  reciprocal.  Hence  the  Apostle  continues  his 
injunctions  as  to  the  right  discharge  of  these  relations, 
by  saying,  immediately  after  he  had  prescribed  the  con- 
duct of  .servants,  "  And  ye,  masters,  do  the  same  things 
unto  them  ;"  that  is,  act  towards  them  ujion  the  same 
equitable,  conscientious,  and  benevolent  principles,  as 
you  exact  from  them.  He  then  grounds  his  rules,  as 
to  masters,  upon  the  great  and  influential  principle, 
"Knowing  that  your  Master  is  in  heaven;"  that  you 
are  under  authority,  and  are  accountable  to  him  for 
your  conduct  to  your  servants.  Thus  masters  are  put 
under  the  eye  of  God,  who  not  only  maintains  their 
authority,  when  properly  exercised,  by  making  their 
servants  accountable  for  any  contempt  of  it,  and  for 
every  other  failure  of  duty,  but  also  holds  the  master 
himself  responsible  for  its  just  and  mild  exercise.  A 
solemn  and  religious  a-spect  is  thus  at  once  given  to  a 
relation,  which  by  many  is  considered  as  one  merely 
of  interest.  When  the  Apostle  enjoins  it  on  masters 
to  "  forbear  threatening,"  he  inculcates  the  treatment 
of  servants  with  kindness  of  manner,  with  humanity, 
and  good  nature  ;  and,  by  idiisequcnce  also,  the  culti- 
vation oftliat  benevolent  (ccliiig  towards  persons  in  this 
condition,  wliidi  in  all  nghil.N  iiilhicnced  minds,  wUl 
flow  from  ihiMonsiderationol  their  equality  with  lllein- 
Kclves  in  the  sight  of  God  :  their  equal  share  in  the 
iKiiclits  of  rcdcmiition  ;  their  relation  to  us  as  brethren 
in  Christ,  il  they  are  "  jiartakers  of  like  precious  failh ;" 
and  their  titlo  to  the  common  inlieritanco  of  heaven, 
where  all  those  temporary  distinctions  on  which  human 
vanity  is  so  apt  to  fasten  shall  be  done  away.  There 
will  also  not  be  wanting,  in  such  minds,  a  considera- 
lion  of  the  service  rendered  (for  the  lienelit  is  inu 
tual) ;  and  a  feeling  of  gratitude  for  service  faithfully 
lierlbrmed,  although  it  is  compensated  by  wages  or 
hire. 

To  benevolent  sentiment  the  Apostle,  however,  adds 
the  principles  of  justice  and  equity ;  "  Masters,  give  lo^ 


Chap.  IV.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


411 


your  servants  that  which  is  just  and  equal,  knowing 
that  ye  also  have  a  Master  in  heaven,"  who  is  tlie  aven- 
ger of  injustice.  The  terms  jjist  and  ei/ual,  tlioufih 
terms  of  near  affinity,  have  a  somewhat  clillercnt  sig- 
nification. To  give  tliat  wliich  is  just  to  a  servant,  is 
to  deal  with  him  according  to  an  agreement  made  ,  but 
to  give  him  what  is  tqual,  is  to  deal  fairly  and  ho- 
nestly with  him,  and  to  return  what  is  his  due  in  reason 
and  conscience,  even  when  tliere  are  circumstances  in 
the  case  vvliich  strict  law  would  not  oblige  us  to  take 
into  the  account.  "Justice  makes  out  contracts  tlie 
measure  of  our  dealings  with  others,  and  equity  our 
r.onscie)ices:\l)  Equity  here  may  also  have  respect 
particularly  to  that  important  rule  which  obliges  us  to 
do  to  others  what  we  would,  in  the  same  circumstan- 
ces, have  them  to  do  to  us.  This  rule  of  equity  has  a 
large  range  in  the  treatment  of  servants.  It  excludes 
all  arbitrary  and  tyrannical  government ;  it  teaches 
masters  to  respect  the  strength  and  capacity  of  their 
servants  ;  it  represses  rage  and  passion,  contumely  and 
insult ;  and  it  directs  that  their  labour  shall  not  be  so 
extended  as  not  to  leave  proper  time  for  rest,  for  attend- 
ance on  God's  worsliip,  and,  at  proper  seasons,  lor 
recreation. 

The  religious  duties  of  masters  are  also  of  great  im- 
portance. 

Under  the  Old  Testament,  the  servants  of  a  house 
partook  of  the  common  benefit  of  the  true  religion,  as 
appears  from  the  case  of  the  servants  of  Abraham,  who 
were  all  brought  into  the  covenant  of  circumcision  ; 
and  from  the  early  prohibition  of  idolatrous  practices  in 
families,  and,  consequently,  the  maintenance  of  the 
common  worship  of  God.  The  same  consecration  of 
wliole  families  to  God  we  see  in  the  New  Testament ; 
in  the  baptism  of  "  houses,"  and  the  existence  of  do- 
mestic Churclies.  Tlie  practice  of  inculcating  the  true 
religion  upon  servants,  passed  from  the  Jews  'o  the 
first  Christians,  and  followed  indeed  from  the  consci- 
entious employment  of  the  master's  influence  in  fa- 
vour of  piety  ;  a  point  to  which  we  shall  again  advert. 

From  all  this  arises  the  duty  of  instructing  servants 
in  the  principles  of  religion  ;  of  teaching  them  to  read, 
and  furnishing  them  with  the  Scriptures ;  of  having 
them  present  at  family  worsliip;  and  of  conversing 
with  Ihein  faithfully  and  affectionately  respecting  their 
best  interests.  In  jiarticular,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that 
servants  have  by  the  law  of  God  a  riglit  to  the  Sabbath, 
of  winch  no  master  can,  without  sin,  deprive  them. 
They  are  entitled  under  that  law  to  rest  on  that  day  ; 
and  that  not  only  for  the  recreation  of  their  strength  and 
spirits,  but,  especially,  to  enable  them  to  attend  public 
worship,  and  to  read  the  Scriptures,  and  pray  in  pri- 
vate. Against  this  duty  all  those  olTend  who  employ 
servants  in  works  of  gain  :  and  also  those  who  do  not 
so  arrange  the  affairs  of  their  households,  that  domestic 
servants  may  be  as  little  occupied  as  possible  with  the 
affairs  of  the  house,  in  order  that  tliey  may  be  able  reli- 
giously to  use  a  day  which  is  made  as  much  theirs  as 
their  masters',  by  the  express  letter  of  the  law  of  God ; 
nor  can  the  blessing  of  God  be  expected  to  rest  upon 
families  where  this  shocking  indifference  to  the  reli- 
gious interests  of  domestics  and  this  open  disregard  of 
the  Divine  command  prevail.  A  Jewish  strictness  in 
some  particulars  is  not  bound  upon  Christians :  as  for 
e.xainple,  the  prohibition  against  lighting  fires.  These 
were  parts  of  the  municipal,  not  the  moral  law  of  the 
Jews  ;  and  they  have  respect  to  a  people  living  in  a 
certain  climate,  and  in  peculiar  circumstances.  But 
even  these  prohibitions  are  of  use  as  teaching  us  self- 
denial,  and  that  in  all  cases  we  ought  to  keep  witliin 
the  rules  of  necessity.  Unnecessary  occupations  are 
clearly  forbidden  even  when  they  do  not  come  under 
the  description  of  u'ork  for  gain ;  and  when  they  are 
avoided,  there  will  be  sufficient  leisure  for  every  part 
of  a  family«o  enjoy  the  Sabbath  as  a  day  of  rest,  and  as 
a  day  of  undistracted  devotion.  We  may  here  also 
advert  to  that  heavy  national  offence  which  still  hangs 
Hpon  us,  the  denying  to  the  great  majority  of  our  bond 
slaves  in  the  West  Indies  those  Sabbath  rights  which 
are  secured  to  them  by  the  very  religion  we  profess. 
JVeither  as  a  day  oC  rest,  nor  as  a  day  of  ii'or.«A(;),  is 
tins  sacred  day  granted  to  them  ;  and  for  this,  our  inso- 
lent and  contemptuous  defiance  of  God's  holy  law,  we 
must  be  held  accountable.  This  is  a»  consideration 
which  ought  to  induce  that  part  of  the  community  who 


(7)  Fleetwood's  Relative  Duties. 


retain  any  fear  of  God,  to  be  unwearied  in  their  appli- 
cations to  the  legislature  until  this  groat  reproach,  this 
weight  of  offence  against  religion  and  humanity,  shall 
be  taken  away  from  us. 

The  employment  of  i)>flitC7ice  for  the  religious  benefit 
of  servants  forms  another  part  of  the  duty  of  every 
Christian  master.  This  appears  to  be  obligatory  upon 
the  general  principle,  that  every  thing  which  can  be 
w.'cd  by  us  to  promote  the  will  of  God,  and  to  benefit 
others,  is  a  "  talent"  committed  to  us,  which  we  are 
required  by  our  Lord  to  "  occupy.''  It  is  greatly  to  be 
feared,  that  this  duty  is  much  neglected  among  pro- 
fessedly religious  masters  ;  that  even  domestic  servants 
are  suffered  to  live  in  a  state  of  spiritual  danger,  with- 
out any  means  being  regularly  and  affectionately  used 
to  bring  them  to  the  practical  knowledge  of  the  truth ; 
means  which,  if  used  with  judgment  and  perseverance, 
and  enforced  by  the  natural  influence  of  a  superior, 
might  prove  in  many  instances  both  corrective  and 
saving.  But  if  this  duty  be  much  neglected  in  house- 
holds, it  is  much  more  disregarded  as  to  that  class  of 
servants  who  are  employed  as  day  labourers  by  the 
farmer,  as  journeymen  by  the  master  artisan,  and  as 
workmen  by  the  manufacturer.  iVIore  or  less  the  mas- 
ter comes  into  immediate  connexion  with  this  class  of 
servants  ;  and  although  they  are  not  so  directly  under 
his  control  as  those  of  his  household,  nor  within  reach 
of  the  same  instruction,  yet  is  he  bound  to  discounte- 
nance vice  among  them ;  to  recommend  their  attend- 
ance on  public  worship ;  to  see  that  their  children  are 
sent  to  schools ;  to  provide  religious  help  for  them  when 
sick  ;  to  prefer  sober  and  religious  men  to  others  ;  and 
to  pay  them  their  wages  in  due  time  for  market,  and  so 
early  on  the  Saturday,  or  on  the  Friday,  that  their 
families  may  not  be  obstructed  in  their  preparations 
for  attending  the  house  of  God  on  the  Lord's  day  morn- 
ing. If  the  religious  character  and  bias  of  the  master 
were  thus  felt  by  his  whole  establishment,  and  a  due 
regard  paid  uniformly  to  justice  and  benevolence  in  the 
treatment  of  all  in  his  employ,  not  only  would  great 
moral  good  be  the  result,  but  there  would  be  reason  to 
hope  that  the  relation  between  emi)loyers  and  their 
workmen,  which,  in  consequence  of  frequent  disputes 
respecting  wages  and  combinations,  has  been  rendered 
suspicious  and  vexatious,  would  assume  a  character  of 
mutual  confidence  and  reciprocal  goodwill. 

I'oLiTicAL  Justice  respects  chiefly  the  relation  of 
Subject  and  Sovereign,  a  delicate  branch  of  morals  in 
a  religious  system  introduced  into  the  world  under 
such  circumstances  as  Christianity,  and  which  in  its 
wi.sdom  it  has  resolved  into  general  principles  of  easy 
application,  in  ordinary  circumstances.  With  equal 
wisdom  it  has  left  extraordinary  emergencies  unprovi 
ded  for  by  special  directions ;  though  even  in  such 
cases  the  path  of  duty  is  not  without  liglit  reflected 
upon  it  from  the  whole  genius  and  spirit  of  the  insti- 
tution. 

On  the  origin  of  power,  and  other  questions  of  govern- 
ment, endless  controversies  have  been  held,  and  very 
different  theories  adopted,  which,  so  happily  is  the 
world  exchanging  government  by  force  for  govern- 
ment by  public  opinion,  have  now  lost  much  of  their 
interest,  and  require  not,  therefore,  a  particular  exain- 
I  ination. 

i      On  this  branch  of  morals,  as  on  the  others  we  have 
I  already  considered,  the   Scriptures  throw  a  light  pecu- 
liar to  themselves;  and  the  theory  of  government  which 
!  they  contain  wiU   be  found  perfectly  accordant  with 
I  the  exjjerience  of  the  present  and  best  age  of  the  world 
I  as  to  practical  government,  and  exhibits  a  perfect  har- 
mony with  that  still  more    improved  civil  condition 
which  it  must  ultimately  assume  in  consequence  of  the 
diffusion  of  knowledge,  freedom,  and  virtue. 

The  leading  doctrine  of  Scripture  is,  that  govern- 
ment is  an  ordinance  of  God.  It  was  manifestly  his 
will  that  men  should  live  in  society ;  this  cannot  be 
doubted.  The  very  laws  he  has  given  to  men  pre- 
scribing their  relative  duties,  assume  the  permanent 
existence  of  social  relations,  and  therefore  place  them 
under  regulation.  From  this  fact  the  Divine  appoint- 
ment of  government  flows  as  a  necessary  consequence. 
A  .society  cannot  exist  without  rules  or  laws;  audit 
therefore  follows  that  such  laws  must  be  upheld  by  en- 
forcement. Hence  an  executive  power  in  some  form 
must  arise,  to  guard,  to  juilge,  to  reward,  to  punish. 
For  if  there  were  no  executors  of  laws,  the  laws  would 
become  a  dead  letter,  which  would  be  the  same  thing 


412 


THEOLOGICAL  LXSTITUTES. 


[Part  IIL 


as  having  none  at  all ;  and  where  there  are  no  laws 
there  can  bo  no  society.  15ut  we  are  not  lell  to  infer- 
ence. In  the  first  ai^es  of  the  world  government  was 
paternal,  and  the  power  of  governmcMt  was  vested  in 
parents  by  the  e.vpress  appointment  of  God.  Among 
the  .lews,  rulers,  judges,  kings,  were  also  apjjointed  by 
God  himself;  and  as  for  all  other  nations,  the  New  Tes- 
tament e.xpressly  declares,  that  "  the  powers  which  be 
arc  ordained  of  God." 

The  origin  of  power  is  not,  therefore,  from  man,  but 
from  God.  It  is  not  left  as  a  matter  of  choii:c  to  men, 
whether  they  will  submit  to  be  governed  or  not ;  it  is 
God's  appointment  that  they  should  be  subject  to  those 
powers  whom  he,  in  his  governinenr  of  the  world,  has 
placed  over  them,  in  all  things  for  which  he  has  insti- 
tuted government,  that  is,  that  it  .sliould  be  "  a  terror  to 
evil-doers,  and  a  praise  to  tlieni  tliat  do  well."  Nor  are 
they  at  liberty  "to  resist  the  power,"  when  employed 
in  accomjilishing  such  legitnnate  ends  of  government; 
nor  to  deny  the  right,  nor  to  refuse  the  means,  even 
when  they  have  the  power  to  do  so,  by  which  the  su- 
preme power  may  restrain  evil,  and  enforce  truth, 
righteousness,  and  peace.  Every  supreme  jiower,  we 
may  therefore  conclude,  is  invested  with  full  and  in- 
alienable authority  to  govern  well ;  and  the  people  of 
every  state  are  bound,  by  the  institution  of  God,  cheer- 
fully and  thankfully  to  submit  to  be  so  governed. 

There  can,  therefore,  be  no  such  compact  between 
any  parties  as  shall  originate  the  right  of  government, 
or  the  duty  of  being  governed ;  nor  can  any  compact 
annul,  in  the  least,  the  rightful  authority  of  the  supreme 
power  to  govern  efficiently  for  the  full  accomplishment 
of  the  ends  for  which  government  was  divinely  ap- 
pointed ;  nor  can  it  place  any  limit  uiwn  the  duty  of 
subjects  to  be  governed  accordingly. 

Wc  may  conclude,  therefore,  with  Paley  and  others, 
that  what  is  called  "the  social  compact,"  the  theory  of 
Locke  and  his  followers  on  government,  is  a  pure  fic- 
tion. In  point  of  fact,  men  never  did  originate  govern- 
ment by  mutual  agreement ;  and  men  are  all  born  under 
some  government,  and  become  its  subjects,  without 
having  any  terms  of  compact  proposed  to  them,  or 
giving  any  consent  to  understood  terms,  or  being  con- 
scious at  all  that  their  assent  is  necessary  to  convey  the 
right  to  govern  them,  or  to  impose  upon  themselves  the 
obligation  of  subjection.  The  ab.turdities  which  Paley 
has  pointed  out  as  necessarily  following  from  the  theory 
of  the  social  compact,  appear  to  be  sufliciently  well 
founded  ;  but  the  fatal  objection  is,  that  it  makes  go- 
vernment a  mere  creation  of  man,  whereas  Scripture 
makes  it  an  ordinance  of  God  :  it  supposes  no  obliga- 
tion anterior  to  human  consent ;  whereas  the  appoint- 
ment of  God  constitutes  the  obligation,  and  is  wholly 
independent  of  human  choice  and  arrangement. 

Ttie  matter  of  government,  however,  does  not  ai)pear 
to  be  left  so  loose  as  it  is  represented  by  the  author  of 
the  Mnral  ami  Pnlitical  Philosophy. 

The  ground  of  the  subject's  obligation  which  he  as- 
signs, is  "  the  will  of  God,  as  collected  from  expedi- 
ency." We  prefer  to  assign  the  will  of  God  as  an- 
nounced in  the  public  law  of  the  Scriptures  ;  and  which 
manifestly  establishes  two  points  as  general  rules :  I. 
The  positive  obligation  of  men  to  submit  to  govern- 
ment:  2.  Their  obligation  to  yield  obedience,  in  all 
things  lawfiil,  to  the  governments  under  which  they 
live,  as  appointed  by  God  in  the  order  of  his  providence, 
— "  the  powers  that  be,"  the  powers  which  actually 
exist,  "  are  ordained  of  God."  From  these  two  princi- 
ples it  will  follow,  that  in  the  case  of  any  number  of 
men  and  women  being  thrown  together  in  some  desert 
part  of  the  world,  it  would  be  their  duty  to  marry,  to 
institute  paternal  government  in  their  families,  and  to 
submit  to  a  common  government,  in  obedience  to  the 
declared  will  of  God  :  and  in  the  case  of  persons  born 
under  any  established  government,  that  tlicy  are  re- 
quired to  yield  .submission  to  it  as  an  onlinaiicc  of  God, 
"  a  power"  already  appointed,  and  under  wtiich  they 
are  placed  in  Wv  order  of  Divine  providence, 

KvidcMt,  liowc'ver,  as  these  principles  are,  they  can 
never  he  pli'adcd  in  favour  of  oppression  and  wrong  ; 
since  it  is  always  to  be  nani'inbered  that  ihe  same 
Scriptures  which  establish  these  ]>rinciples  liave  set  a 
sufficient  number  of  guards  and  limits  about  them,  and 
that  the  rights  and  duties  of  sovereign  and  subject  are 
reciprocal.  The  manner  in  which  they  are  made  to 
harmonize  with  public  interest  and  liberty  will  .appear 
alter  these  recijirocal  duties  and  righta  arc  explained. 


The  duties  of  the  sovereign  power.  Whatever  its  form 
may  be,  are,  the  enactment  of  just  and  equal  laws ; 
the  imparti.il  execution  of  those  laws  in  mercy  ;  the 
encour.agement  of  religion,  morality,  learning,  and  in- 
dustry; the  protection  and  sustenance  of  the  poor  and 
helpless ;  the  maintenance  of  domestic  peace,  and,  as 
far  as  the  interests  of  the  community  will  allow,  of 
peace  with  all  nations;  the  faithful  observance  of  all 
treaties;  an  incessant  application  to  the  cares  of  go- 
vernment, without  exacting  more  tribute  from  the  peo- 
ple than  is  necessary  for  the  real  wants  of  the  state, 
and  the  honourable  maintenance  of  its  officers ;  the 
appointment  of  inferior  magistrates  of  probity  and  fit- 
ness, with  a  (liliijeiil  and  strict  oversight  of  them ;  and 
finally,  the  making  provi.sion  for  the  continued  instruc- 
tion of  the  people  in  the  religion  of  Ihe  Scriptures 
which  it  professes  to  receive  as  a  revelation  from  (Jod, 
and  that  with  such  a  respect  to  the  rights  of  conscience, 
as  shall  leave  all  men  free  to  discharge  their  duties  to 
Ilini  who  is  "higher  than  the  highest." 

All  llicso  obligations  are  either  plainly  expressed,  or 
are  to  be  inferred  from  such  passages  as  the  following : 
"  The  God  of  Israel  said,  the  Rock  of  Israel  spake  to 
me,  lie  that  ruleth  over  men  must  be  jiist,  ruling  in 
the  fear  of  (iod ;  and  he  shall  be  as  the  light  of  the 
morning  when  the  svm  riseth,  even  a  morning  without 
clouds,  as  the  tender  grass  springeth  out  of  the  earth 
by  clear  shining  after  rain  ;"  images  which  join  to  the 
attribute  of  justice  a  constant  and  difi'usive  beneficence. 
"  Mercy  and  truth  preserve  the  king."  "  Ye  shall  do 
no  unrighteousness  in  judgment ;  thou  shall  not  re- 
spect the  person  of  the  poor,  nor  honour  the  person  of 
the  mighty ;  but  in  righteotisness  thou  shalt  judge." 
"He  that  saith  unto  the  wicked,  Tliou  art  righteous," 
that  is,  acquits  the  guilty  in  judgment,  "  him  shall  the 
people  curse,  nations  shall  ablior  him."  "  Moreover, 
thou  shalt  provide  out  of  all  the  people  able  men  ;  such 
as  fear  God  ;  men  of  truth,  hating  covetousness ;  and 
place  such  over  them,  and  let  them  judge  the  people  at 
all  seasons."  "  Ilim  that  hatha  high  look  and  a  proud 
heart  I  will  not  suffer.  Mine  eyes  shall  be  upon  the 
faithful  in  the  land,  that  they  may  dwell  with  me  ;  he 
that  walketh  in  a  perfect  way,  he  shall  serve  me.  Ho 
that  workcth  deceit  shall  not  dwell  in  my  house,  he 
that  t^lleth  lies  shall  not  tarry  in  my  sight."  To  these 
and  many  similar  passages  in  the  tild  Testament  may 
be  added,  as  so  many  intimations  of  the  Divine  will  as 
to  rulers,  those  patriotic  and  pious  practices  of  such  of 
the  judges  and  kings  of  Israel  as  had  the  express  ap- 
probation of  God  ;  for  although  they  may  not  ajiply  as 
particular  rules  in  all  cases,  they  have  to  all  succeeding 
ages  the  force  of  the  general  principles  which  are  im- 
phedin  them.  The  New  Testament  directions,  although 
expressed  generally,  are  equally  comprehensive  ;  and  it 
is  worthy  of  remark,  that  while  they  assert  the  Divine 
ordination  of  "  the  powers  that  be,"  they  explicitly  mark 
out  lor  what  ernh  they  were  thus  appointed,  aud  allow, 
therefore,  of  no  plea  of  divine  right  in  rulers  for  any 
thing  contrary  to  ihom.  "  Render  unto  Cesar  the 
things  that  are  Cesar's,"  that  is,  things  which  are  Ce- 
sar's by  iiublic  law  and  customary  impost.  "  For  rulers 
are  not  a  terror  to  liood  vorks,  but  to  the  evil.  Wilt 
thou  not  be  afraid  of  the  power?  Uo  that  which  is 
liood,  and  thou  shalt  have  praise  of  the  same ;  for  he  is 
the  minister  of  God  to  thee  /or  cooil.  But  if  thou  do 
that  which  is  evil,  be  afraid  ;  for  he  beareth  not  the 
sword  in  vain  ;  for  he  is  tla^  minisier  of  God,  a  revenger 
to  execute  wrath  upon  han  lluit  doeth  evil."  "  Submit 
yourselves  to  every  ordinance  of  man,  for  the  Lord's 
sake;  whether  it  be  to  the  king,  as  supreme,  or  unto 
governors,  as  unto  them  that  arc  sent  by  him  for  the 
imnishmcnt  of  evil-doers,  and  for  the  praise  of  them 
that  do  irell." 

In  these  passages,  which  st.ate  the  legitimate  ends  of 
governnienl,  and  limit  God's  ordination  of  government 
to  them,  llie  duties  of  subjec-tsare|iailially«nticiiiated; 
but  they  are  cajiable  of  a  fuller  emniHration. 

Suhjection  and  Ohedimce  are  the  first;  qualified, 
howck'er,  as  we  know  from  the  exainjilc  of  the  Apos- 
tles, with  excejitions  as  to  what  is  contrary  to  conscience 
and  morality.  In  such  cases  they  obeyed  not,  but  suf- 
fered rather.  Otherwise  the  rule  is,  "  Let  every  soul 
be  subject  to  the  higher  powers ;"  and  that  not  merely 
"  for  wrath,"  fear  of  punishitient,  but  "  for  conscience' 
sake,"  from  a  conviction  that  it  is  right.  "  For  this 
cause  pay  ye  trilmfr  also ;  for  they  are  (Jod's  ministers, 
attending  continually  upou  tliis  vory  thing.    Render, 


Chap.  IV.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


413 


tlicroforo,  to  all  their  dues,  tribute  to  whom  tribute  is 
due,  custom  to  whom  custom,  fear  to  whom  fear,  ho- 
nour to  whom  honour." — Supplies  for  the  necessities  of 
government  arc  theretbre  to  be  willingly  and  faithfully 
furnished.  Rulers  are  also  to  be  treated  with  respect 
and  reverence :  "  Thou  .shalt  not  speak  evil  of  the  ruler 
of  thy  people."  They  are  to  be  honoured  both  by  ex- 
ternal marks  of  respect,  and  by  being  maintained  in 
dignity;  their  actions  arc  to  be  judged  of  wilh  can- 
dour and  charity,  and  when  questioned  or  blamed,  this 
is  to  be  done  wilh  moderation,  and  not  with  invective 
or  ridicule,  a  mode  of  "speaking  evil  of  dignities," 
which  grossly  offends  against  the  Christian  rule.  This 
branch  of  our  duties  is  greatly  strengthened  by  the  en- 
joined duty  of  praying  for  rulers,  a  circumstance  which 
gives  an  efficacy  to  it  which  no  uninspired  system  can 
furnish.  "  I  exhort,  therefore,  that  first  of  all  suppli- 
cations, prayers,  intercessions,  and  giving  of  thanks, 
be  made  for  all  men ;  for  kings,  and  for  all  that  are  in 
authority,  that  we  may  lead  a  quiet  and  peaceable  life, 
in  all  godliness  and  honesty ;  for  this  is  good  and  ac- 
ceptable in  the  sight  of  God  our  .Saviour."  TUis  holy 
and  salutary  practice  is  founded  upon  a  recognition  of 
the  ordinance  of  God  as  to  government ;  it  recognises, 
also,  the  existing  powers  in  every  place,  as  God's  '■  mi- 
nisters ;"  it  supposes  that  all  public  affairs  are  under 
Divine  control ;  it  reminds  men  of  the  arduous  duties 
and  resjionsibility  of  governors;  it  promotes  a  benevo- 
lent, grateful,  and  resi)ectful  feeling  towards  them ;  and 
it  is  a  powerful  guard  against  the  factious  and  sedi- 
tious spirit.  These  are  so  evidently  the  principles  and 
tendencies  of  this  sacred  custom,  that  when  prayer  has 
been  used,  as  it  sometimes  has,  to  convey  the  feelings 
of  a  malignant,  factious,  or  light  spirit,  every  well  dis- 
posed mind  must  have  been  shocked  at  so  profane  a 
mockery  and  must  have  felt  that  such  prayers  "  for  all 
that  are  in  authority,"  were  any  thing  but  "  good  and 
acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God  our  .Saviour." 

Connected  as  these  reciprocal  rights  and  duties  of 
rulers,  and  of  their  subjects,  are  with  the  peace,  order, 
liberty,  and  welfare  of  society,  so  that  were  they  uni- 
versally acted  upon,  nothing  would  remain  to  be  de- 
sired for  the  promotion  of  its  peace  and  welfare ;  it  is 
also  evident  that  in  no  part  of  the  world  have  tliey  been 
fully  observed,  and,  indeed,  in  most  countries  they  are, 
to  this  day,  grossly  trampled  upon.  A  question  then 
arises.  How  far  does  it  consist  with  Christian  submis- 
sion to  endeavour  to  remedy  the  evils  of  a  government  ? 

On  this  ditlicult  and  ofl;en  controverted  point  we 
must  proceed  with  caution,  and  with  steady  respect  to 
the  principles  above  drawn  from  the  word  of  God  ;  and 
that  the  subject  may  be  less  eiUangled,  it  may  be  proper 
to  leave  out  of  our  consideration,  for  the  present,  all 
questions  relating  to  rival  supreme  powers,  as  in  the 
case  of  a  usurpation,  and  those  which  respect  the  duly 
of  subjects,  when  persecuted  by  their  government  on 
account  of  their  religion. 

Although  governinent  is  enjoined  by  God,  it  appears 
to  be  left  to  men  to  judge  in  what  form  its  purposes 
may,  in  certain  circumstances,  be  most  effectually  ac- 
complished. No  direction  is  given  on  this  subject  in 
the  Scriptures.  The  patriarchal  or  fanuly  governments 
of  the  most  ancient  times  were  founded  upon  nature; 
but  when  two  or  more  families  were  joitied  under  one 
head,  either  for  mutual  defence,  or  for  aggression,  the 
[government]  was  one  of  choice,  or  it  resulted  from  a 
submission  effected  by  conquest.  Here,  in  manj'  cases, 
a  compact  might,  and  in  some  instances  did,  come  in, 
though  differing  in  principle  from  "  the  social  compact" 
of  theoretical  writers ;  and  this  affords  the  only  rational 
way  of  interpreting  that  real  social  compact  which  in 
some  degree  or  other  exists  in  all  nations.  In  all  cases 
where  the  patriarchal  governinent  was  to  be  raised  into 
a  government  common  to  many  famUies,  some  consider- 
able number  of  persons  must  have  determined  its 
form,  and  they  would  have  the  right  to  place  it  upon 
such  fundamental  principles  as  might  seem  best,  pro- 
vided that  such  principles  did  not  interfere  with  the 
duties  made  obligatory  by  God  upon  every  sovereign 
power,  and  with  the  obligations  of  the  subject  to  be 
governed  by  justice  in  mercy,  and  to  be  controlled  from 
injuring  others.  Equally  clear  would  be  the  right  of 
the  community,  either  en  masse,  or  by  their  natural 
heads  or  representatives,  to  agree  upon  a  body  of  laws, 
which  should  be  the  standing  and  published  exjiression 
of  the  will  of  the  supreme  iiovvcr,  that  so  the  sovereign 
will  on  all  main  question.'!  niight  not  be  subject  to  con- 


stant changes  and  the  caprice  of  an  Individual ;  and  ta 
oblige  the  sovereign,  as  the  condition  of  his  olUce,  to 
bind  himself  to  observe  these  fundamental  princijilea 
and  laws  of  the  state  by  solemn  oiilli,  which  has  been 
the  practice  among  many  nations,  and  especially  those 
of  the  Gothic  stock.  It  follows  from  hence,  that  while 
there  is  an  ordination  of  God  as  to  government,  prior 
to  the  establishment  of  all  governments,  there  is  no 
ordination  of  a  particular  man  or  men  to  govern,  nor 
any  investment  of  families  with  hereditary  right. 
There  is  no  such  onhnation  in  Scripture,  and  we  know 
that  none  takes  place  by  particular  revelation.  God 
"setteth  up  one,  and  putteth  down  another,"  in  virtue 
of  his  dominion  over  all  things ;  but  he  does  this  through 
men  themselves,  as  his  controlled  and  often  unconscious 
instruments.  Hence,  by  St.  Peter,  in  perfect  consist- 
ency with  St.  Paul,  the  existing  governments  of  the 
world  are  called  "ordinances  of  men." — "Submit  to 
every  ordinance  of  man,'"  or  to  every  human  creation 
or  constitution,  "  for  the  Lord's  sake,  whether  to  the 
king  as  sujireme,"  &c.  Again,  as  the  wisdom  to  govern 
with  absolute  truth  and  justice  is  not  to  be  presumed  to 
dwell  in  one  man,  however  virtuous,  so,  in  this  state 
of  things,  the  better  to  secure  a  salutary  administration, 
there  would  be  a  right  to  make  provision  for  this  also, 
by  Councils,  Senates,  Parliaments,  Cortes,  or  similar 
institutions,  vested  with  suitable  powers,  to  forward, 
but  not  to  obstruct,  the  exercise  of  good  government. 
And  accordingly,  we  can  trace  the  rudiments  of  these 
institutions  in  the  earliest  stages  of  most  regular  go- 
vernments. These  and  similar  arrangements  are  left 
to  hiurian  care,  prudence,  and  patriotism;  and  they  are 
in  perfect  accordance  with  the  principles  of  sovereign 
right  as  laid  down  in  .Scripture. 

It  is  not,  however,  in  the  forming  of  a  new  state, 
that  any  great  difficulty  in  morals  arises.  It  comes  in 
when  either  old  states,  originally  ill  constituted,  be- 
comeinadaptedtothepurposes  of  good  government  in  a 
new  and  altered  condition  of  society,  and  the  supreme 
power  refuses  to  adapt  itself  to  this  new  staie  of  af- 
fairs; or  when,  in  states  originally  well  constituted, 
encroachments  upon  the  public  liberties  take  place,  and 
great  misrule  or  neglect  is  chargeable  upon  the  ex- 
ecutive. Thequestion  in  such  cases  is,  whether  resist- 
ance to  the  will  of  the  supreme  power  is  consistent 
with  the  subject's  duty  ! 

To  answer  this,  resistance  must  be  divided  into  two 
kinds, — the  resistance  of  opinion,  and  the  resistance  of 
force. 

As  to  the  first,  the  lawfulness,  nay,  even  the  duty  of 
it  must  often  be  allowed;  but  under  certain  qualifying 
circumstances.  As,  1.  That  this  resistance  of  oppos- 
ing and  inculpating  opinion  is  not  directed  against  go- 
vernment, as  such,  however  strict,  provided  it  be  just 
and  impartial.  2.  That  it  is  not  personal  against  the 
supreme  magistrate  himself,  or  his  delegated  authori- 
ties, but  relates  to  public  acts  only.  3.  That  it  springs 
not  from  mere  theoretical  pref(;rence  of  some  new  form 
of  government  to  that  actually  existing,  so  that  it  has 
in  it  nothing  practical.  4.  That  it  proceeds  not  from 
a  hasty,  prejudiced,  or  malignant  interpretation  of  the 
character,  designs,  and  acts  of  a  government.  5.  That 
it  is  not  factious ;  that  is,  not  the  result  of  attachment 
to  parties,  and  of  zeal  to  eflTect  mere  party  objects,  in- 
stead of  the  general  good.  6.  That  it  does  not  respect 
the  interests  of  a  few  only,  or  of  a  part  of  the  commu- 
nity, or  the  mere  local  interests  of  some  places  in  ojipo- 
sition  to  the  just  interests  of  other  places.  Under  such 
guards  as  these,  the  respectful,  but  firm  expression  of  opi- 
nion, by  speech,  writing,  petition,  or  remonstrance,  is  not 
only  lawful,  but  is  often  an  imperative  duty,  a  duty  for 
which  hazards  even  must  be  run  by  those  who  endeavour 
to  lead  up  public  opinion  to  place  itself  against  real  en- 
croachments upon  the  fundamental  laws  of  a  state, 
or  any  serious  maleadministration  of  its  affairs.  The 
same  conclusion  may  be  maintained  under  similar  re- 
serves, when  the  object  is  to  improve  a  deficient  and 
inadequate  state  of  the  supreme  government.  It  is  in- 
deed specially  requisite  here,  that  the  case  should 
be  a  clear  one  ;  that  it  should  be  felt  to  be  so  by  the 
great  iriass  of  those  who  with  any  propriety  can  be 
called  the  public ;  that  it  should  not  be  urged  beyond 
the  necessity  of  the  case ;  that  the  discussion  of  it 
should  be  temperate ;  that  the  change  should  be  di- 
rectly connected  with  an  obvious  public  good,  not 
otherwise  to  be  accompli.shed.  When  these  circum- 
stances  meet,  there  is   manifestly  no  opposition  to 


414 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  III. 


government  as  an  ordinance  of  Ood ;  no  blamcable  resist- 
ance "  to  the  powers  that  bo,"  since  it  is  only  projioscd 
to  place  tlicm  in  circumstuiices  llie  more  eft'ectuully  to 
fulfil  the  duties  of  their  ollice ;  nottiing  contrary,  in 
lact,  to  the  original  conii)act,  the  object  of  which  was 
the  i)Ul<lic  beiieht,  by  roiiikiring  its  government  as  effi- 
cient to  promote  the  ^uod  of  the  state  as  possible,  and 
which  therel<)re  necessarily  supposed  a  liability  to  fu- 
ture modifications,  when  the  fairly  collected  public  sen- 
tunent,  through  the  organs  by  which  it  usually  ex- 
presses itself  as  to  the  public  weal,  reiiuiredit.  The 
least  equivocal  time,  however,  lor  proposing  any  change 
in  what  might  be  regarded  as  funjamental  or  constitu- 
tional in  a  tbrm  of  government  originally  ill  settled, 
would  be  on  the  demise  of  the  sovereign,  when  the  new 
stipulations  might  be  oflered  to  Ids  successor,  and  very 
lawfully  be  imposed  upon  him. 

llesistaiice  by  /nrce  may  be  divided  into  two  kinds. 
The  first  is  that  milder  one  wluch  belongs  to  constitu- 
tional states,  that  is,  to  those  m  which  the  compact  be- 
tween the  supreme  jiower  and  the  people  has  been 
drawn  out  into  express  article.s,  or  is  found  in  well  un- 
derstood and  received  princijiles  and  ancient  cus- 
toms, imposing  checks  upon  the  sovereign  will,  and 
surrounding  with  guards  the  public  liberty.  The  ap- 
plication of  this  controlling  power,  which,  in  this  coun- 
try, is  placed  in  a  Parliament,  may  have  in  it  much  of 
compulsion  and  force ;  as  wlicn  a  Parliament  rejects 
measures  proposed  by  the  miiustry,  who  are  the  organs 
of  the  will  of  the  sovereign ;  or  when  it  refuses  the 
usual  supplies  for  the  army  and  navy,  until  grievances 
are  redressed.  The  proper  or  improper  use  of  this 
power  depends  on  the  circumstances;  but  when  not 
employed  factiously,  nor  under  the  inrlucnce  of  private 
feelings,  nor  in  subservience  to  unjustifiable  popular 
clamour,  or  to  popular  demagogues;  but  advisedly  and 
patriotically,  in  order  to  maintain  the  laws  and  cus- 
toms of  the  kingdom,  there  is  in  it  no  infringement  of 
the  laws  of  Scripture  as  to  the  subjects'  obeclience.  A 
compact  exists ;  these  are  the  established  means  of  en- 
forcing it ;  and  to  them  the  sovereign  has  consented  in 
his  coronation  oath. 

The  .second  kind  is  resistance  by  force  of  arms;  and 
this  at  least  must  be  established  before  its  lawfulness, 
in  any  case,  however  extreme,  can  be  proved,  that  it  is 
so  necessary  to  remedy  some  great  public  evil  that 
milder  means  are  totally  inadequate, — a  |ioint  which 
can  very  seldom  be  made  out  so  clearly  as  to  satisfy 
conscientious  men.  One  of  three  cases  must  be  sup- 
posed : — either  that  the  nation  enjoys  good  institutions 
which  it  is  enlightened  enough  to  value  : — or  that  pub- 
lic liberty  and  other  civil  blessings  are  in  gradual 
progress ;  but  that  a  part  only  of  the  people  are  inte- 
rested in  maintaining  and  advancing  them,  while  a 
great  body  of  ignorant,  prejudiced,  and  corrupt  persons, 
are  on  the  side  of  the  supreme  jiower,  and  ready  to 
lend  themselves  as  instruments  of  its  misrule  and  des- 
potism :— or,  thirdly,  that  although  the  majority  of  the 
public  are  opposed  to  infringements  on  the  constitu- 
tion, yet  the  sovereign,  in  attempting  to  change  the  fun- 
damental principles  of  his  compact,  employs  liis  mer- 
cenary troops  against  his  subjects,  or  is  aided  and  abet- 
ted by  some  foreign  inlluence  or  power. 

In  the  first  case  we  have  supposed,  it  does  not  seem  pos- 
sible for  unjust  aggressions  to  be  successful.  The  people 
are  enlightened,  and  attached  to  their  institutions ;  and  a 
prompt  resistance  of  public  opinion  to  the  very  first  at- 
tempt of  the  supreme  power  must,  in  that  case,  bo  ex- 
cited, and  will  be  sufficient  to  arrest  the  evil.  Accord- 
ingly, we  find  no  instance  of  such  a  people  being  be- 
reft of  their  liberty  by  their  rulers.  The  danger  in  that 
stale  of  80(^icty  often  lies  on  the  other  side.  For  as 
there  is  a  natural  Inclination  in  men  in  power  to  extend 
their  authority,  so  in  subjects  there  is  a  strong  disposi- 
tion to  resist  or  evade  it ;  and  when  the  strength  of 
public  opinion  is  known  in  any  country,  there  are  never 
wanting  persons,  wlio,  from  vanity,  faction,  or  interest, 
are  ready  to  excite  the  passions,  and  to  corrupt  the 
feelings  of  the  populace,  and  to  render  them  suspicious 
and  unruly  ;  so  that  the  difficulty  which  a  true  patriot- 
ism will  often  have  to  contend  with,  is,  not  to  repress, 
but  to  support  a  just  authority.  Licentiousness  in 
the  people  has  often,  by  a  reaction,  destroyed  liberty, 
overthrowing  thu  powera  by  which  alone  it  is  siij)- 
l)orted. 

Th(!  second  case  supposes  just  opinions  and  leelings 
on  the  necessity  of  itnprovmg  the  civil  institutions  of  a 


country  to  be  in  some  progress  ;  that  the  evils  of  bad 
government  are  not  only  beginning  to  be  felt,  but  to  be 
extensively  rellected  upon  ;  and  that  the  circumstancea 
of  a  cuuntry  arc  such  that  these  considerations  must 
force  themselves  upon  the  public  mind,  and  advance 
the  inlluence  of  jiublic  opinion  in  favour  of  beneficial 
changes.  When  this  is  the  case,  the  existing  evils 
must  be  gradually  counteracted,  and  ultimately  sub- 
dued by  the  natural  operation  of  all  these  circumstances. 
Hut  if  little  impression  has  been  made  upon  the  public 
mind,  resistance  would  be  hopeless  and,  even  if  not 
condemned  by  a  higher  principle,  impolitic.  The  ele- 
ments of  society  are  not  capable  of  being  formed  into  a 
better  system,  or,  if  formed  into  it,  cannot  sustain  it, 
since  no  form  of  government,  however  good  in  theory, 
is  reducible  to  beneficial  practice,  without  a  considerable 
degree  of  public  intelligence  and  public  virtue.  Even 
wlicre  society  is  partially  pre|iared  for  beneficial 
changes,  they  may  be  hurried  on  too  rapidly,  that  is, 
before  sufiicienl  previous  impression  has  been  made 
upon  the  public  mind  and  character,  and  then  nothing 
but  mischief  could  result  from  a  contest  of  force  with 
a  bad  government.  The  eflect  would  be  that  the  lead- 
ers of  each  party  would  apjieal  to  an  ignorant  and  bad 
popul.ice,  and  the  issue  on  either  sidevi-ould  prove  inju- 
rious to  the  advancement  of  civil  iiiiprovem(!nt.  If  the 
despotic  party  should  triumph,  then,  of  course,  all  pa- 
triotism would  be  confounded  with  rebellion,  and  the 
efforts  of  moderate  men  to  benefit  their  country  be  ren- 
dered lor  a  long  time  hopeless.  If  the  parly  seeking 
just  reforms  should  triumph,  they  could  only  do  so  by 
the  aid  of  those  whose  bad  passions  they  had  inflamed, 
as  was  the  case  in  the  French  Revolution  ;  and  then 
the  result  would  be  a  violence  which,  it  is  true, 
overthrows  one  form  of  tyranny,  but  sets  up  another 
under  which  the  best  men  perish.  It  cannot  be  doubted 
but  that  the  sound  jiublic  opinion  in  France,  independ- 
ent of  all  the  theories  in  favour  of  republicanism 
which  had  been  circulated  among  a  jieople  previously 
unprepared  for  political  discussions,  was  sufficient  to 
have  effected,  gradually,  the  most  beneficial  changes 
in  its  government ;  and  that  the  violence  which  was 
excited  by  blind  passions  threw  back  the  real  liberties 
of  that  country  for  many  years.  The  same  effect  fol- 
lowed the  parliamentary  war,  excited  in  onrowncoim- 
try  in  the  reign  of  Charles  the  First.  The  resistance 
of  arms  was  in  neither  case  to  be  justified,  and  it  led 
to  the  worst  crimes.  The  extreme  case  of  necessity 
was  not  made  out  in  either  instance ;  and  the  duty  of 
subjects  to  their  sovereigns  was  grossly  violated. 

The  third  case  sup|iosed  appears  to  be  the  only  one 
in  which  the  renunciation  of  allegiance  is  clearly  justi- 
fiable ;  because  when  the  contract  of  a  king  with  his 
people  is  not  only  violated  obviously,  repeatedly,  and 
in  opposition  to  jietition  and  remonstrance,  but  a  mer- 
cenary soldiery  is  employed  against  those  whom  lie  is 
bound  to  protect,  and  the  fear  of  foreign  force  and  com- 
pulsion is  also  suspended  over  them  to  comj)el  the  sur- 
render of  those  rights  which  are  accorded  to  them  both 
by  th(^  laws  of  God,  and  the  fundamental  laws  of  the 
kingdom,  the  resistance  of  iiublic  feeling  and  senti- 
ment, and  that  of  the  constitutional  authorities,  is  no 
longer  av.ailahle;  and  such  a  sovereign  docs,  in  fact, 
lose  his  rights  by  a  hostile  denial  of  tiis  duties,  in  op- 
position to  his  contract  w-ilh  his  people.  Such  a  case 
aro.se  in  this  country  at  the  Uevolulion  of  IfiSH ;  it  was 
one  BO  clear  and  indubitable,  as  to  carry  with  it  the 
calm  and  deliberate  sense  of  the  vast  majority  of  all 
ranks  of  society  ;  and  the  whole  was  stam])ed  with  the 
character  of  a  deliberate  national  act,  not  that  of  a  faction. 
This  resistance  was  doubtless  justifiable.  It  involved 
no  opposition  to  government  as  such,  hut  was  made  for 
the  purjiose  of  serving  the  ends  of  good  government, 
and  the  preservation  of  the  very  principles  of  the  con- 
stitution. Nor  did  it  imply  any  resistance  to  the  exist- 
ing power  in  any  respect  in  which  it  was  invested  with 
any  right,  either  by  the  laws  of  God  or  those  of  the 
realm.  It  will,  however,  apjiear  that  here  was  a  con- 
currence of  circuiiistanci's  winch  rendered  the  case  one 
which  can  very  ran  ly  occur.  It  was  not  the  act  of  a 
few  individuals  ;  nor  of  mere  theorists  in  forms  of  go- 
vernment ;  nor  was  it  the  result  of  unfounded  jealousy 
or  alarm  ;  nor  wa.s  it  the  work  of  eitlnr  lUi-  populace 
on  the  one  hand,  or  of  an  aristocratic  liiclion  on  the 
other;  l)Ut  of  the  peojilc  under  their  natural  guides  and 
leaders,— the  nobility  and  gentry  of  the  land  :  nor  were 
any  private  iuterests  involved,  the  sole  object  being  the 


Chap,  IV.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


415 


public  weal,  and  the  malntenanco  of  the  laws.  Wlien 
such  circiunstaiices  and  principles  meet,  similar  acts 
may  be  justified ;  but  in  no  instance  of  an  equivocal 
character. 

The  question  of  a  subject's  duty  in  case  of  the  exist- 
ence of  rival  supreme  powers,  is  generally  a  very  diUi- 
cult  one,  at  least  for  some  time.  When  the  question 
of  rislit  which  lies  between  them  divides  a  nation,  lie 
who  follows  his  conscientious  opinion  as  to  tins  point 
is  doubtless  morally  safe,  and  he  ought  to  follow  it 
at  the  expense  of  any  inconvenience.  Butwhcnaiiower 
is  settled  de  facto  in  the  possession  of  the  government, 
although  the  right  of  its  claim  should  remain  question- 
able in  the  minds  of  any,  there  appears  a  limit  beyond 
which  no  man  can  be  fairly  required  to  withhold  his 
full  allegiance.  Where  that  limit  lies,  it  is  diflicult  to 
say,  and  individual  conscience  must  have  consider- 
able latitude  ;  but  perhaps tlie  general  rule  may  be,  that 
wlien  continued  resistance  would  be  manifestly  con- 
trary to  the  general  welfare  of  the  whole,  it  is  sale  to 
conclude  that  He  who  changes  the  "  powers  that  be" 
at  his  sovereign  pleasure,  has  in  his  providence  per- 
mitted or  established  a  new  order  of  things  to  which 
men  are  bound  to  conform. 

Whether  men  are  at  liberty  to  resist  their  lawful 
princes  when  persecuted  by  them  for  conscience'  sake, 
is  a  question  which  brings  in  additional  considerations ; 
because  of  that  patience  and  meelvncss  which  Christ 
has  enjoined  upon  his  followers  when  they  suffer  for 
his  religion.  When  persecution  falls  upon  a  portion 
only  of  the  subjects  of  a  country,  it  appears  their  clear 
duty  to  submit,  rather  than  to  engage  in  plots  and  conspi- 
racies against  the  persecuting  power;  practices  which 
never  can  consist  with  Christian  moderation  and  truth. 
But  when  it  should  fall  upon  a  people  constituting  a 
distinct    slate,  though  united   politically  with  some 


other,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Waldenses,  then  the  perse- 
cution, if  carried  to  the  violation  of  liberty,  life,  and 
properly,  would  involve  Ihe  violation  of  political  righta 
also,  and  so  nullify  the  coinpail  which  has  guaranteed 
protection  to  all  innocent  suljjects.  A  natimial  resist- 
ance on  these  grounds  would,  lor  the  foregoing  reasons, 
stand  on  a  very  diflVrent  basis. 

No  questions  of  tins  kind  can  come  before  a  Christian 
man,  however,  without  placing  hini  under  the  neces- 
sity of  considering  the  obligation  of  many  duties  of  a 
much  clearer  character  than,  in  almost  any  case,  the 
duty  of  resistance  to  the  government  under  which  he 
lives,  can  be.  He  is  bound  to  avoid  all  intemperance 
and  uncharitableness,  and  he  is  not,  therefore,  at  li- 
berty to  become  a  factious  man  ;  he  is  forbidden  to  in- 
dulge malignity,  and  is  restrained  tlicrefore  from  re- 
venge ;  he  is  taught  to  be  distrustful  of  his  own  judg- 
..  ont,  and  must  only  admit  that  of  the  wise  and  good 
to  be  influential  with  him ;  he  must  therefore  avoid  all 
association  with  low  and  violent  men,  the  rabble  of  a 
state,  and  their  designing  leaders ;  he  is  bound  to  sub- 
mission to  rulers  in  all  cases  where  a  superwr  duty 
cannot  be  fairly  established ;  and  he  is  warned  of  the 
danger  of  resistance  "  to  the  power,"  as  bringing  after 
it  Divine  "  condemnation,"  wherever  the  case  is  not 
clear,  and  not  fully  within  the  principles  of  the  word 
of  God.  So  circumstanced,  the  allegiance  of  a  Chris- 
tian people  is  secured  to  all  governors,  and  to  all  govern- 
ments, except  in  very  extreme  cases,  which  can  very 
seldom  arise  In  the  judgment  of  any  who  respect  ihe 
authority  of  the  word  of  God  ;  and  thus  this  branch  of 
Christian  morality  is  established  upon  principles  which 
at  once  uphold  the  majesty  of  [government,]  and  throw 
their  sliield  over  the  liberties  of  the  people;  principles 
which  in  the  wisdom  of  God  beautifully  entwine  [fi- 
delity,] freedom,  and  peace. 


(416) 

PART  FOURTH. 

THE  INSTITUTIONS  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 


CHAPTER  I. 

TiiK  Christian  Church. 

TiiK  church  of  Christ,  in  its  largest  sense,  consists 
of  all  who  have  been  baptized  in  the  jiame  of  Christ, 
and  who  thereby  make  a  visible  profession  of  ftitli  in 
his  Divine  mission,  and  in  all  the  doctrines  taught  by 
lilm  and  his  inspired  apostles.  In  a  stricter  sense,  it 
consists  of  those  who  are  vitally  united  to  Christ,  as 
the  members  of  the  body  to  the  head,  and  who,  being 
thus  imbued  with  spiritual  life,  walk  no  longer  "after 
the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit."  Taken  in  either  view, 
it  is  a  visible  society  bound  to  observe  the  laws  of 
(Christ,  its  sole  Head  and  Lord.  Visible  fellowship  with 
this  church  is  the  duty  of  all  who  profess  faith  in 
Christ;  for  in  tliis,  in  part,  consists  that  "  confession 
of  Christ  before  men,"  on  which  so  much  stress  is  laid 
in  the  discourses  of  our  Lord.  It  is  obligatory  on  all 
who  are  convinced  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  to  be 
baptized ;  and  upon  all  thus  baptized  frequently  to  par- 
take of  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  order  to  testify  their  con- 
tinued faith  in  that  great  and  distinguishing  doctrine 
of  the  religion  of  Christ,  the  redemption  of  the  world 
by  the  sacrificial  efTu.sion  of  his  blood ;  both  of  which 
suppose  union  with  his  church.  The  ends  of  this  fel- 
lowship or  association  are,  to  proclaim  our  faith  in  the 
doctrine  of  Christ  as  divine  in  its  origin,  and  necessary 
to  salvation  ;  to  offer  pubUc  prayers  and  thanksgivings 
to  God  through  Christ,  as  the  sole  Mediator ;  to  hear 
God's  word  explained  and  enforced  ;  and  to  place  our- 
selves under  that  discipline,  which  consists  in  the  en- 
forcement of  the  laws  of  Christ  (whi<:h  are  the  rules 
of  the  society  called  the  church)  upon  the  members, 
not  merely  by  general  exhortation,  but  by  kind  ovcr- 
Kight,  and  personal  injunction  and  admonition  of  its 
imnisters.  All  these  How  from  the  original  obligation 
to  avow  our  faith  in  Christ,  and  our  love  to  liim. 

The  church  of  Christ  being,  then,  a  visible  and  per- 
manent society,  bound  to  observe  certain  rites,  and  to 
obey  certain  rules,  the  existence  of  govermnent  in  it  is 
necessarily  supposed.  All  religious  rites  suppose  or- 
der, all  order  direction  and  co.strol,  and  these  a 

DIRECTIVE     AND    C0NTR07,LIN(I     POWER.        Again,    all 

laws  are  nugatory  without  enforcement,  in  the  present 
mixed  and  imperfect  state  of  society ;  and  all  enforce- 
ment supposes  an  executive.  If  baptism  be  the  door 
of  admission  into  the  church,  some  must  judge  of  the 
fitness  of  candidates,  and  administrators  of  the  rite 
must  be  appointed  ;  if  the  Lord's  Supi)er  must  be  i)ar- 
taken  of,  the  limes  and  the  mode  are  to  be  determined, 
the  (lualifications  of  conimuMicants  judged  of,  and  the 
administration  pl:ir<'(l  iii  sijjtablo  Hands;  if  worship 
must  be  social  and  public, hire  again  there  must  be  an 
appointment  of  times,  an  order,  and  an  administration  ; 
if  the  word  of  Cod  is  to  be  read  and  preachiil,  then 
readers  and  preachers  are  necessary  ;  if  the  continu- 
ance of  any  one  in  the  fdlowshiii  of  ( 'liristians  be  con- 
ditional upon  good  conduct,  so  thai  the  purity  and  credit 
of  the  church  may  be  guarded,  tb(  n  the  power  of  en- 
Ibrcing  discipline  must  be  hjdgcd  sdimwlicre.  Thus 
goverrirniMit  Hows  necessarily  from  the  very  nature 
of  tli('  iMsiiiulion  of  the  Christian  (■hur<li ;  and  since 
this  inslituliun  has  the  authority  of  (liri.si  and  his 
apostles,  itis  not  to  be  supposed  that  itsgovernment  was 
left  unprovided  lor;  and  if  they  have,  in  fact,  made 
such  a  provision,  it  is  no  more  a  matter  of  mere  option 
with  Christians  whether  tiiey  will  be  subject  to  go- 
vernment in  the  church,  than  it  is  optional  with  thc;m 
to  confess  Christ  by  becoming  its  members. 

The  Nature  of  this  government,  and  the  Versniis  to 
■whom  it  is  committed,  are  both  points  which  wc  must 
briefly  examine  by  the  light  of  the  Holy  Scriptuicii. 


As  to  the  first,  it  is  wholly  spiritual: — "My  king- 
dom," says  our  Lord,  "  is  not  of  this  world."    The 
church  is  a  society  founded  upon  (aith,  and  united  by 
mutual  love,  for  the  personal  edification  of  its  members 
in  holiness,  and  for  the  religious  benefit  of  the  world. 
The  nature  of  its  government  is  thus  deteniiined ; — it 
is  concerned  only  with  spiritual  objects.     It  cannot 
employ  force  to  compel  men  into  its  pale ;  for  the  only 
door  of  the  church  is  faith,  to  which  there  can  be  no 
compulsion, — "  he  that  helievttli  and  is  baptized,"  be- 
comes a  member.    It  cannot  inflict  pains  and  penalties 
upon  the  disobedient  and  refractory,  like  civil  govern- 
ments ;  for  the  only  punitive  discipline  authorized  in 
the  IVew  Testament,  is  comprised  in  "  admonition,"' 
"  reproof,"  "  sharp  rebukes,"  and  finally  "  excision  from 
the  society."    The  last  will  be  better  understood  if  we 
consider  the  special  relations  in  which  true  ('liristians 
stand  to  each  other,  and  the  duties  resulting  from  them. 
They  are  members  of  one  body,  and  are  Iherclbre 
bound  to  tenderness  and  sympathy ;  they  are  the  con- 
joint instructers  of  others,  and  are  therefore  to  strive 
to  be  of  "  one  judgment ;"  they  are  brethren,  and  they 
are  to  love  one  another  (at  such,  that  is,  with  an  afl'ec- 
tion  more  special  than  that  general  good  will  which 
they  are  commanded  to  bear  to  all  mankind  ;  they  are, 
therefore,  to   seek  the  intimacy  of   friendly   society 
among  themselves,  and,  except  in  the  ordinary  and 
courteous  intercourse  of  lile,  they  are  bound  to  keep 
themselves  separate  from  the  world  ;  they  are  enjoined 
to  do  good  unto  all  men,  but  "specially  to  them  that 
are  of  the  household  of  faith ;"  and  they  are  forbidden 
"  to  eat"  at  the  Lord's  table  with  immoral  persons,  that 
is,  with  those  wlio,  although  they  continue  their  Chris- 
tian proliession,  liishonour  it  by  their  practice.    With 
these  relations  of  Christians  to  each  other  and  to  the 
world,  and  their  correspondent  duties,  before  our  minds, 
wc  may  easily  interpret  the  nature  of  that  extreme 
discipline  which  is  vested  in  the  church.     "  Persons 
who  will  not  hear  the  church"  are  to  be  held  "  as  hea- 
then men  and  publicans,"  as  those  who  are  not  mem- 
bers of  it ;  that  is,  they  are  to  be  separated  from  it,  and 
regarded  as  of  "  the  world,"  quite  out  of  the  range  of 
the  above-mentioned  relations  of  Christians  to  each 
other,  and  their  correspondent  duties ;   but  still,  like 
"  heathen  men  and  publicans,"  they  are  to  be  the  ob- 
jects of  pity  and  general  benevolence.    Nor  is  this  ex- 
treme discipline  to  be  hastily  inflicted  before  "a first 
and  second  admonition,"  nor  before  those  who  are 
"  spiritual"  have  attempted  "  to  restore  a  brother  over- 
taken by  a  fault ;"  and  when  the  "  wicked  person"'  is 
"  put  away,"  still  the  door  is  to  be  kejit  open  for  his 
rcccjition  again  upon  reiienluiice.    The  true  excommu- 
nication of  the  t:hi'isiiau  church  is,  therefore,  a  mer- 
ciful  and  considerate    sciiaralion  of  an    incorrigible 
ofl'ender  from  the  body  of  Christians,  without  any  in. 
diction  of  civil  pains  or  pcnallies.    "Now  we  com. 
manil  you,  brethren,  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  .lesus 
<  hrist,  that  ve  wiilniraw  yourselves  from  every  brother 
that  walketii  ai.>or(lcriy,  and  not  after  the  tradition 
which  ye    have    nceived    from   us,"  2  Thcss.  iu.  t). 
"  Purge  out,  therefore,  the  old  leaven,  that  ye  may  be  a 
new  lump,"  1  Cor.  v.  5.    "  Hut  now  I  have  writii-n  to 
you  not  to  keep  company,  if  any  man  that  is  called  a 
brother  be  a  fornicator,  or  covetous,  or  an  idolater,  or  a 
railer,  or  a  drunkard,  or  an  extortioner,  with  such  a 
one,  no,  not  to  cal."  1  Tor.  v.  II.     This,  then,   is  the 
moral  discipline  which  is  imperative  upon  the  church 
of  Christ,  and  its  government  is  criminally  defective 
whenever  it  is  not  enforced.    On  the  other  hand,  the 
disabilities  and   penallics  which  established  churches 
in  different  places  have  connccleil  wilh  these  sentences 
of  cxconununicution  have  uo  countenance  at  all  in 


Chap.  I.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


417 


Scripture,  and  arc  wliolly  inconsistent  with  the  spirit- 
ual character  and  ends  ol'  the  (Jliristian  association. 

As  to  the  second  ixiiiit,— the  persons  to  whom  the 
govenimcnt  of  the  (  liiircU  is  committed,  it  is  necessary 
to  consider  the  comjiusition,  so  to  speak,  of  the  primi- 
tive Clmrch,  as  stated  in  tlie  New  Testament. 

A  full  enunciation  of  tliese  olRces  we  find  in  Eph.  iv. 
11 :  "And  he  gave  some.  Apostles ;  and  some,  Prophets  ; 
and  some,  EvangeUsts;  and  some.  Pastors  and  Teach- 
ers ;  for  the  perlecling  of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the 
ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ."  Of 
these,  the  olfice  of  Ajiostle  is  allowed  by  all  to  have  been 
conlined  to  those  innncdiately  commissioned  by  Christ, 
to  witness  the  fact  of  his  miracles  and  of  his  resurrec- 
tion from  the  dead,  and  to  reveal  the  complete  system 
of  Christian  doctrine  and  duly ;  confirming  their  ex- 
traordinary mission  by  miracles  wrought  by  them- 
selves. If  by  "  Prophets"  we  are  to  understand  per- 
sons who  foretold  future  events,  then  the  office  was 
from  its  very  nature  extraordinary,  and  the  gill  of  pro- 
phecy has  passed  away  with  the  other  miraculous  en- 
dowments of  the  first  age  of  Christianity.  If,  with 
others,  we  understand  that  these  Prophets  were  extra- 
ordinary teachers  raised  up  until  tlie  churches  were 
settled  under  permanent  qualified instructers;  still  the 
office  was  temporary.  The  "  Evangelists"  are  generally 
understood  to  be  assistants  of  the  Apostles,  who  acted 
under  their  especial  authority  and  direction.  Of  this 
number  were  Timothy  and  Titus;  and  as  the  Apostle 
Paul  directed  them  to  ordain  liishops  or  Presbyters  in 
the  several  Churches,  but  gave  tliem  no  authority  to 
ordain  successors  to  themselves  in  their  particular 
ofiice  as  Evangelists,  it  is  clear  that  the  Evangelists 
must  also  be  reckoned  among  the  number  of  extraor- 
dinary and  temporary  Ministers  suited  to  the  first  age 
of  Christianity.  Whether  by  "  Pastors  and  Teachers" 
two  offices  be  meant,  or  one,  has  been  disputed.  The 
change  in  the  mode  of  expression  seems  to  favour  the 
latter  view,  and  so  the  text  is  interin-eted  by  St.  Jerome 
and  St.  Augustine ;  but  the  point  is  of  little  conse- 
quence. A  Pastor  was  a  Teacher,  although  every 
Teacher  might  not  be  a  Pastor ;  but  in  many  cases  be 
coniined  to  the  oiftce  of  subordinate  instruction,  whe- 
ther as  an  expounder  of  doctrine,  a  catechist,  or  even  a 
more  private  instructer  of  those  who  as  yet  were  un- 
acquainted  with  the  first  principles  of  the  Gospel  of 
Christ.  The  term  Pastor  implies  the  duties  both  of  in- 
struction and  of  government,  of  feedhig  and  of  ruling 
the  dock  of  Christ ;  and  as  the  Presbyters  or  Uishops 
were  ordained  in  the  several  Churches,  both  by  the 
Apostles  and  Evangelists,  and  rules  are  left  by  St.  Paul 
as  to  their  appointment,  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that 
these  are  the  "  Pastors"  spoken  of  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians,  and  that  they  were  designed  to  be  the  per- 
manent Ministers  of  the  Church  ;  and  that  with  them 
both  the  government  of  the  Church,  and  the  perform- 
ance of  its  leading  religious  services,  were  deposited. 
Deacons  had  the  charge  of  the  gifts  and  ofl'erings  for 
charitable  purposes,  although,  as  appears  from  Justin 
Martyr,  not  in  every  instance ;  for  he  speaks  of  tlie 
weekly  oblations  as  being  deposited  with  the  cliief  Mi- 
nister, and  distributed  by  him. 

Whether  Bishops  and  Presbyters  be  designations  of 
the  same  office,  or  those  appellatives  express  two  dis- 
tinct sacred  orders,  is  a  subject  which  has  been  con- 
troverted by  Episcopalians  and  Presbyterians  with 
much  warmth ;  and  -whoever  would  fully  enter  into 
their  arguments  from  Scripture  and  antiquity,  must  be 
referred  to  this  controversy,  which  is  too  large  to  be 
here  more  than  glanced  at.  The  argument  drawn  by 
the  Presbyterians  froin  the  promiscuous  use  of  these 
terms  in  the  New  Testament,  to  prove  that  the  same 
order  of  Ministers  is  expressed  by  them,  appears  in- 
controvertible. When  St.  Paul,  for  Instance,  sends  for 
the  "Elders,"  or  Presbyters,  of  the  Church  of  Ephesus 
to  meet  him  at  Miletus,  he  thus  charges  them  :  "  Take 
heed  to  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock  over  the  which 
the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  Overseers,"  or  Bishops. 
That  here  the  Elders  or  Presbyters  are  called  "  Bishops" 
cannot  be  denied ;  and  the  very  office  assigned  to  them, 
to  "/((rf  the  Church  of  tiod,"  and  the  injunction  to 
"  take  heed  to  the  fioc/,-,"  sliow  that  the  office  of  Elder 
or  Presbyter  is  the  same  as  that  of  ^^Pastor,''  hi  the 
passage  just  quoted  from  the  Epi.stle  to  the  Ephesians. 
St.  Paul  directs  Titus  to  '•  ordam  Elders  (Presbyters)  in 
every  city,"  and  then  adds,  as  a  direciory  of  ordination, 
"a  liiskfip  must  be  blameless."  iVc. ;  plainly  murJuiig 
Dd 


the  same  office  by  these  two  convertible  appellations. 
"  Bishops  and  Deacons"  are  the  only  classes  of  Minis- 
ters addressed  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  ;  and  if 
the  Presbyters  were  not  understood  to  be  included 
under  the  term  "  Bishops,"  the  omission  of  any  notice 
of  this  order  of  Ministers  is  not  to  be  accounted  for. 
As  the  Apostles,  when  not  engaged  in  their  own  extra- 
ordinary vocation,  appear  to  have  filled  the  office  of 
stated  Ministers  ui  those  Churches,  in  which  they  occa- 
sionally resided  for  considerable  periods  of  tune,  they 
sometimes  called  themselves  Presbyters.  "  The  Elder," 
Presbyter,  "unto  the  elect  lady,"  2  John  i.  1.  "The 
Elders  (Presbyters)  which  are  among  you,  1  exhort,  who 
am  also  an  Elder,"  (Presbyter,)  and  from  what  Ibllows, 
the  highest  offices  of  teaching  and  government  in  the 
Church  are  represented  as  vested  in  the  Presbyters. 
"Feed  the  flock  of  God,  which  is  among  you,  taking 
the  oversight  thereof"  There  seems,  therefore,  to  be 
the  most  conclusive  evidence  from  the  New  Testament, 
that  alter  the  extraordinary  ministry  vested  in  Apostles, 
Prophets,  and  Evangelists,  as  mentioned  by  St.  Paul, 
had  ceased,  the  feeding  and  oversight,  that  is,  the  teach- 
ing and  government,  of  the  Churches  devolved  upon  an 
order  of  men  indiscruninately  called  "Pastors,"  "Pres- 
byters," and  "  Bishops,"  the  two  latter  names  growing 
into  most  freiiuent  use  ;  and  with  this  the  testimony  of 
the  Apostolical  Fathers,  so  far  as  their  writings  are 
acknowledged  to  be  free  from  later  interpolations, 
agrees. 

It  is  not  indeed  to  be  doubted,  that  at  a  very  early 
period,  in  some  instances  probably  from  the  time  of  the 
Apostles  themselves,  a  distinction  arose  between  Bishops 
and  Presbjters  ;  and  the  whole  strength  of  the  cause 
of  the  Episcopalians  lies  in  this  fact.  Still  this  gives 
not  the  least  sanction  to  the  notion  of  Bislioiis  being  a 
superior  order  of  Ministers  to  Presbyters,  invested,  in 
virtue  of  that  order,  and  by  Divine  right,  with  powers 
of  government  both  over  Presbyters  and  people,  and 
possessing  exclusively  the  authority  of  ordaining  to  the 
sacred  offices  of  the  Church.  As  little,  too,  will  that 
ancient  distinction  be  found  to  jirove  any  thing  in  fa- 
vour of  diocesan  Episcopacy,  which  is  of  still  later  in- 
troduction. 

Could  it  be  made  clear  that  the  power  of  ordaining 
to  the  Ministry  was  given  to  Bishops  to  the  exclusion 
of  Presbyters,  that  would  indeed  go  far  to  prove  the 
former  a  distinct  and  superior  order  of  Ministers  in 
their  original  appointment.  But  there  is  no  passage  in 
the  New  Testament  which  gives  this  power  at  all  to 
Bishops,  as  thus  distinguished  from  Presbyters ;  while 
all  the  examjiles  of  ordination  which  it  exhibits  are 
confined  to  Apostles,  to  Evangelists,  or  to  Presbyters,  in 
conjunction  with  them.  St.  Paul,  in  2  Tim.  i.  6,  says, 
"Wherefore  I  put  thee  in  remembrance,  that  thou  stir 
up  the  gift  of  (Jod  which  is  in  thee,  by  the  putting  on 
of  my  hands ;"  but  in  1  Timothy  iv.  14,  he  says, 
"  Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given 
thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of 
the  Presbytery  i"  which  two  passages,  referring,  aa 
they  plainly  do,  to  the  same  event,  the  setting  aimrt  of 
Timothy  for  the  ministry,  show  that  the  Presbjtery 
were  associated  with  St.  Paul  in  the  office  of  ordina- 
tion, and  farther  prove  that  the  exclusive  assumption 
of  this  power,  as  by  Divine  right,  by  Bishops,  is  an  ag- 
gression upon  the  rights  of  Presijyters,  lor  which  not 
only  can  no  scriptural  authority  be  pleaded,  but  wluch 
is  in  direct  opposition  to  it. 

The  early  distinction  made  between  Bishops  and 
Presbyters  may  be  easdy  accounted  for,  without  allow- 
ing this  assumed  distinction  of  ori'KR.  In  someof  the 
Churches  mentioned  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  the  Apos- 
tles ordained  several  Elders  or  Presbyters  partly  to  supjily 
the  present  need,  and  to  provide  lor  the  future  increase 
of  believers,  as  it  is  observed  by  Clemens  in  his  Epistle. 
Another  reason  would  also  urge  this:— Before  the 
building  of  spacious  edifices  for  the  assemblies  of  the 
Christians  living  in  one  city,  and  in  its  neighbourhood, 
in  common,  their  meetings  for  public  worship  must  ne- 
cessarily have  been  held  in  difierent  houses  or  room.s 
olitained  for  the  purpose;  and  to  each  assembly  an 
Elder  would  bi>  re(|uisite  lor  the  performance  of  wor- 
ship. That  these  Elders  or  Presbyters  had  the  power 
of  government  in  the  Chur.hcs  cannot  be  denied,  be- 
cau.se  It  is  expressly  ar^sigunl  In  IIi,,h  m  Scripture.  It 
was  inherent  in  their  pastoral  olfice  ;  and  "  the  Elders 
that  rvh  well"  were  to  be  "counted  worthy  of  double 
honour."      A    number    of    Elders,    therefore,   being 


418 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


(Paht IV, 


ordained  by  the  Apostles  to  one  Church,  gave  rise  to  the 
catux prislii/lcrurujii,  in  which  assembly  the  adliirs  of 
llie  (Jliiircli  were  attended  to,  and  measures  taken  lor 
the  sjiread  of  tUu  Gos])f),  by  the  aid  of  the  eonjmon 
couneil  and  efforts  of  the  whole.  This  mectinj;  of 
I'resbyters  woiUd  naturally  lead  to  the  aiiiiointment, 
whether  by  suniorily  or  by  election,  of  one  to  preside 
over  the  i»rocei;dinKS  of  this  assembly  for  the  sake  of 
order ;  and  to  him  was  given  the  title  of  Aiif^d  of  tlie 
Church,  and  liiahop  by  way  of  eminence.  'I'lie  latter 
title  came  in  time  to  be  Ciclusively  used  of  the  pre- 
Bidini;  Elder,  bceauise  of  that  special  (jrrrsigfit  im- 
jjjsed  upon  him  by  his  office,  and  which,  as  Churches 
were  raised  up  iu  the  neighbourhood  of  the  larger 
cities,  would  also  naturally  be  extended  over  them. 
Independently  of  lus  fellow  Tresbyters,  however,  he 
did  nothing. 

The  whole  of  this  arrangement  shows,  that  in  those 
particulars  in  whicli  they  were  lelX  free  by  the  Scrip- 
tures, the  primitive  Christians  adopted  that  arrange- 
ment for  tiie  government  of  the  Church  which  jiromised 
to  render  it  most  eru;:ient  for  tlic  maintenance  of  truth 
and  piety ;  but  they  did  not  at  tills  early  period  set  uj) 
that  unscriptural  distinction  of  order  between  iiisiiops 
and  I'resbyters,  wtiich  obtained  afterward.  Hence  Je- 
rome, even  in  the  fourtii  century,  contends  against  tliis 
doctrine,  and  says,  that  before  there  were  parties  in  re- 
ligion, Churches  were  governed  commnni  consilio 
jmxbi/tirorum ;  but  that  ailcrward  it  became  a  univer- 
sal practice,  Ibunded  upon  experience  of  its  expediaicy, 
tliat  one  of  the  Presbyters  should  be  chosen  by  the  rest 
to  be  the  head,  and  that  the  care  of-  the  Church  sliould 
be  committei!  to  lum.  lie  therotbre  e.x^horts  Presbyters 
to  rememljer  tliat  they  are  subject  by  the  custom  of  the 
Chiuch  to  hiin  that  presides  over  them  ;  and  reminds 
liishops  that  they  arc  greater  than  Pref^byters,  rather 
by  custiun  tlian  by  tiie  iqipointmeiit  of  the  Lord  ;  and 
that  tlie  Church  ought  still  to  be  governed  in  common. 
Tiie  testimony  of  antiquity  also  shows,  that,  after  Epis- 
copacy had  very  greatly  advanced  its  claims,  tlie  Pres- 
byters continued  to  be  associated  with  the  Bishop  in 
the  management  of  the  alTairs  of  the  Church. 

Much  light  is  thrown  upon  the  constitution  of  the 
primilive  Chnrcbc.s,  by  recollecting  that  tUey  were 
formed  very  much  U|iOii  the  model  of  the  Jewish  syna- 
gogues. We  have  already  seim  that  the  mode  of  pub- 
lic worship  in  the  primitive  Church  was  taken  (rom 
the  synagogue  service,  and  so  also  was  its  arrangement 
of  olllces.  Each  synagogue  had  its  Rulers,  Elders,  or 
Presbyters,  of  whom  one  was  the  Angel  of  the  Church, 
or  Miiiisler  of  the  Synagogue,  who  superintended  the 
public  service  ;  lUrected  those  that  read  the  Scriptures, 
;md  ollered  up  the  prayers,  and  blessed  the  people. 
The  president  of  the  council  of  Elders  or  Rulers  was 
called,  by  way  of  eminence,  the  "  Ruler  ol'  the  Syna- 
gogue ;"  and  in  some  places,  as  Acts  xiii.  15,  we  read 
of  these  "  Rulers"  in  the  jdural  number ;  a  sufficient 
proof  that  one  was  not  elevated  in  order  above  the  rest. 
Tbe  Angel  of  the  ( 'liurcb,  and  the  Minister  of  the  Syna- 
gogue, miglii  he  the  same  as  he  who  was  invested  with 
the  oflice  of  Presnlciit ;  or  these  offices  might  be  held 
by  ollicrs  of  the  Elders.  Lightfoot,  indeed,  states,  that 
the  Rulers  in  each  synagogue  were  three,  while  the 
l'resb}ti-rs  or  Elders  were  ten.  To  tliis  council  of 
grave  and  wise  men,  the  affairs  of  the  synagogue,  both 
as  to  worshij)  and  discipline,  were  committed.  In  the 
synagogue  they  sat  by  themselves  in  a  semicircle,  and 
the  peojile  before  them,  face  to  face.  'I'his  was  the  pre- 
cise form  in  which  the  Hisliop  and  Presbyters  used  to 
sit  in  the  primitive  Churches.  The  description  of  the 
worship  of  the  synagogue  by  a  Jewish  Ral)bi,and  that 
of  the  primitive  Church  by  early  Christian  writers, 
presents  an  obvious  correspondence.  "  The  Elders," 
says  Maimonides,  "sit  with  their  faces  towards  the 
people,  and  their  backs  to  the  place  where  the  law  is 
deposited;  and  all  the  people  Sit  rank  before  rank;  so 
tin;  faces  of  all  the  people  are  towards  the  sanctuary, 
imd  towards  flu-  Elders;  and  when  the  Aliiiislir  of  the 
sanctuary  standeth  up  to  prayer,  he  standilli  with  his 
face  towards  tlie  sanctuary,  as  do  the  rest  of  the  peo- 
ple." In  the  same  order  the  first  Christians  sat  with 
their  faces  towards  the  Bishops  and  Presbyters,  first 
to  liear  the  Scripluns  read  by  the  ]iro|iur  Reader; 
"then,"  says  Jusliii  Alarlyr,  "  the  Reader  silluiv,  down, 
the  Prcsiileiit  of  tbe  assembly  stainbi  uji  and  makes  a 
sermon  of  instruction  and  exhortation;  afler  this  is 
ouded,  we  all  stand  up  to  prayers;    prayers   being 


ended,  the  bread,  wine,  and  water  are  all  brought 
forth  ;  then  the  President  again  ])raying  and  praising  tw 
his  utmost  ability,  the  people  testify  their  consent  by 
saying,  Ameii."(rH)  "  Here  we  have  the  S<rrii)turi« 
read  by  one  ajipomted  for  that  purpose,  as  in  the  syna- 
gogue ;  after  v/hich  lollcrws  the  word  of  exhortation  by 
the  President  of  the  as.sembly,  who  answers  to  the 
Minister  of  the  synagogue ;  alter  lliis  public  prayers 
are  i)erlbrrned  by  the  same  jMjrson ;  then  the  solemit 
acclamation  of  Amen  by  the  people,  which  was  the 
undoubted  practice  of  the  B>'nagogue."('J)  Ordination 
of  I'resbyters  or  Elders  is  also  from  the  Jews.  Their 
Priesls  were  not  ordained,  but  succeeded  to  their  office 
by  birth ;  but  the  Rulers  and  Elders  of  the  syna- 
gogue received  ordination  by  imposition  of  hands  and 
prayer. 

Such  was  the  model  which  the  Apostles  followed  in 
Iiroviding  lor  the  future  regtdation  of  the  Churches 
they  had  raised  uji.  They  took  it,  not  from  Die  temple 
and  its  Priesthood ;  for  that  was  typical,  and  was  then 
passing  away.  But  they  found  in  the  institution  of 
Synagogues  a  plan  admirably  adapted  to  the  simplicity 
and  purity  of  Christianity,  one  to  which  some  of  tho 
first  converts  in  most  places  were  accustomed,  and 
wliich  was  capable  of  being  applied  to  the  new  dis- 
pensation without  danger  of  Judaizing.  It  secured 
the  assembling  of  the  people  on  the  Sabbath,  the  read- 
ing of  the  Scriptures,  the  preaching  of  sermons,  and 
the  offering  ol' public  prayer  and  thanksgiving.  It  pro- 
vided too  for  the  govermnent  of  the  Churcli  by  a  Coun- 
cil of  Presbyters,  ordained  solemnly  to  their  office  by 
imposition  of  hands  and  prayer ;  and  it  allowed  of  that 
presidency  of  one  Presbyter  chosen  by  the  others, 
which  was  useful  for  order  and  for  unity,  and  by  which 
age,  piety,  and  gifts  might  preser\-e  their  proper  in- 
fluence in  the  Church.  The  advance  from  this  state 
of  scriptural  Episcopacy  to  Episcopacy  under  another 
form  was  the  work  of  a  later  age. 

When  the  Gospel  made  its  way  into  towns  and  vil- 
lages, the  concerns  of  the  Christians  in  these  places 
naturally  fell  under  the  cognizance  and  direction  of  the 
Bishops  of  the  neighbouring  cities.  Thus  diocesses 
were  gradually  formed,  comprehending  districts  of 
country  of  different  extent.  These  diocesses  were 
orginally  called  napuiKiat,  parishes,  and  the  word 
^loocijcris,  diocess,  was  not  used  in  its  modern  sense  till 
at  least  the  Iburth  century ;  and  when  we  find  Ignatius 
describing  it  as  the  duty  of  a  Bishop,  "  to  speak  to  each 
member  of  the  Church  separately,  to  seek  out  all  by 
name,  even  the  slaves  of  both  sexes,  and  to  advise 
every  one  of  the  flock  in  the  aflair  of  marriage,"  dio- 
cesses, as  one  observes,  must  have  been  very  lijnited, 
or  the  labour  inconceivably  great. 

"  As  Christianity  increased  and  overspread  all  parts, 
and  especially  the  cities  of  the  empire,  it  was  found 
necessary  yet  farther  to  enlarge  the  Ejiiscopal  office ; 
and  as  there  was  commonly  a  Bisho|i  in  every  great 
city,  so  in  the  metropolis  (as  the  Romans  called  it), 
the  mother  city  of  every  province  (wlierein  they  had 
courts  of  civil  judicature),  there  was  an  Arihuishop 
or  a  Mktropolitan,  who  had  ecclesiastical  jurisdic- 
tion over  all  tho  Churches  within  that  province  He 
was  superior  to  all  the  liishops  wiihin  those  linuts ;  to 
him  it  belonged  to  ordain  or  to  ratify  the  elections  and 
ordinations  of  all  the  liislmps  wiilim  lus  province,  in- 
somuch tliat  without  his  conlirmalion  they  were  looked 
upon  as  null  and  void.  Once  at  le^st  every  year  he 
was  to  summon  the  Bishops  under  him  to  a  Synod,  to 
imiuire  into  and  direct  tlie  Ecclesiastical  aflairs  within 
that  i)rovince ;  to  inspect  the  lives  and  manners,  the 
opinions  and. principles  of  his  Bishops;  to  admonish, 
reprove,  and  suspend  llicm  that  were  disorderly  anil 
irregular ;  if  any  controversies  or  contentions  haji- 
pened  between  any  of  them,  he  was  to  have  the  hear- 
(HiT  and  determination  of  them;  and  indeed  no  matter 
of  minnent  was  done  witliin  the  whole  province, 
without  first  consulting  him  in  the  case.  When  this 
oflice  of  Mitropalitan  first  Ix^gan,  I  find  not  ;  only  this 
we  are  sure  of,  that  the  Council  of  -Wee,  settling  the 
just  rights  and  privileges  of  Metropolitan  Bishops, 
speaks  of  them  as  a  thing  of  anrtcnt  dale,  ushering  ia 
the  canon  with  an  npxaia  lOi)  kiiu'JriTio,  Let  ancient 
custo/ns  still  lithe  jdace.  The  orii;Mial  of  the  institu- 
tion seems  to  have  been  partly  to  comply  with  the 
people's  occasions,  who  oil  resorted  lo  tlie  metropolis 


(S)  Apol.  2.        (y)  Stilunuflekt's  IraiUum. 


Chap.  1.] 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


419 


for  despatch  of  their  affairs,  and  so  might  fitly  dis- 
cliarge  their  civil  and  ecclesiastical  both  at  once ;  and 
partly  because  of  the  great  confluence  of  peoi>le  to  that 
city :  that  the  Bishop  of  it  might  have  pre-eminence 
above  the  rest,  and  the  honour  of  the  Church  bear  some 
proportion  to  tlial  of  the  Utate. 

"  After  this  sjirung  up  another  branch  of  the  Epis- 
copal ollice,  as  much  superior  to  that  of  Metropolitans, 
as  theirs  was  to  ordinary  Bishops  ;  these  were  called 
PiiiMATks  and  Patkiarchs,  and  linil  jurisdiction  over 
niaay  provinces.  For  the  uinU-rstiunIiii!;  of  this,  it  is 
necessary  to  know,  that  when  Christianity  came  to  be 
fully  settled  in  the  world,  they  contrived  to  model  the 
external  government  of  the  Church,  as  near  as  might 
be,  to  the  civil  government  of  the  Roman  empire ;  the 
parallel  is  most  exactly  drawn  by  an  itif^euinus  person 
of  our  own  nation ;  the  sum  of  it  is  this  : — The  whole 
empire  of  Rome  was  divided  into  thirteen  iliocesses  (so 
they  called  those  divisions),  these  contained  about  one 
hundred  and  twenty  frovinccs,  and  every  province 
several  cities.  Now,  as  in  every  city  there  was  a  tem- 
poral Magistrate  for  the  executing  of  justice,  and  keep- 
ing the  peace,  both  for  that  city  and  the  towns  round 
about  it ;  so  was  there  also  a  liis/wp  for  spiritual  order 
and  government,  whose  jurisdiction  was  of  like  ex- 
tent and  latitude.  In  every  province  there  was  a  Pro- 
consul or  President,  whose  seat  was  usually  at  the  me- 
tropolis, or  chief  city  of  the  province ;  and  liither  all 
inferior  cities  came  for  judgment  in  malter.s  of  im- 
portance. And  in  proportion  to  this  there  was  in  the 
same  city  an  Archbishop  or  Metropolitan,  for  matters 
of  ecclesiastical  concernment.  Lastly,  in  every  dio- 
cess  the  Emperors  had  their  Vicarii  or  Lieutenants, 
who  dwelt  in  the  principal  city  of  the  diocess,  where 
all  imperial  edicts  were  published,  and  from  whence 
they  were  sent  abroad  into  the  several  provinces,  and 
where  was  the  chief  tribunal  wliere  all  causes,  not  de- 
terminable elsewhere,  were  decided.  And,  to  answer 
tills,  there  was  in  the  same  city  a  Primate,  to  whom 
the  last  determination  of  all  appeals  from  all  the  pro- 
vinces in  diirerences  of  the  Clergy,  and  the  sovereign 
care  of  all  the  diocess  for  sundry  points  of  spiritual 
government,  did  belong.  This,  in  short,  is  the  sum  of 
the  account  which  that  learned  man  gives  of  this  mat- 
ter. So  that  the  Patriarch,  as  superior  to  the  Metro- 
politans, was  to  have  under  his  jurisdiction  not  any 
one  single  province,  but  a  wliole  diocess  (in  the  old 
Roman  notion  of  that  word),  consisting  of  many  pro- 
vinces. To  him  belonged  the  ordination  of  all  the  Me- 
tropolitans that  were  under  him,  as  also  the  summon- 
ing them  to  Councils,  the  correcting  and  reforming  the 
misdemeanors  they  were  guilty  of;  and  from  his  judg- 
ment and  sentence,  in  things  properly  within  his  cog- 
nizance, there  lay  no  apjieal.  To  this  I  shall  only  ailil 
what  Salmasius  has  noted,  that  as  the  diocess  that  was 
governed  by  the  Vicarius  had  many  provinces  under  it, 
so  the  Priefectus  Prcetorio  had  several  diocesscs  under 
him :  and  ia  proportion  to  this,  probable  it  was,  that 
Patriarclis  were  first  brought  in,  who,  if  not  superior 
to  Primates  in  jurisdiction  and  power,  were  yet  in 
honour,  by  reason  of  the  dignity  of  those  cities  where 
their  Pees  were  fixed,  as  at  Rome,  Constantinople, 
Alexandf'a;  Antioch,  and  Jerjisalem."{l) 

Thus  diocesan  Bishops,  Metropolitans,  Primates, 
Patriarchs,  and  finally  the  Pope,  came  in,  which  offices 
are  considered  as  corruptions  or  improvements  ;  as  dic- 
tated by  the  necessities  of  the  Church,  or  as  instances 
of  worldly  ambition ;  as  of  Divine  right,  or  from  Sa- 
tan ;  according  to  tlie  different"  views  of  those  who 
have  written  on  such  subjects.  As  to  them  all  it  may, 
however,  be  said,  that;  so  far  as  tliey  are  pleaded  lor 
as  of  Divine  right,  they  have  no  support  from  the  New 
Testament;  and  if  they  are  plactsl  upon  the  only 
ground  on  which  tliey  can  be  reasonably  discussi'd, 
that  of  necessity  and  good  polity,  they  must  be  tried 
by  circumstances,  and  their,  claims  of  authority  be  so 
defined  that  it  may  be  known  how  far  they  are  com- 
patible with  those  principles  with  which  the  New 
Testament  abounds,  althougli  it  contains  no  formal 
plan  of  Church  government.  The  only  scriptural  ob- 
jection to  Episcopac}',  as  it  is  understood  in  modern 
limes,  is  its  assumption  of  suiieriority  of  order,  of  an 
exclusive  right  to  govern  the  Pastors  as  well  as  the 
flock,  and  to  ordain  to  the  Christian  Ministry.  These 
exclusive  powers  are  by  the  New  Testament  nowhere 

(1)  Cavb's  Primitive  Christianity. 
Ud2 


granted  to  Bishops  in  distinction  from  Presbyters. 
The  government  of  Pastors,  as  well  as  people,  was  at 
first  in  tlie  assembly  of  Presbyters,  who  were  indi- 
vidually accountable  to  that  ruling  body,  and  that 
whether  they  had  a  president  or  not.  So  also  as  to  or- 
din.ition  ;  it  was  a  right  in  each,  although  used  by 
several  together,  for  better  security ;  and  even  when 
the  presence  of  a  Bishop  came  to  be  thought  necessary 
to  the  validity  of  ordination,  tlie  Presbyters  were  not 
excluded. 

As  lor  the  argument  from  the  succession  of  Bishops 
from  the  times  of  the  Ajiostles,  could  the  fact  be  made 
out,  it  would  only  trace  diocesan  Bishops  to  the  Bishops 
of  parishes  ;  those,  to  the  Bishops  of  single  diurches ; 
and  Bisliops  of  a  supposed  superior  order,  to  Bishops 
who  never  thought  tlicmsclves  more  than  presiding 
Presbyters,  primi  inter  pares.  This  therefore  would 
only  show  that  an  unscriptural  assumption  of  distinct 
orders  has  been  made,  which  that  succession,  if  esta- 
blished, would  refute.  But  the  succession  itself  is 
imaginary.  Even  Ejiiphanius,  a  Bishop  of  the  fourth 
century,  gives  this  account  of  things,  "  that  the  Apos- 
tles were  not  able  to  settle  all  things  at  once.  But 
according  to  the  number  of  believers,  and  the  qualifi- 
cations for  the  different  offices  which  those  whom  they 
found  appeared  to  possess,  they  appointed  in  some 
jilaces  only  a  Bishop  and  Deacons ;  in  others  Presby- 
ters and  Deacons  ;  in  others  a  Bishop,  Presbyters,  and 
Deacons :" — a  statement  fatal  to  the  argument  from 
succession.  As  for  the  pretended  catalogues  of 
Bishops  of  the  different  Churches  from  the  days  of  the 
Apostles,  exhibited  by  some  ecclesiastical  writers,  they 
are  filled  up  by  forgeries  and  inventions  of  later  times. 
Eu.sebius,  more  honest,  begins  his  catalogue  with  de- 
claring, that  it  19  not  easy  to  say  who  were  the  disciples 
of  tlie  Apostles  that  were  apjiointed  to  feed  the  Churches 
vv'hich  tliey  planted,  excepting  only  those  whom  we 
r<!ad  of  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul. 

WhetTier  Episcojiacy  may  not  be  a  matter  of  prudential 
regulation,  is  another  question.  We  think  itollenmay; 
and  that  Churches  are  quite  at  liberty  to  adopt  tliia 
mode,  provided  they  maintain  St.  Jerome's  distinction, 
that  ■'  Bishops  are  greater  than  Presbyters  rather  by 
custom  than  by  appointment  of  the  Lord,  and  that  still 
the  Church  ought  to  be  governed  in  common,"  tliat  is, 
by  Bishops  and  Presbyters  united.  It  was  on  this 
ground  that  Luther  placed  Episcopacy, — as  useful, 
though  not  of  Divine  right;  it  was  by  admitting  this 
liberty  in  Churches,  that  Calvin  and  otlier  Divines  of 
the  Reformed  Churches  allowed  Episcopacy  and  dio- 
cesan Churches  lo  be  lawful,  there  being  nothing  to 
forbid  such  an  arrangement  in  Scripture,  when  placed 
on  the  principle  of  expediency.  Some  Divines  of  the 
English  Church  have  chosen  to  defend  its  Episcopacy 
wholly  upon  this  ground,  as  alone  tenable ;  and,  ad- 
mitting that  it  is  safest  to  approach  as  near  as  possible 
to  jirimitive  pra(-tice,  have  proposed  the  restoration  of 
Presbyters  as  a  senate  to  the  Bishop,  the  contraction  of 
diocesses,  the  placing  of  Bishops  in  all  great  towms,  and 
the  holding  of  provincial  Synods; — thus  raising  the 
Presbyters  to  their  original  rank,  as  the  Bishop's  "  com- 
presbytcrs,"  as  Cyprian  himself  calls  them,  both  in  go- 
vernment and  in  ordinations. 

As  to  that  kind  of  Episcopacy  which  trenches  upon 
no  scriptural  principle,  much  depends  upon  circum- 
stances, and  the  forms  in  which  Christian  Churches 
exist.  When  a  Church  composes  but  one  congregation, 
the  Minister  ,is  unquestionably  a  scriptural  Dislioj) ;  but 
he  is,  and  can  be,  only  Bishop  of  the  lloc-k,  ipi.scoptis 
grrgis.  Of  this  kind,  it  appears  from  the  extract  given 
above  from  Epijihanius,  were  some  of  the  primitive 
Churches,  existing,  probably,  in  the  smaller  and  more 
remote  places.  Where  a  number  of  Presbyters  were 
ordained  to  one  Church,  these  would,  in  their  common 
assembly,  have  the  oversight  and  gov(!rrnnent  of  each 
other  as  well  as  of  the  people ;  and  in  this,  their  col- 
lective capacity,  they  would  be  episcopi  grcgis  et  pas- 
forum.  In  this  manner,  Episcopacy,  as  implying  the 
oversight  and  government  both  of  Ministers  and  their 
flocks,  exists  in  Presbyterian  Churches,  and  in  all 
olliers,  by  whatever  name  they  are  called,  where  Minis- 
ters are  subject  to  the  discipline  of  ass(Mnblies  of 
Ministers,  wiio  adiriit  lo  the  Ministry  by  joint  consent, 
and  censure  or  remove  those  who  are  so  ajjpointed. 
When  the  ancient  Presbyti^riis  elected  a  Bishop,  he  might 
remain,  as  he  ajipears  to  have  done  for  some  time,  the 
mere  president  of  the  assembly  of  Presbyters,  and  their 


420 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


(Part  IV. 


organ  of  adrrrinistratioii ;  or  be  constituted,  as  afterward, 
a  distinct  governing  power,  althougli  assisted  by  tl\e 
advice  of  his  Presbyters.  He  was  then  in  jwrson  an 
episcnpus  girids  ct  patttiirum,  and  his  official  i)owers 
gave  rise  at  len^tli  to  the  unfounded  distinction  of  su- 
perior ordt:r.  But  abating  tliis  false  principle,  even 
diocesan  Episcopacy  niay  be  considered  as  in  many 
)>ossible  associations  of  Churclies  tlirougliout  a  pro- 
vince, or  a  whole  country,  as  an  arraiigi.iiiint  in  some 
circumstances  of  a  wise  and  salutarv  nature.  Nor  do 
the  evils  wliich  arose  in  ttie  Church  of  Christ  ajipearso 
attributable  to  this  form  of  government  as  to  that  too 
intimate  conne.xjoii  of  the  Church  witti  tlie  .State,  which 
gave  to  the  former  a  political  ctiaractcr,  and  took  it  from 
under  the  salutary  control  of  public  opinion, — an  evil 
greatly  increased  by  the  subseijuent  destruction  of  reli- 
gious liberty,  and  the  coercive  interferences  of  the  civil 
Magistrate. 

At  the  same  time,  it  may  be  very  well  questioned, 
whether  any  Presbyters  could  lawfully  surrender  into 
the  hands  of  a  Hishop  their  ovvni  riglits  of  government 
and  ordination  without  lliat  security  for  their  due  atlnii- 
nistratiou  which  arises  from  the  accountability  of  the 
administrator.  That  these  are  rights  wluch  it  is  not 
imperative  upon  the  individual  possessing  them  to  exer- 
cise individually,  appears  to  have  the  judgment  of  the 
earliest  antitjuity,  because  the  assembly  of  Presbyters, 
which  was  probably  co-existent  with  the  ordination  of 
several  Presbyters  to  one  Church  by  the  Apostles, 
necessarily  placed  the  exercise  of  the  office  of  each 
under  the  direction  and  control  of  all.  When,  therefore, 
a  Uishop  was  chosen  by  the  Presbyters,  and  invested 
with  the  government,  and  the  power  of  granting  orders, 
so  long  as  the  Presbyters  remained  his  Council,  and 
nothing  was  done  but  by  their  concurrence,  they  were 
still  parties  to  the  mode  in  which  their  own  jiowers  v/ere 
exercised,  and  were  justifiable  in  placing  the  adminis- 
tration in  tlie  hands  of  one  who  was  still  dependent 
upon  themselves.  In  this  way  they  probably  thought 
that  their  own  powers  might  be  most  efficiently  and 
usefully  exercised.  Provincial  and  national  Synods  or 
Councils,  exercising  a  projjcr  superintendence  over 
Bishoi)s  when  made  even  more  indej)endent  of  their 
Presbyters  than  was  the  case  in  the  best  periods  of  the 
iwimitive  ty'hurch,  might  al.so,  if  meeting  fr<«iuently  and 
regularly,  and  as  a  part  of  an  ecclesiastical  system, 
atibrd  the  same  security  for  good  administration,  and 
might  justify  the  surrender  of  the  exercise  of  their 
powers  by  tlie  Presbyters.  But  when  that  surrender 
was  Ibrmally  made,  or  is  at  any  time  made  now  in 
the  constitution  of  Churches,  to  Bishojis,  or  to  those 
bearing  a  similar  office,  however  disicmitcd,  without 
security  and  control,  eitlier  by  rnul»iii;r  ihal  office  tem- 
porary and  elective,  or  by  the  conslitnlion  of  Synods  or 
Assemblies  of  the  Ministers  of  a  large  and  united  body 
of  Christians  for  the  purpo.se  of  supreme  government, 
an  office  is  created  which  has  not  only  no  (-onntenance 
in  Scripture,  that  of  a  Hishiip  iiidcpcndcMt  of  Presbyters, 
but  one  which  imiilius  an  unlawful  surrender  of  those 
powers,  on  the  part  of  the  laltcr,  wjtii  which  they  were 
invested,  not  for  their  own  saki  s,  hul  /or  llic  luiiilit  of 
the  Church  ;  and  which  they  could  have  iiu  aiilhunty  to 
divest  themselves  of  and  totransfir,  wIUikui  ritainliig 
the  power  of  counselling  and  controlling  the  jiarty 
charged  with  the  administration  of  them.  In  other 
words.  Presbyters  have  a  right,  under  projier  regula- 
tions, to  appoint  another  to  administer  for  them,  or  to 
consent  to  such  an  arrangement  when  they  find  it 
already  existing;  but  they  have  no  power  to  divest 
themselves  of  these  rights  and  duties  absolutely.  If 
these  princijilcs  he  sound,  modern  Ejiiscopacy,  in  many 
Churches,  is  objectionable  in  other  respects  than  as  it 
assumes  an  unscriptural  distincti<in  of  order. 

The  following  is  a  liberal  concession  (Hi  the  subject 
of  Episcopacy,  froiu  a  strenuous  defender  of  that  form 
of  goveriimi'Ml  as  it  exists  in  the  ( 'hnrcli  of  England  : — 

"It  IS  not  eoiilended  that  the  llisliops,  Priests,  and 
Deacons  ol'  l'hii;liiMd  arc  at  present  precisely  the  same 
that  Bishops,  I'reshyiers,  and  De-acons  were  in  Asia 
Minor  seventeen  hundred  years  ago.  We  only  maintain 
that  there  have  ahva)s  been  liisho|)3,  Priests,  iiud  Dea- 
cons in  the  Christ lan  Church  since  the  days  of  the 
Ap(Xitles,  with  didi'rent  iiowers  and  functions,  il  is 
allowed,  in  dllferent  countries  and  at  dilTerent  periods; 
but  the  general  principles  and  duties  which  have  re- 
spectively characteriz.ed  these  clerical  orders,  have  been 
eascntially  the  same  at  all  tirneu,  dud  id  nil  plucctf ;  and 


the  variations  which  they  have  undergone,  have  only 
been  such  as  have  ever  belonged  to  all  persons  in 
public  situations,  whether  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  anil 
which  are  indeed  inijeiiarable  from  every  thing  in  which 
mankind  are  concerned  in  this  transitory  and  lluctuating 
world. 

"  I  have  thought  it  right  to  take  this  general  view  of 
the  ministerial  office,  and  to  make  these  observations 
upon  the  clerical  orders  subsisting  in  this  kingdom,  for 
the  purpose  of  pointing  out  the  foundation  and  iirincijiles 
of  (-'hurcli  authority,  and  of  showing  that  our  eccle- 
siastical establishment  is  as  nearly  conformable,  as 
change  of  circumstances  will  permit,  to  the  practice  of 
the  primitive  Church.  But  though  I  Jlatler  myself  that 
I  have  proved  Episcopacy  to  be  an  Apostolical  institu- 
tion, yet  I  readily  acknowledge  that  there  is  no  precept 
in  the  New  Testament  wluch  commands  that  every 
Church  should  be  governed  by  Bishops.  No  ChurcFi 
can  exist  without  some  government;  but  though  there 
must  be  niles  and  orders  for  the  pro|)er  discharge  of  the 
offices  of  public  worship,  though  there  must  be  fixed 
regulations  concerning  the  ajipointment  of  Ministers, 
and  though  a  subordination  among  them  is  expedient  in 
the  highest  degree,  yet  it  docs  not  follow  that  all  these 
things  must  be  jirecisely  the  same  in  every  Christian 
country ;  they  may  vary  with  the  other  varying  circum- 
stances of  human  .society,  with  the  extent  of  a  country, 
the  manners  of  its  inhabitants,  the  nature  of  its  civil 
govenmient,  and  many  other  peculiarities  which  might 
be  specified.  As  it  has  not  pleased  our  Almighty  Father 
to  prescribe  any  particular  form  of  civil  government  for 
the  security  of  temporal  comforts  to  his  rational  crea- 
tures, so  neither  has  he  prescribed  any  particular  form 
of  ecclesiastical  polity  as  absolutely  necessary  to  the 
attainment  of  eternal  happiness.  But  he  has,  in  the 
most  explicit  terms,  enjoined  obedience  to  all  governors, 
whetlier  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  and  whatever  may  be 
their  denomination,  as  essential  to  the  character  of  a 
true  Christian.  Thus  the  Gospel  only  lays  dovvn 
general  priiici))les,  and  leaves  the  application  of  them  to 
men  as  free  agents."(2) 

Bishop  Tomline,  however,  and  the  high  Episcopalians 
of  the  (Church  of  England,  contend  for  an  original  dis- 
tinction in  the  office  and  order  ol  Kisliops  and  Presbyters, 
in  which  notion  they  are  contiadieled  by  one  who  may 
be  truly  called  the  Foiuider  of  tlie  Church  of  England, 
Archbishop  Cranmer,  who  says,  "The  Bishops  and 
Priests  were  at  one  time,  and  were  not  two  things ;  but 
both  one  otfice  in  the  beginning  of  Christ's  religion. "(3) 

On  the  subject  of  thk  t)iiiiRcif  itself,  opinions  as 
opposite  or  varying  as  possible  have  been  held,  down 
from  that  of  the  Pajiists,  who  contend  for  its  visible 
unity  througlioiit  the  world  under  a  visible  head,  to  that 
of  the  Independents,  who  consider  the  universal  Charcb 
as  composed  of  con;,'regational  Churches,  each  perfect 
in  itself,  and  entirely  independent  of  every  other. 

The  first  opinion  is  munnesMy  contradicted  by  the 
language  of  the  Ajiostles,  who,  while  they  teach  that 
there  is  but  one  Church,  compo.sed  of  believers  through- 
out the  world,  think  it  not  at  all  incon.sistent  with  this 
to  speak  ol'  "  The  Churches  of  Judea,'*  "  of  Achaia," 
"  the  seven  Churches  of  Asia,"  "  the  Church  at  Ephe- 
sus,"  &.K.  Among  themselves  the  A])ostles  had  no 
common  head ;  but  jilanted  Churches  and  gave  direc- 
tions for  their  government,  in  most  caises  without  any 
apparent  correspondence  with  each  other.  The  pojiish 
doctrine  is  certainly  not  found  in  their  writings,  and  .so 
far  were  tlie>  from  making  provision  for  the  government 
of  this  one  supposed  t:hurch,  by  the  appointment  of  one 
visible  and  exclusive  head,  that  they  jirovide  for  the 
future  eovernment  of  the  respective  Cliurches  raised 
uj)  by  them,  in  a  totally  dillirenl  manner,  lliat  is,  by  the 
ordination  of  Minislere  lor  each  (  liurcli,  w  lio  are  iiuhf- 
lereiitly  called  Bishops,  and  Pri-sbylera,  and  Pastors. 
I'he  only  unity  of  wiiich  they  speak  is  the  unity  of  the 
whole  Church  in  Christ,  the  invisible  Head,  by  faith ; 
and  the  unity  produced  by  "  fervent  love  towards  each 
other."  Nor  has  the  popish  doi'trine of  the  visible  unity 
of  the  Church  any  countenance  from  early  antiquity. 
The  best  ec^:lesiastical  historians  have  showed,  that, 
through  the  greater  part  of  the  second  century,  "  the 
Christian  Churches  were  independent  of  each  other. 
Each  (  liristian  assembly  was  a  liltle  State  governed  by 
lis  own  laws,  which  were  either  enacted,  or  at  least 


(2)  Bishop  ToMLiNK's  Kltiiii'iUs. 

(3)  cjriLLiMorLBET's  IrcniCion,  p.  392. 


Chap.  1.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


421 


approved,  by  the  society.  But  in  process  of  time,  all 
the  C;hurches  of  a  province  wore  formed  into  one  large 
ecclesiastical  body,  which,  like  confederate;  States,  as- 
eemblcd  at  certain  times  in  order  to  deliberate  about  the 
common  interests  of  the  whole."(4)  So  !ar  indeed  this 
union  of  Churches  appears  to  have  been  a  wise  and 
useful  arrangement,  although  afterward  it  was  carried 
to  an  injurious  extreme,  until  finally  it  gave  birth  to  the 
assumptions  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  as  universal 
Bishop ;  a  claim,  however,  which,  when  most  suc- 
cesslul,  was  but  partially  submitted  to,  the  Eastern 
Churches  having  always  maintained  their  independence. 
IVo  very  large  association  of  Churches  of  any  kind 
existed  till  towards  the  close  of  tlie  second  century, 
which  sufficiently  refutes  the  papal  argument  from 
antiiiuity. 

The  independence  of  the  early  Christian  Churches 
does  not,  however,  appear  to  have  resembled  that  of  the 
Churches  which  in  modern  times  are  called  Independent. 
During  the  lives  of  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists,  tliey 
were  certainly  subject  to  their  counsel  and  control, 
■which  proves  that  the  independence  of  separate  societies 
was  not  the  first  form  of  the  Church.  It  may,  indeed, 
be  allowed,  that  some  of  the  smaller  and  more  insu- 
lated Churches  might,  after  the  death  of  the  Apostles 
and  Evangelists,  retain  this  form  for  some  considerable 
time;  but  the  larger  Churches,  in  the  chief  cities,  and 
those  planted  in  popiilous  neighbourhoods,  had  many 
Tresbyters,  and  as  the  members  multiplied,  they  had 
several  separate  assemblies  or  congregations,  yet  all 
Tinder  the  same  common  government.  And  when 
Churches  were  raised  up  in  the  neighbourhood  of  cities, 
the  appointment  of  Chorepiscopi,  or  country  Bishops, 
and  of  visiting  Presbyters,  both  acting  under  the  Pres- 
bytery of  the  city,  with  its  Bishop  at  its  head,  is  suffi- 
ciently in  proof,  that  the  ancient  Churches,  especially 
the  larger  and  more  prosperous  of  them,  existed  in  that 
form  which,  in  modern  times,  we  should  call  a  religious 
connexion,  subject  to  a  common  government.  This 
appears  to  have  arisen  out  of  the  very  circumstance  of 
the  increase  of  the  Church,  through  the  zeal  of  the  first 
Christians  ;  and  in  the  absence  of  all  direction  by  the 
Apostles,  that  every  new  society  of  believers  raised 
sliouid  be  tbrmed  nito  an  independent  Church,  it  was 
doubtless  much  more  in  the  spirit  of  the  very  first  dis- 
cipline exercised  by  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists  (when 
none  of  the  Churches  were  independent,  hut  remained 
under  the  government  of  those  who  had  been  chietly 
instrumental  in  raising  them  up),  to  place  themselves 
under  a  common  inspection,  and  to  unite  the  weak  with 
the  strong,  and  the  newly  converted  with  those  who 
were  "  in  Christ  before  them."  There  was  also  in  this, 
greater  security  afforded  both  for  the  continuance  of 
wholcsonje  doctrine,  and  of  godly  discipline. 

The  persons  appointed  to  feed  and  govern  the  Church 
of  Christ  being,  then,  as  we  have  seen,  those  who  are 
called  "  Pastors"  a  word  which  imports  both  r.are  and 
government,  two  other  subjects  claim  our  attention, — 
the  share  which  the  body  of  the  peojile  have  in  llieir 
own  government  by  their  Pastors,  and  the  objects 
towards  which  the  power  of  government,  thus  esta- 
blished in  the  Church,  is  legitimately  directed. 

As  to  the  first,  some  preliminary  observations  maybe 
necessary. 

1.  When  Churches  are  professedly  connected  with, 
and  exclusively  patronised  and  upheld  by,  the  State, 
questions  of  ecclesiastical  government  arise,  which  are 
of  greater  perplexity  and  dithculty  than  when  tliey  are 
left  upon  their  original  ground,  as  voluntary  and  spiritual 
associations.  The -State  will  not  exclusively  recognise 
Ministers  without  maintaining  some  control  over  their 
functions;  and  will  not  lend  its  aid  to  enforce  the 
canons  of  an  established  Church,  without  reserving  to 
itself  some  right  of  appeal,  or  of  interposition.  Hence  a 
contest  between  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  powers  often 
springs  up,  and  one  at  least  generally  feels  itself  to  be 
fettered  by  the  other.  When  an  established  Church  is 
perfectly  tolerant,  and  the  State  allows  freedom  of 
dissent  and  separation  from  it  without  penalties,  these 
evils  are  much  mitigated.  But  it  is  not  my  design  to 
consider  a  Church  as  at  all  allied  with  the  State  ;  but 
as  deriving  nothing  from  it  except  protection,  and  that 
general  countenance  which  the  intlueiice  of  a  govern- 
ment professing  Christianity,  and  recognising  its  laws, 
must  affijrd. 


(4)  Moshkim's  Ewle$ia$tical  History,  cent.  2,  chap,  iu 


2.  The  only  view  in  which  the  sacred  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  appear  to  hav«  contemplated  the 
Churches,  was  that  of  associations  founded  upon  con- 
viction of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  and  the  obligatory 
nature  of  the  commands  of  Christ.  They  considered 
the  Pastors  as  dependent  for  their  support  upon  the  free 
contributions  of  the  people ;  and  the  people  as  bound  te 
sustain,  love,  and  obey  them  in  all  tkings  lawful,  that 
is,  in  all  things  agreeable  to  the  doctrine;  they  had  re- 
ceived in  the  Scriptures,  and,  in  thmgs  imlin'erent,  to 
pay  respectful  deference  to  them.  Tlicy  enjoined  it 
upon  the  Pastors  to  "  rule  well,"  "  diligently,"  and  with 
fidelity,  in  executing  the  directions  they  had  given 
them; — to  sdence  all  teachers  of  false  doctrines,  and 
their  adherents ;— to  reprove  unruly  and  immoral  mem- 
bers of  the  Church,  and,  if  incorrigible,  to  put  them 
away.  On  the  other  hand,  should  any  of  their  Pastors 
or  Teachers  err  in  doctrine,  the  people  arc  enjoined  not 
"to  receive  them,"  to  "turn  away"  from  thein,  and  not 
even  to  bid  them  "  God  speed."  The  rule  wliicli  forbids 
Christians  "  to  eat,"  that  is,  to  communicate  at  the 
Lord's  table  with  ari  immoral  "  brother,"  held,  of  course, 
good,  when  that  brother  was  a  Pastor.  Thus'  Pastors 
were  put  by  them  under  the  influence  of  the  public 
opinion  of  the  Churches ;  and  the  remedy  of  separating 
from  them,  in  manifest  defections  of  doctrine  and  morals, 
was  alTorded  to  the  sound  members  of  a  Church,  should 
no  power  exist  able  or  inclined  to  silence  the  offending 
Pastor  and  his  party.  In  all  this,  principles  were  recog- 
nised, which,  had  they  not  been  in  future  times  lost  sight 
of  or  violated,  would  have  done  much,  perhaps  every 
thing,  to  preserve  some  parts  of  the  Church,  at  least, 
in  soundness  of  faith,  and  purity  of  manners.  A  perfect 
religious  hberty  is  always  supposed  by  the  Apostles  to 
exist  among  Christians ;  no  compulsion  of  the  civil 
power  is  any  where  assumed  by  ihem  as  the  basis  of 
their  advices  or  directions  ;  no  binding  of  the  members 
to  one  Church,  without  liberty  to  join  another,  by  any 
ties  but  those  involved  in  moral  considerations,  of 
sufficient  weight,  however,  to  prevent  the  evils  of  faction 
and  schism.  It  was  this  wliicli  created  a  natural  and 
competent  check  upon  the  Ministers  of  the  Church ;  for 
being  only  sustained  by  the  opinion  of  the  Churches, 
they  could  not  but  have  respect  to  it ;  and  it  was  this 
which  gave  to  the  sound  part  of  a  fallen  Church  the 
advantage  of  renouncing,  upon  sufficient  and  well- 
weighed  grounds,  their  communion  with  it,  and  of 
kindling  up  the  light  of  a  pure  ministry  and  a  holy  dis- 
cipline, by  forming  a  separate  a-ssociatioii,  bearing  its 
testimony  against  errors  in  doctrine,  and  failures  in 
practice.  Nor  is  it  to  be  conceived,  that,  had  this  .simple 
principle  of  perfect  religious  liberty  been  left  unviolated 
through  subseejuent  ages,  the  Church  could  ever  have 
become  so  corrupt,  or  with  such  difficulty  and  slowness 
have  been  recovered  from  its  fall.  This  ancient  Chris- 
tian liberty  has  happily  been  restored  in  a  few  parts  »f 
Christendom. 

3.  In  places  where  now  the  communion  with  par- 
ticular Churches,  as  to  human  authority,  is  perfectly 
voluntary,  and  liberty  of  conscience  is  unfettered,  it 
often  happens  that  (juestions  of  Church  government  are 
argued  on  the  assumption  that  the  governing  power  in 
such  Churches  is  of  the  same  character,  and  tends  to 
the  same  results,  as  where  it  is  connected  with  civil 
influence,  and  is  upheld  by  the  power  of  the  State. 

Nothing  call  be  more  fallacious,  and  no  instrument 
has  been  so  powerful  as  this  in  the  hands  of  the  restless 
and  factious,  to  delude  the  unwary.  Tlio.se  who  possess 
the  governing  power  in  such  Cliurchcs  are  always 
under  the  influence  of  public  opinion  to  an  extent  unfelt 
in  establishments.  They  can  eiilbrce  nothing  felt  to  be 
oppressive  to  the  members  in  general,  without  dissolving 
the  society  itself;  and  their  utmost  power  extends  to 
excision  from  the  body,  which,  unlike  the  sentences  of 
excommunication  in  State  Churches,  is  wholly  uncon- 
nected with  civil  penalties.  If,  then,  a  resistance  is 
created  to  any  regulations  among  the  major  part  of  any 
such  religious  community,  founded  on  a  sense  of  their 
injurious  operation,  or  to  the  manner  of  their  enforce- 
ment ;  and  if  that  feeling  be  the  result  of  a  settled  con- 
viction, and  not  the  effervescence  of  temporary  mistake 
and  excitement,  a  change  must  necessarily  ensue,  or  the 
body  at  large  be  disturbed  or  dissolved  :  if,  on  the  other 
hand,  this  feeling  be  the  work  of  a  mere  faction,  partial 
tumults  or  seiiaration  may  take  place,  and  great  moral 
evil  may  result  to  the  factious  parties,  hut  the  body  will 
retain  its  communion,  which  will  be  a  sufficient  proof 


422 


THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES. 


[Part  IV. 


that  the  governing  power  has  been  the  subject  of 
■ungrounded  and  uncharitalile  attack,  since  otherwise  the 
people  at  large  must  have  I'elt  the  evils  of  the  general 
regulations  or  administration  complained  of.  The  very 
terms  olVcn  used  in  the  grand  controversy  arising  out 
of  the  struggle  for  tile  cstablisliment  of  religious  lil'orty 
with  national  and  iTilipliraal  ( 'liurches,  are  nut  fjiiicrally 
appropriate  to  sui-li  disrussioiis  as  may  arise  iii  volun- 
tary religious  societies,  altlidiigli  Ihey  annifteli  (-■iiiiiloj  ed, 
either  carelessly  or  cul  caytanduin,  to  serve  the  purposes 
of  faction. 

4.  It  is  also  an  important  general  observation,  that 
in  settling  the  government  of  a  Church,  there  are  pre- 
existent  laws  of  Christ,  which  it  is  not  in  the  option 
of  any  to  receive  or  to  reject.  Under  whatever  form 
the  governing  jiower  is  arranged,  it  is  so  bound  to  e.\e- 
cute  all  the  rules  left  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  as 
to  doctrine,  worship,  the  sacraments,  and  discipline, 
honestly  interpreted,  that  it  is  not  at  liberty  to  take 
that  olhce,  or  to  continue  to  exercise  it,  if  by  any  re- 
strictions imposed  upon  it  it  is  prevented  from  carrying 
these  laws  into  effect.  As  in  the  State,  so  in  the  Church, 
government  is  an  ordinance  of  God ;  and  as  it  is  impe- 
rative upon  rulers  in  the  state  to  be  "  a  terror  to  evil- 
doers, and  a  praise  to  them  that  do  well,"  so  al.so  is  it 
imperative  upon  the  rulers  of  the  Church  to  banish 
strange  doctrines,  to  uphold  God's  ordinances,  to  re- 
prove and  rebuke,  and  liually  to  put  away  evil-doers. 
The  spirit  in  which  this  is  to  be  done  is  also  prescribed. 
It  is  to  be  done  in  the  spirit  of  meekness,  and  with 
long-suflering ;  but  the  work  must  be  done  upon  the 
responsibility  of  the  Pastors  to  Him  who  has  commis- 
sioned them  for  this  purpose ;  and  they  have  a  right 
to  re(piire  from  the  people,  that  in  this  olfice  and  minis- 
try they  should  not  only  not  be  obstructed,  but  affec- 
tionately and  zealously  aided,  as  ministering  in  these 
duties,  sometimes  painfUl,  not  for  themselves,  but  for 
the  good  of  the  whole.  With  respect  to  the  members 
of  a  tlhurch,  the  same  remark  is  applicable  as  to  the 
members  of  a  State.  It  is  not  matter  of  ojition  with 
them  wliilliertliey  will  be  under  government  according 
to  thf^  laws  111' Christ  or  not,  for  that  is  imperative;  go- 
vernment in  both  cases  being  of  Divine  apjtomtment. 
They  have,  on  the  other  hand,  the  right  to  full  security 
that  they  shall  be  governed  by  the  laws  of  Christ;  and 
they  have  a  right  too  to  establish  as  many  guards 
against  human  infirmity  and  passion  in  those  who  are 
"  set  over  them,"  as  may  be  prudently  devised,  pro- 
vided these  are  not  carried  to  such  an  extent  as  to  be 
obstructive  to  the  legitimate  scriptural  discharge  of 
their  duties.  The  true  view  of  the  case  appears  to  be, 
that  the  government  of  the  Church  is  in  its  Pastors,  open 
to  various  modifiralions  as  to  form  ;  and  that  it  is  to 
be  coudiuted  with  such  a  concurrence  of  the  people, 
as  shall  constitute  a  siiHi.-icnt  u'uard  against  abuse,  and 
yet  not  prevent  ihc  lc;:ifiiii.U/  ami  (dii-ient  exercise  of 
pastoral  duties,  as  ih.sc  duii's  are  slated  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. This  original  authunty  in  the  I'astors,  and  con- 
current consent  in  the  people,  may  be  thus  applied  to 
particular  cases  : — 

1.  As  to  the  ordination  of  Ministers.  If  wc  consult 
the  New  Testament,  this  ofFice  was  never  conveyed  by 
the  people.  The  Apostles  were  ordained  by  our  Lord  ; 
the  Evansclists  by  the  Apostles ;  the  Elders  in  every 
Church  belli  by  Aimstli's  and  Evangelists.  The  pas- 
sage which  has  bei  ii  chiefly  urged  by  tlio.se  who  would 
originate  the  minislry  from  the  peojMe,  is  Acts  xiv.  23, 
where  the  historian,  siieaking  of  St.  Paid  and  liarna- 
bas,  says,  "  And  when  they  had  ordained  (^^^tiporHr//- 
aavTCi)  Elders  in  every  Church,  and  had  piayi-d  willi 
fasting,  they  (rommended  them  to  ihr  Lord."  Here,  be- 
cause xtipoT()i'£()' originally  sigiiiliid  to  choose  by  way 
ofsufTrage,  some  have  argued  that  these  Elders  were 
appointed  by  the  sulfrages  of  the  people.  Long,  how- 
ever, before  the  time  of  St.  Luke,  this  word  was  used 
for  simple  ilesignation,  without  any  reference  to  elec- 
tion by  suffrages ;  and  so  it  is  employed  by  St.  Luke 
himself  in  Ihr  same  book,  Acts  x.  41, "  Witif  sses 
/(irc(Ji>jiiiiii/i(l  of'(Ut(\,'"  where  of  course  the  siiffrages 
"of  men  are  out  of  the  question.  It  is  also  fa'.al  to  the 
argument  drawn  from  llii:  li^xt,  that  the  act  lm)ilieil  in 
the  word,  whatever  it  might  be,  was  not  the  art  of  the; 
people,  but  that  of  Paul  and  Itarnabas.  Even  the  Dea- 
cons, whose  appoint  mriit  Is  mentioned  Acts  vi.,  although 
"  looked  out"  by  thi'  disei|iles  as  men  of  honest  re- 
Jiort,  did  not  enter  upon  their  ofliee  till  solemnly  "  ap- 
jKiiiUed"  thereto  by  the  Apostles.    Nothing  is  clearer  in 


ttie  New  Testament,  tlmn  that  all  llie  candidates  for 
the  ministry  were  judged  of  by  those  who  had  been 
jilaced  in  that  oliice  themselves,  and  received  their  ap- 
liointment  from  them.  Such  too  was  the  iiractice  of 
t  he  primitive  Churches  alter  the  death  of  both  Ajiostlea 
and  I'.vangelists.  l'resf)yters,  who  duringllielileof  tlie 
\pustles  had  tlii^  ]io\ver  'j|  iirduialioii  (for  they  laid  their 
liaiiils  U|ioii  'I'lmolliN ),  cunliiiued  to  perforin  that  Olflce 
m  disehiirge  of  one  solemn  jiarl  olllieir  duly,  to  perpe- 
tuate the  ministry,  and  to  provide  lor  the  wants  of  the 
Churches.  In  the  times  of  the  Ajiostles,  who  were  en- 
dued with  special  gills,  the  concurrence  of  the  people 
was  not,  perhaps,  always  formally  taken ;  but  the  di- 
rections to  Timothy  and  Titus  inifily  a  reference  to  the 
judgment  of  the  members  of  the  Church,  because  from 
them  only  it  could  be  learned  whether  the  party  fixed 
upon  lor  ordination  possessed  those  qualifications  with- 
out which  ordination  was  prohibited.  When  tlie 
Churches  assumed  a  more  regular  form,  "  the  people 
were  always  present  at  ordinations,  and  ratified  Itie 
action  with  llieir  approbation  and  consent.  'I'o  this 
end  the  liishop  was  wont  before  every  ordination  to 
imblislj  I  lie  iiaiiies  of  those  who  were  to  have  holy  or- 
ders conlern  (I  upon  them,  that  so  the  jieoplc,  who  best 
knew  their  lives  and  conversation,  imglil  interpose  if 
they  had  any  thing  material  to  object  against  them. "(5) 
Sometimes  also  they  nommaled  them  by  sull'rages,  and 
thus  proposed  them  Ibrordination.  The  mode  in  which 
the  jieojile  shall  be  made  a  concurrent  parly  is  matter 
of  jiruclenlial  regulation ;  but  they  had  an  early,  and 
certainly  a  reasonable,  right  to  a  voice  in  the  appoint- 
ment of"  their  Ministers,  allliough  the  power  of  ordina- 
nation  was  vested  in  Aliiiislers  alone,  to  be  exercised 
on  their  responsibility  to  Christ. 

2.  As  to  the  laws  by  which  the  Church  is  to  be  go- 
verned. So  far  as  they  are  manifestly  laid  down  in  the 
word  of  God,  and  not  regulations  judged  to  be  subsi- 
diary thereto,  it  is  plain  that  the  rulers  of  a  Cliurch  are 
bound  to  execute  them,  and  the  people  to  obey  them. 
They  ci.nnot  be  matter  of  compact  on  either  side,  ex- 
cept as  the  subject  of  a  mutual  and  solemn  engage- 
ment to  defer  to  them  without  any  modification  or  ap- 
peal to  any  other  standard. 

Every  Church  declares,  in  some  way,  how  it  under- 
.stands  the  docrtrine  and  the  disciplinary  laws  of  Christ. 
This  declaration  as  to  doctrine,  in  modern  times,  is 
made  by  Coiili'^sionsorArticles  of  Faith,  in  which,  if 
fundamciitul  error  is  found,  the  evil  rests  upon  the  head 
of  that  Church  collectively,  and  upon  the  members  in- 
dividually, every  one  of  whom  is  bound  to  try  all  doc- 
trines by  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  cannot  support  an 
acknowledged  system  of  error  without  guilt.  As  to 
discipline,  the  iiuinner  in  wliieh  a  Church  iirovides  for 
public  worsliip,  the  publication  of  the  Gospel,  lliead- 
miiiistratioiioflhe  sacraments,  the  instruction  of  the  ig- 
norant, the  succour  of  the  distressed,  the  admonition  ot 
the  disorderly,  and  the  excision  of  offenders  (winch 
are  all  points  on  which  the  New  Testainenl  has  issued 
express  hijunctions),  is  its  declaration  of  the  manner 
in  which  it  interprets  those  injunctions,  which  also  it 
does  on  its  own  collective  resjionsibilily,  and  that  of 
its  members.  If,  however,  we  take  for  illustration  of 
the  subject  before  us,  a  Church,  at  least  substantially 
right  in  this  its  interpretation  of  doctrine,  and  of  the 
laws  of  Christ  as  to  general,  aiul  what  we  may  call  for 
distinction's  sake  mural  discipline  ;  these  are  the  first 
principles  upon  whic  h  this  Church  is  founded.  It  is 
either  an  apostolic  Church,  which  has  retained  primi- 
tive faith  and  discipline ;  or  it  has  subsequenily  been 
collected  into  a  new  communion,  on  account  of  the 
fall  of  other  Churches ;  and  has  placed  itself,  ac- 
cording to  its  own  convielioii,  upon  the  basis  of  primi- 
tive doctrine  and  ihscipline  as  found  in  the  Scriptures. 
On  this  ground  either  the  I'astors  and  people  met  and 
united  at  first ;  or  the  people,  convened  lo  faith  and  ho- 
liness by  the  labours  of  one  or  more  I'asiors,  holding, 
as  they  believed,  these  scriptural  views,  placed  them- 
selves iinck  r  llie  guidance  of  these  Pastors,  and  thus 
formed  tin  iiiselves  into  a  Church  slate,  which  was  their 
act  of  accession  to  these  iirinciplcs.  It  is  clear,  there- 
fore, that,  by  this  very  act,  they  bindthemselves  to  com- 
ply with  the  original  terms  of  the  communion  into 
which  they  have  entc-red,  and  that  liny  have  as  to 
these  doctrines,  and  as  lo  these;  disciplinary  laws  of 
Christ,   which  are   to  be  preached  and  enforced,  no 


(5)  CA.vit'8  I'rimUivt  VltnatiaitUy. 


Chap.  I.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


423 


Fights  of  control  over  Ministers,  which  shall  prevent 
the  just  exercise  of  rhoir  ollico  in  these  respects.  They 
have  a  right  to  siiili  regulations  and  checks  as  shall 
secure,  in  the  best  possible  waj',  the  just  and  faithful 
exercise  of  that  oflicc,  and  the  honest  and  impartial 
«se  of  that  power  ;  but  this  is  the  limit  of  their  right; 
and  every  system  of  suffrages,  or  i)opular  concurrence, 
wliich,  under  pretence  of  guarding  against  abuse  of 
ministerial  autliorily,  makes  its  exercise  absuluttlt/  and 
in  all  cases  dependent  upon  the  consent  of  tliose  over 
whom  it  extends,  goes  beyond  that  limit,  and  invades 
the  right  of  pastoral  government,  which  the  New  Tes- 
tament has  established.  It  brings,  in  a  word,  ttie  laws 
of  Christ  into  del>ate,  which  yet  the  members  profess 
to  have  received  as  their  nUe ;  and  it  clanns  to  put  into 
commission  those  duties  which  Pastors  are  charged  by 
Christ  personally  to  exercise.  The  Apostle  Paul,  had 
the  incestuous  person  at  Corinth  denied  the  crime, 
and  there  had  been  any  doubtfulness  as  to  the  fact, 
would  unquestion-ably  have  taken  the  opinion  of  the 
Elders  of  that  Church  and  olhers  upon  that  fact;  but 
when  it  became  a  question  whether  the  /a«).?  of  Christ's 
fliscipline  should  be  exercised  or  not,  he  did  not  feel 
himself  concluded  by  the  sense  of  the  whole  Corinthian 
Church,  which  was  in  favour  of  the  ofTender  continuing 
in  communion  with  them ;  but  he  instantly  reproved 
them  for  their  laxity,  and  issued  the  sentence  of  exci- 
sion, thereby  showing  that  an  obvious  lawofClirist 
was  not  to  be  subjected  to  the  decision  of  a  majority. 

This  \'iew,  indeed,  supposes,  that  such  a  society,  like 
almost  all  the  Churches  ever  known,  has  admitted,  in 
the  first  instance,  tliat  the  power  of  admission  into  the 
Church,  of  reproof,  of  exhortation,  and  of  excision  from 
it,  subject  to  various  guards  against  abuses,  is  in  the 
Pastors  of  a  Church.  There  are  some  who  have 
adopted  a  different  opinion,  supposing  that  the  power  of 
administering  the  discipline  of  Christ  must  be  con- 
veyed by  them  to  their  Ministers,  and  is  to  be  wholly 
controlled  by  their  suffrages  ;  so  that  there  is  in  the.<c 
systems,  not  a  provision  of  counsel  against  possible 
errors  in  thee.xerci.se  of  authority  ;  not  a  guard  against 
human  infirniity  or  vicinusness;  not  a  reservation  of 
right  to  determine  upon  the  fitness  of  the  cases  to  which 
the  laws  of  LHirist  are  applied  ;  but  a  claim  of  co-admi- 
fiistrationas  to  these  laws  themselves,  or  rather  an  en- 
tire administration  of  them  through  the  Pastor,  as  a 
passive  agent  of  their  will.  Those  who  adopt  these 
views  are  bound  to  show  that  this  is  tlie  state  of  things 
established  in  the  New  Testament.  That  it  is  not,  ap- 
pears plain  from  the  very  term  "  Pastors,"  which  im- 
ports both  care  and  government;  mild  and  affectionate 
government  indeed,  but  sliU  government,  ilence  the 
office  of  Shepherd  is  apidied  to  describe  the  government 
of  God,  and  the  government  of  kings.  It  appears,  too, 
from  other  titles  given,  not  merely  to  Apostles,  but  to 
the  Presbyters  they  ordained  and  placed  over  the 
Churche.s.  They  are  called  );yoi)/.(n'0(,  rulers;  crarrKo- 
roi,  overseers;  Trootffrwrtf,  those  who  preside.  They 
are  commended  for  "  ruling  well ;"  and  they  are  di- 
rected "  to  charge,"  "  to  reprove,"  '•  to  rebuke,"  "  to 
watch,"  "  to  silence,  "  to  put  away."  The  very  "  ac- 
count" they  must  give  to  God,  in  connexion  with  the 
discharge  of  these  duties,  shows  that  their  office  and 
responsibility  was  peculiar  and  personal,  and  much 
greater  than  that  of  any  private  member  of  the  Church, 
which  it  could  not  he  if  they  were  the  passive  agents 
only  in  matters  of  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the  will 
of  the  whole.  To  the  double  duty  ot  feedini;  and  ex- 
ercising the  nversi!(ht  of  the  flock,  a  .special  reward  is 
al.so  promised  when  the  "  Chuf  Sheplurd  shall  appear," 
— a  title  of  Christ,  which  shows  that  as  the  pastoral 
office  of  feeding  and  ruling  is  exercised  by  Christ  su- 
premely, so  it  is  exercised  by  his  Ministers  in  both 
branches  subordinately.  Finally,  the  exhortations  to 
Christians  to  "  obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  them," 
and  to  "  submit"  to  them,  and  "  to  esteem  them  very 
highly  for  their  works'  sake,"  and  to  "  remember  them  ;' 
— all  show  that  the  ministerial  office  is  not  one  of  mere 
agency,  under  the  absolute  direction  of  the  votes  of  the 
collected  Church. 

3.  With  respect  to  other  disciplinary  regulations  sup- 
posed by  any  religious  society  to  be  subsidiary  to  the 
great  and  scriptural  ends  of  Church  communion,  these 
appear  to  he  matters  of  mutual  agreement,  and  are  ca- 
palile  of  modifieation  by  the  mutual  consent  of  Minis- 
ters and  people,  under  tlieir  common  responsibility  to 
Christ,  tUat  they  are  done  advisedly,  with  prayer,  with 


reference  to  the  edification  of  the  Church,  and  so  as 
not  to  infringe  upon,  but  to  promote  the  influence  of  the 
doctriii  -s,  ddties,  and  spirit  of  the  Gospel.  The  con- 
sent of  the  people  to  all  sucli  regulations,  either  tacitly 
by  their  adoption  of  them,  or  more  exiiressly  through 
any  regular  meetings  of  different  officers,  wlio  may  be 
regarded  as  acquainted  with,  and  rcprescnling  the  sen- 
timents of  the  whole  ;  as  also  by  the  approval  of  those 
aged,  wise,  and,  from  difrerent  causes,  inlluential  per- 
sons, who  are  to  be  l()und  in  all  societies,  and  who  are 
always,  wliether  in  office  or  not,  their  natural  guar- 
dians, guides,  and  representatives ;  is  necessary  to  con- 
fidence and  harmony,  and  a  proper  security  for  good 
and  orderly  government.  It  is  thiis  that  those  to  whom 
the  government  or  well  ordering  of  the  Church  is  com- 
mitted, and  those  upon  whom  their  influence  and  scrip- 
tural authority  exert  themselves,  appear  to  be  best 
brought  into  a  state  of  harmony  and  mutual  confidence; 
and  that  abundant  security  is  afforded  against  all  mis- 
rule, seeing  that  in  a  voluntary  communion,  and  where 
perfect  liberty  exists  for  any  member  to  unite  himself 
to  other  Churches,  or  for  any  number  of  them  to 
arrange  themselves  into  a  new  community,  subject, 
however,  to  the  moral  cautions  of  the  New  Testament 
against  the  schismatic  spirit,  it  can  never  be  the  interest 
of  those  with  whom  the  regulations  of  the  affairs  of  a 
Church  is  lodged,  voluntarily  to  adopt  measures  which 
can  be  generally  felt  to  be  onerous  and  injurious,  nor 
is  it  practicable  to  persevere  in  them.  In  this  method 
of  bringing  in  the  concurrence  of  the  people,  all  assem- 
blages of  whole  societies,  or  very  large  portions  of  them, 
are  avoided, — a  popular  form  of  Church  government, 
which,  however  it  were  modified  so  as  best  to  accord 
with  the  scriptural  authority  of  Ministers,  could  only 
be  tolerable  in  very  small  isolated  societies,  and  that 
in  the  times  of  their  greatest  simplicity  and  love.  To 
raise  into  legislators  and  censors  all  the  members  of  a 
Church,  the  young,  the  ignorant,  and  the  inexperienced, 
is  to  do  them  great  injury.  It  is  the  sure  way  to  fos- 
ter debates,  contentions,  and  self-confidence,  to  open 
the  door  to  intrigue  and  policy,  to  tempt  forward  and 
conceited  men  to  become  a  kind  of  religious  dema- 
gogues, and  entirely  to  destroy  the  .salutary  influence 
of  the  aged,  experienced,  and  gifted  members,  by  re- 
ferring every  decision  to  members  and  suffrages,  and 
placing  all  that  is  good,  and  venerable,  and  influential 
ainong  the  members  themselves,  at  the  feet  of  a  demo- 
cracy. 

4.  As  to  the  power  of  admission  into  the  Church, 
that  is  clearly  with  Ministers,  to  whom  the  office  of 
baptism  is  committed,  by  which  the  door  is  opened  into 
the  Church  universal ;  and  as  there  can  be  no  visible 
communion  kept  up  with  the  universal  Church,  except 
by  communion  with  .some  particular  Church,  the 
admission  into  that  particular  communion  must  he 
in  the  hands  of  Ministers,  because  .t  is  one  of  the  du- 
ties of  their  office,  made  such  by  the  Scripture  itself, 
to  enjoin  this  mode  of  confessing  Chri.^-t,  by  assembling 
with  liis  saints  in  worship,  by  submitting  to  disci- 
pline, and  by  "  showing  forth  his  death"  at  the  Lord's 
Supper.  We  have,  liowever,  already  said,  that  the 
meinbers  of  a  Church,  although  they  have  no  right 
to  obstruct  the  ju.st  exerci.se  of  this  power,  have  the 
right  to  prevent  its  being  unworthily  exercised ;  and 
their  concurrence  Avith  the  admission,  tacit  or  de- 
clared, according  to  their  usages,  is  an  arrangement 
supported  by  analogies  drawn  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment and  from  primitive  antiquity.  The  expulsion  of 
unworthy  memliers,  after  admonition,  devolves  ujion 
those  to  whom  the  administration  of  the  sacraments, 
the  signs  of  communion,  is  intrusted,  and,  therefore, 
upon  Ministers,  for  this  reason,  that  as  "  Shepherds" 
of  the  flock  under  the  "  Chief  Shepherd,"  they  are 
charged  to  carry  his  laws  into  effect.  These  laws,  it 
is  neither  with  them  nor  with  the  people  to  modify ; 
they  are  already  declared  by  superior  authority;  but 
the  determination  of  the  facts  of  the  case  to  which 
they  are  to  be  applied,  is  matter  of  mutual  investiga- 
tion and  decision,  in  order  to  prevent  an  erring  or  an 
improper  exercise  of  authority.  That  such  investiga- 
tions should  take  place,  not  before  the  assembled  mem- 
bers of  a  society,  but  before  proper  and  select  tribunals, 
appears  not  only  an  obviously  proper,  but,  in  many 
respects,  a  necessary  regulation. 

The  trial  of  unworthy  Ministers  remains  to  be  no- 
ticed, which  wherever  a  number  of  religious  societies 
exist  as  one  Church,  having  therefore  many  Pastors, 


424 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


[Pakt  IV. 


is  manifestly  most  safoly  placed  in  the  hands  of  those 
Pastors  themstlvos;  and  ttiat  not  only  because  the  olll- 
fial  acts  of  censure  and  exclusion  lie  with  then,  but 
for  other  reasons  also.  It  can  scarcely  happen  that  a 
Minister  should  be  under  accusation,  except  in  some 
very  particular  eases,  but  that,  from  his  former  iullu- 
ence,  at  least  with  a  part  of  the  jn'ople,  some  faction 
would  be  (bund  to  sujiport  him.  In  proportion  to  the 
ardour  of  this  feeling,  the  other  parly  would  be  excited 
to  undue  severity  and  bitterness.  To  try  such  a  ease 
before  a  whole  society,  there  would  not  only  be  the 
same  objection  as  in  the  case  of  private  members;  but 
the  additional  one,  that  parties  would  be  more  certainly 
formed,  and  be  still  i/iore  violent.  If  he  must  be  ar- 
raigned then  before  some  special  tribunal,  the  most  fit- 
ting is  that  of  his  brethren,  provided  that  the  parties 
accusing  have  the  right  to  bring  on  such  a  trial  upon 
exhibition  of  probable  evidence,  and  to  prosecute  it 
without  obstruction.  In  Churches  whose  Ministers 
arc  thrown  solely  upon  the  i)ublic  opinion  of  the  so- 
ciety, and  exist  as  such  only  by  their  character,  this 
is  ordinarily  a  sufficient  guard  against  the  toleration 
of  improper  conduct ;  while  it  removes  the  trial  from 
those  whose  excitement  for  or  against  the  accused 
might  on  either  side  be  unfavourable  to  lair  and  equita- 
ble decision,  and  to  the  peace  of  the  Church. 
^*-»  The  above  remarks  contain  but  a  sketch  of  those 

principles  of  Church  government,  which  appear  to  be 
contained  in,  or  to  be  suggested  by,  the  New  Testa- 
ment. They  still  leave  much  liberty  to  Christians  to 
adapt  them  in  detail  to  the  circumstances  in  which  they 
are  placed.  The  offices  to  be  created ;  the  meetings 
necessary  for  the  management  of  the  various  affairs 
of  the  Church,  spiritual  and  financial ;  the  assembling 
of  Ministers  in  larger  or  smaller  numbers  for  counsel, 
and  for  oversight  of  each  other,  and  of  the  Churches  to 
which  they  belong  ;  are  all  matters  of  this  kind,  and 
are  left  to  the  suggestions  of  wisdom  and  piety.  The 
extent  to  which  distinct  societies  of  Christians  shall 
associate  in  one  Church,  under  a  common  government, 
appears  also  to  be  a  matter  of  prudence  and  of  circum- 
stances. In  the  primitive  Church  we  see  different 
societies  in  a  city  and  its  neighbourhood  under  the 
common  government  of  the  assembly  of  Presbyters ; 
and  afterward  these  grew  into  provincial  Churches, 
of  greater  or  smaller  extent.  In  modern  times,  we 
have  similar  associations  in  the  form  of  national 
(Jhurches,  Episcopal  or  Presbyterian  ;  and  of  Churches 
existing  without  any  recognition  of  the  State  at  all, 
and  forming  smaller  or  larger  communities,  fVoin  the 
union  of  a  few  societies,  to  the  union  of  societies 
throughout  a  whole  country ;  holding  the  same  doc- 
trines, practising  the  same  modes  of  worship,  and  placing 
themselves  under  a  common  code  of  laws  and  a  com- 
mon government.  But  whatever  be  the  form  they 
take,  they  are  bound  to  respect,  and  to  model  them- 
themselves  by,  the  principles  of  Church  communion 
and  of  Church  discipline  which  are  contained  in  the 
New  Testament ;  and  they  will  be  fruitful  in  holiness 
and  usefulness,  so  long  as  they  conform  to  them,  and 
so  long  as  those  forms  of  administration  are  conscien- 
tiously preferred  which  appear  best  adapted  to  preserve 
and  to  diffuse  sound  doiiriiic,  Chnsiian  practice,  sjii- 
rituality,  and  charity.  That  discipline  is  defeciivcand 
bad  in  itself,  or  it  is  ill  adininistenMl,  which  does  not 
accomplish  these  ends ;  and  that  is  best  which  best 
promotes  them. 

The  Ends  to  which  Church  authority  is  legitimately 
directed  remain  to  be  brielly  eonsidcrod. 

The  firs^  is,  the  preservation  and  the  publication  of 
"sound  doctrine.^'  Against  false  duclrines,  and  the 
men  "  of  corrupt  minds"  who  taught  them,  the  sermons 
of  Christ,  and  the  writings  of  the  Apostles,  abound  in 
cautions  ;  and  since  St.  Paul  lays  it  down  as  a  rule,  as 
to  erring  teachers,  that  their  "months  musi  be  slop- 
ped," this  implies,  that  the  power  of  lUclaring  wiiat 
sound  doctrine  is,  and  of  silencing  false  teachers,  was 
confided  by  the  Apostles  to  thi^  liitiire  (  liiirch.  Uy  ss's- 
tematic  writers  this  has  been  called  pulintas  fioYiiaTiKtj ; 
which,  abused  by  the  ambilioii  of  man,  forms  no  small 
part  of  that  antichrislian  usurpation  which  charac- 
terizes the  Church  of  Uome.  Extravagant  as  are  her 
claims,  so  that  she  brings  in  lnr'triidllioiiH  as  of  equal 
authority  with  the  insjiired  wntiM^rs,  and  denies  to  men 
the  riiTfit  of  private  judgmenl,  ami  ol  trying  her  dogmas 
by  the  test  of  the  Iloly  Scriptures;  there  is  a  sober 
Mnse  In  whicb  tUia  power  may  be  taken.    The  great 


Protestant  principle,  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  the 
only  standard  of  doctrine  ;  that  the  doctrines  of  every 
Church  must  he  jiroved  out  of  them ;  and  that  to  this 
standard  every  individual  member  has  the  right  of 
bringing  them,  in  order  to  the  confirmation  of  liis  own 
faith  ;  must  be  held  inviolate,  if  we  would  not  see  Di- 
vine authority  displaced  by  human.  Since,  however, 
men  may  come  to  different  conclusions  upon  the  mean- 
ing of  Scrijiture,  it  has  been  the  practice  from  primi- 
tive times  to  declare  the  .sense  in  which  Scripture  is 
understood  by  collective  assemblies  of  Ministers,  and 
by  the  churches  united  with  them,  in  order  lo  the  en- 
forcement of  such  interpretations  upon  Christians  ge- 
nerally, by  the  influence  of  learning,  piety,  numbers, 
and  solemn  deliberation.  The  reference  of  the  ques- 
tion respecting  circumcision  by  the  Church  at  Antioch 
"to  the  Apostles  and  Elders  at  Jerusalem,"  is  the  first 
instance  of  this,  though  with  this  peculiarity,  that,  in 
this  case,  the  decision  was  given  under  plenary  inspi- 
ration. While  one  of  the  Apostles  lived,  an  appeal 
could  be  made  to  him  in  like  manner  when  any  doc- 
trinal novelty  sprung  uji  in  tlie  Church.  After  their 
death,  smaller  or  larger  ('ounciis,  compo.sed  of  the  pub- 
lic Teachers  of  the  Churches,  were  resorted  to,  that 
they  might  jironounce  upon  these  difl'erences  of  opi- 
nion, and  by  their  authority  confirm  the  faithful,  and 
abash  the  propagators  of  error.  Still  later,  four  Coun- 
cils, called  General,  from  the  number  of  persons  as- 
sembled in  them  from  various  parts  of  Christendom, 
have  peculiar  eminence.  The  Council  of  ISice,  in  the 
fourth  century,  which  condemned  the  Arian  heresy, 
and  formed  that  scriptural  and  important  Ibnnulary 
called  the  iNicene  Creed  ;  the  Council  of  Constantino- 
ple, held  at  the  end  of  the  same  century,  which  con- 
demned the  errors  of  Macedonius,  and  asserted  the 
divinity  and  personality  of  the  Holy  fJliost ;  and  the 
Councils  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon,  about  the  niiddia 
of  the  filth  century,  which  censured  the  opinions  of 
Nestorius  and  Eutjches.  At  Nice  ii  was  declared  that 
the  Son  is  truly  God,  of  the  same  substance  with  the 
Father;  at  Constantinople,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  also 
truly  God  ;  at  Ephesus,  that  the  Uivhie  nature  was 
truly  united  to  the  human  in  Christ,  in  oni  jierson  ;  at 
Chalcedon,  that  both  natures  remained  distinct.,  and 
that  the  human  nature  was  not  lo.st  or  absorbed  in  the 
Divine.  The  decisions  of  these  Councils,  both  from 
their  antiquity  and  from  the  manifest  conformity  of 
their  decisions  on  these  points  to  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, have  been  received  to  this  day  in  \Nhal  have  been 
called  the  Orthodox  Churches,  ihronL'hoiil  the  world. 
On  General  Councils,  the  Komisli  Chunli  lias  been  di- 
vided as  to  the  questions,  whether  mlallibilily  resides 
in  them,  or  in  the  Pope,  or  in  the  Pope  when  at  their 
head.  Protestants  cut  this  matter  short  by  acknow- 
ledging that  they  have  erred,  and  may  err,  being  com- 
posed of  fallible  men,  and  that  they  have  no  authority 
but  as  they  manifestly  agree  with  the  Scriptures.  To 
the  above-mentioned  Councils,  they  have  in  general  al- 
ways paid  great  deference,  as  affording  conlirmation  of 
the  plain  and  literal  sen.se  of  Scripture  on  the  |ioints  in 
(lueslion  ;  but  on  no  other  ground.  "  Things  ordained 
by  (Jeiieral  Councils  as  necessary  to  salvation,  have  nei- 
ther sirenglh  nor  authority,  unless  it  may  be  declared 
they  be  taken  out  of  Holy  Scrii)turc."(fi)  The  manner 
in  which  the  respeciive  Churches  of  the  Reform;niou 
declared  their  duciriiial  Interpretation  of  the  Scriptures 
on  the  leading  points  of  tlieoloi;y,  was  by  Confessions 
and  Articles  of  Faith,  and  by  tlie  ailoption  of  ancient  or 
jirimitive  Creeds.  With  reliTeiiee  lo  tins  practice,  no 
doubt  it  is,  that  the  Church  of  F.iii;laiid  declares  in  her 
twentieth  Article,  that  "the  Chnnh  linlh  antliority 
in  controver.sies  of  faith  ;"  but  (jualilies  the  tenet,  by 
adding,  "and  yet  it  is  not  lawful  lor  the  f:iiureh  lo  or- 
dain any  thing  that  is  contrary  lo  <;od's  wonl  written ;" 
111  which  tliiTe  is  a  manifest  recognition  of  the  right  of 
all  who  have  (Jnd's  word  in  tlieir  hands,  to  make  use  of 
It  in  order  to  try  what  any  Church  "ordains,"  as  ne- 
cessary to  be  believed.  This  authority  of  a  Church  in 
matters  of  doctrine  appears  then  to  be  reduced  lo  the 
following  paiticulars,  which,  although  directly  opposed 
to  the  assumptions  ol  ibe  (  tiurch  ol  lioiiii',  arc'  ol  great 
importance  : — I.  To  declare  tlie  sense  in  \\  Inch  it  inter- 
prets the  language  of  Scrijiiure  on  all  the  leading  doc- 
trines of  the  Christian  revelation ;  for  to  contend,  as 
some  have  done,  that  no  Creeds  or  Articles  of  Faith  are 


(0)  Art.  21st  of  the  Church  of  England. 


Chap,  I.] 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


425 


proper,  but  that  belief  in  the  Scripturea  only  oiiglit  to  ' 
be  retiuired,  would  bo  to  destroy  all  doctrinal  distinc- 
tions, since  the  most  perverse  interpreters  of  Scripture 
frofoss  to  believe  the  vvords  of  Scripture.  2.  To  re- 
quire from  all  its  members,  with  whom  the  right  of  jiri- 
vate judgment  is  by  all  Protestant  Churches  left  invio- 
late, to  examine  such  declarations  of  faith,  professing 
to  convey  the  sense  of  Scripture,  with  modesty  and 
proper  respect  to  those  grave  and  learned  assemblies  in 
which  all  these  points  have  been  weighed  with  delibera- 
tion ;  receiving  them  as  guides  to  truth,  not  implicitly, 
it  is  true,  but  still  with  docility  and  humility.  "  Great 
weight  and  deference  is  due  to  such  decisions,  and  every 
man  that  finds  his  own  thoughts  dill'er  from  them,  ought 
to  examine  the  matter  over  again  wth  much  attention 
and  care,  freeing  himself  all  he  can  from  prejudice  and 
obstinacy,  with  a  just  distrust  of  his  own  understand- 
ing, and  an  humble  respect  to  the  judgment  of  his  su- 
periors. This  is  due  to  the  consideration  of  ])eace  and 
union,  and  to  that  authority  which  the  Church  has  to 
maintain  it ;  but  if,  after  all  possible  methods  of  in- 
quiry, a  man  cannot  master  his  thoughts,  or  make  them 
agree  with  the  public  decisions,  his  conscience  is  not 
under  bonds,  since  thi.s  authority  is  not  absolute,  nor 
grounded  upon  a  promise  of  infaUibility."(7)  3.  To 
silence  witliin  its  own  pale  the  preaching  of  all  doc- 
trines contrary  to  the  received  standards.  On  this 
every  Church  has  a  right  to  insist  which  sincerely  be- 
lieves that  contrary  doctrines  to  its  own  are  funda- 
mental or  dangerous  errors,  and  which  is  thereby  bound 
both  to  keep  its  members  from  their  contamination,  and 
also  to  preserve  them  from  those  distractions  and  con- 
troversies to  which  the  preaching  of  diverse  doctrines 
by  its  Ministers  would  inevitably  lead.  Nor  is  there 
any  thing  in  the  exercise  of  this  authority  contrary  to 
Christian  liberty,  since  the  members  of  any  commu- 
nion, and  especially  the  Ministers,  know  beforehand 
the  terms  of  fellowship  with  the  Churches  whose  con- 
fessions of  faith  are  thus  made  public ;  and  because 
also,  where  conscience  is  unfettered  by  public  law, 
they  are  neither  prevented  from  enjojing  their  own 
opinions  in  peace,  nor  from  propagating  them  in  other 
assemblies. 

The  second  end  is,  the  forming  of  such  regulations  for 
the  conduct  of  its  Ministers,  otticers,  and  members,  as 
shall  establish  a  common  order  for  worship  ;  facilitate 
the  management  of  the  affairs  of  the  community,  spi- 
ritual, economical,  and  financial ;  and  give  a  right  di- 
rection to  the  general  conduct  of  the  whole  society. 
This  in  technical  language  is  called  poiM^osf^iaTafcriKr/, 
and  consists  in  making  canons,  or  rules,  for  those  par- 
ticular matters  which  are  not  provided  for  in  detail  by 
the  directions  of  Scripture.  This  power  also,  like  the 
former,  has  been  carried  to  a  culpable  excess  in  many 
Churches,  so  as  to  fill  them  with  superstition,  and  in 
many  respects  to  introduce  an  onerous  system  of  ob- 
servances, like  that  of  Judaism,  the  yoke  from  which 
the  Gospel  has  set  us  free.  The  simplicity  of  Chris- 
tianity has  thus  been  often  destroyed,  and  the  "  doc- 
trines of  men"  set  up  "  as  commandments  of  God." 
At  the  same  time,  there  is  a  sound  sense  in  which  this 
power  in  a  Church  must  be  admitted,  and  a  deference 
to  it  hound  upon  the  members.  For,  when  the  laws  of 
Christ  are  both  rightly  understood  and  cordially  ad- 
mitted, the  application  of  them  to  particular  cases  is 
still  necessary  ;  many  regulations  also  arc  dictated  by 
inference  and  by  analogies,  and  often  appear  to  be  re- 
quired by  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel,  for  which  there  is  no 
provision  in  the  letter  of  Scripture.  The  obligation  of 
public  worship,  for  instance,  is  plainly  stated  ;  but  the 
seasons  of  its  observance,  its  frequency,  and  the  mode 
111  which  it  is  to  be  conducted,  must  be  matter  of  spe- 
cial regulation,  in  order  that  all  things  may  be  done 
"  decently  and  in  order."  The  observance  of  the  Sab- 
bath is  binding  ;  but  particular  rules  guarding  against 
such  acts  as,  in  the  judgment  of  a  Church,  are  viola- 
tions of  the  law  of  the  Sabbath,  are  often  necessary 
to  direct  the  judgment  and  consciences  of  the  body  of 
the  people.  Baptism  is  to  be  administered  ;  but  the 
manner  of  this  service  may  be  prescribed  by  a  Church, 
since  I  he  Scriptures  have  not  determined  it.  So  also  as 
to  the  mode  and  the  times  of  receiving  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, in  the  same  absence  of  inspired  directions  regula- 
tions must  be  agreed  upon,  that  there  maybe,  as  nearly 
as  edification  requires,  an  undistracted  uniformity  of  prac- 

(7)  Burnet. 


tiee.  Special  festivals  of  commemoration  and  thanks 
pivings  may  also  be  appointed,  as  lit  occasions  for  the 
inculcation  of  particular  truths,  and  moral  duties,  and 
for  the  special  excitement  of  grateful  affections.  For 
although  they  are  not  particularly  prescribed  in  Scrip- 
ture, they  are  in  manifest  accordance  with  its  spirit, 
and  are  sanctioned  by  many  of  the  (•xam))les  which 
it  exhibits.  Days  of  fasting  and  huiriiIi:iiion,  for  the 
same  reasons,  may  be  the  subject  of  a|i|i<iimin(nt :  and 
besides  the  regular  acts  of  public  worship,  iirivale  meet- 
ings of  the  members  for  mutual  prayer  and  religious 
converse  may  also  be  found  necessary.  To  these  may 
be  added,  various  plans  for  the  instruction  of  children, 
the  visitation  and  relief  of  the  sick,  and  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  Gospel  into  neglected  neighbourhoods,  and 
its  promotion  in  foreign  lands.  A  considerable  number 
of  other  regulations  touching  order,  contributions,  the 
repressing  of  particular  vices  which  may  mark  the  spi- 
rit of  the  times,  and  the  practice  of  particular  duties, 
will  also  be  found  necessary. 

The  only  legitimate  ends,  however,  of  all  these  di- 
rections and  rules,  are,  the  edification  of  the  Church ; 
the  preservation  of  its  practical  purity  ;  the  establish- 
ment of  an  influential  order  and  decorum  in  its  ser- 
vices; and  the  promotion  of  its  usefulness  to  the  world- 
The  general  principles  by  which  they  are  to  be  con- 
trolled are,  the  spirituality,  simplicity,  and  practical 
cAarac^er  of  Christianity;  and  the  authority  with  which 
they  are  invested  is  derived  from  piety,  wisdom,  and 
singleness  of  heart,  in  those  who  originate  them,  and 
from  that  docility  and  submissiveness  of  Christians  to 
each  other,  which  is  enforced  upon  them  in  the  New 
Testament.  For  although  every  Christian  is  exhorted 
to  "  try  all  things,"  to  "  search  the  Scriptures,"  and  to 
exercise  his  best  judgment  in  matters  which  relate  to 
doctrine,  discipline,  and  practice,  yet  he  is  to  do  this  in 
the  spirit  of  a  Christian  ;  not  with  aelf-willedness,  and 
self-confldence  ;  not  contemning  the  opinion  and  au- 
thority of  others;  not  factiously  and  censoriously. 
This  is  his  duty  even  where  the  most  important  sub- 
jects are  in  question ;  how  much  more  then  in  things 
comparatively  indifferent  ought  he  to  practise  the  Apo.s- 
tolic  rule :— "  Likewise,  ye  younger,  submit  yourselves 
unto  the  elder ;  yea,  all  of  you  be  subject  one  to  an- 
other, and  be  clothed  with  humility." 

The  third  end  of  Church  government  is  the  infliction 
and  removal  of  censures,  a  power  ( potestas  ^laKpiriKri) 
the  abuse  of  which,  and  the  extravagant  lengths  to 
which  it  has  been  carried,  have  led  some  wholly  to 
deny  it,  or  to  treat  it  slightly ;  but  which  is,  neverthe- 
less, deposited  -with  every  Scriptural  Church.  Even 
associations,  much  less  solemn  and  sjiiritual  in  their 
character,  have  the  power  to  put  away  their  members, 
and  to  receive  again,  upon  certain  conditions,  those  who 
offend  against  their  rules ;  and  if  the  offence  which 
called  forth  this  expulsion  be  of  a  moral  nature,  the 
censure  of  a  whole  society,  inflicted  after  due  examina- 
tion, comes  with  much  greater  weight,  and  is  a  much 
greater  reproach  and  rnisfortune  to  the  person  who 
falls  under  it,  than  that  of  a  private  individual.  In 
the  case  of  a  Christian  Church,  however,  the  proceed- 
ing connects  itself  with  a  higher  than  human  author- 
ity. The  members  have  separated  from  the  world,  and 
have  placed  tliemselves  under  the  law.s  of  Christ. 
They  stand  in  a  special  relation  to  him,  so  long  as  tliey 
are  faithful ;  they  are  objects  of  his  care  and  love,  as 
members  of  his  own  body  ;  and  to  them,  as  such, 
great  and  numerous'  promises  are  made.  To  preserve 
them  in  this  state  of  fidelity,  to  guard  them  from  errors 
of  doctrine  and  viciousness  of  practice,  and  thus  to  pre- 
vent their  separation  from  Christ,  the  Church  with  its 
ministry,  its  ordinances,  and  its  discipline,  was  esta- 
blished. He  who  becomes  unfaithful  in  opposition  to 
the  influence  of  those  edifying  and  conservatory  means, 
forfeits  the  favour  of  Christ,  even  before  he  is  deserv- 
edly separated  from  the  Church  ;  but  when  he  is  sepa- 
rated, put  away,  denied  communion  with  the  Church, 
he  loses  also  the  benefit  of  all  those  peculiar  means  of 
grace  and  salvation,  and  of  those  special  influences  and 
promises  which  Christ  bestows  upon  the  Church.  lie 
is  not  only  thrown  back  upon  common  society  with 
shame,  stigmatized  as  an  "  evil-worker,"  by  the  solemn 
sentence  of  a  religious  tribunal ;  but  becomes,  so  to 
speak,  again  a  member  of  that  incorporated  and  hostile 
society,  THK  world,  against  which  theexclusive  and 
penal  sentences  of  the  word  of  tJod  are  directed. 
Where  the  sentence  of  excision  by  a  Church  is  erring 


426 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  IV. 


or  vicious,  as  it  may  be  in  some  cases,  it  cannot  afluct 
an  innocent  individual ;  he  would  remain,  notwith- 
standing ttic  sentence  of  men,  a  memher  of  Christ's 
invisible  universal  Cliurch;  but  when  it  proceeds  upon 
a  just  application  of  the  laws  of  Christ,  there  can  he 
no  doubt  of  its  ratification  in  heaven,  aUhougli  the  door 
is  left  open  to  penitence  and  restoration. 

In  proportion,  liowever,  as  a  sober  and  serious 
Christian,  having  lliose  views,  wishes  to  keep  up  in 
his  own  mind,  and  in  the  minds  of  otliers,  a  proper 
sense  of  the  weight  and  solemnity  of  Church  censures, 
when  rightly  administered,  he  will  feel  disgusted  at 
those  assumptions  of  control  over  tlie  mercy  and  justice 
of  God,  which  fallible  men  have  in  some  Churches  en- 
deavoured to  establish,  and  have  too  often  exercised  for 
the  gratification  of  the  worst  jiassions.  So,  because 
our  Lord  said  to  Peter,  "  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  and  "  whatsoever  thou 
Shalt  bind  on  earth  shall  he  bound  in  heaven,  and 
whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in 
heaven,"  which  is  also  said  Matt,  .xviii.  18,  to  all  the 
apostles,  "  it  came  to  be  understood  that  the  sentence 
of  e.vcommunication,  by  its  own  intrinsic  authority, 
condemned  to  eternal  punishment;  that  the  excommu- 
nicated person  could  not  be  delivered  from  this  con- 
demnation, unless  the  Church  gave  him  absolution; 
and  that  the  Church  had  the  power  of  absolving  him, 
upon  the  private  confession  of  his  fault,  either  by  pre- 
scribing to  him  certain  acts  of  penance,  and  works  of 
charity,  the  performance  of  which  was  considered  as  a 
satisfaction  for  the  sin  which  he  had  committed,  or  by 
applying  to  him  the  merits  of  some  other  person.  And 
as  in  the  progress  of  corruption,  the  whole  imwer  of  the 
Church  was  supposed  to  be  lodged  in  the  Pope,  there 
flowed  from  him,  at  his  pleasure,  indulgences  or  remis- 
sions of  some  parts  of  the  penance,  absolutions,  and 
pardons,  the  possession  of  which  was  represented  to 
Christians  as  essential  to  salvation,  and  the  sale  of 
which  formed  a  most  gainful  trallic." 

As  to  the  passage  respecting  the  gift  of  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  to  Peter,  from  which  tliese 
views  affect  to  be  derived,  it  is  most  naturally  explained 
by  the  very  apiwsite  and  obviously  explanatory  (act, 
that  this  Apostle  was  the  first  ]ircacher  of  the  Cospel 
dispensation  in  its  perfected  lorin,  both  to  the  .lews  at 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  anil  altervvard  to  the  Centiles. 
Bishop  Ilorsley  applies  it  only  to  the  latter  of  these 
events,  to  which  indeed  it  may  principally,  hut  not  ex- 
clusively refer. 

"  St.  Peter's  custody  of  the  keys  was  a  temporary, 
not  a  perpetual,  authority ;  its  object  was  not  indivi- 
duals, but  the  whole  human  race.  The  kingdom  of 
heaven  upon  earth  is  the  true  Church  of  (iod.  It  is 
now,  therefore,  the  Christian  Church :  formerly  the 
Jewish  Church  was  that  kingdom.  The  true  Church  is 
represented  in  this  text,  as  in  many  passages  of  Holy 
Writ,  under  the  image  of  a  walled  city,  to  be  entered 
only  at  the  gates.  Under  the  Mosaic  economy,  these 
gates  were  shut,  and  particular  persons  only  could  ob- 
tain admittance — Israelites  by  birth,  or  by  legal  incor- 
poration. The  locks  of  these  gates  were  the  rites  of 
the  Mosaic  law,  which  obstructed  the  entrance  of 
aliens.  Hut  allironr  Lord's  ascension,  and  the  descent 
of  the  Holy  (;iiost,  tbr  keys  of  the  city  were  given  lo 
St.  Peter  by  that  vision  which  taught  him,  ainl  anilior- 
ized  him  to  teach  others,  that  all  ilisimciions  of  one  na- 
tion froiti  anotlier  vi-cre,  at  an  end.  Ity  virtue  of  this 
special  commission,  the  great  i^postle  applied  the  key, 
pushed  back  the  bolt  of  the  lock,  and  threw  the  gates 
lyf  the  city  open  for  the  admission  of  the  whole  (Jen- 
tile  world,  in  the  instance  of  Cornelius  aiul  his  lii- 
nnly."(R) 

When  the  same  learned  prelate  would  also  refer  the 
binding  and  loosing  power  mentioned  in  the  above 
texts  exclusively  to  Peter,  he  forgets  that  in  the  i>as- 
sage  above  referred  to.  Matt,  xviii.  18,  it  is  given  to  all 
the  Apostles :  "  Whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth  shall 
be  bound  in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  ye  shall  loose  on 
earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven."  These  expressions 
manifestly  refer  lo  the  authoritative  declaration  of  any 
thing  to  lie  <ililigiitory,  and  its  infraction  to  be  sinful, 
and  therelbre  subject  to  punishment,  or  the  contrary; 
and  the  passage  receives sullieient  illustration  from  tin; 
words  ol  our  Lord  lo  his  Apiisiles,  alter  his  resiirrec- 
(lon,  when,  after  brealliing  n|ion  Iheiii,  he  said,"l{e- 

(b)  lioKuLUv's  Sermons. 


ceivc  ye  the  Holy  Ghost :  whosesoever  sins  ye  remit, 
they  arc  remitted  to  them ;  and  whosesoever  sins  ye 
retain,  they  are  retained,"  John  xx.  22,  23.  To  qualify 
them  for  this  authoritative  declaration  of  what  was 
obliiiatiiry  iiiion  men,  or  otherwise  ;  and  of  the  terms 
u]ioii  Willi  h  sins  are  "remitted,"  and  the  circumsiancejs 
under  which  they  arc  "  retained,"  fhey  previously  re- 
ceived the  Holy  Ghost, — a  suflieienl  proof  that  this 
power  was  connected  with  the  plenary  inspiration  of 
the  Apostles  ;  and  beyond  those  inspired  men  it  could 
not  extend,  niiless  eijually  strong  miraculous  evidence 
of  the  same  degree  of  inspiration  were  afforded  by  any 
others.  The  manner  also  in  which  the  Apostles  exer- 
cised this  power  elucidates  the  subject.  We  have  no 
instance  at  all  of  their  forgiving  the  sins  of  any  indivi- 
duals ;  they  merely  pr(idnimi:d  the  terms  of  pardon. 
And  we  have  no  instance  of  their  "  retaining"  the  sins 
of  any  one,  except  by  dtclnnit^  llieui  eondemned  by  the 
laws  of  the  (in.spel,  of  which  they  were  the  preachers. 
They  authoritatively  explain  in  their  writings  the  terms 
of  forgiveness;  they  slate,  as  lo  duty,  what  is  obliga- 
tory and  what  is  not  obligatory  upon  Christians ;  they 
pronounce  sinners  of  various  kinds,  impenitent  and 
unbelieving,  to  be  under  God's  wrath  ;  and  they  declare 
certain  apostates  to  be  put  beyond  liirgiveness  by  their 
own  act,  not  by  Apostolic  exconiinumeatioii ;  and  thus 
they  bind  and  loose,  remit  sins  and  retain  them.  The 
meaning  of  these  passages  is  in  tliis  manner  explained 
by  the  practice  of  the  Apostles  themselves,  and  we  may 
also  see  the  reason  why,  in  Matt,  xvni.,  a  similar  de- 
claration stands  connected  with  the  censures  of  a 
Church:  "Moreover,  if  thy  brother  trespass  against 
thee,  go  and  tell  him  his  fault  between  thee  and  hhn 
alone;  if  he  shall  hear  thee,  thou  hast  gained  thy  bro- 
ther, liut  if  he  will  not  hear  thee,  then  take  with  thee 
one  or  two  more,  that  in  the  mouth  of  two  or  three 
witnesses  every  word  may  be  established.  And  if  he 
shall  neglect  to  hear  them,  tell  it  unto  the  Church  ;  but 
if  he  neglect  to  hear  the  Church,  let  him  be  unto  thee 
as  a  heathen  man  and  as  a  publican  ;  verily,  I  say  unto 
you,  whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth  shall  he  bound 
in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  ye  shall  loose  on  earth  shall 
be  loosed  in  heaven." 

That  here  there  may  be  a  reference  to  a  provision 
made  among  the  Jews  for  setlling  questions  of  accusa- 
tion and  disjiute  by  the  Elders  of  their  synagogues,  is 
probable  ;  but  it  is  also  clear  that  our  Lord  looked  for- 
ward to  the  eslablisliment  of  his  own  Church,  which 
was  to  displace  the  synagogue  ;  and  that  there  might 
be  infallilile  rules  lo  guide  that  Church  in  its  judgment 
on  moral  ca.ses,  he  turns  to  the  disciples,  lo  whom  the 
discourse  is  addressed,  and  says  to  them, "  Whatsoever 
Yi!;,"not  ihe  C'/wrc/(,  "  shall  hind  on  earth,  shall  be 
bound  in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  vk  shall  loo.se  on 
earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven."  Of  the  disciples  then 
present,  llie  subsequeiil  history  leads  us  to  conclude, 
thai  he  jiniuipally  meant  that  the  Apostles  should  be 
endued  with  tins  power,  and  that  llicy  were  to  be  the 
inspired  persons  who  were  lo  furnish  "  Ihe  Church" 
Willi  inlalhble  rules  of  judgment,  in  all  such  cases  of 
dispute  and  arcusation.  When,  therefore,  any  Church 
riglilly  inlerprets  these  Apostolic  rules,  and  rightly  ap- 
jilies  ilieiii  lo  partieiilar  eases,  it  then  exercises  a  disci- 
pline wliuli  is  not  only  approved,  but  is  also  confirmed, 
in  heaven,  by  the  coueinrlng  dispensations  of  God, 
whore.s])eelshisowniiispiraliniis  in  Ins  .Vpostles.  Tho 
whole  shows  the  careful  and  soliinn  nianner  in  which 
all  such  investigations  are  to  be  conducted,  and  the 
serious  eflTect  of  them.  It  is  by  the  admonishing  and 
putting  away  of  ofl'enders,  that  the  Church  bears  its 
teslimony  against  all  sin  before  Ihe  worid  ;  and  it  is 
thus  that  she  maintains  a  salutary  inlhiciine  over  her 
members,  by  the  well-grounded  fear  of  tlio.se  censures 
which,  when  scriplurally  adminislered,  are  .sanctioned 
by  Chrisi,  its  Head  ;  and  wliich,  when  Ihey  extend  to 
excision  IroMi  the  body,  and  no  error  of  judgment,  or 
Hinister  intenlioii,  vitiates  the  lirocceding,  sejiarates  Ihe 
ofiiiiiders  from  that  special  grace  of  Chrisi,  which  is 
promised  to  tlie  faithful  collerteil  into  a  Church  state, 
—a  loss,  an  evil,  and  a  ilant'cr,  wliieh  nothing  but  re- 
pentance, liumilialion,  and  a  return  to  (;od  and  his 
people,  can  repair.  For  it  is  lo  be  observed,  Ihal  this 
pari  of  discipline  is  an  ordinance  of  Chrisi,  not  only  for 
file  maintenance  of  the  character  of  his  churches  and 
llie  preservation  of  their  influence  in  (he  world,  but 
liir  llie  spiriliial  benefit  of  the  offenders  themselves. 
To  this  cHuct  are  the  words  of  tlie  apostle  Paul,  as  to 


Chap.  Il.J 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


427 


the  immoral  Corintliian, — "  to  deliver  suf;h  a  one  to 
Satan,  f'ortiie  destruction  of  thcjlrxli,"  the  dominion  of 
his  bodily  apjietilcs,  "  thiit  the  spirit  may  be  saved  in 
the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  Tile  practice  of  many  of 
the  ancient  churches  was,  in  this  i;espect,  rigid ;  in 
several  of  the  circumstances  far  too  much  so ;  and 
thus  it  assumed  a  severity  much  more  appalling  than 
In  the  apostolic  times.  It  sliows,  however,  liovv  deeply 
the  necessity  of  maintaining  moral  discijilmc  was  felt 
among  them,  and  in  substance,  though  not  in  every 
part  of  the  mode,  is  worthy  of  remembrance.  "  When 
disciples  of  Clirist,  who  liad  dishonoured  his  religion 
by  committing  any  gross  immorality,  or  by  relapsing 
into  idolatry,  were  cut  off  from  the  church  by  the  sen- 
tence of  excommunication,  they  were  kept  often  for 
years  in  a  state  of  penance,  however  desirous  to  be 
readmitted.  They  made  a  public  confession  of  tlieir 
faith,  accompanied  with  tlie  most  humiliating  expres- 
sions of  grief.  For  some  time  they  stood  without  the 
doors,  while  the  Christians  were  employed  in  worship. 
Afterward  they  were  allowed  to  enter ;  then  to  stand 
during  a  part  of  tlie  service ;  then  to  remain  during  ttie 
whole ;  but  they  were  not  pernntled  to  p.artake  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  till  a  formal  absolution  was  pronounced 
by  tlie  church.  The  time  of  the  penance  was  some- 
times shortened,  when  the  anguish  of  their  mind  or 
any  occasional  distress  of  body  threatened  the  danger 
of  their  dying  in  that  condition  ;  or  wlien  those  who 
were  then  suffering  persecution,  or  other  deserving 
members  of  the  church,  interceded  for  them,  and  became 
by  this  intercession,  in  some  measure  sureties  for  their 
future  good  behaviour.  The  duration  of  the  penance, 
the  acts  required  while  it  continued,  and  the  manner 
of  the  ab.solution,  varied  at  different  times.  The  matter 
was,  from  its  nature,  subject  to  much  abuse  ;  it  was 
often  taken  under  the  cognizance  of  ancient  councils; 
and  a  great  part  of  their  canons  was  employed  in  re- 
gulating the  exercise  of  discipline."(9) 

In  concluding  tlus  chapter,  it  may  be  observed,  that 
however  difficult  it  may  be  in  some  cases  to  adjust 
modes  of  church  government,  so  that,  in  the  view  of 
all,  the  principles  of  the  New  Testament  may  be  fully 
recognised,  and  the  ends  for  which  churches  are  col- 
lected may  be  effectually  accomplished,  this  labour  will 
always  be  greatly  smoothed  by  a  steady  regard  on  each 
side  to  duties  as  well  as  to  rights.  These  are  ei)ually 
imperative  upon  ministers,  upon  subordinate  otficers, 
and  upon  the  private  members  of  every  church.  Cha- 
rity, candour,  humility,  public  spirit,  zeal,  a  forgiving 
spirit,  and  the  desire,  the  strong  desire,  of  unity  and 
harmony,  ought  to  pervade  all,  as  well  as  a  constant 
remembrance  of  the  great  and  solemn  truth,  that  Christ 
is  the  Judge  as  well  as  the  Saviour  of  his  churches. 
While  the  people  are  docile,  obedient  to  the  word  of 
exhortation,  willing  to  submit  "  in  the  Lord"  to  those 
who  "  preside  over  them,"  and  are  charged  to  exercise 
Christ's  discipline ;  and  while  ministers  are  "  gentle 
among  them,"  after  the  example  of  St.  Paul, — a  gentle- 
ness, however,  which,  in  his  case,  wnked  at  no  evil 
and  kept  back  no  truth,  and  compromised  no  principle, 
and  spared  no  obstinate  and  incurable  offender, — while 
they  feed  the  flock  of  Christ  with  sound  doctrine,  and 
are  intent  upon  their  edificaticui,  watching  over  them 
"  as  they  that  must  give  account,"  and  study,  live,  and 
labour  (or  no  other  ends,  than  to  present  that  part  of 
the  church  committed  to  their  care  "  perfect  in  Christ 
Jesus  ;"  every  church  will  fall,  as  it  were,  naturally 
and  without  effort  into  its  proper  "  order."  Pure  and 
undefiled  religion  in  churches,  like  the  first  poetrj', 
creates  those  subordinate  rules  by  which  it  is  after- 
ward guarded  and  governed ;  and  the  best  canons  of 
both  are  those  which  arc  dictated  by  the  fresh  and  pri- 
mitive effusions  of  their  own  inspiration. 


CHAPTER  II. 

I.JSTiTUTiojjs  OF  Christianity.— The  Sacraments. 

Thk  number  of  Sacraments  is  held  hy  all  Protest- 
ants to  he  but  ivio,— Baptism,  and  the  LirnVs  Supper; 
because  they  find  no  other  instituted  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, or  practised  in  the  early  Chnrch.  I'he  super- 
stition of  the  Church  of  Rome  has  added  no  fewer  than 


(9)  IIiLL'ii  Lectures. 


five  to  the  number, — Confirmation,  Petiance,  Orders, 
Matrimony,  and  Extreme  Unctiim. 

The  word  used  by  the  Greek  Fathers  for  sacrament 
was  iJivaT)]fHov.  In  the  New  Testament  this  word  al- 
ways means,  as  Campbell  has  showed,  either  a  secret, 
— sometlung  unknown  tdl  revealed;  or  the  spiritual 
meaning  of  some  emblem  or  type.  In  both  these 
senses  it  is  rendered  sacramentam  in  the  Vulgate 
translation,  which  sliows  that  the  latter  word  was 
formerly  used  in  a  large  sigailication.  As  tlie  Greek 
term  was  employed  in  the  iNew  Testament  to  express 
the  hidden  meaning  of  an  external  symbol,  as  in  Reve- 
lation i.  20,  "  the  mystery  of  the  seven  stars,"  it  was 
naturally  applied  by  early  Christians  to  the  symbolical 
rite  of  the  I,ord's  Supper;  and  as  some  of  the  most 
sacred  and  retired  parts  of  the  ancient  heathen  wor- 
ship were  called  mysteries,  from  which  all  but  the 
initiated  were  excluded,  the  use  of  the  same  term  to 
designate  that  most  sacred  act  of  Christian  worship, 
which  was  strictly  conlined  to  the  approved  members 
of  the  Church,  was  probably  thought  peculiarly  appro- 
priate. The  Latin  word  sacrament.um,  in  its  largest 
sense,  may  signify  a  sacred  ceremony  ;  and  is  the  ap- 
pellation, also,  of  the  military  oath  of  fidelity,  taken  by 
the  Roman  soldiers.  For  both  these  reasons,  probably, 
the  term  sacrament  was  adopted  by  the  Latm  Chris- 
tians. For  the  first,  because  of  the  peculiar  sacred- 
ness  of  the  Lord's  Supper ;  and  lor  the  second,  be- 
cause of  that  engagement  to  be  faithful  to  the  com- 
mands of  Christ,  their  heavenly  Leader,  which  was 
implied  in  this  ordinance,  and  impressed  upon  them 
by  so  sacred  a  solemnity.  It  was,  perhaps,  from  the 
designation  of  this  ordinance,  by  the  term  sacramen- 
tutn,  by  the  Christians  whom  Pliny  examined  as  to 
their  faith  and  modes  of  worship,  that  he  thus  expresses 
himself  in  his  letter  to  the  Emperor  Trajan  : — "  From 
their  affirmations  1  learned  that  the  sum  of  all  their 
offence,  call  it  fault  or  error,  was,  that  on  a  day  fixed, 
they  used  to  assemble  before  sunrise,  and  sing  together, 
in  alternate  responses,  hymns  to  Christ,  as  a  i)eity ; 
binding  themselves  Oy  the  solemn  engagements  of  an 
oath,  not  to  commit  any  manner  of  wickedness,"  &c. 
The  term  sacrament  was  also  at  an  early  period  given 
to  Baptism,  as  well  as  to  the  Supper  of  the  Lord, 
and  is  now  confined  among  Protestants  to  these  two 
ordinances  only.  The  distinction  between  sacra- 
ments, and  other  religious  rites,  is  well  stated  by  Uur- 
net:— (1) 

"  This  difference  is  to  be  put  between  sacraments 
and  other  ritual  actions ;  that  whereas  other  rites  are 
badges  and  distinctions  by  which  Christians  arc 
known,  a  sacrament  is  more  than  a  bare  matter  of 
form  ;  as  in  the  Old  Testament,  circumcision  and  pro- 
phiatory  sacrifices  were  things  of  a  different  nature 
and  order  from  all  the  other  ritual  precepts  concerning 
their  cleansings,  the  distinctions  of  days,  places,  and 
meats.  These  were,  indeed,  precepts  given  them 
of  God ;  but  they  were  not  federal  acts  of  renewing 
the  covenant,  or  reconciling  themselves  to  God.  By 
circumcision  they  received  the  seal  of  the  covenant, 
and  were  brought  under  the  obligation  of  the  whole 
law ;  they  were  made  by  it  debtors  to  it ;  and  when  by 
their  sins  they  had  jirovoked  God's  wrath,  they  were 
reconciled  to  him  by  their  sacrifices,  with  which  atone- 
ment was  made,  and  so  their  sins  were  forgiven  them ; 
the  nature  and  end  of  those  was,  to  be  federal  acts,  in 
the  offering  of  which  the  Jews  kept  to  their  part  of  the 
covenant,  and  in  the  accepting  of  which  God  maintained 
it  on  his  part ;  so  we  see  a  plain  tUfference  between 
these  and  a  mere  rite,  which,  though  commanded,  yet 
must  pass  only  for  the  badge  of  a  profession,  as  the  do- 
ing of  it  is  an  act  of  obedience  to  a  Divine  law  Now, 
in  the  new  dispensation,  though  our  Saviour  has  eased 
us  of  that  law  of  ordinances,  that  grievous  yoke,  and 
those  beggarly  elements,  which  were  laid  upon  the 
Jews ;  yet  since  we  are  still  in  the  body  subject  to  our 
senses,  and  to  sensible  things,  he  has  appointed  some 
federal  actions  to  be  both  the-  visible  stipulations  and 
professions  of  our  Christianity,  and  the  conveyancers 
to  us  of  the  blessings  of  the  Gospel." 

It  is  this  view  of  the  two  sacraments,  as  federal  acts, 
which  sweeps  away  the  five  superstitious  additions 
that  the  temerity  of  the  Church  of  Rome  has  dared  to 
elevate  to  the  same  rank  of  sacredness  and  imjiortance. 

As  it  is  usual  among  men  toconCim  covenants  by 


(1)  On  the  Articles. 


428 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  IV 


visible  and  solemn  forms,  and  has  bcnn  so  from  tlic  | 
most  ancient  tiinos,  so  when  Almighty  (Jod  was  pleased 
to  enter  into  covenant  engasemenls  witli  men,  he  con- 
descended to  the  same  methods  of  allordin^s  on  his 
part,  sensible  assurances  of  his  fidelity,  anil  to  rcipiirc 
the  same  from  them.  Thus,  circumcision  was  the 
sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham ;  and 
when  the  great  covenant  of  grace  was  made  in  the 
Son  of  God  with  all  nations,  it  was  attreeable  to  this 
analosy  to  expect  that  he  would  institute  some  con- 
stantly-recurring visible  sign,  in  contirmalion  of  his 
mercy  to  us,  which  should  encourage  our  reliance  upon 
his  promises,  and  have  the  force  of  a  perpetual  re- 
newal of  the  covenant  between  the  parties.  Such  is 
manifesily  the  character  and  ends  both  of  the  institu- 
tion of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper;  but  as  to  the 
live  additional  sacraments  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
"  tlicy  have  not  any  visible  sign  or  ceremony  ordained 
of  Ci!od,"(2)  and  they  stand  in"ho  direct  connexion  with 
any  covenant  engagement  entered  into  by  him  with  his 
creatures.  Con)irmatioii  rests  on  no  scriptural  au- 
thority at  all.  Penance,  if  it  mean  any  thing  more 
than  repentance,  is  equally  unsanctioned  by  Scripture ; 
and  if  it  mean  "  repentance  towards  God,"  it  is  no 
more  a  sacrament  than  faith.  Orders,  or  the  ordination 
of  ministers,  is  an  apostolic  command,  but  has  in  it  no 
greater  indication  of  a  sacramental  act  than  any  other 
sucli  command, — say  theexcommunication  of  obstinate 
sinners  from  the  Church,  which,  with  just  as  good  a 
reason,  might  be  elevated  into  a  sacrament.  Carriage 
appears  to  have  been  made  by  the  Papists  a  sacra- 
ment for  this  curious  reason,  that  the  apostle  Paul, 
when  speakuig  of  the  love  and  union  of  husband  and 
wife,  and  taking  occasion  from  that  to  allude  to  the  love 
of  Christ  to  his' Church,  says,  "  This  is  a  great  mys- 
tery," which  the  Vulgate  version  translates,  "  Sacra- 
MENTHM  hoc  masnum  est."  Thus  they  confound  the 
large  and  the  restricted  sense  ofthe  word  sacrament,  and 
forget  that  the  true  "  mystery"  spoken  of  by  the  apos- 
tle lies  not  in  marriage,  but  in  the  union  of  Christ  with 
his  people,—"  This  is  a  great  mystery,  but  I  speak 
concerning  Christ  and  the  Church."  II,  however,  the 
u.se  of  the  word  "  mystery"  in  this  passage  by  St.  Paul, 
were  sufficient  to  prove  marriage  a  sacrament,  then 
the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  as  Beza  observes,  might  be 
the  eighth  sacrament,  since  St.  Paul  terms  that  "  a 
mystery,"  Eph.  i.  t),  which  the  Vulgate,  in  like  man- 
ner, translates  by  "  sacramentum."  The  last  of  their 
sacraments  is  Extreme  Unction,  of  which  it  is  enough 
to  sav,  that  it  is  nowhere  prescribed  in  Scripture ;  and 
if  it  were,  has  clearly  nothing  in  it  of  a  sacramental 
character.  The  passage  in  St.  James's  Epistle  to 
which  they  refer,  cannot  serve  them  at  all ;  for  the  Ro- 
manists use  extreme  unction  only  when  all  hope  of  re- 
covery is  past,  whereas  the  prayers  and  the  anointing 
mentioned  by  St.  James  were  resorted  to  in  order  to  a 
miraculous  cure,  for  life,  and  not  lor  death.  With 
them,  therefore,  extreme  unction  is  called  "  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  dying." 

Of  the  nature  of  sacraments  there  are  three  leading 
views. 
The  first  is  that  taken  by  the  Church  of  Rome. 
According  to  the  doctrine  of  this  Church,  the  sacra- 
ments contain  the  grace  they  signify,  and  conlcr  grace, 
ex  ojicre  operato,  by  the  work  itself,  upon  such  as  do 
not  put  an  obstruction  by  mortal  sin.  "  For  these 
sensible  and  natural  things,"  it  is  declared,  "  work  by 
t  lie  almighty  power  of  (5od  in  the  sacraments  what  they 
could  not  do  by  their  own  power."  Nor  is  any  more 
luci-ssary  to  this  elfect,  than  that  the  Priests,  "  who 
iiiaki'aud  consecrate  the  sacraments,  have;  an  iiUenlion 
oi'ddiiig  what  the  Church  doth,  and  doili  intend  to  do  "(.1) 
Acfording,  therefore,  lo  this  doi-lriiic,  tlic  matter  of 
the  sacrament  derives  from  the  action  of  the  Priest,  in 
proiiouucing  i-ertain  words,  a  Divine  virtue,  provided 
it  \n:  the  intention  of  the  Priest  to  give  to  that  matter 
such  a  Divine  virtue,  and  this  grace  is  conveyed  to  the 
soul  of  every  person  who  receives  it.  Nor  is  it  required 
of  the  jierson  receiving  a  sacrament,  that  he  should 
exercise  any  good  disposition,  or  possess  faith  ,  for  such 
is  conccivi^l  lo  be  the  phi/siral  virtue  of  a  sacriimenl, 
that,  except  when  opposed  by  the  obstacle  of  a  niorlal 
fiin,  the  act  of  receiving  it  is  aione  sufficient  for  the  ex- 
lierience  of  its  efficacy!    This  is  so  capital  an  article 


(2)  Article  25th  ofthe  Church  of  England. 

(3)  Cone.  'I'rid.  Can.  11. 


of  faith  with  the  Rornish  Church,  that  the  Council  of 
Trent  anathematizes  all  who  deny  that  grace  is  not 
conferreil  by  the  sacraments  from  the  act  itself  of  re- 
ceiving them,  and  affirm  that  faith  only  in  the  Divine 
promises  is  sulhcient  to  the  obtaining  of  grace, — "  6'e 
i/iiis  dixerit,  per  ipsa  nmia  leffis  sacramenta,  ex  opere 
operato,  non  conferri  gratiam,  seilsnlum^fidem  Divina 
proinissionis  ad  i^ratiam  coiisei/iimduin  si{fficcre,  ana- 
thema  sit."{i)  It  is  on  this  ground  also,  that  the  mem- 
bers of  that  Church  argue  the  superiority  of  the  sacra- 
ments of  the  New  Testaniont  to  those  of  the  Old  ;  the 
latter  having  been  etfectua!  only  ex  opere  operanlis, 
from  the  piety  and  faith  of  the  persons  receiving  them, 
while  the  former  confer  grace  ex  opere  operato,  from 
their  own  intrinsic  virtue,  and  an  immediate  physical 
mtluence  upon  the  mind  of  the  receiver. 

The  first  great  objection  to  this  statement  is,  that  it 
has  even  no  pretence  of  authority  from  Scripture,  and 
grounds  itself  wholly  upon  the  alleged  traditions  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  which,  in  Dtct,  are  just  what 
successive  inventors  of  superstitious  practices  have 
thought  proper  to  make  them.  The  second  is,  that  it  is 
decidedly  anti-scriptural ;  for  as  the  only  true  notion 
of  a  sacrament  is,  that  it  is  the  sign  and  seal  of  a  cove- 
nant ;  and  as  tlK;  saving  benefits  of  the  covenant  of 
grace  are  made  expressly  to  depend  upon  a  true  liiitli ; 
the  condition  of  grace  being  made  by  the  Church  of 
Rome  the  act  of  receiving  a  sacrament  independent  of 
true  faith,  she  impudently  rejects  the  great  condition 
of  salvation  as  laid  down  in  God's  word,  and  sets  up 
in  its  place  another  of  an  opposite  kind  by  mere  human 
authority.  The  third  is,  that  it  debases  an  ordinance 
of  God  from  a  rational  service  into  a  mere  charm,  dis- 
connected with  every  mental  exercise,  and  working  its 
effect  physically,  and  not  morally.  The  fourth  is  its 
licentious  tendency  ;  for  as  a  very  large  class  ol'  sins 
is  by  the  Romish  Church  allowed  to  be  venial,  and  no- 
thing but  a  mortal  sin  can  prevent  the  recipient  of  the 
sacrament  from  receiving  the  grace  of  God ;  men  may 
live  in  the  practice  of  all  these  venial  offences,  and 
consequently  in  an  unrenewed  habit  of  soul,  and  yet 
be  assured  of  the  Divine  favour,  and  of  eternal  salva- 
tion ;  thus  again  boldly  contradicting  the  whole  tenor 
of  the  New  Testament.  Finally,  whatever  privileges 
the  sacraments  are  designed  to  confer,  all  of  them  are 
made  by  this  doctrine  to  depend,  not  upon  the  state 
of  the  receiver's  mind,  but  upon  the  "  intention"  of 
the  administrator,  who,  if  not  intending  to  impart  the 
physical  virtue  to  the  elements,  renders  the  sacrament 
of  no  avail  to  the  recipient,  although  he  performs  all  the 
external  acts  of  the  ceremony. 

The  opposite  opinion  to  this  gross  and  unholy  doc- 
trine is  that  maintained  by  Socinus,  and  adopted  ge- 
nerally by  his  followers :  to  which  also  the  notions 
of  some  orthodox  Protestants  have  too  carelessly 
leaned.  The  view  taken  on  the  subject  of  the  sacra- 
ments by  such  persons  is,  that  they  differ  not  essen- 
tially from  other  rites  and  ceremonies  of  religion  ;  but 
that  their  peculiarity  consists  in  their  emblematic  cha- 
racter, under  which  they  represent  what  is  spiritual 
and  invisible,  and  are  memorials  of  past  events. 
Their  sole  use,  therefore,  is  to  cherish  pious  sentiments, 
by  leading  the  mind  to  such  meditations  as  are  adapted 
to  excite  them.  Some  also  add,  that  they  are  the 
badges  of  a  Christian  profession,  and  the  instituted 
means  by  which  Christians  testify  their  faith  in 
Christ. 

The  fault  of  the  Popish  opinion  is  superstitious  e.r- 
re.ts ;  the  fault  of  the  latter  scheme  is  that  of  difect. 
The  sacraments  are  emblematical ;  they  are  adapted  to 
excite  pious  sentiments  ;  they  are  memorials,  at  least 
the  Lord's  Siip)>cr  bears  this  i-iiariicter  ;  they  are  badges 
of  prolessioii;  they  are  the  appiinilcd  means  tor  declar- 
ing our  faith  in  Christ;  and  so  liir  Is  thi.s  view  sujw- 
rior  to  the  Poiiish  doctrine,  that  it  elevates  the  sacra- 
ments from  the  base  and  degrading  character  of  a 
charm  and  incantation,  to  that  of  a  spiritual  and  rea- 
sonabli^  service,  and  instead  of  making  them  substi- 
tutes for  laitli  and  good  works,  renders  them  subser- 
vient to  both. 

But  if  the  sacraments  are  federal  rites,  that  is,  if 
they  are  covenant  transactions,  they  must  have  a 
more  extensive  and  a  deeper  import  than  this  view  of 
the  subject  conveys.  If  circumcision  was  "  a  token," 
and  "  a  seal"  of  the  covenant,  by  which  God  engaged 


(4)  Cone.  Trid.  Sess.  vii.  Can.  8. 


Chap.  III.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


429 


to  justify  men  by  faith,  then,  as  we  shall  subsequently 
show,  since  Christian  baptism  came  in  its  place,  it  lias 
precisely  the  same  office  ;  if  the  passovcr  was  a  siy;n, 
a  pledge,  or  seal,  and  subsequently  a  memorial,  then 
these  characters  will  belong  to  the  Lord's  Supper ;  the 
relation  of  which  to  the  "  New  Testament,"  or  Cove- 
nant, "  in  the  blood"  of  our  Saviour,  is  expressly 
stated  by  himself.  What  is  the  import  of  the  terms 
Sign  and  Seat,  will  be  hereafter  considered  ;  but  it  is 
enough  here  to  suggest  them,  to  show  that  the  second 
opinion  above  stated  loses  sight  of  these  peculiarities, 
and  is  therefore  defective. 

The  third  opinion  may  be  stated  in  the  words  of  the 
formularies  of  several  Protestant  Churches. 

The  Heidelberg-  Catechism  has  the  following  ques- 
tion and  reply  ;— 
"  What  are  the  sacraments  ?" 

"  They  are  holy  visible  signs  and  seals  ordained  by 
God  for  this  end,  that  He  may  more  fully  declare  and 
seal  by  them  the  promise  of  his  Gospel  unto  us ;  to 
wit,  that  not  only  unto  all  believers  in  general,  but 
unto  each  of  them  in  particular,  he  freely  giveth  re- 
mission of  sins  and  life  eternal,  upon  the  account  of 
that  only  sacrifice  of  Christ,  which  he  accomplished 
upon  the  cross." 

The  Church  of  England,  in  her  Twenty-fifth  Article, 
thus  expresses  herself:— 

"  Sacraments  ordained  of  Christ  be  not  only  badges 
or  tokens  of  Christian  men's  profession,  but  rather  they 
be  sure  witnesses,'  and  effectual  signs  of  grace,  and 
God's  will  towards  us,  by  the  which  he  doth  work  in- 
visibly in  us,  and  doth  not  only  quicken,  but  also 
strengthen  and  confirm  our  faith  in  him." 

The  Church  of  Scotland,  in  the  one  hundred  and 
sixty-second  Question  of  her  Larger  Catechism,  asks, 
"  What  is  a  sacrament?"  and  replies, 
"  A  sacrament  is  a  holy  ordinance,  instituted  by 
Christ  in  his  Church,  to  signify,  seal,  and  exhibit,  unto 
those  within  the  covenant  of  grace,  the  benefits  of  his 
mediation;  to  strengthen  and  increase  their  faith,  and 
all  other  graces  ;  to  oblige  them  to  obedience ;  to  tes- 
tify and  cherish  their  love  and  communion  one  with 
another ;  and  to  distinguish  them  from  those  that  are 
witbout."^^ 

In  all  t^pe  descriptions  of  a  sacrament,  terms  are 
employed  of  just  and  weighty  meaning,  which  will 
subsequently  require  notice.  Generally  it  may,  how- 
ever, here  be  observed,  that  they  all  assume  that  there 
is  ill  this  ordinance  an  express  institution  of  God  ;  that 
there  is  this  essential  difference  between  them  and 
every  other  symbolical  ceremony,  that  they  are  seals  as 
well  as  signs,  that  is,  that  they  afford  pledges  on  the 
part  of  God  of  grace  and  salvation;  that  as  a  covenant 
lias  two  parties,  our  external  acts  in  receiving  the  sa- 
craments are  indications  of  certain  states  and  disposi- 
tions of  our  mind  with  regard  to  God's  covenant,  with- 
out which  none  can  have  a'jwrsonal  participation  in  its 
benefits,  and  so  the  sacrament  is  useless  where  these 
are  not  found  ;  that  there  are  words  of  institution  ; 
and  a  pipmise  also  by  which  the  sign  and  the  tiling 
signified  are  connected  together. 

The  covenant  of  which  they  are  the  seals  is  that 
called  by  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  "  the  ])romise  of 
the  Gospel ;"  the  import  of  which  is,  that  God  giveth 
freely  to  every  one  that  believeth  remission  of  sins, 
with  all  spiritual  blessings,  and  "  Ufe  eternal,  upon  the 
account  of  that  only  sacrifice  of  Christ  which  he  ac- 
complished upon  the  cross." 

As  Signs,  they  are  visible  and  symbolical  exposi- 
tions of  what  the  Article  of  the  Church  of  England, 
above  quoted,  calls  "  the  grace  of  God,"  and  his  "  will," 
that  is,  his  "  good  will  towards  us ;"  or,  according  to 
the  Church  of  Scotland,  "significations  of  the  benefits 
of  his  mediation ;"  that  is,  they  exhibit  to  the  senses, 
under  appropriate  emblems,  the  same  benefits  as  are 
exhibited  in  another  form  in  the  doctrines  and  promises 
of  the  word  of  God,  so  that  "  the  eye  may  alfect  and 
instruct  the  heart,"  and  that  for  the  strong  incitement 
of  our  faith,  our  desire,  and  our  gratitude.  It  ought 
nevertheless  to  be  remembered,  that  they  are  not  signs 
merely  of  the  grace  of  God  to  us,  but  of  our  obligations 
to  him ;  obligations,  however,  still  flowing  from  the 
same  grace. 

They  are  also  Seals.  A  seal  is  a  confirming  sign, 
or,  according  to  theological  language,  there  is  in  a  sa- 
crament a  signiim  sigii.ijicatis,  and  a  sigitum.  conjir- 
mans  ;  the  former  of  which  is  said,  signijicare,  to  notify 


or  to  declare  ;  the  latter  obsigiinre,  to  set  one's  seal  to, 
to  witness.  As,  tlierefore,  the  sacraments,  when  con- 
sidered as  signs,  contain  a  declaration  of  the  same 
doctrines  and  promises  whii^i  the  \vritten  word  of  God 
exhibits,  but  addressed  by  a  significant  emblem  to  the 
senses ;  so  also  as  seals,  or  pledges,  they  confirm  the 
same  promises  which  are  assured  to  us  by  God's  own 
truth  and  laitlilulness  in  his  word  (which  is  the  maia 
ground  uf  all  alliance  In  his  mercy),  and  by  his  indwell- 
ing Spirit  by  wliicli  we  are  "sealed,"  and  have  in  our 
hearts  "  the  earnest"  of  our  heavenly  inheritance.  This 
is  done  by  an  external  and  visible  institution  ;  so  that 
God  has  added  these  ordinances  to  the  promises  of  his 
word,  not  only  to  bring  liis  merciful  purjiose  towards 
us  in  Christ  to  mind,  but  constantly  to  assure  us  that 
those  who  believe  in  him  shall  be  and  are  made  par- 
takers of  his  grace.  These  ordinances  are  a  pledge  to 
them,  that  Christ  and  his  benefits  are  theirs,  while 
they  are  required,  at  the  same  time,  by  faith  as  well 
as  by  the  visible  sign,  to  signify  their  compliance  with 
his  covenant,  which  may  be  called  "  setting  to  their 
seal."  "  The  sacraments  are  God's  seals,  as  they  are 
ordinances  given  by  him  for  the  confirmation  of  our 
faith  that  he  would  be  our  covenant  God  ;  and  they  are 
our  seals,  or  we  set  our  seal  thereunto,  when  we  vi- 
sibly profess  that  we  give  up  ourselves  to  hiin  to  be  his 
people,  and,  in  the  e.xercise  of  a  true  faith,  look  to  be 
partakers  of  the  benefits  which  Clinst  hath  purcliased, 
according  to  the  terms  of  the  coveiiaiit."(5) 

The  passage  quoted  from  the  Heidelberg  Catechism 
has  a  clause  which  is  of  great  importance  in  explain- 
ing the  design  of  the  sacraments.  They  are  "  visible 
signs  and  seals  ordained  by  God  for  this  end,  that 
He  may  more  fully  declare,  and  seal  by  them  the  pro- 
mise of  his  Gospel  unto  us,  to  wit,  that  not  only  unto 
all  believers  in  general,  but  to  each  of  them  in  parti- 
cular, he  freely  giveth  remission  of  sins  and  life  eter- 
nal, upon  the  account  of  that  only  sacrifice  of  Christ, 
wliich  he  accomjilished  upon  the  cross."  For  it  is  to 
be  remarked  that  the  administration  is  to  particular 
individuals  separately,  both  in  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper,—"  Take,  eat,"  "  drink  ye  all  of  this ;"  so  that 
the  institution  of  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant, 
and  the  acceptance  of  this  sign  and  seal  is  a  solemn 
transaction  between  God  and  each  individual.  From 
which  it  follows,  that  to  every  one  to  whom  the  sign  is 
exhibited,  a  seal  and  pledge  of  the  invisible  grace  is 
also  given  ;  and  every  individual  who  draws  near  with 
a  true  heart  and  full  assurance  of  faith,  does  in  his  own 
person  enter  into  God's  covenant,  and  to  him  in  parti- 
cular that  covenant  stands  firm.  He  renews  it  also  in 
every  sacramental  act,  the  repetition  of  which  is  ap- 
pointed ;  and  being  authorized  by  a  Divine  and  standing 
institution  thus  to  put  in  his  claim  to  the  full  grace  of 
the  covenant,  he  receives  thereby  continual  assurances 
of  the  love  and  faithfulness  of  a  God  who  changes 
not ;  but  exhibits  the  same  signs  and  pledges  of  the 
same  covenant  of  grace,  to  the  constant  acceptance  of 
every  individual  believer  throughout  all  the  ages  of  his 
Church,  which  is  charged  with  the  ministration  of 
these  sacred  symbols  of  his  mercy  to  mankind.  This 
is  an  important  and  most  encouraging  circumstance. 


CHAPTER  III. 

The  Institutions  of  the  Church. — Baptism. 

The  obligation  of  bapti.sm  rests  upon  the  example 
of  our  Lord,  who,  by  his  disciides,  baptized  many  that 
by  his  discourses  and  miracles  were  brouglit  to  profess 
faith  in  him  as  the  Messias ; — upon  his  solemn  com- 
mand to  his  Apostles  after  his  resurrection,  "  Go  and 
teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ;"(6)— 
and  upon  the  jiractice  of  the  Apostles  themselves,  who 
thus  showed  that  they  did  not  understand  baptism, 
like  our  Quakers,  in  a  mystical  sense.  Thus  St.  Pe- 
ter, in  his  sermon  upon  the  day  of  Pentecost,  exhorts, 
"  Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall 
receive  the  Holy  Ghost."(7) 

As  to  this  sacrament,  which  has  occasioned  endless 
and  various  controversies,  three  things  reijuirc  exami- 
nation,— its  NATrRK  ;  its  siibjkcts;  and  its  mode. 


(5)  Ur.  RiDGi.EY. 

(7)  Acts  ii.  38. 


(ti)  Malt.  Axviii.  30 


430 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[PabtIV. 


I.  Its  Natfre. — The  Ronianists.  asreoahly  to  their 
superstitious  O])iilion  as  to  (he?  cflicaey  of  sacraincritw, 
corisiilor  baptism  ailiiiiiiisiereil  by  a  Priest  haviii;;  a 
good  iiitontinn,  as  o/;7i(/Aii|ipiyiiigthemeritsof  Clirist 
to  tlie  person  baptized.  Accordiiiji  to  thcin,  baptism  is 
absolutely  necessary  to  salvation,  and  they  thereiore 
admit  its  validity  when  administered  to  a  dyin«  child 
liy  any  person  present,  should  there  be  no  priest  at 
hand.  From  this  view  of  its  elfieacy  arises  their 
di.slinctioii  between  sins  committed  before  and  alter 
baptism.  The  hereditary  corruption  of  our  nature, 
and  all  actual  sins  committed  before  bajilism,  are  said 
to  be  entirely  removed  by  it;  so  that  if  the  most  aban- 
doned person  were  to  receive  it  for  the  first  time  in  the 
article  of  death,  all  hi.s  sins  would  be  washed  away. 
But  all  sins  committed  after  baptism,  and  the  infusion 
of  that  grace  which  is  conveyed  by  the  sacrament,  must 
be  e.xjiiated  by  jienance.  In  this  notion  of  regenera- 
tion, or  the  washing  away  of  original  sin  by  bapti.sm, 
tlie  Koinaii  Church  followed  Augustine ;  but  as  he  was 
a  jircdestinarian,  he  was  obliged  to  invent  a  distinction 
between  those  who  arc  regenerated,  and  those  who 
are  predestinated  to  eternal  life;  so  that,  according  to 
him,  although  all  the  baptized  are  freed  from  that  cor- 
ruption which  i.s  entailed  upon  mankind  by  Adam's 
lapse,  and  experience  a  renovation  of  mind,  none  con- 
tinue to  walk  in  that  state  but  the  predestinated.  The 
Lutheran  Church  also  places  the  efficacy  of  this  sacra- 
ment in  regeneration,  by  which  faith  is  actually  con- 
veyed to  the  soul  of  an  infant.  The  Church  of  Eng- 
land, in  her  bajitismal  services,  has  not  departed  entirely 
from  the  terms  used  by  the  Romish  Church  from  wtiich 
she  separated.  She  speaks  of  those  who  are  by  nature 
"  born  in  sin,"  being  made  by  baptism  "  the  children  of 
grace,"  which  are,"  however,  words  of  equivocal  im- 
port ;  and  she  gives  thanks  to  God  "  that  it  hath  pleased 
him  to  regenerate  this  infant  with  his  Holy  Spirit," 
probably  using  the  term  regeneration  in  the  same  large 
sense  as  several  of  the  ancient  Fathers,  and  not  in  its 
modern  theological  interpretation,  which  is  more  strict. 
However  this  be,  a  controversy  has  long  existed  in  the 
English  (;hurch  as  to  the  real  opinion  of  her  founders 
on  this  point;  one  jiart  of  the  Clergy  holding  the  doc- 
trine of  baptismal  regeneration,  and  the  ab.solute  ne- 
ces.sity  of  baptism  unto  salvation  ;  the  other  taking 
dilferent  views  not  only  of  the  doctrine  of  Scripture, 
but  also  of  the  import  of  various  expressions  found  in 
the  Articles,  Catechisms,  and  f)ffices  of  the  Church 
itself.  The  Quakers  view  baptism  only  as  spiritual, 
and  thus  reject  the  rite  altogether,  as  one  of  the  "  beg- 
garly elements"  of  former  dispensations;  while  the  So- 
cinians  regard  it  as  a  mere  mode  of  professing  the  reli- 
gion of  Christ.  Some  of  them  indeed  consider  it  as 
calculated  to  produce  a  moral  cfl'ect  upon  those  who 
submit  to  it,  or  who  witness  its  administration  ;  while 
others  think  il  so  entirely  a  ceremony  of  induction  into 
the  society  of  Christians  from  .ludaism  and  Paganism,  as 
to  be  ncce.ssary  only  when  such  converisions  take  place, 
so  that  it  might  be  wholly  laid  aside  in  Christian  na- 
tions. 
1  We  have  called  baptism  a  federal  transaction ;  an 
!  initiation  into,  and  acceptance  of,  the  covenant  of  grace, 
■  re(juircd  of  us  by  Christ  as  a  visible  expression  and 
act  of  that  faith  in  Him  which  lie  has  made  a  condi- 
tion of  that  salvation.  It  is  a  point,  however,  of  so 
much  importance  to  establish  the  covenant  character 
of  this  ordinance,  and  so  much  of  the  controversy  as 
to  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism  depends  upon  it,  that 
we  may  consider  it  somewhat  at  large. 

That  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  of  wliich  circum- 
cision was  made  the  sign  and  sial,(8)  was  the  general 
covenant  of  grace,  and  not  wholly,  or  even  chielly,  a 
political  and  national  covenant,  may  be  satisfactorily 
established. 

The  first  engagement  in  it  was,  that  God  would 
"greatly  bless"  Abraham;  which  promise,  although 
it  comprehended  temjioral  blessings,  referred,  as  we 
learn  from  St.  Paul,  more  fully  to  the  blessing  of  Ids 
justification  by  the  imputation  of  his  faith  l()rrighliims- 
ness,  with  all  the  spiritual  advantages  conseipient  upon 
the  relation  which  was  thus  established  belwi  en  Inm 
and  God,  in  time  and  eternity.  The  second  promist:  in 
the  covenant  was,  that  he  should  be  "the  KailK^r  ol 
many  nations,"  which  we  arc  also  taught  by  St.  Paul 
to  interiiret  more  with  relerencc  to  his  spiritual  seed, 

(S)  Gun.  xvi).  7— H. 


the  liillowers  of  that  faith  whereof  comclh  justi.lcation, 
than  to  his  natural  descendants.  "  That  the  promise 
might  be  sure  to  all  the  seed,  not  only  to  lliat  which  is 
by  the  law,  but  to  that  also  which  is  by  the  faith,  of 
Abraham,  who  is  the  father  of  vs  all,''' — of  all  believ- 
ing (Jeiitiles  as  well  as  Jews.  The  third  stipulation  in 
(iod's  covenant  with  the  patriarch  was  the  gift  to  Abra- 
ham and  to  his  seed  of  "  the  land  of  Canaan,"  in  winch 
the  temjioral  promise  was  manifestly  but  the  type  of 
the  higher  promise  of  a  heavenly  inheritance.  Hence 
St.  Paul  says,  "  liy  faitk  he-sojourned  in  the  land  of 
promise,  dwelling  in  tabernacles  with  Isaac  and  Jacob, 
the  heirs  with  liim  of  the  same  promise ;"  but  this 
"  faith"  did  not  respect  the  fulfilment  of  the  temporal 
promise ;  for  St.  Paul  adds,  "  they  looked  for  a  city 
which  had  foundations,  whose  builder  and  maker  is 
God. "(9)  The  next  promise  was,  that  (iod  would  al- 
ways be  "  aGod  to  Abraham,  and  to  his  seed  after  hini," 
a  promi.se  which  is  connected  with  the  highest  spi- 
ritual blessings,  such  as  the  remission  of  sins,  and 
the  sanciificationof  our  nature,  as  well  as  with  a  visible 
Church  state.  It  is  even  used  to  express  the  li;Iicilou3 
state  of  the  Church  in  heaven,  Kev.  xxi.  3.  The  final 
engagement  in  the  Abraharnic  covenant  was,  that  in 
Abraham's  "  seed  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  should 
be  blessed  ;"  and  this  blessing,  we  are  expressly  taught 
by  St.  Paul,  was  nothing  less  than  the  justification  of 
all  ntuions,  that  is,  of  all  believers  in  all  nations,  by  faith 
in  Christ: — "And  the  Scripture,  foreseeing  that  God 
would  justify  the  heathen  by  faith,  preached  before  the 
Gospel  to  Abraham,  saying.  In  thee  shall  all  nations 
be  blessed.  So  then  they  who  are  of  faith,  are  blessed 
with  believing  Abraham,"  they  receive  the  same  bles- 
sing, justification,  by  the  same  means,  faith.  Gal.  iii.  8, 9. 

This  covenant  with  Abraham,  therefore,  although  it 
resiiectcd  a  natural  seed,  Isaac,  from  whom  a  numer- 
ous progeny  was  to  spring;  and  an  earthly  inheritanre 
provided  for  this  issue,  the  land  of  Canaan;  and  a 
siiecial  covenant  relation  with  thede.scendants  of  Isaac, 
through  the  line  of  Jacob,  to  whom  Jehovah  was  to  be 
"a  God,"  visibly  and  specially,  and  they  a  visible  and 
"  peculiar  people  ;"  yet  was,  under  all  these  temporal, 
earthly,  and  external  advantages,  but  a  higher  and  sjii- 
ritual  grace  irnbodying  itself  under  tluji^  circum- 
stances, as  types  of  a  dispensation  of  sflption  and 
eternal  life,  to  all  who  should  follow  the  fanli  of  Abra- 
ham, whose  justification  before  God  was  the  pattern  of 
the  justification  of  every  man,  whether  Jew  or  Gentile, 
in  all  ages.  , 

Now,  of  this  coivenant,  in  its  spiritual  as  well  as 
in  its  temporal  prm'isions,  circumcision  was  most  cer- 
tainly the  sacrament,  that  is,  the  "  sign"  and  the  "seal ;" 
lor  St.  Paul  thus  explains  the  case  :  "  And  he  received 
the  sir;N  of  circumcision,  a  skal  of  the  righteousness 
of  the  faith  which  he  had  yet  being  uncircumcised." 
And  as  this  rite  was  enjoined  upon  Abraham's  poste- 
rity, so  that  every  "  uncircumcised  man  child  whose 
ilesh  of  liis  foreskin  was  not  circumcised  on  the  eighth 
day,"  was  to  be  "  cut  off  from  his  people,"  by  the  spe- 
cial judgment  of  God,  and  that  because  "  he  had  broken 
God's  coTi'nant"(l)  it  tlierelbre  follows  that  this  rite 
was  a  constant  pulilicaticn  of  God's  covenant  of  grace 
among  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  and  its  repetition 
a  continual  cotijirmation  of  that  covenant  on  the  part 
of  (Jod,  to  all  practising  it  in  that  faith  of  wliich  it  was 
the  ostensible  expression. 

As  the  covenant  of  grace  made  with  Abraham  was 
bound  up  with  temiwral  promises  and  privileges,  so  cir- 
cumcision was  a  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  in  both  its 
parts, — its  spiritual  and  its  temjioral,  its  superior  and 
inferior,  provisions.  The  spiritual  jiromises  of  the  co- 
venant continued  unrestricted  to  all  the  descendants 
of  Abraham,  whether  by  ls;uic  or  by  Ishmael ;  and  still 
lower  down,  to  the  descendants  of  Esau  as  well  as  to 
those  of  Jacob.  Circumcision  was  practised  among 
iliein  all  by  virtue  of  its  Divine  institution  at  first ;  and 
was  extended  to  their  foreign  servants,  and  to  proselytes, 
as  well  as  to  their  children  ;  and  wherever  the  sign 
of  the  covenant  of  grace  was  by  Divine  ajipointnicnt, 
there  it  was  as  a  sral  of  that  covenant,  to  all  who  be- 
lievingly  used  it ;  lor  we  read  of  no  restriction  of  its 
.spiritual  bb^ssings,  that  is,  its  saving  engagements, 
to  one  line  of  descent  from  Abraham  only.  Uut  over 
the  Icmjioral  branch  of  the  covenant,  and  the  external 
religious  privileges  arising  out  of  it,  (iod  exercised  a 


('.I)  lleb  il.  I'J. 


(1)  Geii.  xvii.  14. 


Chap.  III.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


431 


rightful  sovereignty,  and  expressly  restricted  tlicm  first 
to  the  line  of  Isaac,  and  then  to  that  of  Jacob,  with 
whosedescendants  he  entered  into  special  covenant  by 
the  ministry  of  Moses.  Ttie  temporal  blessings  and 
external  priviloRcs  comprised  under  general  expres- 
sions in  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  were  explained 
and  enlarged  under  thai  of  Moses,  while  the  spiritual 
blessings  remained  unrestricted  as  before.  This  was 
probably  the  reason  why  circumcision  vvas  re-enacled 
under  the  law  of  Moses.  It  was  a  confirmation  of  the 
temporal  blessings  of  the  Abraliamic  covenant,  now, 
by  a  covenant  of  peculiarity,  made  over  to  them,  while 
it  was  still  recognised  as  a  consuetudinary  rite  which 
had  descended  to  them  from  their  fathers,  and  as  the 
sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  made  with  Abra- 
ham and  with  all  his  descendants  without  exception. 
'I'his  double  reference  of  circumcision,  both  to  the  au- 
thority of  Moses  and  to  that  of  the  patriarchs,  is  found 
in  the  words  of  our  Lord,  John  vii.  22 ;  "  Moses  there- 
fore gave  unto  you  circumcision,  not  because  it  is  of 
Moses,  but  of  the  fathers ;"  or,  as  it  is  better  translated 
by  Campbell,  "  Moses  instituted  circumcision  among 
you  (not  that  it  is  from  Moses,  but  from  the  patriarchs), 
and  ye  circumcise  on  the  Sabbath.  If  on  the  Sabbath 
a  child  receive  circumcision,  that  the  laiv  of  Moses  may 
not  be  violated," &c. 

From  these  observations,  the  controversy  in  the 
Apostolic  Churches  respecting  circumcision  will  de- 
rive much  elucidation. 

The  covenant  with  Abraham  prescribed  circumcision 
as  an  act  of  faith  in  its  promises,  and  a  pledge  [to  per- 
form its  conditions]  [on  the  part  of  his  descendants]. 
But  the  object  on  which  this  faith  rested,  was  "the 
seed  of  Abraham,"  in  whom  the  nations  of  the  earth  were 
to  be  blessed  :  which  seed,  says  St.  Paul,  "  is  Christ," 
<;hrist  as  promised,  not  yet  come.  When  the  Christ 
had  come,  so  as  fully  to  enter  upon  his  redeeming  offices, 
he  could  no  longer  be  the  object  of  faith,  as  still  to 
come;  and  this  leading  promise  of  the  covenant  being 
accomplished,  the  sign  and  seal  of  it  vanished  away. 
Nor  could  circumcision  be  continued  in  this  view,  by 
any,  without  an  implied  denial  that  Jesus  was  the 
Chri.st,  the  expected  seed  of  Abraham.  Circumcision 
also,  as  an  institution  of  Moses,  who  continued  it  as  the 
sign  and  sCal  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant  both  in  its 
spiritual  and  temporal  provisions,  but  with  respect  to 
the  latter  made  it  also  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  restric- 
tion of  its  temporal  blessings  and  peculiar  religious 
privileges  to  the  descendants  of  Israel,  was  termina- 
ted by  the  entrance  of  our  Lord  upon  his  office  of  Me- 
diator, in  which  office  all  nations  were  to  be  blessed  in 
him.  The  Mosaic  edition  of  the  covenant  not  only 
guaranteed  the  land  of  Canaan,  but  the  peculiarity  of 
the  Israelites,  as  the  people  and  visible  Church  of  God, 
to  the  exclusion  of  others,  e.xcept  by  proselytism.  But 
when  our  Lord  commanded  the  Gospel  to  be  preached 
to  "all  nations,"  and  opened  the  gates  of  the  "common 
salvation"  to  all,  whether  Gentiles  or  Jews,  circtumci- 
sion,  as  the  sign  of  a  covenant  of  peculiarity  and  reli- 
gious distinction,  was  done  away  also.  It  had  not  only 
no  reason  remaining,  but  the  continuance  of  the  rite 
involved  the  recognition  of  e.xclusive  privileges  which 
had  been  terminated  by  Christ. 

This  will  explain  the  views  of  the  Apostle  Paul  on 
this  great  question.  He  declares  that  in  Christ  there  is 
neither  circumcision  nor  uncircumcision  ;  that  neither 
circumcision  availeth  any  thing,  nor  uncircumcision, 
but  "  faith  that  worketh  by  love ;"  faith  in  the  seed  of 
Abraham  already  come  and  already  engaged  in  his  me- 
diatorial and  redeeming  work ;  faith,  by  virtue  of 
which  the  Gentiles  came  into  the  Church  of  Christ  on 
the  same  terms  as  the  Jews  themselves,  and  were  jus- 
tified and  saved.  The  doctrine  of  the  non-necessity  of 
circumcision  he  applies  to  the  Jews  as  well  as  to  the 
Gentiles,  although  he  specially  resists  the  attemi>ts  of 
the  Judaizers  to  impose  this  rite  upon  the  Gentile  con- 
verts ;  in  which  he  was  supported  by  the  decision  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  when  the  apiieal  upon  this  question  was 
made  to  "  the  Apostles  and  Elders  at  Jerusalem,"  from 
the  Church  at  Antioch.  At  the  same  time  it  is  clear 
that  he  takes  two  different  views  of  the  practice  of  cir- 
cumcision, as  it  was  continued  among  many  of  the  first 
Christians.  The  first  is  that  strong  one  which  is  ex- 
pres.sed  in  Gal.  v.  2 — 4,  "  llchoUl,  I  Paul  say  unto  you, 
th.at  if  ye  be  circumcised,  Christ  shall  profit  you  no- 
thing ;  lor  I  testify  again  to  every  man  that  is  circum- 
cised, that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law.    Christ 


is  tccomo  of  710  effect  unto  yon,  whosoever  of  yon  aro 
justified  by  the  law,  ye  are  fallen  from  grace."  The 
sei  ond  is  that  milder  view  which  he  himself  must  have 
iiad  when  he  circumcised  Timothy  to  render  liim  more 
acceptable  to  the  Jews ;  and  which  aUso  appears  to 
have  led  him  to  abstain  from  all  allusion  to  this  prac- 
tice when  writing  his  Epistle  to  the  believing  Hebrews, 
although  many,  perhaps  most  of  them,  continued  to  cir- 
cumcise their  children,  as  did  the  Jewish  Christians 
for  a  long  time  afterward.  These  difi'erent  views  of 
circumcision,  held  by  the  same  person,  may  be  ex- 
plained by  considering  the  difl(.>rent  principles  on  which 
circumcision  might  be  practised  after  it  had  become  an 
obsolete  ordinance. 

1 .  It  might  be  taken  in  the  simple  view  of  its  first 
institution,  as  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant; and  then  it  was  to  be  condemned  as  involving  a 
denial  that  Abraham's  seed,  the  Christ,  had  already 
come,  since,  upon  his  coming,  every  old  covenant  gave 
place  to  the  new  covenant  introduced  by  him. 

2.  It  might  be  practised  and  enjoined  as  the  sign  and 
seal  of  the  Mosaic  covenant,  which  was  still  the  Abra- 
hamic covenant  with  its  spiritual  blessing.s,  but  with 
restriction  of  its  temporal  promises  and  special  eccle- 
siastical privileges  to  the  line  of  Jacob,  with  a  law  of 
observances  which  was  obligatory  upon  all  entering 
that  covenant  by  circumcision.  In  that  case  it  involved, 
in  like  manner,  the  notion  of  the  continuance  of  an  old 
covenant,  after  the  establishment  of  the  new  ;  for  thus 
St.  Paul  states  the  case  in  Gal.  iii.  I'J,  "  Wherefore 
then  serveth  the  law  ?  It  was  added  because  of  trans- 
gressions, until  THE  SEED  should  come."  After  that 
therefore  it  had  no  eflfect : — it  had  waxed  old,  and  had 
vanished  away. 

3.  Again  ;  Circumcision  might  imply  an  obligation  to 
observe  all  the  ceremonial  usages  and  the  moral  pre- 
cepts of  the  Mosaic  law,  along  with  a  general  belief  in 
the  mission  of  Christ,  as  necessary  to  justification  before 
God.  This  ajipears  to  have  been  the  view  of  those 
among  the  Galatian  Christians  who  submitted  to  cir- 
cumcision, and  of  the  Jewish  teachers  who  enjoined  it 
upon  them  ;  for  St.  Paul  in  that  epistle  constantly  joins 
circumcision  with  legal  observances,  and  as  involving 
an  obligation  to  do  "the  whole  law,"  in  order lo  justifi- 
cation.— "  I  testify  again  lo  every  man  that  is  circum- 
cised that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law  ;  who- 
soever of  you  are  jvstijied  by  the  law,  ye  are  fallen  from 
grace."  "  Knowing  that  a  man  is  not  justified  by  the 
VHirks  of  the  law,  but  by  the  fiiith  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,"  Gal.  ii.  10.  To  all  persons  therefore  practising 
circumcision  in  this  view  it  was  obvious,  that  "  Christ 
was  become  of  none  effect,"  the  very  principle  of  jus- 
tification by  faith  alone  in  him  was  renounced,  even 
while  his  Divine  mission  was  still  admitted. 

4.  But  there  are  two  grounds  on  which  circumcision 
may  be  conceived  to  have  been  innncaitly,  though  not 
wisely,  practised  among  the  Christian  Jews.  The  first 
was  that  of  preserving  an  ancient  national  distinction 
on  which  they  valued  themselves ;  and  were  a  converted 
Jew  in  the  present  day  disjiosed  to  perform  that  rite 
uiioii  his  children  for  this  [lurpose  only,  renouncing  in 
the  act  all  consideration  of  it  as  a  sign  and  seal  of  the 
old  covenants,  or  as  obliging  to  cen-monial  acts  in  or- 
der to  justification,  no  one  woald  censure  him  with 
severity.  It  appears  clear  that  it  was  under  some  such 
view  that  St.  Paul  circumcised  Timothy,  whose  mother 
was  a  Jewess  ;  he  did  it  because  of  "  the  Jews  which 
were  in  those  quarters,"  that  is,  because  of  their  na- 
tional prejudices,  "  for  they  knew  that  his  father  was  a 
Greek."  The  second  was  a  lingering  notion,  that,  even 
in  the  Christian  Church,  the  Jews  who  believed  would 
still  retain  some  degree  of  eminence,  some  superior  re- 
lation to  God;  a  notion  which,  however  unfounded, 
was  not  one  which  demanded  direct  rebuke,  when  it 
did  not  proudly  refuse  spiritual  communion  with  the 
converted  Gentiles,  but  was  held  by  men  who  "rejoiced 
that  God  had  granted  lo  the  Gentiles  repentance  unto 
life."  These  considerations  may  account  (or  the  silence 
of  St.  Paul  on  the  subject  of  circumcision  in  his  Epistle 
lo  the  Hebrews.  Some  of  them  continued  lo  practise 
that  rite,  but  they  were  probably  believers  of  the  class 
just  mentioned;  for  had  he  thought  that  the  rite  was 
continued  among  them  on  any  principle  which  atfectcd 
the  liindanieMlardoetrines  (ifCfirislKunly,  he  would  no 
doubt  have  IjceiuMjually  promiit  and  tearless  in  pointing 
out  thai  aposlacy  fioin  Christ  which  was  implied  in  it, 
as  wlicn  he  wrote  to  the  Galatians. 


432 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


f Pabt  IV. 


Not  only  m\ji,h\  ciri'imicisioii  be  practised  with  views 
fso  opposite  that  one  mijiht  be  wholly  innocent,  although 
an  infirmity  of  prejudice ;  the  other  such  as  would  in- 
volve a  rejection  of  the  doctrine  of  justilication  by  faith 
in  Christ ;  but  some  other  Jewish  observances  also 
stood  in  the  same  circumstances.  St.  Paul,  in  his 
PJpistle  to  the  Galatians,  a  part  of  his  writings  from 
which  we  obtain  the  most  information  on  these  ques- 
tions, grounds  lii.s  "doubts"  whether  the  members  of 
that  Church  were  not  soaking  to  be  "justified  by  the 
law,"  upon  their  observing  "days,  and  months,  and 
times,  and  years."  Had  he  done  more  than  "doubt,"  lie 
would  have  expressed  himself  more  positively.  He 
saw  their  danger  on  this  point ;  he  saw  that  they  were 
taking  steps  to  tins  fatal  result,  by  such  an  observance 
of  these  "  days,"  &c.,  as  had  a  strong  leaning  and  dan- 
gerous approach  to  that  dependence  upon  them  for  jus- 
fitication,  which  would  destroy  their  faith  in  Christ's 
solely  suflicieut  sacrifice  ;  but  Ins  very  doubting,  not  of 
the  fact  of  their  being  addicted  to  these  observances, 
but  of  the  animus  with  wljii^h  they  regarded  them,  sup- 
po.ses  it  possible,  however  dangerous  this  Jewish  con- 
formity miglit  be,  that  they  might  be  observed  for  rea- 
sons which  would  still  consist  with  their  entire  reli- 
ance upon  the  merits  of  Christ  for  salvation.  Even  he 
liimself,  strongly  as  he  resisted  the  imposition  of  this 
conformity  to  Jewish  customs  upon  the  converts  to 
Christianity  as  a  matter  of  necessity,  yet  in  practice 
must  have  conformed  to  many  of  them,  when  no  sacri- 
fice of  principle  was  understood;  for,  in  order  to  gain 
the  Jews,  he  became  "  as  a  Jew." 

From  these  observations,  which  have  been  somewhat 
digressive,  we  return  to  observe  that  not  only  was  the 
Abrahamic  covenant,  of  which  circumcision  was  the 
sign  and  seal,  a  covenant  of  grace,  but  that  when  this 
covenant  in  its  ancient  form  was  done  away  in  Christ, 
then  the  old  sign  and  seal  peculiar  to  that  form  was  by 
couseiiuence  abolished.  If  then  baptism  be  not  the 
initiatory  sign  and  seal  of  the  same  covenantin  its  new 
and  perfect  form,  as  circumcision  was  of  the  old,  this 
new  covenant  has  no  such  initiatory  rite  or  sacrament  at 
all ;  since  the  Lord's  Supper  is  not  initiatory,  but,  like  the 
sacrifices  of  old,  is  of  regular  and  habitual  observance. 
Several  passages  of  Scripture,  and  the  very  nature  of 
the  ordinance  of  baptism,  will,  liowever,  show  that 
baptism  is  to  the  new  covenant  what  circumcision 
•was  to  the  old,  and  took  its  place  by  the  appointment 
of  Christ. 

Tliis  may  be  argued  from  our  Lord's  commission  to 
his  Apostles,  "  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  (Jhost,  teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things,  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you,"  Matt, 
xxviii.  19,2(1.  "  Go  ye  into  all  tlie  world,  and  preach  the 
Gospel  to  every  creature  :  he  that  believeth  and  is  bap- 
tized shall  be  saved,"  Mark  xvi.  15,  IG. 

To  understand  the  force  of  these  words  of  our  Lord, 
it  must  be  observed,  that  the  gate  of  "  the  common  sal- 
vation" was  only  now,  for  the  first  time,  going  to  be 
ojjened  to  the  Gentile  nations.  lie  liimself  had  declared 
that  in  his  personal  ministry  he  was  not  sent  but  to 
"  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel ;"  and  he  had  re- 
stricted hisdiscijiles  in  like  manner,  not  only  from  minis- 
tering to  the  Gentiles,  but  from  entering  any  city  of 
the  Samaritans.  l)y  what  means,  therefore,  were  "  all 
nations"  now  to  be  brouglit  into  the  Church  of  God, 
which  from  henceforth  was  most  truly  to  be  catholic  or 
universal  ?  Plainly,  by  baptizing  them  that  believed  the 
"  good  news,"  and  acceptcMl  the  terms  of  the  new  cove- 
nant. This  is  apparent  from  the  very  words ;  and  thus 
was  baptism  expressly  made  the  initiatory  rite,  by 
which  believers  of  "all  nations"  were  to  be  introduced 
into  the  Church  and  covenant  of  grace ;  an  ollice  in 
which  it  manifestly  took  the  place  of  circumcision, 
which  heretofore,  even  from  the  time  of  Abraham,  had 
been  the  only  initiatory  rite  into  the  same  covenant.— 
Moses  re-enacted  circumcision  ;  our  Lord  not  onlyiloes 
7wt  re-enact  it,  but,  on  the  contrary,  he  appoints  anothir 
mode  of  entrance  into  the  covenant  in  its  new  and  per- 
fected form,  and  that  so  expressly  as  to  amount  lo  a  Ibr- 
mal  abrogation  of  the  ancient  sign,  and  the  putting  of 
baptism  in  its  place.  The  same  argument  may  lie  main- 
tained from  the  words  of  our  Lord  lo  Niiodemus,  "  Ex- 
cept a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Sjuril,  he  can- 
not enter  into  the  kingdom  of  (loil."  Ily  the  kingdom 
of  God,  our  Lord,  no  doubt,  in  the  highest  sense,  means 
the  future  state  of  felicity ;  but  he  uses  litis  liliruBc  to 


express  the  state  of  his  Church  on  earth,  wliich  is  ilie 
gate  to  that  celestial  kingdom;  and  generally  indeed 
speaks  of  liis  Church  on  earth  under  this  mode  of  ex- 
pression, rather  than  of  the  heavenly  stale.  If  then 
he  declares  that  no  one  can  "  eiUtr''  into  that  Church 
but  by  being  "  bom  of  water  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit," 
which  heavenly  gill  followed  ujion  baptism  when  re- 
ceived in  true  faith,  he  clearly  makes  bajitism  the  mode 
of  initiation  into  his  Church  in  this  passage  as  in  the 
last  (juolcd ;  and  in  both  he  assigns  to  it  the  same  office 
as  circumcision  in  the  Church  of  the  Old  Tesiament, 
whether  in  its  Patriarchal  or  Mosaic  form. 

A  farther  proof  that  bajitisni  has  precisely  the  same 
federal  and  initiatory  characler  as  circumcision,  and 
that  it  was  instituted  for  the  same  ends,  and  in  its  place, 
is  found  in  Colossians  ii.  10—12,  "And  ye  are  complete 
in  him,  wliich  is  the  head  of  all  princijialUy  and  iiower ; 
in  whom  also  ye  are  circuni(isc<l  with  the  circumcision 
made  without  hands,  in  ])Ultiiig  olllhc  body  ol'  lliesins 
of  Ihe  flesh,  by  thu  ci.rcuincij:ii)ii  of  (JliTiat,  buried  with 
him  in  baptism,'"  &.C.  Here  baptism  is  also  made  the 
initiatory  rite  of  the  new  dispensation,  that  by  which 
tlie  Colossians  were  joined  to  Christ  in  whom  they  are 
said  to  be  "complete ;"  and  so  certain  is  it  that  baptism 
has  the  same  office  and  import  now  as  circumcision 
formerly, — with  this  difTerence  only,  that  the  object  of 
faith  was  then  future,  and  now  it  is  Christ  an  come, — 
that  the  Apostle  expressly  calls  baptism  "  the  Vircum- 
cision  of  Christ,"  the  circumcision  instituted  by  him, 
which  phrase  he  puts  out  of  the  reach  of  frivolous  cri- 
ticism, by  adding  exegetically, — "buried  with  Ilim  in 
liaptiam."  For  unless  the  Apostle  here  calls  baptism 
"the  circumcision  of  Christ,"  he  asserts  that  we  "  imt 
ofl'  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,"  that  is,  become 
new  creatures  by  virtue  of  our  Lord's  own  personal 
circumcision  ;  bill  if  this  be  absurd,  then  the  only  rea- 
son for  wliich  he  can  call  baptism  "  the  circumcision 
of  Christ,"  or  Christian  circumcision,  is,  that  it  has 
taken  the  place  of  the  Abrahamic  circumcision,  and  ful- 
fils the  same  office  of  introducing  believing  men  into 
(jod's  covenant,  and  entitling  them  to  the  enjoyment  of 
spiritual  blessings. 

But  let  us  also  quote  Gal.  iii.  27—29,  "  For  as  many 
of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on 
Christ ;  there  is  neither  Jew  nor  Gentile,  there  is  neither 
bond  nor  free,  there  is  neither  male  nor  female,  for  ye  are 
all  one  in  Clirist  Jesus  ;  and  if  ye  are  Christ's,"  by  thus 
being  "  baptized,"  and  by  "putting  on"  Christ,  "  then 
are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  pro- 
mise." 

The  argument  here  is  also  decisive.  It  cannot  be  de- 
nied that  it  was  by  circumcision  believingly  submitted 
to,  that  "  strangers"  or  Heathens,  as  well  as  Jews,  be- 
came the  spiritual  "  seed  of  Abraham,"  and  "  heirs"  of 
the  same  spiritual  and  heavenly  "  promises."  But  the 
same  office  in  this  passage  is  ascribed  to  baptism  also 
believingly  submitted  to  ;  and  the  conclusion  is  there- 
fore inevitable.  The  same  covenant  character  of  each 
rite  is  here  also  strongly  marked,  as  well  as  that  the 
covenant  is  the  same,  although  under  a  diflerent  mode 
of  administration.  In  no  other  way  could  circumcision 
avail  any  thing  under  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  than  as 
it  was  that  visible  act  by  which  God's  covenant  to  justify 
men  by  faith  in  the  promised  seed  was  accejited  by 
lliciii.  II  was  therefore  a  part  of  a  federal  transaction; 
that  out  ward  act  which  he  who  offered  a  covenant  engage- 
ment so  gracious  reijuiredas  a  solemn  declaration  of  the 
accciitaiice  of  llio  covenanted  grace  upon  the  covenanted 
conditions.  It  was  thus  that  the  Abrahamic  covenant 
was  offered  to  the  acceptance  of  all  who  heard  it,  and 
thus  that  they  were  lo  declare  their  acceptance  of  it. — 
In  the  same  manner  there  is  a  standing  offer  of  the  same 
covenant  of  mercy  wherever  the  (.'ospcl  is  pre;iched. — 
The  "  good  new.s"'  which  it  contains  is  that  of  a  pro- 
mise, an  engagement,  a  covenant  on  the  part  of  God  to 
remit  sin,  and  to  save  all  that  beheve  in  Clirist.  To  the 
covenant  in  this  new  form  he  also  requires  a  visible  and 
formal  act  of  acceptance,  which  act,  when  expressive 
of  the  required  failh.  makes  us  i>arlies  to  the  covenant, 
and  entitles  us  llirough  the  faithfulness  of  God  to  its 
benefits.  "  Hi;  that  bihevHk  and  is  baptized  shall  bo 
saved ;"  or,  as  in  Ihe  jia.ssagc  bcforii  us,  "  As  many  of 
you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on 
("hrisl;  and  if  ye  be  Chrisl's  then  are  ye  Abraham's 
seed,  and  heirs  according  to  th>!  promise." 

We  have  the  same  view  of  baptism  as  an  act  of  co- 
venant acceptance,  and  us  it  relates  to  God's  gracious 


Chap.  III.l 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


433 


engagement  to  justify  the  ungodly  by  foith  in  his  Son, 
in  the  often  ijuoted  passage  in  1  Peter  iii.  20,  "  Wtiicli 
sometimes  were  (iisoliedient,  when  once  the  long-suf- 
lering  of  God  wailed  in  the  days  of  Noah,  while  the 
ark  waa  preparing,  wherein  few,  that  is,  eight  souls 
were  saved  by  water.  The  hl<c  figure  whereunto 
evil  baptism  doth  also  now  save  us  (not  the  putting 
away  the  filth  of  I  lie  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good 
conscience  towards  God),  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ." 

When  St.  Peter  calls  baptism  the  "  figure,"  av-i- 
TVTTov,  the  antity])e  of  the  transaction  by  which  Noah 
and  his  family  were  saved  I'rora  perishing  with  the  un- 
godly and  unbelieving  world,  he  had  doubtless  in  mind 
the  faith  of  Noah,  and  that  under  the  same  view  as  the 
Apostle  Paul,  in  Heb.  xi.,  "  By  faith  Noah,  being  warned 
of  God  of  things  not  seen  as  yet,  moved  with  fear,  pre- 
pared an  ark  to  the  saving  of  his  house ;  by  the  which" 
act  of  faith  "  he  condemned  the  world,  anii  became  heir 
of  the  righteousness  which  is  by  faith  ;"  an  expression 
of  the  same  import  as  if  he  had  said,  "by  which  act 
of  faith  he  was  justified  before  God."  It  has  been  al- 
ready explained  in  another  place(2)  in  what  way  Noah's 
preparing  of  tlie  ark,  and  his  faith  in  the  Divine  pro- 
mise of  preservation,  were  indicative  of  his  having  that 
direct  faith  in  the  Chri.st  lo  come,  of  which  the  Apostle 
Paul  discourses  in  the  eleventh  of  the  Hebrews,  as  that 
which  characterized  •'  all  the  Elders,  and  by  which  they 
obtained  their  "  good  report"  in  the  Church.  His  pre- 
serv.ition  and  that  of  his  family  was  so  involved  in  the 
fulfilment  of  the  more  ancient  promise  respecting  the 
seed  of  the  woman,  and  tho  deliverance  of  man  Irom 
the  power  of  Satan,  that  we  are  warranted  to  conclude 
that  his  faith  in  the  promise  respecting  his  own  deliver- 
ance from  the  deluge,  was  supported  by  his  faith  in 
that  greater  promise,  which  must  have  fallen  to  the 
ground  had  the  whole  race  perished  without  exception. 
His  building  of  the  ark,  and  entering  into  it  with  his 
family,  are  therefore  considered,  by  St.  Paul,  as  the  vi- 
sible expression  of  his  faith  in  the  ancient  promises  of 
God  respecting  Messiah  ;  and  for  this  reason  baptism  is 
called  by  St.  Peter,  williout  any  allegory  at  all,  but  in 
the  sobriety  of  fact  "  the  antitype''  of  this  transaction  ; 
the  one  exactly  answering  to  the  other,  as  an  external 
expression  of  faith  in  the  same  objects  and  the  same 
promises. 

But  the  Apostle  does  not  rest  in  lliia  general  repre- 
sentation. He  proceeds  to  express,  in  a  particular  and 
most  forcible  manner,  llie  nature  of^  Christian  baptism, 
— ••  not  the  putting  away  of  the  tilth  of  (he  flesh  ;  but 
the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  towards  God,  by  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ."  Now,  whether  we  take 
the  word  t-tpbirnnn,  rendered  in  our  translation  "  an- 
swer," for  a  demand  or  requirement ;  or  for  the  answer  to 
a  question  or  questions  ;  or  in  the  sense  of  stiptdation ; 
the  general  import  of  the  passage  is  nearly  the  same. 
If  the  first,  then  the  meaning  of  the  Apostle  is,  that  bap- 
tism is  not  the  putting  away  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  not  a 
mere  external  ceremony ;  but  a  rite  which  demands  or 
rf^itiressomethingof  us,  in  order  to  the  attainment  of  a 
"  good  conscience."  What  that  is,  we  learn  from  the 
words  of  our  Lord;  it  is  faith  in  Christ ;  "  He  that  be- 
licvet/i  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved ;"  which  I'ailh  is 
the  reliance  of  a  penitent  upon  the  atonement  of  the 
Saviour,  who  thus  submits  with  all  gratitude  and  truth 
to  the  terms  of  the  evangelical  covenant.  If  we  take 
the  second  sense ,  we  must  lay  aside  the  notion  of  some 
lexicographers  and  commentators,  who  think  that  there 
is  an  allusion  to  the  ayicicnt  practice  of  demanding  of 
the  candidates  for  ba|)tism,  whether  they  renoimced 
their  sins,  and  the  service  of  Satan,  with  other  ques- 
tions of  the  same  import ;  for,  ancient  as  these  ques- 
tions may  be,  they  are  probably  not  so  ancient  as  the 
time  of  the  Apostle.  We  know,  however,  from  the  in- 
stance of  PhUip  and  the  Eunuch,  that  there  was  an  ex- 
plicit requirement  oi  faith,  and  as  explicit  an  answer 
or  confession :  "  And  Philip  said,  If  thou  believest  with 
all  thy  heart,  thou  niayest ;  and  he  answered,  I  believe 
that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God."  Every  administration 
of  baptism  indeed  implied  this  demand ;  and  baiitism, 
if  we  imderstand  St.  Peter  I  o  refer  to  tins  circumstance, 
was  such  an  "  answer"  lo  tlie  interrogations  of  the  ad- 
ministrator, as  expressed  a  true  and  evangelical  faith. 
If  wo  take  the  third  rendering  of  "  stipulation,"  wliicli 
has  less  to  support  it  critically  than  either  of  the  others, 

(2)  Part  ii.  chap.  22. 


still,  as  the  profession  of  faith  was  a  condition  of  bap- 
tism, that  profession  had  the  full  force  of  a  fonnal  sti- 
pulation, since  all  true  faith  in  Christ  requires  an  entire 
subjection  lo  him  as  Lord,  as  well  as  Saviour. 

Upon  this  passage,  however,  a  somewhat  clearer 
light  may  be  thrown,  by  understanding  the  word  cttc- 
pojTripa  in  the  sense  of  that  which  asks,  requires,  see/cs, 
something  beyond  itself.  The  verb  from  which  it  ia 
derived  signifies  to  ask,  or  require  :  but  txepuiriiixi  oc- 
curs nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  but 
once  in  the  version  of  the  Seventy,  Ban.  iv.  17,  where, 
however,  it  is  used  so  as  to  be  fully  illustrative  of  the 
meaning  of  St.  Peter.  Nebuchadnezzar  was  to  he 
Immbled  by  being  driven  from  men  to  associate  witli 
the  beasts  of  the  field ;  and  the  vision  in  which  this 
was  represented,  ^concludes,  "  This  matter  is  by  the 
decree  of  the  watchers,  and  the  demand,  to  eTrepwTiinu, 
by  the  word  of  the  holy  ones,  to  the  intent,  tiiat  the 
living  may  know,  nui  yvCJctv  ot  iuvra,  that  the  Most 
High  ruleth  in  the  kingdom  of  men."  The  Chaldaic 
word,  like  the  Greek,  is  from  the  verb  which  signifies 
to  ask,  to  require,  and  may  be  equally  expressed  by 
the  word  jictitio,  which  is  the  rendering  of  the  Vulgate, 
or  by  postvlatum.  There  was  an  end,  an  "  intent"  for 
which  the  humbling  of  the  Babylonian  king  was  re- 
quired "by  the  word  of  the  holy  ones,"  that,  by  the 
signal  punishment  of  the  greatest  eartlily  monarch, 
"the  living  might  know  that  the  Most  High  ruleth  in 
the  kingdom  of  men."  In  hke  manner  baptism  has  an 
end,  an  "intent,"  "not  the  putting  away  the  filth  of 
the  llesh,"  but  obtaining  "a  good  conscience  towards 
God ;"  and  it  requires,  claims,  this  good  conscience, 
tlirough  that  faith  in  Christ  whereof  cometh  remission 
of  sins,  the  cleansing  of  the  "  conscience  from  dead 
works,"  and  those  supjilies  of  supernatural  aid  by  which 
in  future  men  "  may  live  in  all  good  conscience  before 
C;od."  It  is  thus  that  we  see  how  St.  Peter  preserves 
the  correspondence  between  the  act  of  Noah  in  prejiar- 
ing  the  ark  as  an  act  of  faith  by  which  he  was  justi- 
fied, and  the  act  of  submitting  to  Christian  baptism, 
which  is  also  obviously  an  act  of  faith,  in  order  to  the 
remission  of  sins,  or  the  obtaining  a  good  conscience 
before  God.  This  is  farther  strengthened  by  his  imme- 
diately adding,  "  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ :" 
A  clause  which  our  translators,  by  the  use  of  a  paren- 
thesis, connect  with  "  baptism  doth  also  now  save  us  ;" 
so  that  their  meaning  is,  we  are  saved  by  baptism 
through  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  as  ho 
"  rose  ajain  for  our  justification,"  this  sufficiently  shows 
the  true  sense  of  the  Apostle,  who,  by  our  being 
"  saved,"  clearly  means  our  being  justified  by  faith. 

The  text  however  needs  no  parenthesis,  and  the  true 
sense  may  be  thus  expressed :  "  The  antitype  to  which 
water  of  the  flood,  baptism,  doth  now  save  us  ;  not  the 
putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  that  which 
intently  seeks  a  good  conscie^ice  towards  God,  through 

I  faith  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ."  But  how- 
ever a  particular  word  may  be  disposed  of,  the  whole 
passage  can  only  be  consistently  taken  to  teach  us,  that 
baptism  is  t  he  outward  sign  of  our  entrance  into  God's 

!  covenant  of  mercy ;  and  that  when  it  is  an  act  of  true 
faith,  it  becomes  an  instrument  of  salvation,  like  that 
act  of  faith  in  Noah,  by  which,  when  moved  with  fear, 
he  "  prejiared  an  ark  to  the  saving  of  his  house,"  and 
survived  the  destruction  of  an  unbelieving  world. 

From  what  has  been  said  it  will  then  follow,  that  tho 
Abrahamic  covenant  and  the  Christian  covenant  is  tho 
same  gracious  engagement  on  the  part  of  God  to  show 
mercy  to  man,  and  to  bestow  upon  him  eternal  life, 
through  faith  in  Christ  as  the  true  sacrifice  for  sin,  dif- 
fering only  in  circumstances ;  and  that  as  the  sign  and 
seal  of  this  covenant  under  the  Old  dispensation  was 
circumcision,  under  the  New  it  is  baptism,  which  has 
the  same  federal  character,  performs  the  same  initiatory 
oftice,  and  is  instituted  by  the  same  authority.  For 
none  could  have  authority  to  lay  aside  the  appointed 
seal,  but  the  Being  who  first  instituted  it,  who  changed 
the  Ibrm  of  the  covenant  itself,  and  who  has  in  fact 
abrogated  the  old  seal  by  the  appointment  of  another, 
even  baptism,  which  is  made  obligatory  upon  "all  na- 
tions to  wliom  the  Gospel  is  preached,  and  is"  to  conti- 
nue to  '■  the  end  of  the  world." 

This  argument  is  sufficiently  extended  to  show  that 
the  Antipcedubaptist  writers  have  in  vain  cjideavoured 
to  prove  thai  bajitism  lui.s  not  been  ap|>oiiiled  in  the  room 
of  circumcision  ;  a  point  on  which,  indeed,  they  weie 
bound  to  employ  all  their  strength;  tor,  the  subiititu- 


434 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


(PaBt  It. 


flon  of  hniitism  ibr  clrrtimclslon  hcing  cstabllshci],  one 
of  their  main  otijections  to  Infant  baiitisin,  as  wo  shall 
Just  now  show,  is  rcnilcrcil  wholly  nugatory. 

IJut  it  is  not  enough,  in  stating  tho  nature  of  the  or- 
dinance of  Christian  baptisni,  to  consider  it  generally 
as  an  act  by  which  man  enters  into  Cod's  covenant  of 
grace.  Under  this  general  view  several  i)arliculars 
are  contained,  which  it  is  of  great  irnporlanco  rightly 
to  understand.  BaiUism,  botli  as  a  Kiiin  Miil  xcal,  pre- 
sents an  entire  corre.'5i)ondence  with  the  ancient  rite 
of  cirnunicision.     Let  it  then  bo  considered, 

1.  As  A  SIGN.  Under  this  view,  circumcision  indi- 
cated by  a  visible  and  continued  rite,  the  placability 
of  (Jod towards  his  sinful  creatures;  and  held  out  tho 
jiroinise  of  justification,  by  fiuth  alone,  to  every  truly 
jirnitent  olTender.  It  went  farther,  and  vva.'?  tlio  sign 
of  sanctifieation,  or  tho  taking  away  the  pollution  of 
sin,  "llio  superfluity  of  naughtiness,"  as  well  as  the 
pardon  of  actual  oliences,  and  thus  was  tho  visible 
eirdilem  of  a  regenerate  mind,  and  a  renewed  lite. 
'I'his  will  appear  from  the  following  passages,  "  For  ho 
rs  not  a  .few  which  is  one  outwardly  in  tho  llesh ;  but 
he  is  a  Jew  which  is  one  inwardly  ;  and  circumcision 
rs  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter, 
whose  jiraise  is  not  of  men,  but  of  Cod,"  Rorn.  ii.  28. 
"  And  the  Lord  thy  God  will  circumciso  thine  heart, 
and  the  heart  of  thy  seed,  to  love  tlie  Lord  tliy  God 
with  all  thine  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  that  thou 
mayest  live,"  Deut.  xxx.  6.  "  Circumcise  yourselves 
to  the  Lord,  and  take  away  the  foreskins  of  your  heart, 
ye  men  of  Judah,  and  inhiibitants  of  Jerusalem,"  Jer. 
iv.  3.  It  was  the  sign  also  of  jieculiar  relation  to  God, 
as  his  people  :  "  Only  tlie  Lord  had  a  deligiit  in  thy 
fathers  to  love  them,  and  he  chose  their  seed  adcr  them, 
even  you  above  all  people  as  it  is  this  day.  Circum- 
cise, lUEUEFoRE,  the  foreskin  of  your  heart,  and  be  no 
more  stiff-necked,"  Deut.  x.  15,  Iti. 

In  all  these  respects,  baptism,  as  a  sign  of  tho  new 
covenant,  corresponds  to  circiuncision.  Like  that,  its 
adiiiinistration  is  a  constant  exhibition  of  (he  placa- 
bility of  (Jod  to  man ;  like  that,  it  is  the  initiatory  rite 
into  a  covenant  which  promises  i)ardon  and  salvation 
to  a  true  faith,  of  which  it  is  the  outward  prolession ; 
like  that,  it  is  the  symbol  of  regeneration,  the  washing 
away  of  sin,  and  "  the  renewing  of  the  Iloly  Ghost ;" 
and  like  that,  it  is  a  sign  of  peculiar  relation  to  God, 
Christians  becoming,  in  consequence,  "  a  chosen  gene- 
ration, a  peculiar  people," — his  "  church"  on  earth,  as 
distinguished  lioin  "  the  world."  "  For  wc,"  says  the 
Apostle,  "are  the  circumcision,"  we  are  that  peculiar 
pec)|)le  and  church  now,  which  was  formerly  distin- 
guished by  the  sign  of  circumcision,  "  who  worsliip 
(iod  in  the  spirit,  and  rejoice  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  have 
no  confidence  in  the  flesh." 

Hut  as  a  sign,  bajitism  is  more  than  circumcision  ; 
because  the  covenant,  under  its  new  ilisi)ensation,  was 
not  only  to  offer  pardon  ui)on  believing,  deliverance 
from  the  bondage  of  lleshly  appetites,  ajid  a  i)eculiar 
.■spiritual  relation  to  God,  all  of  which  we  lind  inider 
the  ( )ld  'restament ;  but  also  to  bestow  the  Ilohj  ISpirit, 
in  his  Kni.NKSs,  upon  all  believers;  ami  of  lliis  effu- 
sion of  "the  Power  from  on  High,"  bajilism  was  madi; 
tl»e  visible  sign  ;  and  perhaps  lor  this,  among  some 
other  obvious  re-asons,  was  substituted  for  circum- 
cision, liccause  baiitisrn  by  i'lfusimi,  or  pouritig  (the 
New  Testament  mode  of  bajitizing,  aa  we  shall  after- 
ward show),  was  a  natural  symlioj  of  this  heavenly 
irill.  The  baptism  of  .lohn  had  sjiecial  relcrcnee  to 
the  Holy  Spirit,  which  was  not  to  be  administered  by 
him,  but  by  Christ  who  should  come  after  him.  This 
gill  only  honoured  John's  baptism  once,  in  the  extraor- 
dinary case  of  our  Lord  ;  but  it  constantly  followed 
upon  the  bajitism  administered  by  the  Aiiosiles  of 
Christ,  after  his  ascension,  and  "the  sending  of  the 
promise  of  the  Father."  Then  I'eler  said  unto  them, 
"  Hepenl,  and  be  baptized  every  one  ol  you  for  the  re- 
mission ot  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  i;i/l  <i/' the  Holy 
GtiDst,'"  Acts  ii.  17.  "According  to  his  mercy  he  saved 
us  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  ami  tlie  n  luwing 
i)f  Vie  Holy  Ghost,  which  he  slieil,"  or  iriiirut  out,  "  on 
us  abundantly  through  Jesus  Christ."  For  this  reason 
Christianity  is  called  "  tlie  ministration  ol  the  Spirit  ;" 
and  so  far  is  this  from  being  confined  to  the  miraculous 
gills  often  bestowed  in  the  first  age  of  the  Church, 
(hat  it  is  made  the  standing  and  jirominenl  lest  of  true 
Christianity  to  "  be  led  by  the  Sjiirit," — "  If  any  man 
have  not  (he  Hpiitt  of  Chnsi,  he  is  none  of  ini;."    iH 


this  great  new  covenant  blessing,  Tioptlijm  was  there- 
fore eminently  lhes;^«;  and  it  rejircsented  "the  pmir- 
ing  our^  of  the  Spirit,  "the  disrcmling'"  of  the  Spirit, 
the  "  falling"  of  tlie  Spirit  "upon  men,"  by  the  modo 
in  which  it  was  adrniinstered,  tho  pouring  of  water 
FROM  ABOVE  upoii  (he  subjccts  baptized. 

As  a  SKAi,,  also,  or  cunjirming  sign,  baptism  an- 
swers to  circumcision.  By  the  institution  of  the  latter, 
A  PLiciKiK  was  constantly  given  by  the  Almighty  to  be- 
stow the  spiritual  blessings  of  which  the  rite  was  tho 
sign,  ])ardon,  and  sanctifieation  through  laith  in  thefu- 
ture  seed  of  Abraham;  jieculiar  relation  to  Ilim  as 
"  his  people ;"  and  the  heavenly  inheritance.  Of  the 
same  blessings,  baptism  is  also  the  pledge,  along  with 
that  higher  disjiensation  of  tho  Holy  Sjiirit  which  it 
specially  represents  in  emblem.  Thus  in  baptisBi 
there  is  on  tho  part  of  God  a  visible  assurance  of  his 
faithfulness  to  his  covenant  stipulations.  But  it  is  vur 
seal  also ;  it  is  that  act  by  which  we  make  ourselves 
jiarties  to  tho  covenant,  and  thus  "  set  to  our  seal,  that 
(iod  is  true."  In  (his  respect  it  binds  us,  jis,  in  Dm 
other  God  mercifully  binds  lumself  (or  the  stronger  as- 
surance of  our  faith.  Wo  pledge  ourselves  to  trust 
wholly  in  Christ  lor  pardon  and  salvation,  and  to  obey 
his  laws; — "teaching  them  'to  observe  all  thingH 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you :' "  in  that  rite  also 
we  und(;rgo  a  mystical  death  unto  sin,  a  mystical  sepa- 
ration from  the  world,  which  St.  I'aul  calls  being 
"  buried  with  Christ  in  or  by  baptism ;"  and  a  mys- 
tical resurrection  to  newness  of  life,  through  Christ's 
resurrection  from  the  dead.  Thus  in  circumcision,  an 
obligation  of  faith  in  the  promises  made  to  Abraham, 
and  an  obligation  to  holiness  of  life,  and  to  the  observ- 
ance of  the  Divine  laws,  was  contracted  ;  and  Moses, 
therefore,  in  a  passage  above  quoted,  argues  from  that 
peculiar  visible  relation  of  the  Israelites  to  God,  pro- 
duced by  outward  circumcision,  to  the  duty  of  circum- 
cising the  heart :  "  Tiie  Lord  had  a  dehglit  in  thy  fa- 
thers to  love  them,  and  he  chose  their  seed  alter  them, 
even  you  above  all  people;  circumcise  theukkoue  the 
foreskin  of  your  heart,"  Deut.  x.  15. 

If  then  we  bring  all  these  considerations  under  one 
view,  we  shall  find  it  sulliciently  established  that  ba])- 
tism  is  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace  under 
its  perfected  dispensation ; — that  it  is  the  grand  initiatory 
act  by  which  we  enter  into  this  covenant,  in  order  to 
claim  all  its  spiritual  blessings,  and  to  take  upon  our- 
selves all  its  obligations; — that  it  was  a])pointed  by 
.fesus  Christ  in  a  manner  which  plainly  put  it  in  tli« 
place  of  circumcision  ; — that  it  is  now  the  means  by 
which  men  become  Abraham's  spiritual  children,  and 
heirs  with  him  of  the  promise,  which  was  the  olhee  of 
circumcision,  until  "the  seed,"  the  Messiah,  should 
come ; — and  that  baptism  is  therelbre  expressly  called 
by  St.  I'aul  "  the  circumcision  of  Christ,"  or  Christian 
circumcision,  in  a  sense  which  can  only  import  that 
baptism  has  now  taken  the  place  of  tho  Abraliainic 
rite. 

Tho  only  objection  of  any  plausibility  which  ha« 
been  urged  by  Antipa-dobaptist  writers  against  the 
substitution  of  baptism  for  circumcision,  is  thus  stated 
by  Mr.  Booth:  "  If  bai'tism  succeeded  in  the  place  ol 
circumcision,  how  came  it  that  both  of  them  were  in 
full  force  at  the  same  time,  that  is,  from  the  commence- 
ment of  John's  ministry  to  (he  death  of  Christ.'  For 
one  thing  to  come  in  the  room  of  another,  and  tho  lat- 
ter to  hold  its  place,  is  an  odd  kind  of  succession.  Ad- 
mitthig  (ho  succession  ])rctcnded,  how  came  it  (hat 
I'aul  circumcised  Timolhy,  after  hi;  had  been  bapdzcd  ?" 
That  eircuincisi<m  was  jiraclised  along  with  baptism 
IVom  John  the  Baptist's  ministry  (o  the  death  of  Christ 
may  be  very  readily  granted,  without  alfeciing  (he 
question;  for  baptism  could  not  be  made  the  sign  and 
seal  of  the  iicrlected  covenant  of  grace,  uniil  that  cove- 
nant was  both  perfected,  and  fully  (^\).laille(l  and  pro 
posed  for  acceptance,  which  did  not  lake  place  until 
after  "  the  blood  of  the  everlasting  covenant  was  slici), 
and  our  Lord  hail  opened  its  full  import  to  the  Apostles 
who  were  to  publish  it  "  to  all  nations"  after  his  resur- 
rection. Accordingly  we  find  that  baiitism  was  Ibrm- 
ally  made  the  rite  of  initiation  into  this  covenant  for 
the  first  time,  when  our  Lord  gave  commission  to  his 
disciples  (o  "  go  and  teach  all  nations,  baiitizing  them 
in  the  name  o(  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  o(  the 
Holy  Ghost,"—"  he  that  bolievelh  and  is  baptized  8ll.^ll 
bi)savi-d  "  .lohn's  haptism  was  ujion  profession  of  re- 
lieiitanue,  and  lUitU  in  the  speedy  ujiiiearuiice  of  Iliui 


Chap.  III.] 


THEOLOGICAL   L\STITUTES. 


435 


who  was  to  bapUw!  with  tho  Holy  Ghost  ami  fire ;  and 
our  Lord's  baptism  by  his  disciples  was  administered 
to  those  Jews  lliat  believed  on  him,  as  tlio  Messias, 
all  of  whom,  lilte  tho  Apostles,  waited  for  a  f\iller  de- 
velopcment  of  his  character  and  offices.  For  since  the 
new  covenant  was  not  then  fully  perfected,  it  could  not 
be  proposed  in  any  other  way  than  to  prepare  them 
that  believed  in  Christ,  by  its  partial  but  increasing 
manifestation  in  the  discourses  of  our  Lord,  for  the  full 
declaration  both  of  its  benefits  and  obligations ;  wliich 
declaration  was  not  made  until  after  his  resurrection. 
Whatever  the  nature  and  intent  of  that  baptism  which 
our  Lord  by  his  disciples  adiniiusterod  might  be  (a  point 
on  which  we  have  no  information),  like  that  of  John  it 
looked  to  something  yot  to  come,  and  was  not  certainly 
that  baptism  in  the  name  "  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  which  was  afterward  insti- 
tuted as  the  standing  initiatory  rite  into  the  Christian 
Church.  As  for  the  circumcision  of  Timothy,  and  the 
practice  of  that  rite  among  many  of  the  Hebrew  be- 
lievers, it  ha.s  already  been  accounted  for.  If  indeed 
the  Baptist  writers  could  show  that  the  Apostles  sanc- 
tioned the  practice  of  circumcision  as  a  seal  of  the  old 
covenant,  either  as  it  was  Abrahamic  or  Mosaic,  or 
both,  then  there  would  be  some  force  in  the  argument, 
that  one  could  not  succeed  the  other,  if  both  were  con- 
tinued under  inspired  authority.  But  wo  have  the 
most  decided  testimony  of  the  Apostle  Paul  against 
any  such  use  of  circumcision ;  ar.d  he  makes  it,  when 
practised  in  that  view,  a  total  abnegation  of  Christ  and 
the  new  covenant.  It  follows  then,  that  when  circum- 
cision was  continued  by  any  connivance  of  the  Apos- 
tles,— and  certainly  they  did  no  more  than  connive,  at 
it, — it  was  practised  upon  some  grounds  which  did  not 
regard  it  as  the  seal  of  any  covenant,  from  national 
custom,  or  prejudice,  a  feeling  to  which  the  Apostle 
Paul  himself  yielded  in  the  case  of  Timothy.  He  cir- 
cumcised him,  but  not  from  any  conviction  of  neces- 
sity, since  he  unilbrmly  declared  circumcision  to  have 
vanished  away  with  that  dispensation  of  the  covenant 
of  which  it  was  the  seal,  through  the  bringing  in  of  a 
better  hope. 

We  may  here  add,  that  an  early  Father,  .lustin  Mar- 
tyr, takes  the  same  view  of  the  substitution  of  cir- 
cumcision by  Christian  baptism  :  "  We,  Gentiles,"  .lus- 
tin observes,  "have  not  received  that  circumcision 
according  to  the  liesh,  but  that  which  is  spiritual — and 
moreover,  for  indeed  we  were  sinners,  we  have  received 
this  in  baptism,  through  God's  mercy,  and  it  is  en- 
joined on  all  to  receiveit  in  like  manner." 

II.  The  nature  of  baptism  having  been  thus  ex- 
plained, we  may  proceed  to  consider  its  subjects. 

That  believers  are  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism, 
as  they  were  of  circumcision,  is  beyond  dispute.  As 
it  would  have  been  a  monstrous  perversion  of  circum- 
cision to  have  administered  it  to  any  person,  being  of 
adult  age,  who  did  not  believe  in  the  true  and  living 
God,  and  in  the  expected  "  seed  of  Abraham,"  in  whom 
all  nations  were  to  be  blessed  ;  so  is  faith  in  Christ 
also  an  indispensable  condition  for  baptism  in  all  per- 
sons of  mature  age :  and  no  minister  is  at  liberty  to 
take  from  the  candidate  the  visible  pledge  of  his  accept- 
ance of  the  terms  of  God's  covenant,  unless  he  has 
been  first  taught  its  nature,  promises,  and  obligations, 
and  gives  sutficient  evidence  of  the  reality  of  his  faith, 
and  the  sincerity  of  his  profession  of  obedience.  Hence 
the  administration  of  bajitism  was  placed  by  our  Lord 
only  in  the  hands  of  those  who  were  "  to  preach  the 
Gosjiel,"  that  is,  of  those  who  were  to  declare  God's 
method  of  saving  men  "  through  faith  in  (Christ,"  and 
to  teach  them  "  to  observe  all  things,  whatsoever  Christ 
had  commanded  tliem."  Circumcision  was  connected 
•with  teaching,  and  belief  of  the  truth  taught ;  and  so 
also  is  Christian  baptism. 

The  question,  however,  which  now  requires  con- 
sideration is,  whether  the  infant  children  of  believing 
parents  are  entitled  to  be  made  parties  to  the  covenant 
of  grace,  by  the  act  of  their  parents,  and  the  adminis- 
tration of  baptism  ? 

In  favour  of  infant  baptism,  the  following  arguments 
may  be  adduced.  Some  of  them  are  more  direct  than 
others ;  but  the  reader  will  judge  whether,  taken  all  toge- 
ther, they  do  not  establish  this  practice  of  the  (Jhurch,  con- 
tinued to  us  from  the  earliest  ages,  upon  the  strongest 

basis  of  SCRIPTURAL  AUTHOKITV. 

1.  As  it  has  been  established,  that  baptism  was  put 
by  our  Lord  himself  and  his  AiKJstUis  in  the  room  of 
E  e  a 


drcumclsion,  as  an  Initiatory  rite  into  the  covenant  of 
grace ;  and  as  the  Intimt  children  of  believers  under 
the  (JId  Testament  were  i:ntitled  to  tho  covenant  bene- 
fits of  the  latter  ordinance,  and  the  children  of  Chris- 
tian believers  are  not  expressly  excluded  from  enter- 
ing into  the  same  covenant  by  baptism  ;  the  absence  of 
such  an  explicit  exclusion  is  sufficient  proof  of  their 
title  to  baptism. 

For  if  tho  covenant  bo  the  same  in  all  its  spiritual 
lilessings,  and  an  express  change  was  made  by  our 
Lord  in  the  xign  and  seal  of  that  covenant,  but  no 
change  at  all  in  the  subjects  of  it,  no  one  can  have  a 
right  to  carry  that  change  farther  than  the  Lawgiver 
himself,  and  to  exclude  tho  children  of  believers 
from  entering  his'covenant  by  baptism,  when  they  had 
always  been  entitled  to  enter  into  it  by  circtuiicision. 
This  xs  a  censurable  interference  with  the  authority  of 
God ;  a  presumptuous  attempt  to  fashion  the  new  dis- 
pensation in  this  respect  so  as  to  conform  it  to  a  mero 
laiman  opinion  of  fitness  and  propriety.  For  to  say, 
that,  because  baptism  is  directed  to  be  administered  to 
believers  when  adults  are  spoken  of,  it  follows  that 
children  who  are  not  capable  of  personal  faith  are  ex- 
cluded tirom  baptism,  is  only  to  argue  in  tho  same 
manner  as  if  it  were  contended,  that,  because  ciroum- 
cision,  when  adults  were  the  subjects,  was  only  to  bo 
administered  to  believers,  therefore  infants  were  ex- 
cluded l\om  that  ordinance,  wliich  is  contrary  to  tho 
fact.  This  argument  will  not  certainly  exclude  them 
from  baptism  by  "way  of  inference,  and  by  no  act  of 
the  Maker  and  Mediator  of  the  covenant  are  they  shut 
out. 

2,  If  it  had  been  intended  to  exclude  infants  from  en- 
tering into  the  new  covenant  by  baptism,  tho  absence 
ot  every  prohibitory  expression  to  tliis  elTect  in  the 
New  Testament,  must  have  been  misleading  to  all 
men ;  and  especially  to  the  .Jewish  believers. 

Daptism  was  no  now  ordinance  when  our  Lord  in- 
stituted it,  though  he  gave  to  it  a  particular  designa- 
tion. It  was  in  his  practice  to  adapt,  in  several  in- 
stances, what  he  found  already  established,  to  the  uses 
of  Ms  religion.  "  A  parable,  for  instance,  was  tho 
Jewish  mode  of  teaching.  Wlio  taught  by  parables 
equal  to  Jesus  Christ  ?  And  what  is  the  most  distin- 
guished and  appropriate  rite  of  his  religion,  but  a  ser- 
vice gralled  on  a  Passover  custom  among  the  Jews  of 
his  day  ?  It  was  not  ordained  by  Moses,  that  a  part  of 
the  bread  they  had  used  in  the  Passover  should  be  the 
last  thing  they  ate  after  that  supper ;  yet  this  our  Lord 
took  as  lie  found  it,  and  converted  it  into  a  memorial 
ol'  his  body.  The  '  cup  of  blessing'  has  no  authority 
whatever  from  the  original  institution ;  yet  this  our 
Lord  Ibund  in  use,  and  adopted  as  a  memorial  of  his 
blood : — taken  together,  these  elements  form  one  com- 
memoration of  his  death.  Probability,  arising  to  ra- 
tional certainty,  therefore,  would  lead  us  to  infer,  that 
whatever  rite  Jesus  appointed  as  the  ordinance  of  ad- 
mission into  the  community  of  liis  followers,  he  would 
also  adopt  from  some  service  already  existing — from 
some  token  familiar  among  the  people  of  hia  nation. 

"  In  fact,  wo  know  that  '  divers  baptisms'  existed 
under  the  law,  and  wo  have  even'  reason  to  beheve, 
that  the  admission  of  proselytes  into  tho  profession  of 
Judaism,  was  really  and  truly  marked  by  a  washins^ 
with  water  in  a  ritual  and  ceremonial  manner.  I  have 
always  understood  that  Maimonides  is  perfectly  correct 
when  he  says,  '  In  all  ages,  when  a  Heatlien  (or  a 
stranger  by  nation)  was  iviliing  to  enter  into  the  covenant 
of  Israel,  and  gather  himself  under  the  luings  of  the 
majesty  of  God,  and  take  upon  himself  the  yoke  of  the 
law — he  mvst  be  first  circumcised,  and  secondly  bap- 
TiZKP,  and  thirdly  bring  a  sacrifice;  or  if  the  party 
icere  a  woman,  then  she  m.ust  be  first  baptized,  and 
secondly  bring  a  sacrifice'  He  adds, '  At  this  present 
time,  when  (the  temple  being  destroyed)  there  is  no  sacri- 
ficing, a  stranger  must  be  first  circumcised,  and 
secondly  baptized.' 

"  Dr.  Gill,  indeed,  in  his  Di.«sertation  on  lavish  Pro- 
selyte Baptism,  has  ventured  the  assertion,  that  'there 
is  no  mention  made  of  any  rite  or  custom  of  admitting 
Jewish  Proselytes  by  baptism,  in  any  writings  or  re- 
cords before  the  time  of  .lohn  the  Uaptist,  Christ  and 
his  Apo.stles ;  nor  in  any  age  after  them,  lor  the  first 
three  or  four  hundred  years ;  or,  however,  befbrij  (ht; 
writing  of  the  Talmnds.'  But  the  learned  Doctor  hay 
not  condescended  to  understand  the  evidence  of  this  fact. 
It  does  not  tost  on  the  testimony  of  Juwish  rccorUa 


436 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  IV. 


solely ;  It  was  In  circulation  among  the  Heatlicn,  as  we 
Icam  from  the  clrar  and  demonstrative  testimony  of 
Epictetus,  who  has  these  words  (He  is  blaming  lliose 
who  assume  I  lie  profession  of  Philosophy  without  acting 
up  to  it):  '  Wliy  do  you  call  yourself  a  Stoic?  Why 
do  you  deceive  the  multitude?  Why  do  you  jiretend  to 
be  a  Greek,  when  you  are  a  Jew?  a  Syrian?  an  Ei^ijp- 
tiaii?  And  when  we  see  any  one  waverinfr,  we  are 
wont  to  say,  This  is  not  a  Jew,  but  acts  one.  Jtut  when 
he  assumes  the  sentiments  of  one  who  hath  been  linp- 
tized  and  circimicistd,  then  he  both  really  is,  and  is 
called,  a  Jew.  Thus  we,  falsifying  our  prul'ession,  are 
Jews  in  name,  but  in  reality  something  else.' 

"This  practice  then  of  the  Jews, — prnsclyte  bap- 
tixjn, — was  so  notorious  to  the  Heathen  in  Italy  and  in 
Greece,  tliat  it  furnished  tliis  philosopher  Willi  an  object 
of  con>parison.  Now,  Epictetus  lived  to  be  very  old  : 
He  is  placed  by  Dr.  Lardner,  A.  1).  109,  by  Le  Clerc, 
A.  D.  104.  He  could  not  be  less  than  sixty  years  of  age 
wlien  he  wrote  this  ;  and  he  might  obtain  his  infertna- 
tioii  thirty  or  forty  years  earlier,  wliich  brings  it  up  to 
the  time  of  the  Apostles.  Those  who  could  think  that 
the  Jews  could  institute  proselyte  baptism  at  the  very 
moment  when  the  Christians  were  practising  baptism 
as  an  initiatory  rite,  are  not  to  be  envied  for  the  correct- 
ness of  their  judgment.  The  rite  certainly  dates  much 
earlier,  probably  many  ages.  I  see  no  reason  for  dis- 
puting the  assertion  of  Maimonides,  notwithstanding 
Dr.  Gill's  rash  and  fallacious  language  on  the  subject."(,'?) 

This  baptism  of  proselytes,  as  I,ightfoot  has  fully 
showed,  was  a  baptism  ot  families,  and  comprehended 
their  infant  children ;  and  the  rite  was  a  symbol  of  their 
being  washed  from  the  pollution  of  idolatry.  Very  dif- 
ferent, indeed,  in  the  extent  of  its  import  and  office  was 
Christian  baptism  to  the  Jewish  baptisms  ;  nevertheless, 
this  shows  that  the  Jews  were  familiar  with  the  rite  as 
it  extended  to  children,  in  cases  of  conversions  from 
idolatry ;  and,  as  far  at  least  as  the  converts  from  pa- 
ganism to  Christianity  were  concerned,  they  could  not 
but  understand  Christian  baptism  to  extend  to  the 
infant  children  of  Gentile  proselytes,  unless  there  had 
been,  what  we  nowhere  find  in  tlie  discourses  of  Christ 
and  the  writings  of  the  Apostles,  an  express  exception 
of  them.  In  like  manner,  their  own  practice  of  infant 
circumcision  must  have  misled  them ;  for  if  they  were 
taught  that  baptism  was  the  initiatory  seal  of  the  Chris- 
tian covenant,  and  had  taken  the  place  of  circumcision, 
which  St.  Paul  had  inlbrmed  tlioni  was  "a  seal  of  the 
righteousness  which  is  by  faith,"  how  should  they  have 
understood  that  their  cliildren  were  no  longer  to  be  taken 
into  covenant  with  God,  as  under  their  own  Ibrmer 
religion,  unless  they  had  been  told  tliat  this  exclusion 
of  cliildren  from  all  covenant  relation  to  God,  was  one 
of  those  peculiarities  of  the  Christian  dispensation  in 
which  it  differed  from  the  religion  of  the  Patriarchs 
and  Moses?  Thiswas  surely  a  great  change;  a  change 
which-must  have  made  great  impression  upon  a  serious 
and  affectionate  Jciwisli  jjarent,  who  could  now  no 
longer  covenant  witli  (iud  for  his  children,  or  place  his 
chililren  in  a  special  covenant  relation  to  the  Lord  of 
the  whole  earth  ;  a  change  indeed  so  great,— a  placing 
of  the  children  of  Christian  parents  in  so  inferior,  and, 
so  to  sjieak,  outcast  a  condition,  in  comparison  of  the 
children  of  believing  .Tews,  while  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant remained  in  force,— that  not  only,  in  order  to  jire- 
vent  mistake,  did  it  require  an  express  enunciation,  but 
in  the  nature  of  the  thing  it  must  have  given  rise  to  so 
many  objections,  or  at  least  in([uiries,  that  explanations 
of  the  reason  of  this  peculiarity  might  naturally  be 
expected  lo  occur  in  the  writings  of  the  Apostles,  and 
especially  in  those  of  St.  Paul.  On  the  contrary,  the 
very  phraseology  of  these  inspired  men,  when  toncliing 
the  subject  of  the  childrenof  believers  only  incidentally, 
was  calculated  to  confirm  the  ancient  practice,  in  oppo- 
sition to  what  we  are  told  is  the  true  doctrine  of  the 
Gospel  upon  this  jioint.  For  instance :  how  could  the 
Jews  have  understood  the  words  of  Peter  at  the  I'ento- 
cost,  but  as  calling  both  upon  them  and  their  children 
to  bo  baptized? — "Repent  and  be  bapti/ed,  f(>r  the 
promise  is  unto  you  and  lo  your  children."  For  that 
i)()th  are  included,  may  be  proved,  says  a  sensible 
writer,  by  considering, 

"  I.  The  resemblance  between  this  promise,  and  that 
in  Gen.  xvii.  7,  'To  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  nnto  thy 
seed  after  tlicc.'    The  resemblance  between  these  two 

(3)  Vactaand  Evidouea  un  the  Subject  of  liuptum.    . 


lies  In  two  things  :  1.  Each  stands  connected  with  an 
ordinance,  by  which  jiersons  were  to  be  admitted  into 
Church  fellowslijp ;  the  one  by  circiuncision,  the  other 
by  baptism.  2.  Both  agree  in  phraseology ;  the  one 
is,  'to  thee  and  thy  seed;'  the  other  is,  'to  you  and 
your  children.'  Now,  every  one  knows  that  the  word 
seed  means  children;  and  \\\a.\.  cliildren  means  seed; 
and  that  they  are  ])recisely  the  same.  From  these  two 
strongly  resembling  features,  viz.  their  connexion  with 
a  similar  ordinance,  and  the  sameness  of  the  phrase- 
ology, I. infer,  that  the  subjects  expressed  in  each  are 
the  very  same.  And  as  it  is  certain  that  parents  and 
infants  were  intended  by  the  one  ;  it  must  be  equally 
certain  that  both  are  intended  by  the  other. 

"  2.  The  sense  in  which  the  speaker  must  have  un- 
derstood the  sentence  in  question  :  '  The  promise  is  to 
you,  and  to  your  cliildren.'— In  order  to  know  this,  we 
must  consider  who  the  speaker  was,  and  from  what 
source  he  received  his  religious  knowledge.  The 
Apostle  was  a  Jew.  lie  knew  that  he  himself  had 
been  admitted  in  infancy,  and  that  it  was  the  ordinary 
practice  of  the  Church  to  admit  infants  to  membership. 
And  he  likewise  knew,  that  in  this  they  acted  on  the 
authority  of  thatplace,  where  God  promises  to  Abraham, 
'  to  be  a  (lOd  unto  him,  and  unto  his  seed.'  Now,  if  the 
Apostle  knew  all  this,  in  what  sense  could  he  under- 
stand the  term  children,  as  distinguished  from  their 
parents?  1  have  said  that  rcKva,  children,  and  (nrtfina, 
seed,  mean  the  same  thing.  And  as  the  Apostle  well 
knew  that  tlie  term  seed  intended  infants,  though  not 
mere  infants  only ;  and  that  infanta  were  circumcised 
and  received  into  the  Church  as  being  the  seed,  what  else 
couid  he  understand  by  the  term  children,  when  men- 
tioned with  their  parents  ?  Those  who  will  have  the 
Apostle  to  mean,  by  the  term  cluldrm,  '  adult  po.sterity' 
only,  have  this  infelicity  attending  them,  that  they  un- 
derstand the  term  differently  from  all  other  men;  and 
they  attribute  to  the  Apostle  asonseof  the  word,  which 
to  him  must  have  been  the  most  forced  and  infarniliar. 
"  3.  In  what  sense  his  hearers  must  have  understood 
him,  when  he  said, '  The  promise  is  to  you,  and  to  your 
children.' 

"  The  context  informs  us,  that  many  of  St.  Peter's 
hearers,  as  ho  himself  was,  were  Jews.  They  liad 
been  accustomed  for  many  hundred  years  to  receive 
infants  by  circumcision  into  the  Church ;  and  this  they 
did,  as  before  observed,  because  God  had  promised  to 
be  a  Goil  to  Abraham  and  to  his  seed.  They  had  under- 
stood this  [iromise  to  mean  parents  and  their  infant 
ofl'spring,  and  this  idea  was  become  lamdiar  by  the 
practice  of  many  centuries.  What  then  must  have 
been  their  views,  when  one  of  their  own  community 
says  to  them,  '  The  promise  is  to  you  and  to  your 
children?'  If  their  practice  of  receiving  infants  was 
founded  on  a  promise  exactly  similar,  as  it  was,  how 
could  they  possibly  understand  him,  but  as  meaning  tho 
same  thing,  since  he  himself  used  the  same  mode  of 
sjieech  ?  This  must  have  been  the  case,  unless  wo 
admit  this  absurdity,  that  they  understood  him  in  a 
sense  to  which  they  had  never  been  accustomed. 

"  How  idle  a  thing  it  is,  in  a  Uaptist,  to  come  with  a 
lexicon  in  his  hand,  to  infonn  us  that  tckvu,  cliildren, 
means  posterily  I  Certainly  it  does,  and  so  includes 
the  youngest  infants. 

"  Hut  the  Bajitists  will  have  it  that  rcKva,  children, 
in  this  place,  means  only  adalt  posterity.  And  if  so, 
the  Jews  to  whom  he  spoke,  unless  they  uiulerstood  St. 
Peter  in  a  way  in  which  it  was  morally  impossible  lliey 
should,  would  infallibly  have  iiiidcrMtond  him  wrong. 
Certainly,  all  lucii,  whin  acting  Imly,  wdl  imdcrstainl 
words  in  that  way  which  is  most  lamiliar  to  them ;  and 
nothing  could  bo  more  so  to  the  Jews,  than  to  undur- 
stanil  such  a  speech  as  Peter's  to  mean  adiUts  and 
infants. 

"  Wo  should  more  certainly  come  at  the  truth,  if, 
instead  of  idly  criticising,  wo  could  fancy  ourselves 
.lews,  and  in  the  habit  of  circumcising  infants,  and  re- 
ceiving them  into  the  Church;  and  then  could  we  ima- 
gine one  of  our  own  nation  and  religion  to  addr&ss  us 
in  the  very  language  of  Peter  in  this  text,  'The  promise 
is  lo  you  and  to  your  children ;'  let  us  ask  ourselves 
whether  we  could  ever  suppose  him  to  mean  adult  pos- 
terity only  l"(4) 

To  this  we  may  nild  that  St.  Paul  calls  tho  children 
of  believers  holy,  separated  to  God,  and  standing  thore- 

(1)  linwAHDS  on,  Uaptiam. 


Cqap.  III.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


■i37 


fore  in  a  ]>cculliir  rtJlatlon  t«  htm,  1  Cor.  vll.  11 ;  a  moJc 
of  speech  whicli  would  also  havo  been  wholly  unintel- 
ligible at  least  to  a  Jew,  unless  by  some  rite  of  Chris- 
tianity eluldrcn  were  made  sharers  in  its  covenanted 
mercies. 

The  practice  of  the  Jews,  and  the  very  language  of 
the  Apostles,  so  naturally  leading  therefore  to  a  misun- 
derstanding of  this  sacrament,  if  infant  baptism  be  not 
a  Cliristiau  rite,  and  that  in  respect  of  its  subjects 
themselves,  it  was  the  more  necessary  that  some  notice 
of  the  exclusion  of  infants  from  the  Christian  covenant 
should  have  been  given  by  way  of  guard.  And  as  we 
find  no  intmiation  ut'  this  prohibitory  Ivind,  we  may 
confidently  conclude  that  it  was  never  the  design  of 
Christ  to  restrict  this  ordinance  to  adults  only. 

3.  Infant  children  are  bkclared  bv  Christ  to  be 
members  of  Ids  Church. 

That  they  were  made  members  of  God's  Churcli  in 
the  family  of  Abraham,  and  among  the  Jews,  cannot  be 
denied.  They  were  made  so  by  circumcision,  which 
was  not  that  carnal  and  merely  political  rite  which 
many  Baptist  writers  in  contradiction  to  tlie  Scriptures 
make  it,  but  was,  as  we  have  seen,  the  seal  of  a  spnitual 
covenant,  comprehending  engagements  to  bestow  the 
remission  of  sins  and  ail  its  consequent  blessings  in 
this  life,  and,  in  another,  the  heavenly  Canaan.  Among 
these  blessins^  was  that  special,  relation,  wliich  con- 
sisted in  becoming  a  visible  and  peculiar  people  of  God, 
his  Church.  Tliis  was  contained  in  that  engagement 
of  the  covenant,  "  I  vn\l  be  to  tlieiri  a  God,  and  they 
shall  be  to  me  a  people ;"  a  promise,  which,  however 
connected  with  temporal  advantages,  was,  in  its  highest 
and  most  emphatic  sense,  wholly  spiritual.  Circum- 
cision was  therelbre  a  religions,  and  not  a  mere  political 
rite,  because  the  covenant,  of  which  it  was  Uie  seal, 
was  in  its  most  ample  sense  spiritual.  If  therefore  we 
had  no  direct  autliority  from  the  words  of  Ciirist  to 
declare  the  infant  children  of  believers  competent  to 
become  the  members  of  his  Church,  the  two  circum- 
stances,— that  the  Church  of  God,  which  has  always 
been  one  Church  in  all  ages,  and  into  which  the  Gentiles 
are  now  introduced,  formerly  admitted  infants  to  mem- 
bership by  circumcision, — and  that  the  mode  of  initia- 
tion into  it  only  lias  been  changed,  and  not  the  subjects 
(of  which  we  have  no  intimation),  would  themselves 
prove  that  baptism  admits  into  the  Christian  Church 
both  believing  parents  and  their  children,  as  circum- 
cision admitted  both.  The  same  Church  remains  ;  tor 
"  the  olive-tree"  is  not  destroyed ;  the  natural  branches 
only  are  broken  olf,  and  the  Gentiles  grafted  in,  and 
"  partake  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive-tree,"  that 
is,  of  all  the  siiiritual  blessings  and  privileges  heretofore 
enjoyed  by  the  Jews,  in  consequence  of  their  relation  to 
God  as  his  Church.  lUU  among  these  spiritual  privi- 
leges and  blessings,  was  the  right  of  placing  their 
children  in  covenant  with  God ;  the  membership  of  the 
Jews  comprehended  both  children  and  adults;  and  the 
grallini^  in  of  the  Gentiles,  so  as  to  partake  of  the  same 
"  root  and  fatness,"  will  therelbre  include  aright  to  put 
their  children  also  into  the  covenant,  so  that  thej-,  as 
well  as  adults,  may  become  members  of  Christ's 
Church,  have  God  to  be  "  their  God,"  and  be  acknow- 
ledged by  him  in  the  special  sense  of  the  terms  of  the 
covenant,  to  be  his  "  people." 

But  we  have  our  Lord's  direct  testimony  to  this  point, 
and  that  in  two  remarkable  passages,  Luke  ix.  47,  48, 
"  And  Jesus  took  a  child  and  set  him  by  him,  and  he 
said  unto  them.  Whosoever  shall  receive  this  child  in 
my  name,  receiveth  me ;  and  whosoever  shall  receive 
me,  receiveth  him  that  sent  me ;  tor  he  that  is  least 
among  you  all,  tiie  same  shall  be  great."  We  grant 
that  this  is  an  instance  of  teaching  by  parabolic  action. 
The  intention  of  Christ  was  to  impress  the  necessity  of 
humility  and  teachableness  upon  his  disciples,  and  to 
afTord  a  promise,  to  those  who  should  receive  them  in 
his  name,  of  that  special  grace  which  was  implied  in 
receiving  hunself.  But,  then,  were  there  not  a  corres- 
pondence of  circumstances  between  the  child  taken  by 
Jesus  in  his  arms,  and  the  disciples  compared  to  tliis 
child,  there  would  be  no  force,  no  propriety,  in  the 
action,  and  the  same  truth  might  have  been  as  forcibly 
stated  without  any  action  of  this  kind  at  all.  Let  then 
these  correspondences  be  remarked  in  order  to  estimate 
the  amount  of  their  meaning.  The  luimility  and  docility 
of  the  true  disciple  corresponded  with  the  same  dlspo- 
Bilions  in  a  young  child ;  and  the  "  receiving  a  disciple 
in  the  name"  of  Christ  corresponds  with  the  receiving 


of  a  child  In  the  nameof  Christ,  which  can  only  mean 
the  receiving  of  each  with  kindness,  on  account  of  a 
religious  relation  between  each  and  Christ,  which  reli- 
gious relation  can  only  bo  well  intcriireted  of  a  Church 
relation.  This  is  farther  confirmed  by  the  next  point 
of  correspondence,  the  identity  of  Christ  both  with  the 
disciple  and  the  cliild,  "Whosoever  shall  receive  this 
child  in  my  name  receiveth  me ;"  but  such  an  identity 
of  Christ  with  his  disciples  stands  wholly  upon  their 
relation  to  him  as  members  of  his  mystical  "  body,  the 
Church."  It  is  in  this  respect  only  that  they  are  "  one 
with  him  ;"  and  there  can  be  no  identity  of  Christ  vvith 
"  little  children"  but  by  virtue  of  the  same  relation, 
that  is,  as  they  are  members  of  his  mystical  body,  the 
Church  ;  of  which  membership,  baptism  is  now,  as  cir- 
cumcision was  then,  the  initiatory  rile.  That  was  the 
relation  in  which  the  very  child  he  then  took  up  in  his 
arms  stood  to  him  by  virtue  of  its  circumcision  ;  it  was 
a  member  of  his  Old  Testament  Church ;  but,  as  he  is 
speaking  of  the  disciples  as  the  future  teachers  of  his 
perfected  covenant,  and  their  reception  in  his  name 
under  that  character,  he  manifestly  glances  at  the 
Church  relationship  of  childroji  to  him  to  be  established 
by  the  baptism  to  be  instituted  in  his  perfect  dispen- 
sation. 

This  is,  however,  expressed  still  more  explicitly  in 
Mark  x.  14,  "  But  when  Jesus  saw  it  he  was  much  dis- 
jileased,  and  said  unto  them,  SufTer  the  little  children  to 
come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not ;  for  of  such  is  the 

kingdom  of  God : and  he  took  them  up  in  his  arms, 

put  his  hands  upon  them,  and  blessed  them."  Here  the 
children  spoken  of  are  "  little  children,"  of  so  tender 
an  age  that  our  Lord  "  took  them  up  in  his  arms."  The 
purpose  for  which  they  were  brought  was  not,  as  some 
of  the  Baptist  writers  would  suggest,  that  Christ  should 
heal  thorn  of  diseases ;  for  though  St.  Mark  says, 
"  They  brought  young  children  to  Christ  that  he  might 
touch  them,"  this  is  explained  by  St.  Matthew,  who 
says,  "  that  he  should  put  his  hands  upon  them,  and 
pray  ;"  and  even  in  the  statement  of  St.  Mark,  x.  16,  it 
is  not  said  that  our  Lord  healed  them,  but  "put  his 
hands  upon  them,  and  blessed  them ;"  which  clearly 
enough  shows  that  this  was  the  purpose  for  wliich  they 
were  brought  by  their  parents  to  Christ.  Nor  is  there 
any  evidence  that  it  was  the  practice  among  the  Jews, 
for  eommon  unofficial  persons  to  put  their  hands  upon 
the  heads  of  those  for  whom  llicy  prayed.  The  parents 
here  appear  to  have  been  among  those  who  believed 
Christ  to  be  a  Prophet,  "  that  Prophet"  or  the  Messias; 
and  on  that  account  earnestly  desired  his  prayers  for 
their  children ,  and  his  official  blessing  upon  them.  That 
official  blessing, — the  blessing  which  he  was  authorized 
and  empowered  to  bestow  by  virtue  of  his  Messiah- 
ship, — he  was  so  ready,  we  might  say  so  anxious,  to 
bestow  ujion  them,  that  he  was  "much  displeased" 
with  his  disciples  who  "  rebuked  them  that  brought 
them,"  and  gave  a  command  which  was  to  be  in  force 
in  all  future  time, — "  SuflTer  the  little  children  to  come 
unto  me,"  in  order  to  receive  my  official  blessing  ;  "  for 
of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God."  The  first  evasive 
criticism  of  the  Baptist  writers  is,  that  the  phrase  "  of 
such,"  means  of  such-like,  that  is,  of  adults  being  of  a 
child-like  disposition  ;  a  criticism  which  takes  away  all 
meaning  liom  the  words  of  our  Lord.  For  what  kind 
of  reason  was  it  to  offer  for  permitting  children  to  come 
to  Christ  to  receive  his  blessing,  that  persons  not  child- 
ren, but  who  were  of  a  child-like  disposition,  were  the 
subjects  of  the  kingdom  of  God?  The  absurdity  of 
this  is  its  own  refutation,  since  the  reason  for  children 
being  permitted  to  come,  must  be  found  in  themselves, 
and  not  in  others.  The  second  attempt  to  evade  tho 
argument  from  this  passage  is,  to  understand  "  the 
kingdom  of  God,"  or  "the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  as  St. 
Matthew  lias  it,  exclusively  of  the  heavenly  state.  Wo 
gladly  admit,  in  opposition  to  the  Calvinistic  Baptists, 
that  all  children,  dying  before  actual  sin  committed, 
are  admitted  into  heaven  through  the  merits  of  Christ; 
but  for  tills  very  reason  it  follows  that  infants  are 
proper  subjects  to  be  introduced  into  his  Church  on 
earth.  The  phrases  "  the  kingdom  of  God,"  anil  "  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,"  are,  however,  more  frc(iuently 
used  by  our  Lord  to  denote  the  Church  in  this  present 
world,  than  in  its  state  of  glory ;  and  since  all  the 
children  brought  to  Christ  to  receive  his  blessing  were 
not  likely  to  die  in  their  infancy,  it  could  not  be  af- 
firmed, tliat  "  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  if 
that  be  understood  to  mean  the  state  of  future  happi- 


438 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Paht  V. 


ncgs  exclusively  As  chSlJrcn,  they  might  all  ho  mmn- 
btrs  of  the  Church  on  earth;  but  not  all.  n.v  cA/Wrrn, 
nioinbors  of  the  Church  In  heaven,  seeing  they  inl;;lit 
live  to  bccomo  adult,  ami  be  c;u5t  away.  Thus,  there- 
fore, if  children  aro  expressly  declared  to  he  meml)i>rs 
of  Clmst's  Church,  then  arc  they  the  proper  subjects 
of  baptism,  wliich  ia  the  initiatory  rite  into  every  por- 
tion of  (hat  Church  wliich  is  visible. 

Cut  let  this  case  be  more  particularly  considered. 

Take  it  that  by  "  the  kingdom  of  God,"  or  "of  hea- 
ven," oar  Lord  means  the  glorified  state  oi'  his  Church ; 
it  must  be  granted  that  none  can  enter  into  heaven  wliu 
are  not  redeemed  by  Christ,  and  who  do  not  stand  in  a 
vital  relation  to  him  as  members  of  hi.s  mystical  body, 
or  otherwise  we  should  place  human  and  fallen  beings 
in  that  heavenly  state  who  are  unconnected  with 
Christ  as  then:  Redeemer,  and  uncleansed  by  him  as 
the  sanctifier  of  his  redeemed.  Now,  this  relation 
must  exist  on  earth,  before  it  can  exist  in  heaven ;  or 
<!lse  we  assign  the  work  of  sanctifying  the  fallen  na- 
t'lrc  of  man  to  a  future  state,  which  is  contrary  to  the 
Scriptures.  If  infants,  thcrelbre,  aro  thus  redeemed 
and  sanctified  in  their  nature,  and  are  before  death 
made  "  meet  ibr  the  inheritance  of  the  saints  in  light ;" 
so  that  in  this  world  they  are  place<l  in  the  same  rela- 
tion to  Christ  as  an  adult  believer,  who  derives  sanc- 
tifying inliuence  from  him,  they  are  therefore  the  mem- 
bers of  his  Church, — they  partake  the  grace  of  the  co- 
venant, and  arc  comprehended  in  that  promise  of  the 
covenant,  "I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  and  they  shall  be 
to  mo  a  i)eoplc."  In  other  words,  they  are  made  mem- 
bers of  Christ's  tJhurch,  and  arc  entitled  to  be  recog- 
nised as  such  by  the  administration  of  the  visible  sign 
of  initiation  into  some  visible  branch  of  it.  If  it  be 
asked,  "  Of  what  import  then  is  ba]>tism  to  children,  if 
as  infants  they  already  stand  in  a  favourable  relation 
to  Christ  ?"  the  answer  is,  tliat  it  Is  of  the  same  import 
as  circumcision  was  to  Abraham,  which  was  "  a  seal 
of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had  yet  be- 
ing uncircumciscd :"  it  confirmed  all  the  promises  of 
the  covenant  of  grace  to  liim,  and  made  the  Church  of 
God  visible  to  men.  It  is  of  the  same  import  as  bap- 
tism to  the  cimuch,  who  had  faith  already,  and  a  will- 
ingness to  submit  to  the  rite  before  it  was  administered 
to  him.  He  stood  at  that  moment  in  the  condition,  not 
of  a  candidate  for  introduction  into  the  Church,  but  of 
an  accepted  candidate ;  he  was  virtually  a  mend)cr, 
although  noi  formally  so,  and  his  baptism  was  not 
merely  a  sign  of  his  faith,  but  a  cmtjirming  sign  of 
Cod's  covenant  relation  to  him  as  a  pardoned  and  ac- 
cepted man,  and  gave  him  a  security  for  the  conthiu- 
ancc  and  increase  of  the  grace  of  the  a)venant,  as  he 
■was  prepared  to  receive  it.  In  like  manner,  in  the  ease 
of  all  truly  believing  adults  applying  for  bajitism,  their 
relation  to  Christ  is  not  that  of  mere  candidates  Itir 
membership  vyith  his  Church,  but  that  of  accepted  can- 
didates, standing  already  in  a  vital  relation  to  him,  but 
about  to  receive  the  seal  which  was  to  confirm  that 
grace,  and  its  increase  in  the  ordinance  itself,  and  in 
fttturo  time.  Thus  this  previous  relation  of  infants  to 
Christ,  as  accepted  by  him,  is  an  argument  for  their 
bajitism,  not  against  it,  seeing  it  is  by  that  they  are  vi- 
sibly recognised  as  the  formal  members  of  his  Church, 
and  have  the  full  grace  of  the  covenant  confirmed  and 
scaled  to  them,  with  increase  of  grace  as  ihey  aru  fitted 
to  receive  it,  besides  the  advantage  of  visible  connexion 
with  the  Church,  and  of  that  obligation  which  is  taken 
uiHin  themselves  by  their  pareius  to  train  them  up  in 
the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord. 

Ill  both  views,  then,  "of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
God," — members  of  his  Church  on  earth,  and  of  his 
Church  in  heaven,  if  they  die  in  infancy,  for  the  one  is 
necessarily  involved  in  the  other.  No  one  can  be  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  in  heaven,  who  <ioes  not  stand  in 
o  vital  sanctifying  relation  to  Christ  as  the  head  of  his 
mystical  body,  the  Church  on  earth ;  and  no  one  ran 
be  of  the  kingdom  of  (Joil  on  earth,  a  member  of  his 
true  Church,  and  die  in  that  relation,  without  entering 
tliat  state  of  glory  to  which  his  adoption  on  earth 
makes  him  an  heir,  through  Christ. 

4.  The  argimient  from  ajiosiolic  practice  next  oilers 
itself.  That  practice  w.ts  to  baptize  the  houses  of  them 
that  believed. 

The  impugners  of  infant  baptism  are  pleased  to  argue 
much  from  the  ab.sence  of  all  express  mention  of  thr 
hapti.'sm  of  Infants  in  the  New  Testament.  This  how- 
ever is  easily  accounted  for,  when  it  is  considered  that 
if,  as  wc  have  proved,  buptlBin"  took  the  iilace  of  cir- 


enmctsion,  the  baptism  of  Infhnts  was  so  much  a  mat- 
ter of  course,  as  to  call  tor  no  remark.  The  argument 
from  silence  on  this  puhject  is  one  which  least  of  all 
the  Baptists  ought  to  dwell  upon,  since,  as  we  have 
seen,  if  it  had  been  intended  to  exclude  children  from 
the  privilege  of  being  placed  in  covenant  with  God, 
which  privilege  they  unquc.'?tionaMy  enjoyed  under  the 
Old  Testament,  this  extraordinary  alteration,  which 
could  not  but  produce  remark,  re(iuired  to  be  particu- 
larly noted,  both  to  account  for  it  to  the  mind  of  an  af- 
fectionate Jewish  parent,  and  to  guard  against  that  mis- 
take into  which  we  shall  just  now  show  Christians 
from  the  earliest  times  fell,  since  they  administered  bap- 
tism to  infants.  It  may  lanher  be  ob.served,  that,  as 
to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  events  narrated  there 
did  not  require  the  express  iriention  of  the  bajitism  of 
infants,  as  an  act  separate  from  the  baptism  of  adults. 
That  which  called  for  the  administration  of  bai)tism  at 
that  period,  as  now,  when  the  Gospel  is  preached  in  a 
heathen  land,  was  the  believing  of  adult  persons,  not 
the  case  of  persons  already  believing,  bringing  their 
children  fur  baptism.  On  the  supposition  that  baptism 
was  administered  to  the  children  of  the  parents  who 
thus  believed,  at  the  same  time  as  themselves,  and  in 
consequence  of  their  believing,  it  may  be  asked  how 
the  fact  could  be  more  naturally  expressed,  when  it 
was  not  intended  to  speak  of  infant  baptism  doctrinally 
or  distinctly,  than  that  such  a  one  was  baptized,  "  and 
all  his  hmijic ;"  just  as  a  similar  fact  would  be  dis- 
tinctly recorded  by  a  modem  missionary  writing  to  a 
Church  at  home  practising  infant  baptLsm,  and  having 
no  controversy  on  the  subject  in  his  eye,  by  saying  that 
he  baptized  such  a  Heathen,  at  such  a  place,  with 
all  his  fandhj.  For,  TOtliout  going  into  any  criticism 
on  the  Greek  term  rendered  house,  it  cannot  be  denied 
that,  like  the  old  English  word  employed  in  our  trans- 
lation, and  also  like  the  word  family,  it  must  be  tinder- 
stood  to  comprehend  either  the  children  only,  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  the  domestics,  or  both. 

If  wc  take  the  instances  of  the  baptism  of  whole 
"  houses,"  as  recorded  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  they 
must  be  understood  as  marking  the  common  mode  of 
proceeding  among  the  first  preachers  of  the  Gospel,  when 
the  head  or  heads  of  a  family  believed,  or  as  insulated 
and  iiccuUar  instances.  If  the  former,  which,  from 
what  may  be  called  the  matler-of-oourse  manner  in 
which  the  cases  are  mentioned,  is  most  probable ;  then 
innumerable  instances  must  have  occurred  of  the  bap- 
tizing of  houses  or  families,  just  as  many  in  fact,  as 
there  were  of  the  conversion  of  heads  of  families  in 
the  apostolic  age.  That  the  majority  of  these  houses 
must  have  included  infant  children  is  therefore  certain, 
and  it  follows  that  the  Ajwstles  practised  infant  baptism. 

But  let  the  cases  of  the  bajrtism  of  houses  mentioned 
in  the  New  Testament  be  put  in  the  most  favourable 
light  for  the  purpose  of  the  Baptists  ;  that  is,  let  them 
be  considered  as  insulated  and  peculiar,  and  not  as  in- 
stances of  apostolic  procedure  in  all  cases  where  the 
heads  of  families  were  converted  to  the  faith,  still  the 
Bapl,ist  is  obliged  to  assume,  that  neither  in  the  house 
of  tlu  Bhilippian  jailer,  nor  in  that  of  Lydia,  nor  in  that 
of  .Stephanas,  were  there  any  infants  at  all,  since,  if 
there  were,  they  were  comprehended  in  the  tcAo/e  houses 
which  were  baptized  upon  the  believing  of  their  respect- 
ive heads.  This  at  least  is  improbable,  and  no  uitima- 
tion  of  this  peculiarity  is  given  in  the  history. 

The  Baptist  writers,  however,  think  that  they  can 
prove  that  all  the  persons  included  in  these  houses 
were  adults ;  and  that  the  means  of  showing  this  from 
the  Scriptures  is  an  instance  of  "  the  care  of  Provi- 
dence watching  over  the  sacred  cause  of  adult  bap- 
tism ;"  thus  absurdly  asssuming  that  even  if  this  point 
could  be  made  out,  the  whole  controversy  is  tenninated, 
when  in  fact  this  is  but  an  auxiliary  argument  of  very 
interior  importance  to  those  above  mentioned.  But  let 
us  examine  tlitiir  supposed  proofs.  "  With  respect  to 
the  jailer,"  they  tell  us,  that  "  we  are  expressly  as- 
sured, that  the  Apostles  sjioke  tlic  word  of  the  Lord  to 
all  that  were  in  hia  house;"  which  we  grant  must 
principally,  although  not  of  necessity  exiliisively, 
reflT  to  those  who  were  of  sufficient  age  to  uiid(  rslaiid 
their  discourse.  And  "that  he  re.joic.  d,  bdnving  in 
God  with  all  his  house  ;"  fVom  whuli  the  iiiferciue  is, 
that  none  but  adult  hearers,  and  adult  believers,  were 
in  llu.s  case  baptized.  If  so,  then  there  could  be  no 
infant  children  in  the  house;  which,  as  the  jailor  ap- 
pears Ihmi  his  activity  to  have  been  in  the  vigour  of 
life,  and  not  aged,  is  at  least  tar  Iroiii  being  ccrlaiu 


Cbap,  III.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


439 


Uut  If  it  bo  a  proof  lu  thla  cose  tliat  thero  wore  no  in- 
fant children  in  tlio  Jailer's  family,  that  it  is  said,  ho 
believed  and  all  his  /luusi: ;  this  is  not  the  only  believ- 
ing family  mentioned  in  Scripture  from  which  infants 
must  be  excluded.  For,  to  say  nothing  of  the  houses 
of  Lydia  and  Stephanas,  tho  nobleman  at  Ca|iernaum 
is  said  to  have  believed  "  and  all  his  house,"  .Tohn  iv. 
63  ;  so  that  we  arc  to  conclude  that  there  were  no  infant 
children  in  this  house  also,  although  his  sick  son  is  not 
said  to  be  his  only  offspring,  and  that  son  is  called  by 
him  a  child,  the  dinunutive  tenn  zsaiSiov  being  used. 
Again,  Cornelius  is  said.  Acts  x.  2,  to  be  "  one  that 
feared  God,  and  all  his  house."  luliint  children  there- 
fore must  be  excluded  from  his  family  also ;  and  also 
from  that  of  Crispus,  who  is  said  to  have  "  believed  on 
the  Lord  with  all  his  house ;"  which  Jiouse  appears, 
from  what  immediately  follows,  to  have  been  baptized. 
These  instances  make  it  much  more  probable  that  the 
phrases  "  fearing  God  with  all  his  house,"  and  "  believ- 
ing with  all  his  house,"  include  young  children  under 
the  believing  adults,  whose  religious  profession  they 
would  follow,  and  whoso  sentiments  they  would  im- 
bibe, so  that  they  might  be  called  a  Christian  family, 
than  that  so  many  houses  or  families  should  have  been 
constituted  only  of  adult  persons,  to  the  entire  exclu- 
sion of  children  of  tender  years.  In  the  case  of  the 
jailer's  house,  however,  the  Baptist  argument  mani- 
festly halts ;  for  it  is  not  said,  that  they  only  to  whom 
the  word  of  the  Lord  was  spoken  were  baptized ;  nor 
that  they  only  who  "  believed"  and  "  rejoiced"  with  the 
jailer  were  baptized.  The  account  of  the  bajitism  is 
given  in  a  separate  verse,  and  in  djircrent  phrase: 
"  And  he  took  them  the  same  hour  of  tiie  night,  and 
washed  their  stripes,  and  was  baptized,  ho,  raid  all  his," 
all  belonging  to  him,  "straightway;"  where  there  is 
no  limitation  of  the  persons  who  were  ba])tized  to  the 
adults  only  by  any  terms  which  designate  them  as  per- 
sons "  hearing"  or  "  believing." 

The  next  instance  is  that  of  Lydia.  The  words  of 
the  writer  of  the  Acts  are, "  Who  when  she  was  bap- 
tised, and  her  house."  The  great  ditliculty  of  the  Bap- 
tist is,  to  make  a  house  for  Lydia  without  any  children 
at  all,  young  or  old.  This,  however,  cannot  be  proved 
from  the  term  itself,  since  the  same  word  is  that  com- 
monly used  in  the  Scripture  to  include  children  residing 
at  home  with  their  parents :  "  One  that  ruleth  well 
his  own  house,  having  his  childreyi  in  subjection  with 
all  gravity."  It  is  however  conjectured,  first,  that  she 
had  come  a  trading  voyage,  from  Thyatira  to  Philip])!, 
to  sell  purple;  as  if  a  woman  of  Thyatira  might  not  be 
settled  in  business  at  Philippi  as  a  seller  of  this  arti- 
cle. Then,  as  if  to  mark  more  strikingly  the  hopeless- 
ness of  the  attempt  to  torture  this  passage  to  favour 
an  opinion,  "her  house"  is  made  to  consist  of  journey- 
men dyers,  "  employed  in  preparing  the  purple  she 
sold ;"  which,  however,  is  a  notion  at  variance  with 
the  former ;  for  if  site  was  on  a  mere  tailing  voyage,  if 
she  had  brought  her  purple  goods  from  Thyatira  to  Phi- 
lippi to  sell,  she  most  probably  brought  them  ready 
dyed,  and  would  have  no  need  of  a  dying  establishment. 
To  complete  the  whole,  these  journeymen  dyers,  rd- 
though  not  a  word  is  said  of  their  conversion,  nor  even 
of  their  existence,  in  the  whole  story,  are  raised  into 
"  the  brethren"  (a  term  which  manifestly  denotes  the 
members  of  the  Phihppian  Church),  whom  Paul  and 
Silas  are  said  to  have  seen  and  comforted  in  the  Iwuse 
of  Lydia,  before  they  departed ! 

All,  however,  that  the  history  states  is,  that  "  the 
Lord  opened  Lydia's  heart,  that  she  attended  unto  the 
things  which  were  spoken  of  Paul,"  and  that  she  was 
therefore  "  baptized,  and  her  house."  From  this  house 
no  one  has  the  least  authority  to  exclude  children,  even 
young  children,  since  there  is  nothing  in  the  history  to 
warrant  the  above-mentioned  conjectures,  and  the  word 
is  in  Scripture  used  expressly  to  include  them.  All  is 
perfectly  gratuitous  on  the  part  of  the  Baptists ;  but, 
while  there  is  nothing  to  sanction  the  manner  in  which 
they  deal  with  this  text,  there  is  a  circumstance  strongly 
confirmatory  of  the  probability  that  the  house  of  Lydia, 
according  to  the  natural  import  of  the  word  rendered 
house  or  family,  contained  children,  and  that  in  an  in- 
fantile state.  This  is,  that  in  all  the  other  instances  in 
which  adults  are  mentioned  as  having  been  bapli/.ed 
along  with  the  head  of  a  family,  they  are  mentioned  as 
"hearing"  and  "believing,"  or  in  some  terms  which 
amount  to  this,  Cornelius  had  called  together  "  hia 
kinsmen  and  near  frienils;"  and  while  Peter  spake, 
"  llio  Holy  Glioat  fi;U  ou  all  them  wkuk  heard  tki  wurii," 


"  and  he  commandiMl  thorn  to  be  baptized."  So  the 
adults  in  the  house  of  the  jailer  at  Philijipi  wero  persons 
to  whom  "  the  word  of  the  Lord"  was  spoken ;  and 
although  nothing  is  said  of  the  failh  of  any  but  the 
jailer  himself, — for  the  words  are  more  jiroperly  ren- 
dered, "and  he,  believing  in  God,  rejoii-.ed  with  all  his 
house," — yet  is  the  joy  which  appears  to  have  been  felt 
by  tho  adult  part  of  his  house,  as  well  as  by  himself, 
to  be  attributed  to  their  faith.  Now,  as  it  does  not  ap- 
pear that  the  Apostles,  although  they  baptized  infant 
oluldren,  baptized  unbelieving  adult  servants  because 
their  musters  or  mistresses  believed,  and  yet  the  house 
of  J^ydia  were  bapti/.ed  along  with  li(;rself,  when  no 
mention  at  all  is  made  of  the  Lord  "  opening  the  heart" 
of  these  adult  domestics,  nor  of  their  believing,  the  fair 
inference  is,  that  "  the  house"  of  Lydia  means  her  chil- 
dren only,  and  that  being  of  immature  years  they  were 
baptized  with  their  mother  according  to  the  common 
custom  of  the  Jews,  to  baptize  the  children  of  proselyted 
GentUes  along  with  their  parents,  from  which  practice 
Christian  baptism  appears  to  liave  been  taken. 

Tho  third  instance  is  that  of  "  tho  house  of  Stepha- 
nas," mentioned  by  St.  Paul,  1  Cor.  i.  Ifi,  as  having 
been  baptized  by  himself  This  family  also,  it  is 
argued,  must  have  been  all  adults,  because  they  are 
said  in  the  same  Epistle,  chap.  xvi.  15,  to  have  "  ad- 
dicted themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  saints,"  and 
farther,  because  they  were  persons  who  took  "  a  lecul" 
in  the  affairs  of  the  Church,  the  Corinthians  being  ex- 
horted to  "  submit  themselves  unto  such,  and  to  every 
one  that  helpeth  with  us  and  laboureth."  To  under- 
stand this  passage  rightly,  it  is  however  necessary  to 
observe,  that  Stephanas,  the  head  of  this  family,  had 
been  sent  by  the  Church  of  Corinth  to  St.  Paul  at 
Ephesus,  along  with  Fortunatus  and  Achaicus.  In 
the  absence  of  the  head  of  the  family,  the  Apostle  com- 
mends "  the  house,"  the  family  of  Stephanas  to  the 
regard  of  the  Corinthian  believers,  and  perhaps  also  the 
houses  of  the  two  other  brethren  who  had  come  with 
him  ;  for  in  several  IVISS.  marked  by  Griesbach,  and  in 
some  of  the  versions,  the  text  reads,  "  Ye  know  the 
house  of  Stephanas  and  Fortunatus,"  and  one  reads, 
also,  "  and  of  Achaicus."  By  tlie  house  or  family  of 
Stephanus,  the  Apostle  must  mean  his  children,  or, 
along  with  them,  his  near  relations  ilwelling  together 
in  the  same  family ;  for,  since  they  are  commended  for 
their  hosi)itality  to  the  saints,  servants,  who  have  no 
power  to  show  hospitality,  are  of  course  excluded. 
But,  in  the  absence  of  the  head  of  the  family,  it  is  very 
improbable  that  the  Apostle  should  exhort  the  Corin- 
thian Church  to  "  submit,"  ecclesiastically,  to  the  wife, 
sons,  daughters,  and  near  relations  of  Stephanas,  and 
if  the  reading  of  Griesbach's  MSS.  be  followed,  to 
the  family  of  Fortunatus,  and  that  ol'  Achaicus  also, 
in  respect  of  government,  therefore,  they  cannot  bo 
supposed  "  10  have  had  a  lead  in  the  Church,"  accord- 
ing to  the  Baptist  notion,  and  especially  as  the  heads 
of  tliese  families  were  absent.  They  were,  however, 
the  oldest  Chiistian  families  in  Corinth,  the  house  ofSte- 
phaiias  at  least  being  called  "  the  first  fruits  of  Achaia," 
and  eminently  distinguished  for  "  addicting  themselves," 
setting  themselves  on  system,  to  the  work  of  minister- 
ing to  the  saints,  that  is,  of  communicating  to  the  poor 
saints ;  entertaining  stranger  Christians,  which  was  an 
important  branch  of  practical  duty  in  the  primitive 
Church,  that  in  every  place  those  who  professed  Christ 
might  be  kept  out  of  the  society  of  idolaters ;  and  re- 
ceiving the  ministers  of  Christ.  On  these  accounts  the 
Apostle  commends  them  to  the  special  regard  of  the 
Corintliiau  Church,  and  exhorts  "  tva  icai  vncis  vitoTaa- 
ariaOt  Toi;  toistoi;,  that  you  range  yourselves  under 
and  co-operate  with  them,  and  with  every  one,"  also, 
"  who  helpeth  with  us,  and  laboureth ;"  the  military 
metaphor  contained  in  eralav  in  the  preceding  verse 
being  here  carried  forward.  These  families  were  tho 
oldest  Christians  in  Corinth ;  and  as  they  were  fore- 
most in  every  good  word  and  work,  they  were  not  only  to 
be  commended,  but  the  rest  were  to  be  exhorted  to  serve 
under  them  as  leaders  in  these  works  of  charity.  This 
appears  to  be  the  obvious  sense  of  this  otherwise  ob- 
scure passage.  But  m  this,  or  indeed  in  any  other 
sense  which  can  be  given  to  it,  it  proves  no  more  than 
that  there  were  adult  persons  in  the  family  of  Stephanas, 
his  wife,  and  sons,  and  daughters,  who  were  distin- 
guished for  their  charity  and  hospitality.  Still  it  is  to 
be  remembered,  that  the  baptism  of  the  oldest  of  the 
children  took  place  several  years  before.  The  house 
of  SHot)hau>is  "  was  the  first  I'ruite  of  Achaia,"  lu  wljicti 


440 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Paiit  IV. 


gt.  Paul  began  to  prcacli  not  later  than  A.  D.  51,  whilo 
this  Epistli)  could  not  be  wrilten  earlier  at  least  than 
A.  D.  57,  and  mi!,'ht  be  later.  Six  or  eight  years,  taken 
from  the  a^c  of  the  sons  and  daughters  of  Stei)lianas, 
might  bring  the  oldest  to  the  state  of  early  youlli,  and 
as  to  the  younger  branches  would  descend  to  the  term 
of  Inlancy,  properly  so  called.  Still  farther,  all  that 
the  Apostle  aflirms  of  the  benevolence  and  hospitality 
of  the  family  of  Stephanas  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
a  part  of  his  children  being  still  very  young  when  ho 
wrote  the  Epistle.  An  equal  commendation  for  ho.spi- 
tality  and  charity  might  be  given  in  the  present  day, 
with  perfect  proi)riety,  to  many  pious  laniilitis,  several 
members  of  which  are  still  in  a  state  of  infancy.  It 
was  sulHcient  to  warrant  the  use  of  such  expressions 
as  those  of  the  Apostle,  that  there  were  in  these  Corin- 
thian families  a  few  adults,  whose  conduct  gave  a  de- 
cided character  to  the  whole  "  house."  Thus  the  argu- 
ment used  to  prove  that  in  these  three  instances  of 
family  baptism,  there  were  no  young  children,  arc  evi- 
dently very  unsatisfactory ;  and  they  leave  us  to  the 
conclusion,  which  perhaps  all  would  come  to  in  reading 
the  sacred  historj',  were  they  quite  free  from  the  bias 
of  a  theory,  that  "  houses,"  or  "  families,"  as  in  the  com- 
monly received  import  of  the  term,  must  be  understood 
to  comprise  children  of  all  ages,  unless  some  explicit 
note  of  the  contrary  appears,  wliich  is  not  the  case  in 
any  of  the  instances  in  question. 

5.  The  last  argunient  may  be  drawn  from  the  anti- 
quity of  the  practice  of  infant  baptism. 

If  the  baptism  of  the  infant  children  of  bcUever.s  was 
not  practised  by  the  Apostles  and  by  the  primitive 
Churches,  when  and  where  did  the  practice  commence  ? 
To  litis  question  the  Baptist  writers  can  give  no  answer. 
It  is  an  innovation,  according  to  them,  not  upon  the 
circumstances  of  a  sacrament,  hut  upon  its  essential 
principle;  and  yet  its  introduction  produced  no  strug- 
gle ;  was  never  noticed  by  any  general  or  provincial 
council ;  and  excited  no  controversy  I  This  itself  is 
strong  presumptive  proof  of  its  early  antiquity.  On 
the  other  hand,  we  can  point  out  the  only  ancient 
writer  who  opposed  infant  baptism.  This  was  Tertul- 
lian,  who  lived  late  in  the  second  century:  but  his  very 
opposition  to  the  practice  proves  that  that  practice  was 
more  ancient  than  himself;  and  the  principles  on  which 
he  impugns  it,  farther  show  that  it  was  so.  lie  re- 
garded tills  sacrament  superstitiously ;  he  appended  to 
it  the  trine  immersion  in  the  name  of  each  of  the  per- 
sons of  the  Trinity ;  ha  gives  it  gravely  as  a  reason  why 
infimts  should  not  be  baptized,  that  Christ  says,  "  Suf- 
fer the  little  children  to  come  unto  me,"  therefore  they 
must  st.ay  till  they  are  able  to  come,  that  is,  till  they 
are  grown  up ;  "  and  he  would  prohibit  the  unmarried, 
and  all  in  a  widowed  st.ate,  from  baptism,  because  of 
the  temptations  to  which  they  may  be  liable."  The 
whole  of  this  is  solved  by  adverting  to  that  notion  of 
the  edicacy  of  this  sacrament  in  taking  away  all  jire- 
viotis  sins,  which  then  began  to  prevail,  so  that  an  in- 
ducement was  held  out  for  dcilaying  baptism  as  long  as 
possible,  till  at  length,  in  many  cases,  it  was  postjioned 
to  the  article  of  death,  under  the  belief  that  the  dying 
who  received  this  sacrament  were  the  more  secure  of 
salvation.  Terlullian,  accordingly,  with  all  his  zeal, 
allowed  that  infants  ought  to  be  bajitized  if  their  lives 
he  in  danger,  ami  thus  evidently  shows  that  his  opposi- 
tion to  the  bajUism  of  infants  in  ordinary,  rested  ujion 
a  very  different  principle  from  that  of  the  modern  Anti- 
ptedobaptists.  Amid  all  his  arguments  against  this 
practice,  Tcrtullian,  however,  never  ventures  ui)on  one 
■which  would  have  been  most  to  his  purpose,  and  which 
might  most  forcibly  have  been  urged  had  not  baptism 
been  administered  to  infants  by  the  Apostles  and  their 
immediate  successors.  That  argument  would  have 
heen  the  novelty  of  the  practice,  wliich  he  never  .asserts, 
and  which,  as  he  lived  so  early,  he  might  have  proved, 
liad  he  had  any  ground  for  it.  On  the  contrary,  .lustin 
Martyr  and  Iremeus,  in  the  second  century,  and  Origcn 
in  the  beginning  of  the  third,  expres.sly  mention  infant 
baptism  as  the  practice  of  their  limes,  and,  by  the  latter, 
this  is  assigned  to  apostolical  injunction.  Fidi's,  an 
African  bishop,  applied  to  Cyprian,  bishop  of  Carthage, 
to  know,  ni)t  whether  infants  were  to  be  bapti/.ed,  but 
whether  their  baptism  nii;;hl  lake  pliicebeforetheeighlh 
day  after  their  birth,  thatbiinijtlii.-dayon  which  cuni- 
cision  was  performed  by  the  law  of  Moses.  This  ques- 
tion was  considered  in  an  Afri<:an  Synod,  held  A.  I).  254, 
nt  which  sixty-sbc  bisliops  were  present,  and  "  it  was 
unanimoualy  d(«;rced, "  tUat  it  was  not  necessary  to  defer 


baptism  to  that  day ;  and  that  the  grace  of  God,  or 
baptism,  should  be  given  to  all,  and  especially  to  in- 
fants." This  decision  was  communicated  in  a  letter 
from  Cyprian  to  Fidu.s.(4)  Wo  trace  the  practice  also 
downwards.  In  the  fourth  century,  Ambrose  says, 
that ''  infants  who  are  baptized,  are  reformed  from  wick- 
edness to  the  primitive  slate  of  their  nature  ;"(5)  and  at 
the  end  of  that  century,  the  famous  controversy  took 
place  between  Augustine  and  Pelagius  concerning  origi- 
nal sin,  in  which  the  nnitbrm  practice  of  baptizing  infants 
from  the  da}s  of  the  Ajiosllcs  was  admitted  by  both 
parties,  although  they  assigned  difl'erent  reasons  for 
it.  So  little  indeed  were  Tertullian's  absurdities  re- 
garded, that  he  aijpears  to  have  been  quite  forgotten  by 
this  time ;  for  Augustine  says  he  never  heard  of  any 
Christian,  catholic  or  sectary,  who  taught  any  other 
doctrine  than  that  infants  are  to  be  baptized. (6)  Infant 
baptism  is  not  mentioned  in  the  canons  of  any  Council; 
nor  is  it  insisted  ujjon  as  an  object  of  faith  in  any  creed  : 
and  thence  we  infer  that  it  was  a  point  not  controverted 
at  any  period  of  the  ancient  Church,  and  we  know  that 
it  was  the  practice  in  all  established  Churches.  Wall 
says,  that  I'cter  IJruis,  a  Frenchman,  who  lived  about 
the  year  1030,  who.se  followers  were  called  I'etrobrus- 
sians,  was  the  first  Antipaedobaptist  teacher  who  had 
a  regular  congregation. (7)  The  Anabaptists  of  (;er- 
many  took  their  rise  in  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth 
century ;  but  it  does  not  appear  that  there  was  any 
congregation  of  Anabai)tists  in  England,  till  the  year 
1040.(8)  That  a  practice  which  can  be  traced  up  to 
the  very  first  periods  of  the  Church,  and  has  been,  till 
within  very  modern  times,  its  uncontradicted  practice, 
should  have  a  lower  authority  than  Apostolic  usage 
and  appointment,  may  be  pronounced  impossible.  It  is 
not  like  one  of  those  trilling,  though  somewhat  super- 
stitious additions,  which  even  in  very  early  times  began 
to  be  made  to  the  sacraments ;  on  the  contrarj',  it  in- 
volves a  principle  so  important  as  to  alter  the  very  na- 
ture of  the  sacrament  itself  For  if  personal  faith  be 
an  essential  requisite  of  baptism  ui  all  cases,  if  bap- 
tism be  a  visible  declaration  of  this,  and  is  vicious  with- 
out it ;  then  infant  baptism  was  an  innovation  of  so 
serious  a  nature,  that  it  must  have  attracted  attention, 
and  provok(!d  controversy,  which  would  have  led,  if 
not  to  the  suppression  of  the  error,  yet  to  a  diversity  of 
practice  in  the  ancient  Churches,  which  in  point  of  fact 
did  not  exist,  Terlullian  himself  allowing  infant  bap- 
tism in  extreme  ca.ses. 

The  BKNEi  ITS  of  this  sacrament  require  to  be  briefly 
exhibited,  llaptism  introduces  the  adult  believer  into 
the  covenant  of  grace,  and  the  Church  of  Christ;  and 
is  the  seal,  the  pledge  to  him,  on  the  pan  of  Cod,  of  the 
fulfilment  of  all  its  provisions,  in  time  and  in  eternity; 
while,  on  his  part,  he  takes  upon  himself  the  obliga- 
tions of  steadfast  faith  and  obedience. 

To  the  infant  child,  it  is  a  visible  reception  into  the  same 
covenant  and  Church, — a  pledge  of  acceptance  through 
Christ, — the  bestowment  of  a  title  to  all  the  grace  of  the 
covenant  as  circumstances  may  require,  and  as  the  mind 
of  the  child  may  be  capable,  or  made  capable,  of  receiving 
it ;  and  as  it  may  be  sought  in  future  life  by  prayer,  when 
the  period  of  reason  and  moral  choice  shall  arrive.  It 
conveys  also  the  present  "  blessing"  of  Christ,  of  which 
we  are  assured  by  his  taking  children  in  his  amis  and 
blessing  lliciii;  which  blessing  cannot  be  merely  nomi- 
nal, but  must  he  substantial  and  cthcacious.  It  secures, 
too,  the  gilt  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  tliosc  secret  spiritual 
influences,  by  whirh  tile  ailnal  regeneration  of  those 
children  who  die  in  inlancy  is  elTected;  and  which  are 
a  seed  of  life  in  those  who  are  spared,  to  prepare  them 
for  instniction  in  the  word  of  (;od,  as  they  are  taught 
it  by  parental  care,  to  incline  their  will  and  affections 
to  good,  and  to  begin  and  maintain  in  them  the  war 
against  inward  and  outward  evil,  so  that  they  may  bo 
divinely  assisted,  as  reason  strengthens,  to  make  their 
calling  and  election  sure.  In  a  word,  it  is  both  as  to 
inlaiits  and  to  adults,  the  sign  and  pledge  of  that  inward 
grace,  which,  although  modified  in  its  operations  by  the 
difference  of  their  circunislances,  has  respect  to,  and 
fUnvs  from,  a  covenant  relation  to  each  of  the  three  per- 
sonx  in  whose  one  mime  they  are  bapi  i/.ed, — acceptance 
by  the  Fatiikr,— union  with  Christ  as  the  head  of 
his  mystical  body,  the  Church,— and  "  the  communion 
of  the  Holy  Ghost."    To  these  advantages  must  be 

(4)  Cy]).  Ep.  5!>.  (5)  Comment,  in  Lucaii,  c.  10. 
(f.)  l)c  Pecc.  Mor.  cap.  d.  (7)  Hist.  Part  2,  c.  7. 
C*^)  Uisuoi-  To.MLiNK'ti  Elerocnis. 


Chap.  III.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


441 


added  the  respect  wlikh  God  bears  to  the  believing 
act  of  the  parents,  and  to  tlieir  solemn  prayert)  on  the 
occasion,  in  hoth  which  the  child  is  iiilerested;  ;is  well 
as  in  that  snlci.in  cii2:i!;einent  of  the  parents  which  the 
rite  necessarily  iniiilios,  to  bring  up  tlieir  child  in  the 
nurture  and  adinonilion  of  the  J.ord. 

To  the  parents  it  is  a  benefit  also.  It  assures  them 
that  God  will  not  only  be  their  God  ;  but  "  tile  God  of 
their  seed  after  them;"  it  thus  gives  them,  as  the  Is- 
raelites of  old,  the  right  to  covenant  with  God  for  their 
'•  little  ones,"  and  it  is  a  consoling  pledge  that  their 
dying  inlUnt  oftsjiring  shall  be  saved;  since  he  vvlio 
says,  "  sSufler  little  children  to  come  unto  me,"  has 
added,  "  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  They 
are  reminded  by  it  also  of  the  necessity  of  acquainting 
themselves  with  God's  covenant,  that  they  may  dili- 
gently teach  it  to  their  children ;  and  that,  as  they  have 
covenanted  with  God  for  their  children,  they  are  bound 
thereby  to  enforce  the  covenant  conditions  upon  them 
as  they  come  to  years, — by  example,  as  well  as  by  edu- 
cation ;  by  prayer,  as  well  as  by  profession  of  the  name 
of  Christ. 

III.  The  MODE  of  baptism  remains  to  be  considered. 

Although  the  manner  in  which  the  element  of  wa- 
ter is  applied  in  baptism  is  but  a  circumstance  of  this 
sacrament,  it  will  not  be  a  matter  of  surprise  to  those 
who  rellect  uponthe  proncness  of  men"  to  attach  undue 
importance  to  comparative  trilles,  that  it  has  produced 
so  much  controversy.  The  question  as  to  the  proper 
subjects  of  baptism  is  one  which  is  to  be  respected  for 
its  importance ;  that  as  to  the  mode  has  occupied  more 
time,  and  excited  greater  feeling,  than  it  is  in  any  view 
entitled  to.  It  cannot,  however,  be  passed  over,  be- 
cause the  advocates  for  immersion  are  often  very-  trou- 
blesome to  their  fellow  Christians,  unsettle  weak 
minds,  and  sometimes,  perhaps,  from  their  zeal  for  a 
form,  endanger  their  own  spirituality.  Against  the 
doctrine  that  the  only  legitimate  mode  of  baptizing  is 
by  immersion,  we  may  first  observe  that  there  are  seve- 
ral strong  presumptiotis. 

1.  It  is  not  probable,  that  if  immersion  were  the  only 
allowable  mode  of  baptism,  it  should  not  have  been 
expressly  enjoined. 

2.  It  is  not  probable,  that  in  a  religion  designed  to  be 
tiniversal,  a  mode  of  administering  this  ordinance  should 
be  obligatory,  the  practice  of  which  is  ill  adapted  to 
so  many  climates,  where  it  would  either  be  exceedingly 
harsh  to  immerse  the  candidates,  male  and  female, 
strong  and  feeble,  in  water ;  or  in  some  places,  as  in 
the  higher  latitudes,  for  a  great  part  of  the  year,  im- 
possible. Even  if  immersion  were  in  fact  the  original 
mode  of  baptizing  in  the  name  of  Christ,  these  reasons 
make  it  improbable  that  no  accommodation  of  the  fonn 
should  take  place,  without  vitiating  the  ordinance. 
This  some  of  the  stricter  Baptists  assert,  although 
they  themselves  depart  from  the  primitive  mode  of  par- 
taking of  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  accommodation  to  the 
customs  of  their  country. 

3.  It  is  still  more  unlikely,  that  in  a  religion  of  mercy 
there  should  be  no  consideration  of  health  and  life  in 
the  administration  of  an  ordinance  of  salvation,  since 
it  is  certain  that  in  countries  where  cold  bathing  is  little 
practised,  great  risk  of  both  is  often  incurred,  especially 
in  the  case  of  women  and  delicate  persons  of  either 
sex,  and  fatal  effects  do  sometimes  occur. 

4.  It  is  also  exceedingly  improbable,  that  in  such 
circumstances  of  climate,  and  the  unfrequent  use  of 
thcbath,  a  mode  of  baptizing  should  have  been  appointed, 
which,  from  the  shivering,  the  sobbing,  and  other  bodily 
uneasiness  produced,  should  distract  the  thoughts  and 
unfit  the  mind  for  a  collected  performance  of  a  reli- 
gious and  solemn  act  of  devotion. 

5.  It  is  highly  improbable  that  the  three  thousand 
converts  at  the  Pentecost,  who,  let  it  be  observed, 
were  baptiz.ed  on  the  same  day,  were  all  baptized  by 
immersion ;  or  that  the  jailer  and  "  all  his"  were  bap- 
tized in  the  same  manner  in  the  night,  although  the 
Baptists  have  invented  "  a  tank  or  bath  in  the  prison 
at  Philippi"  for  that  purpose. 

Finally,  it  is  most  of  all  improbable,  that  a  religion 
like  the  Christian,  so  scrupuloijsly  delicate,  should 
have  enjoined  the  immersion  of  women  by  men,  and  in 
the  presence  of  men.  In  an  after  age,  when  immer- 
sion came  uito  fashion,  baptisteries,  and  rooms  for 
women,  and  changes  of  garments,  and  other  auxiliaries 
of  this  practice,  came  into  use,  because  they  were 
found  necessary  to  decency ;  but  there  could  be  no 
such  couvomences  in  the  first  instance ;  and  accord- 


ingly we  read  of  none.  With  all  the  arrangements  of 
modern  times,  baptism  by  immersion  is  not  a  decent 
practice ;  there  is  not  a  fciiiale,  pcrliaps,  who  submits  to 
it,  who  has  not  a  great  jirevious  struggle  with  her  deli- 
cacy; but  that,  at  a  time  when  no  such  accommoda 
tions  could  be  had  as  have  since  been  found  necessary, 
such  a  ceremony  rhould  have  lieen  constantly  perform- 
ing wherever  the  Apostles  and  first  preachers  went, 
and  that  at  pools  and  rivers,  in  the  presence  of  many 
spectators,  and  they  sometimes  unbelievers  and  scoffers, 
is  a  thing  not  rationally  credible. 

We  grant  that  the  practice  of  immersion  is  ancient; 
and  so  are  many  oilier  superstitious  appendages  to  bap- 
tism, which  were  adopted  under  the  notion  of  making 
the  rite  more  emblematical  and  impressive.  We  not 
only  trace  immersion  to  the  second  century,  but  im- 
mersion three  times,  anointing  with  oil,  signing  with 
the  sign  of  the  cross,  imposition  of  hands,  exorcism, 
eating  milk  and  honey,  putting  on  of  white  garments, 
all  connected  with  baptism,  aiKl  first  mentioned  by 
Tertidlian  ;  the  invention  of  men  like  himself,  who 
with  much  genius  and  eloquence  had  little  judgment, 
and  were  superstitious  to  a  degree  worthy  of  the  darkest 
ages  which  followed.  It  was  this  authority  for  immer- 
sion which  led  Wall,  and  other  writers  on  the  side  of 
infant  baptism,  to  surrender  the  point  to  the  Antip*do- 
baptists,  and  to  conclude  that  immersion  was  the  Apos- 
tolic practice.  Several  national  Churches  too,  like  our 
own,  swayed  by  the  same  authority,  are  favourable  to 
immersion,  although  they  do  not  think  it  binding,  and 
generally  practice  effusion  or  sprinkling. 

Neither  TertuUian  nor  Cyprian  was,  however,  so 
strenuous  for  immersion  as  to  deny  the  validity  of  bap- 
tism by  aspersion  or  effusion.  In  cases  of  sickness  or 
weakness  they  only  sprinkled  water  upon  the  face, 
which  we  suppose  no  modern  Baptist  would  allow. 
Clinic  baptism,  too,  or  the  baptism  of  the  sick  in  bed,  by 
aspersion,  is  allowed  by  Cyprian  to  be  valid ;  so  that 
"  if  the  persons  recover  they  need  not  be  baptized  by 
immersioii."(9)  Gennadius  of  Marseilles,  in  the  fifth 
century,  says,  that  baptism  was  administered  in  the 
Gallic  Church  hi  his  time,  indifferently  by  immersion 
or  by  sprinkling.  In  the  thirteenth  century,  Thomas 
Aquinas  says,  "  that  baptism  may  be  given,  not  only 
by  immersion,  but  also  by  effusion  of  water,  or  sprink- 
ling with  it."  And  Erasmus  afRrms,(l)  that  in  his 
time  it  was  the  custom  to  sprinkle  infants  in  Holland, 
and  to  dip  them  in  England.  Of  these  two  modes,  one 
only  was  primitive  and  Apostolic.  Which  that  was 
we  shall  just  now  consider.  At  present  it  is  only  ne- 
cessary to  observe,  that  immersion  is  not  the  only 
mode  which  can  plead  antiquity  in  its  favour ;  and  that 
as  the  superstition  of  antiquity  appears  to  have  gone 
most  in  favour  of  baptism  by  immersion,  this  is  a  cir- 
cumstance which  affords  a  strong  presumption,  that  it 
was  one  of  those  additions  to  the  ancient  rite  which 
superstition  originated.  This  may  be  made  out  almost 
to  a  moral  certainty,  without  referring  at  all  to  the 
argument  from  Scripture.  The  "  ancient  Christians," 
the"  primitive  Christians,"  as  they  are  called  by  tho 
advocates  of  immersion,  that  is,  Christians  of  about  the 
age  of  TertuUian  and  Cyprian,  and  a  little  downward, — 
whose  practice  of  immersion  is  used  as  an  argument 
to  prove  that  mode  only  to  have  had  Apostolic  sanc- 
tion,— baptized  the  candidates  naked.  Thus  Wall  in 
his  History  of  Baptism :  "  The  ancient  Christians, 
when  they  were  baptized  by  immersion,  were  all  bap- 
tized naked,  whether  they  were  men,  women,  or  chil- 
dren. They  thought  it  better  represented  the  putting 
ofFoftheoldman,and  also  the  nakedness  of  Christ  on 
the  cross ;  moreover,  as  bajitism  is  a  washing,  they 
judged  it  should  be  the  washing  of  the  body,  not  of  the 
clothes."  This  is  an  instance  of  the  manner  in  which 
they  affected  to  improve  the  emblematical  character  of 
the  ordinance.  Robinson  also,  in  his  History  of  Bap- 
tism, states  the  same  thing  :  "  Let  it  be  observed,  that 
tho  primitive  Christians  baptized  naked.  There  is  no 
ancient  historical  fact  better  authenticated  than  this." 
"  They,  however,"  says  Wall, "  took  great  care  lor  ]ire- 
serving  the  modesty  of  any  woman  who  was  to  be 
baptized.  None  but  women  came  near  till  her  body 
was  in  the  water;  then  the  priest  came,  and  putting 
her  head  also  under  water,  he  departed  and  left  her  to 
the  women."  Now,  if  antiquity  be  pleaded  as  a  proof 
that  immersion  was  the  really  primitwe  mode  of  bap- 
tizing  it  must  be  pleaded  in  favour  of  the  gross  and 


(9)  Epist.  G«. 


(1)  Epist.  re. 


443 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


(Paet IV. 


olftnslve  circumstance  of  hajul-.lnK  tiiik<Ml,  which  wiis 
.xjnsidcred  of  as  much  Imjiortniico  ns  iho  other;  nml 
then  we  may  safely  leave  It  for  any  one  to  eay,  whether 
he  really  believes  that  the  throe  thousand  persons  ni<^n- 
tionedin  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  were  ha\^liici\  niik(d? 
and  whether,  when  St.  Paul  baptized  I,yilia,  she  was 
put  into  the  water  naked  by  her  women,  and  that  the 
Apostle  then  hastened  "  to  put  her  head  under  water 
also,  using  the  form  of  baptism,  and  retired,  leaving 
Iter  to  the  women"  to  take  her  away  to  dress  '  Iinmer- 
sion,  with  all  its  appendages,  dipping  three  times,  na- 
kedness, unction,  the  (Mting  of  milk  and  honey,  exor- 
cism, &c.,  bears  manifest  marks  of  that  disposition  to 
improve  upon  God's  ordinances,  Uir  wliicli  even  llie 
close  of  the  second  century  was  remarkable,  and  which 
laid  the  foundation  of  that  general  corruption  which  so 
speedily  followed. 

XJut  we  proceed  to  tho  New  Testament  Itself,  and 
deny  that  a  sinclc  clear  case  of  bajjtism  by  immersion 
cati  be  produced  from  it. 

'J'he  word  itself,  as  it  has  been  often  shown,  proves 
nothing;.  The  verb,  with  its  derivatives,  signifies  to 
dip  the  hand  into  a  dish.  Matt.  xxvi.  23  ;  to  stain  u  ves- 
ture with  blood.  Rev.  xix.  13;  to  wet  the  body  with 
dew,  Dan.  iv.  33 ;  to  paint  or  smear  the  face  with 
colours ;  to  stain  the  hand  by  pressing  a  substance ;  to 
lie  overwhelmed  in  the  waters  as  a  stmken  ship ;  to  be 
drowned  by  falling  into  water;  to  sink  in  tlie  neuter 
sense;  to  immerse  totally;  to  plunge  up  to  tlie  neck ; 
to  he  immersed  up  to  the  middle ;  to  be  drunken  with 
wine;  to  bo  dyed,  tinged,  and  imbued;  to  wash  byelfu- 
sion  of  water ;  to  pour  water  upon  the  hands,  or  any 
other  part  of  the  body;  to  sprinkle.  A  word  then,  of 
such  large  application  affords  as  good  proof  for  sprink- 
ling, or  partial  dipping,  or  washing  with  water,  as  for 
inunersion  in  it.  The  controversy  on  tliis  accommo- 
dating word  has  been  carried  on  to  weariness ;  and 
if  even  the  advocates  of  immersion  could  prove,  what 
they  have  not  been  able  to  do,  that  plunging  is  the  pn- 
mnri/ meaning  of  the  term,  they  would  gain  notliing, 
since,  in  Scripture,  it  is  notoriously  used  to  express 
other  aiiplicalions  of  water.  The  Jews  bad  "  divers 
baptisms"  in  their  service ;  but  these  washings  of  the 
body  in  or  with  water,  were  not  immersions,  and  in 
some  instances  they  were  mere  sprinklinps.  The 
Pharisees  "  baptized  bclbre  they  ate,"  but  this  bap- 
tism was  "  the  washing  of  hands,"  which,  in  eastern 
countries,  is  done  by  servants  pimring  water  over  them, 
and  not  by  dipping: — "Here  is  Elisha,  the  son  of 
.Schajihat,  who  poured  vtatcr  on  the  hmuls  of  Elijah," 
2  Kings  iii.  11 ;  that  is,  who  acted  as  his  servant.  In 
tlie  same  manner  the  feet  were  washed :  "  Thou  gavest 
me  no  water  j/;)on,  £«,  my  feet,"  I,uke  vii.  44.  Again, 
the  Pharisees  are  said  to  have  held  the  "  washing"  or 
baptism  "  of  cuiw  and  pots,  brazen  vessels,  and  of  ta- 
bles;" not  certainly  for  the  sake  of  cleaidincss  (for  all 
people  hold  the  washing  or  baptism  of  such  utensils  for 
this  purpose),  but  from  superstitious  notions  of  purifi- 
cation. Now,  as  "  sprinkling"  is  prescribed  in  the  law 
of  Moses,  and  was  familiar  to  the  .lews,  as  the  mode  of 
purification  from  uncleaniicss,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
sprinkling  of  the  water  of  separation.  Num.  xix.  19,  it 
is  for  this  reason  much  more  probable  that  the  baptism 
of  these  vessels  was  effected  by  sprinkling,  tlian  by 
either  pouring  or  immersion.  But  that  they  were  not 
immersed,  at  least  not  tlic  whole  of  them,  may  be  easily 
made  to  appear ;  and  if  "  baptism"  as  to  any  of  these 
utensils  does  not  signify  immersion,  tho  argument  (rom 
the  use  of  the  word  must  be  abandoned.  Suppose,  then, 
the  pots,  (mps,  and  brazen  vessels  to  have  been  bap- 
tized by  immersion;  the  "  beds"  or  couches  used  to  re- 
cline upon  at  their  meals,  which  they  ate  in  an  accum- 
bent  posture,  couches  which  were  constructed  for  three 
or  five  persons  each  to  lie  down  upon,  must  certainly 
liavebeen  exempted  from  the  operation  of  a  "  baptism" 
by  dipping,  which  was  probably  practised,  like  the 
"bai)tism"oftheirhands,belbre  every  meal.  Thir  word 
is  also  used  by  the  LXX.  in  Dan.  iv.  33,  where  Nebuchad- 
nezzar is  .said  to  have  been  wet  with  the  dewof  hc;aven, 
which  was  plainly  effected,  not  by  his  immersion  in 
dew,  but  by  its  descent  upon  him.  Finally,  it  occurs 
ill  1  Cor.  X.  2,  And  were  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the 
clmulnwX  in  tho  sta;"  where  also  immersion  is  out 
of  the  case.  The  Israelites  were  not  immersed  in  the 
sea,  t()r  they  went  through  it  "  as  on  dry  land"  and 
ihey  wi^re  not  imniersetlin  Iho  cloud,  which  was  above 
ihein.  In  this  ca.s(^  if  the  sjiray  ol  the  sea  is  reliLTred 
to,  or  tlie  Uotfcenf  ol  ttun  Owiii  the  cloud,  they  were  bap- 


tized by  Rprlnklltig,  or  at  rnoei  by  pouring ;  and  that 
there  is  nn  allusion  to  the  latter  circumstance,  is  made 
almost  certain  by  a  passage  in  the  song  of  Deborah, 
and  other  expressions  in  the  Psalms,  which  speak  of 
"  rain,"  and  Iho  "  ])ouring  out  of  water,"  and  "  droji- 
pings"  from  tlio  "  cloud"  wliich  directed  ttie  march  of 
the  Jews  in  tho  wilderness.  Whatever,  therefore,  the 
primary  meaning  of  the  verb  "  to  bajitize"  may  be,  ia 
a  (juestion  of  no  imjiortance  on  one  side  or  the  other. 
Leaving  the  mode  of  administering  baptism  as  a  reli- 
gious rite  out  of  the  question,  it  is  used  generally,  at 
least  III  the  New  Testament,  not  to  ex))ress  iiimiersion 
in  water,  but  for  the  act  ol  pourmg  or  sprinkUngit;  and 
that  bajitism,  when  spoken  of  as  a  religious  rite,  is  to 
be  understood  as  administered  by  immersion,  no  satis- 
factory instance  can  be  adduced. 

The  baptism  of  Jolin  is  the  first  instance  usually  ad- 
duced in  iiroof  of  this  jiractice :— The  multitudes  who 
went  out  to  him  were  "  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan  ;" 
they  were  therefore  Immersed. 

To  say  nothing  here  of  the  laborious,  and  apparently 
imjiossllile,  task  imposed  upon  John,  of  plunging  the 
multitudes  who  Hocked  to  him  day  by  day  into  the 
river,  and  the  indecency  of  the  whole  jirocecding  when 
women  were  also  concerned,  it  is  plain  that  the  princi- 
]ial  object  of  tho  evangelist,  in  making  this  statement, 
was  to  point  out  the  place  where  Jolin  exercised  his 
ministry  and  baptized,  and  not  to  describe  the  mode; 
if  the  latter  is  at  all  referred  to,  it  must  be  acknow- 
ledged that  this  was  incidental  to  the  other  design. 
Now  it  so  happens,  that  we  have  a  passage  whicji  re- 
lates to  John's  baptism,  and  which  can  only  be  liiirly 
interpreted  by  referring  to  nis  mode  or  CAPTiziKci,  as 
the  FIRST  consideration ;  a  passage,  too,  which  John 
liimself  uttered  at  the  very  time  he  was  baptizing  "  in 
Jordan."  "  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  unto  re- 
pentance ;  but  he  that  comcth  alter  me  is  mightier  than 
I ;  ho  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with 
fire."  Our  translators,  in  this  passage,  aware  of  tho 
absurdity  of  translating  the  preposition  lv,  in,  have  pro- 
|)crly  rendered  it  with  ;  but  the  advocates  of  immersion 
do  not  stumble  at  trillcs,  and  boldly  rush  into  the  ab- 
surdity of  Campbell's  translation;  "1  indeed  baptize 
you  in  water  ;  he  will  bajitize  you  in  the  Holy  t;host 
and  fire."  Iliilbrtunatcly  lor  this  translation,  we  have 
not  only  the  utter  senselessness  of  the  phrases  bap- 
tized, phinged  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  wvX  plunged  in  fire, 
to  set  against  it ;  but  also  the  very  history  of  the  com- 
pletion of  this  prophetic  declaration,  and  that  not  only 
as  to  tlie  fact  that  Clirist  did  indeed  baptize  his  disci- 
ples with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire,  but  also  as  to 
the  TOorfc  in  which  this  baptism  was  effected;  "And 
there  appeared  unto  them  cloven  tongues  like  as  otjirc, 
and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them.  And  they  were  all 
filled  with  THE  Holy  Ghost."  Thus  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  of  fire  was  a  descent  iu-on,  and 
not  an  immersion  into.  With  this,  too,  agree  all  the 
accounts  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit :  they  aro 
all  from  ahove,  like  the  povriiig  out  or  shedding  of 
water  upon  the  head  ;  nor  is  there  any  expression  in 
Scripture'  which  boars  the  most  remote  resemblance  to 
immersing,  plunging  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  When  our 
Lord  received  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  "  the 
Spirit  of  God  DKscKNnKn  like  a  dove,  and  uoiiTKn 
upon  him."  When  Cornelius  and  his  family  received 
the  same  gift,  "  the  Holy  Ghost  fki.i.  on  all  them 
which  heard  the  word;"  "and  they  of  the  circumci- 
sion that  believed  were  astonished,  because  that  on  the 
Gentiles  also  was  poureo  out  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  which,  as  the  words  imply,  had  been  in  like 
manner  "  poured  out  on  them."  The  common  phrase, 
to  ^^  receive."'  llie  Holy  Ghost,  is  also  inconsistent  with 
the  idea  of  being  immersed,  plunged  into  the  Holy 
Ghost;  and  finally,  when  St.  Paul  connects  the  bap- 
tism with  water  and  the  baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost  to 
gethcr,  as  in  the  words  of  John  the  llaptist  just  (pioted, 
be  expresses  the  mode  ol  the  baptism  of  the  Spinl  in 
the  same  manner:  "  According  to  his  mercy,  he  s.ivid 
us  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  lliu 
Holy  Ghost,  which  he  siiko  on  rs  abundantly  through 
Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour,"  Titus  iii.  5,  0.  That  tho 
mode,  therefore,  in  which  John  baptized  was  by  pour- 
ing water  upon  his  disciples,  may  be  concluded  from 
his  using  the  same  word  to  express  the  jmnring  out, 
the  descLHi,  of  tho  Spirit  upon  the  discijiles  of  Jesus. 
For  if  baptism  necessarily  means  imniersKui,  and  John 
baptized  by  immersion,  then  did  not  Jcmih  Imjilizr  bis 
diiiciiilea  Willi  the  lloly  Ghoet.    lie  nuijtit  he^o^u  It 


Chap.  Ill.j 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


443 


npon  them,  but  he  did  not  baptize  thorn  wltli  It,  ao- 
conling  to  the  Immerslonists,  since  he  only  " pound  it 
upon  lUein,"  "  shed  it  upon  them,"  caused  it  "  lo fall 
upon  them,"  none  of  wliich,  nccording  to  them,  la  bap- 
tism. It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  prediction  of  .Tohn 
was  never  fulfilled,  because  In  their  sense  of  bapti'/ing, 
none  of  the  disciples  of  Jesus  mentioned  in  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  over  received  the  Holy  Ghost  but  by 
cfiisicm.  This  is  the  dilemma  into  which  they  put 
themselves.  They  must  allow  that  baptism  is  not  in 
this  passage  used  for  immersion  ;  or  they  must  deny 
that  Jesus  ever  did  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ciliost. 

To  baptize  "z/t  Jordan"  does  not  then  signify  lo 
plunge  in  the  river  of  .Tordan.    John  made  the  nci;;h- 
bourhood  of  Jordan  the  principal  place  ol  his  ministry. 
Either  at  the  fountains  of  some  favoured  district,  or  at 
some  river,  baptize  he  must,  because  of  the  multitudes 
who  came  to  his  baptism,  in  a  country  deficient  in 
springs  and  of  water  In  general ;  but  there  arc  several 
ways  of  understanding  the  phrase  "  in  Jordan,"  which 
give  a  sufficiently  good  sense,  and  involve  no  contra- 
diction to  the  words  of  John  himself,  who  makes  his 
baptism  an  effusion  of  water,  to  answer  to  the  effusion 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  administered  by  Jesus.    It  may 
be  taken  as  a  note  oi place,  not  of  mode.    "  In  Jordan," 
therefore,  the  expression  of  St.  Matthew  ja;  in  St. 
John,  "  IN  Bethabara,  beyond,"  or  situate  on,  "  Jordan, 
tvhere  John  was  baptizing ;"  and  this  seems  all  that 
the  expression  was  intended  to  mark,  and  is  the  sense 
to  be  preferred.    It  is  thus  equivalent  to  "  at  Jordan," 
"  at  Bethabara,  situate  on  Jordan  ;"  at  being  a  frequent 
sense  of  tv.    Or  it  may  signify  that  the  water  of  Jor- 
dan was  made  use  of  by  John  for  bapti/.ing,  however  it 
might  be  applied ;  for  we  should  tliink  it  no  violent 
mode  of  expression  to  say  that  wo  washed  ourselves 
in  a  river,  although  we  should   mean,  not  that  we 
plunged  ourselves  into  it,  but  merely  that  we  took  up 
tlie  water  in  our  hands,  and  applied  it  in  the  way  of 
effusion.    Of  it  may  be  taken  to  express  his  baptizing 
in  the  bed  of  the  river,  into  which  he  must  have  de- 
scended with  the  baptized,  in  order  to  take  up  the  water 
with  liis  hand,  or  with  some  small  vessel,  as  repre- 
sented in  ancient  bass-reliefs,  to  pour  it  out  upon  them. 
This  would  be  the  position  of  any  baptizer  using  a 
river  at  all  accessible  by  a  shelving  bank ;  and  when 
within  the  bed  of  the  stream,  he  might  as  truly  be  said 
to  be  in  the  river,  when  mere  place  was  the  principal 
thing  to  be  pointed  out,  as  if  he  had  been  immersed  in 
the  water.    The  Jordan  in  this  respect  is  rather  re- 
markable, having,  according  to  Maundrell,  an  outer- 
most bank  formed  by  its  occasional  "  swellings."    The 
remark  of  this  traveller  is,  "  After  having  descended 
the  outermost  bank,  you  go  a  furlong  \V[\cin  a  level 
strand,  before  you  come  to  the  immediate  bank  of  the 
river."     Any  of  these  views  of  the  import  of  the 
phrases  "in  Jordan,"  "in  the  river  of  Jordan,"  used 
plainly  with  intention  to  point  out  the  place  where  John 
exercised  his  ministry,  will  sufficiently  explain  them, 
without  involving  us  in  the  inextricable  difficulties 
which  embarrass  the  theory  that  John  baptized  only 
by  immersion.    To  go,  indeed,  to  a  river  to  baptize, 
would,  in  such  countries  as  our  own,  where  water  for 
the  mere  purpose  of  effusion  may  readily  be  olitained 
out  of  cisterns,  pumps,  &c.,  very  naturally  suggests 
to  the  simple  reader,  that  the  reason  for  John's  choice 
of  a  river  was,  that  it  afforded  the  means  of  immer- 
sion.   But  in  those  countries  the  case  was  different. 
Springs,  as  we  have  said,  were  scarce,  and  the  water 
for  domestic  purposes  had  to  be  fetched  daily  by  the 
women  in  pitchers  from  the  nearest  rivers  and  foun- 
tains, which  rendered  the  domestic  supply  scanty,  and 
of  course  valuable.    But  even  if  this  reason  did  not 
exist,  baptism  in  rivers  would  not,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
imply  unmersion.    Of  this  wo  have  an  instance  in  the 
customs  of  the  people  of  Mesopotamia,  mentioned  in 
the  .lonrnal  of  Wolfe,  the  missionary.    This  sect  of 
Christians  call  themselves  "  the  followers  of  St.  John 
the  Baptist,  who  was  a  follower  of  Christ."    Among 
many  other  questions,  Mr.  Wolfe  inquired  of  one  of 
them  res])ecting  their  mode  of  baptism,  and  was  an- 
swered, "The  priests  or  bishop  bai)lize  children  thirty 
days  old.    They  take  the  child  to  the  banks  of  the  river ; 
a  relative  or  friend  holds  the  child  near  the  surface  of 
the  water,  while  the  priest  sprinkles  the  element  upon 
the  child,  and  with  prayers  they  name  the  child."(2) 
Mr.  Wolfe  asks,  "  Why  do  they  baptize  in  rivers?' 

(2)7o«TOa?,  vol,  ti.  p.  311. 


Answer :  "  Because  Rt.  John  the  Baptist  baptized  in 
the  river  .Jordan."  The  same  account  was  given  atlcr- 
ward by  one  of  their  bishops  or  high  priests:  "They 
carry  the  children  alter  thirty  days  to  the  river,  the 
priest  says  a  prayer,  the  godfatlK^r  takes  the  child  to 
the  river,  while  the  priest  sjirinklts  it  with  water." 
Thus  we  have  in  modern  times  river  baptism  without 
immersion;  and  among  the  Syrian  Christians,  though 
immersion  is  used,  it  does  not  take  place  till  alter  the 
true  baptismal  rite,  pouring  water  upon  the  cliild  in 
the  name  of  the  Trinity,lias  been  performed. 

The  second  proof  adduced  by  the  immerslonists  is 
t;iken  from  the  baptism  ol  our  Lord,  who  is  said.  Matt, 
ill.  1(5,  "  to  have  gone  up  straightway  out  of  the  water." 
Here,  however,  the  preposition  used  signifies  /rom,  and 
avePr;  atio  tu  vSarog,  is  simply  "  he  went  npfrom  the 
water."  We  grant  that  this  might  have  been  properly 
said,  in  whatever  way  the  baptism  had  been  previously 
performed ;  but  then  it  certainly  in  itself  affords  no  ar- 
gument on  wliich  to  btiild  the  notion  of  the  immersion 
of  our  Saviour. 

The  great  passage  of  the  immerslonists,  however,  is 
Acts  viii.  38,  39  :  "  And  they  went  down  both  into  the 
water,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch,  and  he  baptized 
him  ;  and  when  they  were  come  up  out  of  the  water," 
i&c.  This  is  relied  upon  ns  a  decisive  proof  of  the  im- 
mersion and  emersion  of  the  eunuch.  If  so,  however, 
it  proves  too  much;  for  nothing  is  said  of  the  eunuch 
which  is  not  said  of  Philip,  "  They  went  down  both 
into  the  water,"  "and  when  they  were  come  up  07it 
of  the  water  ;"  and  so  Philip  must  have  immersed  him- 
self -as  well  as  the  eunuch.  Nor  will  the  prepositions 
determine  the  case  ;  they  would  have  been  employed 
properly  had  Philip  and  the  eunuch  gone  into  the  water 
by  partial  or  by  entire  immersion,  and  therefore  come 
out  of  it  on  dry  land  ;  and  with  equal  propriety,  and 
according  to  the  habitual  use  of  the  same  prepositions 
by  Greek  writers,  they  would  express  going  to  the  wa- 
ter without  going  into  it,  and  returning  from  it,  and 
not  out  of  it,  for  eig  is  spoken  of  place,  and  properly 
signifies  at,  or  it  indicates  motion  towards  a  certaui 
limit,  and,  for  any  thing  that  appears  to  the  contrary, 
in  the  history  of  the  eunuch's  baptism,  that  limit  may 
just  as  well  be  placed  at  the  nearest  verge  of  the  water 
as  in  the  middle  of  it.  Tims  the  LXX.  say,  Isa.  xxvi. 
2,  "  The  king  sent  Rabshakeh  from  Lachish,  ei;,  to 
Jerusalem,"  certainly  not  iato  it,  for  the  city  was  not 
captured.  The  sons  of  the  prophets  "  came,  a;,  to 
Jordan  to  cut  wood,"  2  Kings  vi.  4.  They  did  not,  we 
suppose,  go  into  the  water  to  perform  that  work.  Peter 
was  bid  to  "  go,  ci;,  to  the  sea,  and  cast  a  hook,"  not 
svu-ely  to  go  into  the  sea ;  and  our  Lord,  Matt.  v.  1, 
"  went  up,  £15,  <o  a  mountain,"  but  not  into  it.  The 
corresponding  preposition  ck,  which  signifies,  when 
used  of  place,/rorM,  out  of,  must  be  measured  by  the 
meaning  of  ug.  When  tt;  means  into,  then  ck  means 
enit  of.;  but  when  it  means  simply  to,  then  t/c  can  ex- 
press no  more  than  from.  Thus  this  passage  is  no- 
thing to  tlie  purpose  of  the  immerslonists. 

The'next  proof  relied  upon  in  favour  of  immersion  is 
John  iii.  22,  23 :  "  After  these  things  came  Jesus  and 
his  disciples  into  the  land  of  Judea,and  there  he  tarried 
with  them  and  baptized ;  and  John  also  was  baptizing 
in  jEnon,  near  to  Salim,  because  there  was  much  wa- 
ter there,  and  they  came  and  were  baptized."  The  im- 
merslonists can  see  no  reason  for  either  Jesus  or  John 
baptizing  where  there  was  much  water,  but  that  they 
plunged  their  converts.  The  true  reason  for  this  has, 
however,  been  already  given.  Where  could  the  multi- 
tudes who  came  for  baptism  be  assembled  ?  Clearly 
not  in  houses.  The  preaching  was  in  the  fields ;  and 
since  the  rite  which  was  to  follow  a  ministry  which 
made  such  an  impression,  and  drew  together  such 
crowds,  was  baptism,  the  necessity  of  the  case  must 
lead  the  Baptist  to  Jordan,  or  to  some  other  district, 
where,  if  a  river  was  wanting,  fountains  at  least  ex- 
isted. The  necessity  was  equal  in  this  case,  whether 
the  mode  of  baptism  were  that  of  aspersion,  of  pouring, 
or  of  immersion. 

The  Baptists,  however,  have  magnified  Mnan,  which 
signifies  the  fountain  of  On,  into  a  place  of  "  many 
and  great  waters."  Unfortunately,  however,  no  such 
powerful  fountain,  sending  out  many  streams  of  water 
fit  for  plunging  multitudes  into,  has  ever  been  found 
by  travellers,  although  the  couiUry  has  been  often 
visited  ;  and  certainly,  if  its  streams  had  been  of  the 
copious  and  remarkable;  character  assigned  to  them, 
1  they  could  not  have  vanished.    It  rather  api)ears,  how- 


444 


THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES. 


[Part  IV. 


ever,  that  the  "much  wator,"  or  "many  waters,"  In 
the  text,  refers  rather  to  the  whole  tract  of  country, 
than  to  the  fountain  of  On  itself;  because  it  apjiears 
to  lie  eiveii  by  the  evanselist  as  the  reason  why  Jesus 
and  his  disciples  came  into  the  same  neighlrourliood  lo 
baptize.  Diflerent  baptisms  were  adinlnislereil,  and 
therefore  in  difTercnt  places.  The  baptism  adminis- 
tered by  .Jesus  at  this  tnne  was  one  of  multiiiidcs ; 
this  appears  from  the  remark  of  one  of  John's  disci- 
ples 10  his  master:  "He  that  was  with  thee  beyond 
Jordan,  to  whom  thou  barest  witness,  behold,  the  same 
baptizeth,  and  all  men  ctnne  Id  him."  The  place  or 
places,  too,  where  Jesus  baptized,  allhonsh  in  the  same 
district,  could  not  bo  very  near,  since  .lohn's  discijile 
mentions  tlie  multitudes  who  came  to  be  baptized  by 
Jesus,  or  rather  by  his  (Usciples,  as  a  piece  of.  informa- 
tion ;  and  thus  we  find  a  reason  for  the  mention  of  the 
much  water,  or  many  waters,  with  reference  to  the 
district  of  country  itself,  and  not  to  the  single  Ibuntain 
of  On.  The  tract  had  probably  many  fountains  in  it, 
which,  as  bein?  a  peculiarity  in  a  country  not  generally 
so  distinguished,  would  lead  to  the  use  of  the  expres- 
sion "much  water,"  althouKh  not  one  of  these  foim- 
tains  or  wells  niiaht  he  sulUcient  lo  allow  of  the  plung- 
ing of  numbers  of  people,  and  ))rnbably  was  not.  In- 
deed, if  the  disciples  of  Ji:sus  baptized  by  immersion, 
the  imniersionists  are  much  more  concerned  to  disco- 
ver "  much  water,"  "  many  waters,"  "  large  and  deej) 
streams,"  somewhere  else  in  the  district  than  at 
iEnon ;  because  it  is  plain  from  the  narrative,  that  the 
number  of  candidates  tor  John's  baptism  had  greatly 
fallen  off  at  that  time,  and  tliat  tlie  people  now  gene- 
rally Hocked  to  Christ.  Hence  the  remark  of  John, 
verse  30,  when  his  disciples  had  informed  him  that 
Jesus  was  baptizing  in  the  neighbourhood,  and  tliat  "  all 
men  came  to  him," — "  He  must  increase,  I  must  de- 
crease." Hence  also  the  observation  of  the  evangelist 
in  the  iirst  verse  of  the  next  cha|iter.  "  The  Pharisees 
had  heard  that  Jesus  made  and  baptized  nwre  disciples 
than  John." 

As  these  instances  all  so  plainly  fail  to  serve  the 
cause  of  immersion,  we  need  not  dwell  upon  the  others. 
The  improbability  of  three  thousand  persons  being  im- 
mersed on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  has  been  already  men- 
tioned. The  baptism  of  Siiul,  ol'  Lydia,  of  the  Philip- 
pian  jailer,  and  of  the  family  of  (Cornelius,  are  all  in- 
stances of  house  baptism,  and,  lor  that  reason,  are  still 
less  likely  to  have  been  by  plunging.  The  Innnersion- 
ists,  indeed,  invent  "  tanks,"  or  "  baths,"  for  this 
purpose,  in  all  these  houses ;  but,  as  nothing  of  the 
kind  appears  on  tlie  face  of  the  liistory,  or  is  even  inci- 
dentally suggested,  suppositions  prove  nothing. 

Thus  all  the  presumptions  before  mentioned,  against 
the  practice  of  immersion,  lie  full  against  it,  without 
any  relief  from  the  Scriptures  themselves.  Not  one  in- 
stance can  be  shown  of  that  jiractice  from  the  New 
Testament,  while,  so  far  as  baptism  was  emblematical 
of  the  pouring  out  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  doctrine  of 
immersion  wholly  destroys  its  significancy.  In  fact,  if 
the  true  mode  of  baptism  be  immersion  only,  then  must 
we  wholly  give  up  the  phrase,  the  baplismofihe  Holy 
Spirit,  which  in  any  other  mode  than  that  of  jiouring 
out  was  never  administered. 

The  only  argument  leli  for  the  advocates  of  immer- 
sion is  the  supposed  allusion  to  the  mode  of  ba]itisni 
contained  in  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  Rom.  vi.  3,  4 : 
"  Know  ye  not  thatsomany  of  usas  wore  baptized  into 
Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death  ?  Therelbre 
we  are  buried  with  him  by  bai>tism,  into  death ;  that, 
like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory 
of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness 
of  life."  It  is  necessary,  however,  to  quote  the  next 
verses  al.so,  which  arc  dependent  upon  the  foregoing, 
"  For  if  we  have  been  plantihd  together,"  still  by  bap; 
tism,  "  in  the  likeness  of  his  death,  we  shall  be  also  iii 
the  likeness  of  liis  resurrection ;  knowinj;  this,  that 
our  old  man  is  crik  ikied  with  him,  that  tlu^  body  of  sin 
might  be  destroyed,  that  henceforlii  we  shoiiUl  not  servo 
sin.  For  he  that  is  dead  is  freed  from  sin,"  v.  5—". 
Why  then  do  not  the  advocates  of  immersion  go  for- 
ward to  these  verses,  so  inseparably  connected  with 
thorse  they  are  so  ready  to  (juote,  and  show  us  a  resem- 
blance, not  only  between  bai)tism  by  immersion,  and 
being  buried  witli  Christ ;  but  also  between  iminersidn, 
and  being  "  planted  with  t;iirist  V  If  the  allusion  of 
the  Apostle  is  to  the  planting  of  a  young  tree  m  the 
earth,  there  is  clearly  but  a  very  [lartial,  not  a  total  im- 
mersion in  the  caw;  and  if  U  he  to  uk&ftinu  a  brnncb 


upon  a  tree,  the  resemblance  la  still  more  Imperfect. 
.■*nll  farther,  as  the  Apostle  In  the  same  connexion 
speaks  of  our  being  "  curciriEii  with  Christ,"  and  that 
also  by  baptism,  why  do  they  not  show  us  how  im- 
mersion in  water  resembles  the  nailing  of  a  body  to  a 
cross  ? 

Put  this  striking  and  important  text  is  not  to  be  ex- 
plained by  a  fancied  resemblance  between  a  burial,  as 
they  choose  lo  call  it,  of  the  body  in  water,  and  the 
burial  of  Christ ;  as  if  a  dip  or  a  plunge  could  have  any 
resemblance  to  that  separation  from  the  living,  and  that 
laying  aside  of  a  body  in  tin;  sepulchre,  which  burial 
implies.  This  forced  thought  darkens  and  enervates 
the  whole  passage,  instead  of  bringing  forth  its  power- 
ful sentiments  into  clearer  view.  The  manilest  object 
of  the  Apostle  in  the  whole  of  this  part  of  his  Epistle, 
was  to  slunv,  that  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith 
alone,  which  he  had  just  been  establishing,  could  not 
in  any  true  believer  lead  to  licentiousness  of  life. 
"  What  then  shall  wo  say  :'  Shall  we  continue  in  sin 
that  grace  may  abound  !  God  forbid  1  How  shall  we 
that  are  dkkd  to  sin,  live  any  longer  therein  1"  The 
reason  then  which  is  given  by  the  Apostle  why  true 
believers  cannot  continue  in  sin,  is,  that  they  are 
"  DEAD  to  sin,"  wliich  is  his  answer  to  the  objection. 
Now,  this  mystical  death  to  sin  he  proceeds  to  attribute 
to  the  iNTSRi'MENTAi.iTV  of  baptism,  taking  it  to  be  an 
act  of  that  faith  in  Christ  of  which  it  was  the  external 
exjiression  ;  and  then  he  immediately  runs  into  a  fa- 
vourite comparison,  whicli  under  various  forms  occurs 
in  his  writings,  sometunes  accompanied  with  the  same 
allusion  to  baptism,  and  sometimes  referring  only  to 
"  faith"  as  the  instrument, — a  comparison  between  the 
mystical  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  believers, 
and  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  This 
is  the  comparison  of  the  text ;  not  a  comparison  be- 
tween our  mystical  death  and  baptism ;  nor  between 
baptism  and  the  death  and  burial  of  Christ ;  either  of 
which  lay  wide  of  the  Apostle's  intention.  Baptism,  as 
an  act  of  faith,  is,  in  fact,  expressly  made,  not  ajigure 
of  the  effects  which  follow,  as  stated  in  the  text,  but 
the  means  o{  effecting  them.  "Know  ye  not  that  so 
many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  were 
baptized  into  his  death;"  we  enter  by  this  means  into 
the  experience  of  its  efficacy  in  effecting  a  mystical 
death  in  us  ;  in  other  words,  wk  die  with  him,  or,  as 
it  is  expressed  in  verse  (i,  "  Our  old  man  is  cnicijied 
with  him."  Siill  farther,  "by  baptism,"  dia  tu 
(iiiTTTicrixaToi,  through  or  by  means  (if,  baptism,  "  we 
are  buried  with  him  ;"  we  not  only  die  to  sin  and  the 
world,  but  we  are  separated  wholly  from  it,  as  the  body 
of  Christ  was  separated  lYom  the  living  world,  when 
laid  in  the  sepulchre  ;  the  connexion  between  sin  and 
the  world  and  us  is  completely  broken  ;  and  those  who 
are  buried  and  put  out  of  sight  are  no  longer  reckoned 
among  men  ;  nay,  as  the  slave  (for  the  Apostle  brings 
in  this  figure  also)  is  by  death  and  burial  wholly  put 
out  of  the  power  of  his  former  master,  so  "  that  we 
should  not  serve  sin ;  for  he  that  is  dead  is  freed  from 
sin."  Put  we  also  mystically  rise  with  him  ;  "that 
like  as  (Jhrist  was  raised  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of 
the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness 
of  life,"  having  new  connexions,  new  habits,  new  en- 
joyments, and  new  hopes.  We  have  a  similar  pa.ssngc 
in  Col.  ii.  12,  and  it  has  a  similar  interpretation : 
"  lUiried  with  liim  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are  risen 
with  him,  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God, 
who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead."  In  the  preceding 
verse  the  Ajiostlo  had  been  speaking  of  the  mystical 
uKATii  of  Christians,  under  the  phrase  "pvttins  off 
the  bndii  of  the  sin.-i  ofthejiesh ;"  then,  as  in  his  Epis- 
tle to  the  Kom.ins,  he  adds  our  mystical  burial  with 
Christ,  which  is  a  heightened  representation  of  death  ; 
and  then  also,  our  rising  again  with  Christ.  Here 
too  all  •'■  i  three  elTects  are  attributed  to  baptism  as 
the  I  „.ms.  We  put  off' the  body  of  sins  "  by  the  cir- 
cumcision of  Christ,"  that  is,  as  we  have  seen,  by 
Christian  circumcision  or  baptism;  we  are  buried  with 
him  by  bapti.sm  ;  cv  being  obviously  used  here,  like  (5ia, 
to  denote  the  iiisirinnent ;  and  by  baptism  wc  rise  with 
him  into  a  new  life. 

Now  to  institute  a  comparison  between  a  mode  of 
ixiptism  and  the  burial  of  Christ  wholly  destroys  the 
meaning  of  the  passage;  for  how  can  the  Aiiostle  speak 
of  baptism  as  an  ciubtan  of  Christ's  burial,  when  he 
artiiics  from  it  as  the  instrument  of  our  d,alh  unto  sin, 
and  sepurali(m  from  it  by  a  mystical  burial  1  Nor  is 
buptism  here  made  use  of  aa  the  emblem  of  our  own 


Chap.  IV.] 

epirilnal  death,  burial,  and  resurrection.  As  an  ennbletn, 
even  iiniii'Trsion,  though  It  might  put  I'orlh  a  clumsy 
type  of  burial  and  risiug  again,  is  wauling  in  not  being 
embleniatical  of  pkatii  ;  and  yet  all  three,  our  mystical 
death,  burial,  and  rising  ciffnin,  are  distinctly  spoken 
of,  and  must  all  bo  found  rej>resonted  in  some  tyi-k 
Hut  the  Tvi'K  made  use  of  by  the  Apostle  is  manifestly 
not  baptism,  but  the  death,  the  burial,  and  the  resurrec- 
tion of  our  Lord  ;  and  in  this  view  he  pursues  this  bold 
and  impressive  ligure  to  even  the  vorge  of  allegory,  in 
the  succeeding  verses :  "  For  lie  that  is  dead  is  freed 
from  sin.  Now  if  we  be  dead  with  Christ,  we  believe 
that  we  shall  also  live  with  him  :  Knowing  that  Christ 
being  raisedjrom  the  dead  dieth  no  more  ;  death  hath 
no  more  donrfnion  over  him.  For  in  that  he  died,  he 
died  unto  sin  once ;  but  in  that  he  liveth,  he  livoth  unto 
God  ;  LIKEWISE  reckon  ye  also  yourselves  to  be  dead 
indeed  unto  sin,  but  alive  unto  God  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord." 

In  the  absence,  therefore,  of  all  proof,  that  in  any  in- 
stance found  in  the  New  Testament,  bajitism  was  ad- 
ministered by  immersion  ;  with  so  many  jiresumptions 
against  that  indecent  practice  as  have  been  stated ;  with 
the  decisive  evidence  also  of  a  designed  correspondence 
between  the  baptism,  the  pouring  out,  of  the  Holy 
Sjiirit,  and  the  baptism,  the  pouring  out,  of  water ;  we 
may  conclude,  with  confidence,  that  the  latter  was  the 
Apostolic  mode  of  administering  that  ordinance ;  and 
that  first  washing,  and  then  immersion,  were  intro- 
duced later,  towards  the  latter  end  of  the  second  century, 
along  with  several  other  superstitious  additions  to  his 
important  sacrament,  originating  in  that "  will-worship" 
which  presumed  to  destroy  the  simplicity  of  God's  ordi- 
nances, under  pretence  of(3)  rendering  them  more  em- 
blematical and  impressive.  Even  if  immersion  had 
been  the  original  mode  of  baptizing,  we  should,  in  the 
absence  of  any  command  on  the  subject  direct  or  im- 
plied, have  thou'ght  the  Church  at  liberty  to  accommo- 
date the  manner  of  applying  water  to  the  body  in  tlic 
name  of  the  Trinity,  in  which  the  essence  of  the  rite 
consists,  to  dilTerent  climates  and  manners ;  but  it  is 
satisfactory  to  discover  that  all  the  attempts  made  to 
impo.se  upon  Christians  a  practice  repulsive  to  the  feel- 
ings, dangerous  to  the  health,  and  offensive  to  delicacy, 
is  destitute  of  all  scriptural  authority,  and  of  really  pri- 
mitive practice. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

The  Institutions  of  the  Church. — The  Lord's 

Supper. 
The  agreement  and  difference  between  baptism  and 
the  Lord's  Supiier  are  well  stated  by  the  Church  of 
Scotland  in  its  Catechism :  "  The  sacraments  of  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper  agree,  in  that  the  author  of  both 
is  God  ;  the  spiritual  part  of  both  is  Christ  and  his  bene- 
fits ;  both  are  seals  of  the  same  covenant ;  to  be  dis- 
pensed by  ministers  of  the  gospel,  and  none  other  ;  and 
to  be  continued  in  the  Church  of  Christ  until  his  second 
coming."  "  These  sacraments  differ,  in  that  baptism  is 
to  be  administered  but  once  with  water, — and  that  even 
to  infants ;  whereas  the  Lord's  Supper  is  to  be  adminis- 
tered often,  in  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine,  to  re- 
present and  exhibit  Christ  as  spiritual  nourishment  to 
the  soul,  and  to  confirm  our  continuance  and  growth  in 
him,  and  that  only  to  such  as  are  of  years  and  ability  to 
examine  themselves." 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


445 


(3)  Baptism,  as  an  emblem,  points  out,  1.  The  wash- 
ing away  of  the  guilt  and  pollution  of  sin.  2.  The  pour- 
ing out  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  Scripture  it  is  made  an 
emblem  of  these  two,  and  of  these  only.  Some  of  the 
superstitions  above  alluded  to  sin  therefore  by  excess ; 
but  immersion  sins  by  defect.  It  retains  the  emblema- 
tical character  of  the  rite  as  to  the  washing  away  of 
sin  ;  but  it  loses  it  entirely  as  to  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Clujst ;  and,  beyond  the  washing  away  of  sin,  is  an 
emblem  of  nothing  for  which  we  have  any  scriptural 
authority  to  make  it  emblematical.  Immersion,  there- 
fore, as  distinct  from  every  other  mode  of  applying 
water  to  the  body,  means  nothing.  To  say  that  it 
figures  our  spiritual  death  and  resurrection,  has,  we 
have  seen,  no  authority  from  the  texts  used  to  prove  it ; 
and  to  make  a  sudden  po]!  under  water  to  be  emblema- 
tical of  burial,  is  as  far- fetched  a  conceit  as  any  which 
ailiinis  the  Kmbloms  of  (iuarles,  without  any  portion 
of  the  inacnuity. 


As  baptism  was  substituted  for  circumcision,  so  the  j 
I.ord'.s  Suj/per  was  put  by  our  Saviour  in  the  place  of  I 
the  I'assover ;  and  was  instituted  immedJalely  after 
celebrating  that  ordinance  for  the  last  time  with  his 
di.sciplcs.  The  passover  was  an  eminent  type  of  our 
Lord's  sacrifice  and  of  its  benefits;  and  since  he  was 
about  to  fulfil  that  symbolical  rite  which  from  age  to 
age  had  continued  to  exhibit  it  to  the  faith  and  hope  of 
ancient  saints,  it  could  have  no  place  under  the  new 
dispensation.  Christ  in  person  became  the  true  I'ass- 
over;  and  a  new  rite  was  necessary  to  commemorato 
the  si)iritual  deliverance  of  men,  and  to  convey  and  con- 
firm its  benefits.  The  circumstances  of  its  institution 
are  explanatory  of  its  nature  and  design. 

On  the  night  when  the  first-born  of  Egypt  were  slain, 
the  cliildren  of  Israel  were  commanded  to  take  a  lamb 
for  every  house,to  kill  it,  and  tosprinkle  the  blood  upon 
the  posts  of  their  doors,  so  that  the  destroying  angel 
might  pass  over  the  houses  of  all  who  liad  attended  to 
this  injunction.  Not  only  were  the  firstborn  children 
thus  preserved  alive,  but  the  effect  was  the  deliverance 
of  the  whole  nation  from  their  bondage  in  Egypt,  and 
their  becoming  the  visible  Church  and  people  of  God 
by  virtue  of  a  special  covenant.  In  commeiuoration 
of  these  events,  the  feast  of  the  I'assoverwas  made  an- 
nual, and  at  that  time  all  the  males  of  Judea  assembled 
before  the  Lord  in  Jerusalem ;  a  lamb  was  provi- 
ded for  every  bouse ;  the  blood  was  poured  under  the 
altar  by  the  Priests,  and  the  lamb  was  eaten  by  the 
people  in  their  tents  or  houses.  At  this  domestic  and 
religious  least,  every  master  of  a  family  took  the  cup  of 
thanksgiving,  and  gave  thanks  with  his  family  to  the  God 
of  Israel.  As  soon,  therefore,  as  our  Lord,  acting  as  the 
master  of  his  family,  the  disciples,  had  finished  this  the 
usual  paschal  ceremony,  he  jiroceeded  to  a  new  and  dis- 
tinct action:  "He  took  bread,"  the  bread  then  on  the 
table,  "  and  gave  thanks,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to 
them,  saying,  This  is  my  body  which  is  given  for  you  ; 
this  do  in  remembrance  of  me.  Likewise  also  the  cup 
after  supper,"  the  cup  with  the  wine  which  had  been 
used  in  the  paschal  sui)per,  "  saying,  This  cup  is  the 
New  Testament  in  my  blood,  which  is  shed  lor  you ;" 
or,  as  it  is  expressed  by  St.  Matthew,  "  and  he  took  the 
cup,  and  gave  thanks,  and  gave  it  to  them,  saying, 
Drink  ye  all  of  it ;  lor  this  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, which  is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins." 

That  this  was  the  institution  of  a  standing  rite,  and 
not  a  temporary  action  to  be  confined  to  the  disciples 
then  present  with  him,  is  made  certain  from  1  Cor.  xi. 
23 — 26  :  "  For  I  have  received  of  the  Lord  that  which 
also  I  delivered  to  you,  that  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  sairio 
night  in  which  he  was  betrayed,  took  bread,  and  when 
he  had  given  thanks  he  brake  it,  and  said,  Take,  eat, 
tills  is  my  body,  which  is  broken  for  you ;  this  do  in 
remembrance  of  me.  After  the  same  manner  also  ho 
took  the  cup,  when  he  had  supped,  saying.  This  cup  is 
the  New  Testament  in  my  blood  ;  this  do  ye,  as  oft  as 
ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me.  For  as  often  as  ye 
eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cuji,  ye  do  show  the  Lord's 
death  till  he  come."  From  these  words  we  learn,  1. 
That  St.  Paul  received  a  special  revelation  as  to  this 
ordinance,  which  must  have  had  a  higher  object  than 
ttie  mere  commemoration  of  an  historical  fact,  and  must 
be  supposed  to  have  been  made  for  the  purpose  of  en- 
joining it  upon  hun  to  establish  this  rite  in  the  Churches 
raised  up  by  liim,  and  of  enabling  him  rightly  to  under- 
stand its  authority  and  purport,  where  he  found  it 
already  appointed  by  the  first  founders  of  the  first 
Churches.  2.  That  the  command  of  Christ,  "This  do 
in  remembrance  of  me,"  which  was  originally  given  to 
the  disciples  present  with  Christ  at  the  last  Passover, 
is  laid  by  St.  Paul  upon  the  Corinthians.  3.  That  he 
regarded  the  Lord's  Supper  as  a  rite  to  be  "  o/'icti"  cele- 
brated, and  that  in  all  future  time  until  the  Lord  himself 
should  "  come"'  to  judge  the  world.  The  perpetual  ob- 
ligation of  tliis  ordinance  cannot  therefore  be  reasonably 
disputed. 

Of  the  nature  of  this  great  and  affecting  rite  of  Chris- 
tianity, diflerent  and  very  opposite  opinions  have  been 
formed,  arising  partly  from  the  elliptical  and  figura- 
tive modes  of  expression  adopted  by  Christ  at  its  in- 
stitution ;  but  more  especially  from  the  influence  of 
superstition  upon  some,  and  Ihe  extreme  of  affected 
rationalism  upon  others. 

The  first  is  the  monstrous  theory  of  the  Clmrcli  oi 
Rome,  as  contradictory  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  whose 
words  it  i)rofesscs  to  receive  in  I  heir  literal  meaning, 
us  it  is  revolting  to  the  acnsos  uud  rcxibon  of  uiarikind. 


446 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


[Part  IV. 


"Ills  conceived  that  thn  wonls,  'Tliisls  my  body; 
This  is  my  blood,'  arc  lo  be  understood  in  tlitir  most 
litoral  sense  ;  that  when  Jesus  i)ronoun(:ed  these  words, 
he  clianged,  by  his  almighty  i)()wcr,  tlie  bread  upon 
the  table  into  his  body,  and  the  wine  into  his  blood,  an<l 
really  dolivured  his  body  and  blood  into  the  hands  ol' 
his  Apostles ;  and  that  at  all  times  wlien  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  administered,  the  Priest,  by  jjronouncing 
these  words  with  a  good  intention,  lias  ttie  jiower  o( 
making  a  similar  change.  This  change  is  known  by 
the  name  of  transubslanliation ;  the  projiriety  of  which 
name  is  conceived  to  consist  in  tins,  lliat  alihougli  ihe 
bread  and  wine  are  not  changed  in  tiguro,  taste,  weight, 
or  any  other  accident,  it  is  believed  that  the  substance 
of  them  is  completely  destroyed :  that  in  place  of  it, 
the  substance  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  although 
clothed  with  all  the  sensible  projterties  of  bread  and 
wine,  is  truly  present ;  and  thut  the  persons  who  re- 
ceive what  has  been  consecrated  by  pronouncing  these 
words,  do  not  receive  bread  and  wine,  but  literally  par- 
take of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  really  cat  his 
llesh,  and  drink  his  blood.  It  is  farther  conceived,  that 
the  bread  and  wine  thus  changed,  are  presented  by 
the  priest  to  God ;  and  he  receives  the  name  of  Priest, 
because  in  laying  them  upon  the  altar  he  offers  to  God 
a  sacrifice,  which,  although  it  be  distinguished  from 
all  others  by  being  without  the  shedding  of  biood,  is  a 
true  propitiatory  sacrifico  for  the  sins  of  the  dead 
and  of  the  living, — the  body  and  blood  of  Christ, v/liich 
were  presented  on  the  cross,  again  presented  in  the  sa- 
crifice of  the  mass.  It  is  conceived  tliat  the  materials 
of  tills  sacrifice,  being  truly  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,  possess  an  intrinsic  virtue,  wliich  does  not  de- 
pend upon  the  disposition  of  him  who  receives  them, 
but  operates  immediately  upon  all  who  do  not  obstruct 
the  ojieratioii  by  a  mortal  sin.  Hence  it  is  accounted 
of  great  importance  for  the  salvation  of  the  sick  and 
dying,  that  parts  of  these  materials  should  be  sent  to 
them ;  and  it  is  understood  that  the  practice  of  par- 
taking in  private  of  a  small  portion  of  what  the  Priest 
has  thus  transubstantiated,  is,  in  all  respects,  as  pro- 
per and  salutary  as  joining  with  others  in  the  Lord's 
Supper.  It  is  farther  conceived,  that  as  the  broad  and 
wine,  when  converted  into  the  [body  and]  blood  of 
Christ,  are  a  natural  object  of  reverence  and  adoration  to 
Christians,  it  is  highly  proper  to  worship  them  upon  the 
altar ;  and  that  it  is  expedient  to  carry  them  aliout  in 
solemn  procession,  that  they  may  receive  the  homage 
of  all  who  meet  them.  What  had  been  transubstan- 
tiated was  therolbre  lifted  up  for  the  purpose  of  re- 
ceiving adoration,  both  when  it  was  shown  to  the 
people  at  the  altar,  and  when  it  was  carried  about. 
Hence  arose  that  expression  in  the  Church  of  Rome, 
the  elevation  of  the  host,  ekvatio  hostim.  Dut,  as  the 
wine  in  being  carried  about  was  e.xposed  to  accidents 
inconsistent  with  the  veneration  due  to  the  body  and 
blood  of  (Jhrist,  it  became  customary  to  send  only  the 
bread ;  and  in  order  to  satisfy  those  who  for  this  rea- 
son did  not  receive  the  wine,  they  were  taught  that,  as 
the  bread  was  changed  into  the  body  of  Christ,  Ihcy 

farlook  by  concomitancy  of  the  blood  with  the  body. 
n  process  of  time,  tlie  people  were  not  allowed  to  par- 
take of  the  cup ;  and  it  was  said,  that,  when  .Itsus 
spake  these  words,  '  Drink  ye  all  of  it,'  ho  was  address- 
ing himself  only  to  his  Ajiostks,  so  that  his  command 
was  fulfilled  wlien  the  Priests,  the  successors  of  the 
Apostles,  drank  of  the  cup,  although  the  people  were 
excluded.  And  thus  the  last  part  of  this  system  con- 
spired with  the  first  in  exalting  the  clergy  very  far 
above  the  laity.  For  the  same  persons  wlio  had  the 
power  of  changing  bread  and  wine  into  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  and  who  presented  what  they  had  thus 
made,  as  a  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  others,  enjoyed  the 
partaking  of  the  cup,  while  communion  in  one  kind 
only  was  permitted  to  the  people. "(1) 

So  violently  are  these  notions  opposed  to  the  common 
sense  of  mankind,  that  the  ground  to  which  Ihr;  Romish 
writers  liave  always  been  driven  in  their  di-lcm-c,  is  the 
authority  of  their (;hurch,  and  the  necessity  of  imijliiil 
faith  in  its  interpretations  of  Scripture ;  principle.s 
which  shut  out  the  use  of  Scripture  entirely,  and  ojien 
the  door  lo  every  heresy  and  fanatical  folly.  Unl  Ibr 
the  ignorance  and  suiierslition  of  Europe  during  the 
miildlc  ages,  this  monstrous  iiervcrsion  of  a  sacred 
rilocoulil  not  have  been  elfccted,  and  oven  then  it  was 
not  established  aa  an  article  of  fuith  wiiiiout  many 


M)  Uisuoi'  ToMi^iNit  on,  the  ArtwUs. 


struggles.  Almost  nil  writers  on  the  Protestant  con- 
troversy will  furnish  a  sufiicicnt  confutation  of  tliis 
capital  attempt  to  impose  upon  the  credulity  of  man- 
kind ;  and  to  them,  should  it  need  any  refutation,  tho 
reader  may  be  referred. 

Tho  mind  of  Luther,  so  powerful  to  throw  off  dog- 
mas which  had  nothing  l)Ut  human  authority  to  sup- 
port them,  was,  as  to  the  sacrament,  licld  in  the  bonds 
of  early  association.  He  concluded  that  the  body  and 
blood  of  <;hrist  arc  really  present  in  the  Lord's  Supper ; 
but,  aware  of  the  absurdities  and  self-contradictions  of 
tiansubstantiation,  he  laid  liold  of  a  doctrine  which 
some  writers  in  the  Romish  Church  itself  had  conti- 
nued to  jirefer  to  tho  papal  dogma  above  stated.  Thia 
was  designated  by  the  term  con^uhstantiatiim,  which 
allows  that  the  bread  and  wine  remain  the  same  after 
consecration  as  before.  Thus  ho  escapes  the  absurdity 
of  contradicting  the  very  senses  of  men.  It  was  held, 
however,  by  Luther,  that  though  the  bread  and  wine 
remained  unchanged,  yet  that,  together  with  Ihcm,  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  literalty  received  by  tlio 
communicants.  Some  of  his  immediate  followers  did 
not,  however,  admit  more  on  tliis  point,  than  that  tho 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  were  really  present  in  the  ea- 
craincnt ;  but  that  the  inarmer  of  that  presence  was  an 
inexplicable  mystery.  Yet,  in  some  important  re- 
spects, Luther  and  the  Consubstantialists  wholly  es- 
caped the  errors  of  the  Church  of  Rome  as  to  this  sa- 
crament. They  dented  that  it  was  a  sacrifice;  and 
that  the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  gavo 
to  it  any  physical  virtue  acting  independently  of  the 
disposition  of  the  receiver ;  and  that  it  rendered  the 
elements  the  objects  of  adoration.  Their  error,  there- 
fore, may  be  considered  rather  of  a  speculative  than  of 
a  practical  nature;  and  was  adopted  probably  in  defer- 
ence to  what  was  conceived  to  be  tho  literal  meaning 
of  the  words  of  Christ  when  the  Lord's  Supper  waa 
instituted. 

A  third  view  was  hold  by  some  of  Luther's  contem- 
poraries, which  has  been  thus  described :  "  Carolo- 
stadt,  a  professor  wth  Luther  in  the  University  of 
Wittenberg,  and  Zuinglius,  a  native  of  Switzerland, 
the  founder  of  the  Retbrmed  Churches,  or  those  Pro- 
testant Churches  which  are  not  Lutheran,  taught  that 
the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Lord's  Supper  are  the  signs 
of  the  absent  body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  .that  when 
Jesus  said,  '  This  is  my  body.  This  is  my  blood,'  he 
used  a  figure  exactly  of  the  same  kind  with  that,  by 
which,  according  to  the  abbreviations  continually  prac- 
tised in  ordinary  speech,  the  sign  is  often  put  for  the 
tiling  signified.  As  this  figure  is  common,  so  there 
were  two  circumstances  ^vhich  would  prevent  the 
Apostles  Ironi  misunderstanding  it,  when  used  in  the 
institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  one  was,  that 
they  saw  the  body  of  Jesus  then  alive,  and  therefore 
could  not  suppose  that  they  were  eating  it.  The  other 
was,  tliat  they  had  just  been  partaking  of  a  Jewish  fes- 
tival, in  the  institution  of  which  the  very  same  figure 
had  been  used.  For  in  the  night  in  wliich  the  children 
of  Israel  escaped  out  of  Egypt,  God  said  of  the  lamb 
which  he  commanded  every  house  to  eat  and  slay,  '  It 
is  the  Lord's  passover ;  (5)  not  meaning  that  it  was  tho 
action  of  the  Lord  passing  over  every  house,  but  tho 
token  and  pledge  of  that  action.  It  is  admitted  by  all 
Christians,  that  thtirc  is  such  a  figure  used  in  one  part 
of  the  institution.  When  our  Lord  says, '  This  cup  is 
the  new  covenant  in  my  blood,'  none  suppose  him  to 
mean  tho  cup  is  the  covenant,  but  all  believe  that  he 
means  lo  call  it  the  memorial,  or  the  sign,  or  the  seal 
of  the  covenant.  If  it  be  understood,  that,  agreeably 
to  the  analogy  of  language,  he  uses  a  sunilar  figure 
when  he  says, '  This  is  my  body,'  and  that  ho  means 
nothing  more  than,  '  This  is  the  sign  of  my  body,'  we 
are  delivered  from  all  the  absurdities  implied  in  the 
literal  interpretation,  lo  which  the  Roman  Catholics 
think  it  necessary  to  adhere.  We  give  the  words  a 
more  natural  inlerprclation  than  the  Lutherans  do, 
who  consider  'This  is  my  body,'  as  intended  to  express 
a  proposition  which  is  totiUly  ihirercnt,  '  My  body  is 
with  this ;'  and  we  escape  from  the  didicultics  in  wtiich 
they  are  involved  by  their  forced  interpretation. 

"  Farther,  by  Ihis  method  of  interpretation,  there  is 
no  grounil  left  Ibr  that  adoration  which  the  Church  of 
Rome  pays  to  Ihe  bread  and  wine ;  for  they  arc  only  tho 
signs  of  that  which  is  believed  to  be  absent.  There  is 
no  ground  for  accounlmg  the  Lord's  Suiiiier,  lo  the  dis- 

(5)  E,xod.  .\ii.  U. 


Chap.  IV.] 


THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES, 


447 


honour  of  '  the  ntjih  Priest  of  oar  profession,'  a  new 
eacrifice  presented  by  an  earllily  Priest ;  for  the  bread 
and  wine  are  only  the  memorials  of  tliat  sacrifice 
which  was  once  olfercd  on  the  cross.  And,  lastly,  this 
interpretation  destroys  the  Popish  Idea  of  a  physical 
virtue  in  the  Lord's  Supper;  for  if  the  bread  and  wine 
are  signs  of  what  is  absent,  their  use  must  he  to  excite 
the  remembrance  of  it ;  but  this  is  a  use  which  cannot 
possibly  exist  wilh  regard  to  any,  but  those  whose 
minds  are  thereby  put  into  a  proper  frame  ;  and  there- 
fore the  Lord's  Supper  becomes,  instead  of  a  charm,  a 
mental  exercise,  and  the  efficacy  of  it  arises  not  ex 
opere  operiUo,  but  ex  opcre  operantis." 

With  much  truth,  this  opinion  falls  short  of  the 
whole  truth,  and  therefore  it  has  been  made  the  basis 
of  that  view  of  the  Lord's  Supper  which  reduces  it  to 
a  mere  religious  commemoration  of  the  death  of 
Christ,  with  this  addition,  that  it  has  a  natural  fUness 
to  produce  salutary  emotions,  to  possess  our  minds 
with  religious  reflections,  and  to  strengthen  virtuous 
resolutions.  Some  divines  of  the  Church  of  England, 
and  the  Socinians  generally,  have  adopted,  and  endea- 
voured to  defend,  this  interpretation. 

The  fourth  opinion  is  that  of  the  Reformed  Churches, 
and  was  taught  with  great  success  by  Calvin.  It  has 
been  thus  well  epitomised  by  Dr.  Hill : — 

"  He  knew  that  former  attempts  to  reconcile  the  sys- 
tems of  Luther  and  Zuinglius  had  proved  fruitless. 
But  he  saw  the  imjiortance  of  uniting  Protestants 
upon  a  point,  with  respect  to  which  they  agreed  in 
condemning  the  errors  of  the  Church  of  Rome;  and 
his  zeal  in  renewing  the  attempt  was  probably  quick- 
ened by  the  sincere  friendsliip  which  he  entertained 
for  Melancthon,  who  was  the  successor  of  Luther, 
while  he  himself  had  succeeded  Zuinglius  in  conduct- 
ing the  Reformation  in  Switzerland.  He  thought  that 
the  system  of  Zuinglius  did  not  come  up  to  the  force 
of  the  expressions  used  in  Scripture;  and,  although 
he  did  not  approve  of  the  manner  in  wliich  the  Lu- 
therans explain  these  expressions,  it  appeared  to  him 
that  there  was  a  sense  in  wiiich  the  full  signiticancy 
of  them  might  be  preserved,  and  a  great  part  of  the 
Lutheran  language  might  continue  to  he  used.  As  he 
agreed  with  Zuinglius,  in  thinking  that  the  bread  and 
wine  were  the  signs  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ, 
which  were  not  locally  present,  he  renounced  both 
transubstantiation  and  eonsubstantiation.  He  agreed 
farther  with  Zuinglius,  in  thinking  that  the  use  of 
these  signs,  being  a  memorial  of  the  sacrifice  once 
offered  on  the  cross,  was  intended  to  produce  a  moral 
effect.  Uut  he  taught,  (hat  to  all  who  remember  the 
death  of  Christ  in  a  proper  manner,  Christ,  by  the 
use  of  these  signs,  is  spiritually  present,^prescnt  to 
their  minds  ;  and  he  considered  this  spiritual  presence 
as  giving  a  signifieancy,  that  goes  far  beyond  the  So- 
cinian  sense,  to  these  words  of  Paul :  '  The  cup  of 
blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of 
the  blood  of  Christ  ?  the  bread  which  we  break,  is  it 
not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  V  It  is  not 
the  blessing  jironounced  wliich  makes  any  change  upon 
the  cup ;  but  to  all  who  join  with  becoming  affection 
in  the  thanksgiving  then  uttered  in  the  name  of  the 
congregation,  Christ  is  sjiiritually  present,  so  that  they 
may  emphatically  be  said  to  partake,  Koivmveiv,  pxTc- 
%£(v,  of  his  body  and  blood ;  because  his  body  and 
blood  being  spiritually  present,  convey  the  same  nou- 
rishment to  their  souls,  the  same  quickening  to  the 
spiritual  life,  as  bread  and  wine  do  to  the  natural  life. 
Hence  Calvin  was  led  to  connect  the  discourse  in 
John  vi.  with  the  Lord's  Supper ;  not  in  that  literal 
sense  which  is  agreeable  to  Popish  and  Lutheran 
ideas,  as  if  the  body  of  Christ  was  really  eaten,  and 
his  blood  really  drunk  by  any;  but  in  a  sense  agree- 
able to  the  expression  of  our  Lord  in  the  conclusion  of 
that  discourse,  '  The  words  that  I  speak  unto  you,  they 
are  spirit  and  they  are  life ;'  that  is,  when  I  say  to  you, 
<  Whoso  eateth  my  tlesh  and  drinketh  my  blood, 
dwelleth  ui  me  and  I  in  him;  he  shall  live  by  me,  lor 
my  flesh  is  meat  indeed,'  you  are  to  understand  these 
words,  not  in  a  literal,  but  in  a  spiritual  sense.  The 
spiritual  sense  adopted  by  the  Socinians  is  barely  this, 
that  the  doctrine  of  Christ  is  the  food  of  the  soul,  by 
cherishing  a  life  of  virtue  here,  and  the  hojie  of  a  glo- 
rious life  hereafter.  The  Calvinists  think,  that  iulo 
the  full  meaning  of  the  figure  used  in  these  wonls, 
there  enter  not  merely  the  e.vhortations  and  mstruc- 
tions  which  a  beliuf  of  the  Gosiiel  alTords,  but  also  that 
ttjiion  botwwH  Uuriat  and  his  people  which  id  the  con- 1 


sequence  of  faith,  nnil  tltat  communication  of  graco 
mid  strength  by  wliich  they  lire  ijuickcned  in  well 
doing,  and  prepared  fur  the  discharge  of  every  duty. 

"  According  to  this  system,  the  full  benefit  of  the 
Lord's  Suiijieria  peculiar  to  those  who  partake  worthily 
For  while  all  who  eat  the  bread  and  drink  the  wine 
may  be  said  to  show  the  Lord's  death,  and  may  also 
receive  some  devout  impressions,  they  only  to  whom 
.lesus  is  spiritually  present  share  in  that  spiritual  nou- 
rishment which  arises  from  pariakuig  of  his  body  and 
blood.  According  to  this  system,  eotuig  and  drinking 
unworthily  has  a  farther  sense  than  enters  into  the  So- 
ciiiian  system;  and  it  becomes  the  duty  of  every 
Christian  to  examine  himself,  not  only  with  regard  to 
his  knowledge,  but  also  with  regard  to  Ills  general  con- 
duct, before  he  eats  of  that  bread  and  druiks  of  that 
eup.  It  becomes  also  the  duty  of  those  who  have  the 
inspection  of  Christian  societies,  to  exclude  from  tliis 
ordinance  persons,  of  whom  there  is  every  reason  to 
believe  that  they  are  strangers  to  the  sentiments 
which  it  presupposes,  and  without  wiiich  none  aro 
prepared  for  holding  that  communion  with  Jesu3 
wliich  it  implies."(6) 

Wilh  this  view  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land seems  mainly  to  agree,  except  that  we  may  per- 
haps perceive  in  lier  services,  a  few  expressions  some- 
wiiat  favourable  to  the  views  of  Luther  and  Melanc- 
thon, whose  authority  had  great  weight  with  Archbishop 
CJranmer.  This,  however,  appears  only  in  certain 
phrases ;  for  the  twenty-eight h  article  declares  with 
sufficient  plainness,  that  "  the  body  of  Clirist  is  given, 
taken,  and  eaten  in  the  Supper  only  after  a  heavenly 
and  spiritual  manner;  and  the  mean  whereby  tho 
body  of  Christ  is  received  and  eaten  in  the  Supper,  ia 
faith."  "  Some  of  our  early  English  Reformers,"  says 
Bishop  Tomline,  "  were  Lutherans,  and  consequently 
they  were  at  first  disposed  to  lean  towards  eonsub- 
stantiation ;  but  they  seem  soon  to  have  discovered 
their  error,  for  in  the  articles  of  1552  it  is  expressly 
said,  '  A  faithful  man  ought  not  either  to  beUeve  or 
openly  confess  the  real  and  bodily  presence,  as  they 
term  it,  of  Christ's  flesh  and  blood  in  the  sacrament 
of  the  Lord's  Supper.'  This  part  of  the  article  was 
omitted  in  I5G2,  probably  with  a  view  to  give  less 
offence  to  those  who  maintained  the  corporal  presence, 
and  to  comprehend  as  many  as  possible  in  the  esta- 
blished Church."(")  The  article,  as  it  now  stands,  and 
not  particular  expressions  in  tho  Liturgy,  must  how- 
ever be  taken  to  be  the  opinion  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land upon  tills  pomi,  and  it  substantially  agrees  with 
the  New  Testament. 

The  SACRAMENTAL  character  of  this  ordinance  is 
the  first  point  to  be  established,  in  order  to  a  true  con- 
ception of  its  nature  and  import.  It  is  more  than  a 
commemorative  rite,  it  is  commemorative  sacrament- 
ally  ;  in  other  words,  it  is  a  commemorative  sign  and 
seal  of  the  covenant  of  our  redemption. 

The  first  'proof  of  this  may  be  deduced  from  our 
Lord's  words  used  in  the  institution  of  the  ordinance : 
"  This  is  my  body,  this  is  my  blood,"  are  words  wliich 
show  a  most  intimate  connexion  between  the  elements, 
and  that  which  was  rejiresented  by  them,  the  sacrifi- 
cial offering  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  as  the 
price  of  our  redemption  ;  they  were  the  signs  of  what 
was  "  given  for  us,"  surrendered  to  death  in  our  room 
and  stead,  that  we  might  have  the  benefit  of  liberation 
from  eternal  death.  Again,  "  This  is  the  New  Testa- 
ment," or  covenant,  "  in  my  blood."  The  covenant  it- 
self was  ratified  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  it  is  there- 
fore called  by  St.  Paul  "  the  blood  of  the  everlasting 
covenant ;"  and  the  cup  had  so  intimate  a  connexion 
with  that  covenant,  as  to  represent  it  and  the  means 
of  its  establishment,  or  of  its  acquiring  validity,— the 
shedding  of  the  blood  of  our  Saviour.  It  is  clear, 
therefore,  that  the  rite  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  covc- 
nant  rite,  and  consequently  a  sacrament;  a  .visible 
sign  and  seal  on  the  part  of  Him  who  made  the  cove- 
nant, that  it  was  established  in,  and  ratified  by,  the 
sacrificial  death  of  Christ. 

As  it  bears  this  covenant  or  sacramental  character 
on  the  part  of  the  Institutor,  so  also  on  the  part  of  the 
recipients.  They  were  all  to  eat  the  bread  in  "  remem- 
brance" of  Christ ;  in  remembrance,  certainly,  of  his 
death  in  particular  ;  yet  not  as  a  mere  historical  eveilit, 
but  of  his  death  as  sacrificial ;  and  therefore  the  coin- 


(fi)  Tlu:iili>!^ical  Lectures. 

(7)  Kjuii'isitlun,  of  the  Articles. 


448 


THEOLOGICAL  LNSTITUTES. 


[Part  IV. 


memoratlon  was  to  be  on  their  part  an  aclcno wledi^ment 
ol'tlK!  doclriiie  oltho  vicarious  and  propitiatory  nature 
of  tlic  dcatli  of  Ctirist,  and  an  act  of  faith  in  it.  Then 
as  to  tlic  fup,  they  were  commanded  to  drink  of  it,  for 
a  reason  also  particularly  given,  "  For  this  in  my 
blood  of  the  New  Testament,  which  is  shed  lor  many 
for  the  remission  of  sins :"  the  recognition,  therefore, 
Implied  in  the  act,  was  not  merely  that  Christ's  blood 
was  shed;  but  that  it  was  shed  as  the  blood  of  "  the 
new  covenant,"  and  for  "  the  remission  of  sins ;"  a  re- 
cognition which  could  only  take  ])lace  in  consequence 
of  "  faith  in  his  blood,"  as  the  blood  of  atonement. 
A^ain,  says  St.  Paul,  as  taught  by  tiu,-  particular  reve- 
lation ho  received  as  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  "  For  as 
often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do 
show  or  publish  the  Lord's  death  until  he  come;" 
which  i)ul)lication  of  his  death  was  not  the  mere  de- 
claration of  the  fact  of  "  the  Lord's  death,"  but  of  his 
death  according  to  the  Ai)ostolic  doctrine,  as  the  true 
propitiation  for  sin,  the  benefits  of  which  were  to  be 
.  received  by  faith.  Thus  then  we  see  in  the  Lord's 
Supper,  the  visible  token  and  pledge  of  a  covenant  of 
mercy  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  exhibited  by  God  its  au- 
thor ;  and  on  the  part  of  man  a  visible  acknowledgment 
of  this  covenant  so  ratified  by  the  sacrifice  of  Christ, 
and  an  act  of  entire  faith  in  its  truth  and  efficacy  in 
order  to  the  remission  of  sins,  and  the  conlerring  of  all 
other  spiritual  benefits.  As  a  siow,  it  e.xhibils,  L 
The  infinite  love  of  (iod  to  the  world,  who  gave  "  his 
only-begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  on  him 
might  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life."  2.  The 
love  of  Christ,  who  "  died  the  just  for  the  unjust,  that 
he  might  bring  us  to  God."  3.  The  extreme  nature  of 
liis  sufferings,  which  were  unto  death.  4.  The  vica- 
rious and  sacrificial  character  of  that  death,  as  a  siii- 
ofTering  and  a  propitiation  ;  in  virtue  of  which  only,  a 
covenant  of  grace  was  entered  into  with  man  by.  the 
offended  God.  5.  The  benefits  derived  from  it  through 
believing,  "  remission  of  sins ;"  and  the  nourishment 
of  the  soul  in  spiritual  life  and  vigour,  by  virtue  of  a 
vital  "  communion''  with  Christ,  so  that  it  is  advanced 
and  perfected  in  holiness,  "  until  he  come"  to  confer 
upon  his  disjiples  the  covenanted  blessing  of  eternal 
life.  As  a  skal  it  is  a  constant  assurance,  on  the  pari 
of  God,  of  the  continuance  of  this  covenant  of  redemp- 
tion in  full  undiminished  force  from  age  to  age  ;  it  is  a 
pledge  to  every  penitent  who  believes  in  Christ,  and 
receives  this  sacrament  in  profession  of  his  entire  reli- 
ance upon  the  merits  of  Christ's  passion  for  forgive- 
ness, that  he  is  an  object  of  merciful  regard  and  ac- 
ceptance; there  is  in  it  also,  as  to  everyone  who  thus 
believes  and  is  accepted,  a  constant  exhibition  of 
Christ  as  the  spiritual  food  of  t.'ie  soul,  to  be  received 
by  faith,  that  he  may  grow  thereby ;  and  a  renewed 
assurance  of  the  bestowment  of  the  full  grace  of  the 
new  covenant,  in  the  accomplishment  of  all  its  pro- 
mises, both  in  this  life  and  in  that  which  is  to  come. 
In  every  celebration,  the  sign  of  all  these  gracious 
acts,  provisions,  and  hopes  is  exhibited,  and  (;od  con- 
descends thus  to  repeat  his  pledges  of  faithfulness 
and  love  to  the  Church  of  Christ,  purchased  by  his 
blood.  The  members  of  that  Church,  on  the  other 
hand,  renew  their  acceptance  of,  and  reliance  upon, 
the  new  covenant;  they  publish  their  faith  in  Christ; 
they  glory  in  his  rrnss,  his  sacrificial  though  shameful 
death,  as  the  wisdom  of  God,  and  the  [lower  of  God  ; 
they  feast  upon  the  true  passover  victim  by  their 
failli,  and  they  do  this  with  joi/  and  tkanksgiving,  on 
account  of  a  greater  deliverance  than  that  of  the  Is- 
raelites from  Egypt,  of  which  they  are  the  subjects. 
It  was  this  predominance  of  thanksgivuig  in  celebrating 
this  hallowed  rite,  which  at  so  early  a  period  of  the 
Church  attached  to  the  Lord's  Supper  the  title  of"  The 
Evchai'ixl." 

We  may  conclude  this  view  by  a  few  general  ob- 
servations. 

1.  The  very  nature  of  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  excludes  from  particijiating  in  it  not  only  open 
unbelievers,  but  all  who  reject  the  doctrine  of  the 
atonement  made  by  the  vicarious  death  of  Christ  for 
"  the  remission  of  sins."  Such  persons  have  indeed 
tacitly  acknowledged  this,  by  ri^ducing  the  rite  to  a 
mere  commemoration  of  the  fact  of  Christ's  death ,  ami 
of  those  virtues  of  humility,  beiicvolonco,  and  pain  ikc, 
■which  his  sufl'crings  called  forth     If  tlierelbrc  the 


Lord's  Supper  be  in  tnith  much  more  than  this ;  If  it 
recognise  the  sacrificial  character  of  Christ's  death, 
and  the  doctrine  of  "  faith  in  his  blood,"  as  necessary 
to  our  salvation,  tliis  is  "  an  altar  of  which  they  have 
no  riirlit  to  eat"  who  reject  these  doctrines ;  and  from 
the  Lord's  table  all  such  persons  ought  to  be  repelled 
by  ministers,  whenever,  from  complia^ice  with  custom, 
or  other  motives,  they  would  approach  it. 

2.  It  is  equally  evident  that  when  there  is  no  evi- 
dence in  jiersons  of  true  rci)eiitance  for  sin,  and  of  de- 
sire for  .salvation,  according  to  the  terms  of  the  <;ospel, 
they  are  disqualified  from  partaking  at  "  the  table  of 
the  Lord."  They  eat  and  drink  unworthily,  and  fall 
therefore  into  "  condemnation."  The  whole  act  is  in- 
deed on  their  part  an  act  of  bold  jirofanation  or  of 
hyjKicrisy ;  they  profess  by  this  act  to  repent,  and 
have  no  sorrow  for  sin  ;  they  jirofess  to  seek  deliver- 
ance from  its  guilt  and  power,  and  yet  remain  willingly 
under  its  bondage;  they  profess  to  trust  in  Christ's 
death  for  pardon,  and  are  utterly  unconcerned  respect- 
ing cither ;  they  jirofess  to  feed  upon  Christ,  and  hun- 
ger and  thirst  after  nothing  but  the  world  ;  they  place 
before  themselves  the  suflerings  of  Chrsf;  but  when 
they  "  look  upon  him  whom  they  have  pierced,"  they 
do  not  "  mourn  because  of  him,"  and  they  grossly  of- 
fend the  all-present  Majesty  of  heaven,  by  thus  making 
light  of  Christ,  and  "  grieving  the  Holy  Spirit." 

3.  It  is  a  part  of  Christian  discipline  in  every  reli- 
gious society  to  ])revent  such  persons  from  communi- 
cating with  the  (Church.  They  are  expressly  excluded 
by  Apostolic  authority,  as  well  as  by  the  original  insti- 
tution of  this  sacrament,  which  was  confined  to  Christ's 
disciples ;  and  ministers  would  "  partake  of  other 
men's  sins,"  if  knowingly  they  were  to  admit  to  the 
Supper  of  the  Lord  those  who  in  their  spirit  and 
lives  denj'  hun. 

4.  On  the  other  hand,  the  table  of  the  Lord  ia  not  to 
be  surrounded  with  su])erstitious  terrors.  All  are  wel- 
come there  who  truly  love  Christ,  and  all  who  sin- 
cerely desire  to  love,  serve,  and  obey  liim.  All  truly 
penitent  persons ;  all  who  feel  the  burden  of  their  sina, 
and  are  willing  to  renounce  them  ;  all  who  take  Christ 
as  the  sole  foundation  of  their  hope,  and  are  ready  to 
commit  their  eternal  interests  to  the  merits  of  his  sacri- 
fice and  intercession,  are  to  be  encouraged  to  "draw 
near  with  faith,  and  to  take  this  holy  sacrament  to 
their  comfort."  In  it  God  visibly  exhibits  and  confirms 
his  covenant  to  them,  and  he  invites  them  to  become 
parties  to  it,  by  the  act  of  their  receiving  the  elements 
of  the  sacrament  in  faith. 

5.  For  the  frequency  of  celebrating  this  ordinance 
we  have  no  nile  in  the  New  Testament.  1'lie  early 
Christians  observed  it  every  Sabbath,  and  exclusion 
from  it  was  considered  a  severe  sentence  of  the  Church, 
when  only  temporary.  The  expression  of  the  Apostle, 
"  as  o/feii  as  ye  eat  this  bread,"  intimates  that  the 
practice  of  communion  was  frequent;  and  perhaps 
the  general  custom  in  this  country  of  a  monthly  ad- 
ministration, will  come  up  to  the  spirit  of  the  ancient 
institution.  That  it  was  designed,  like  the  Passover, 
to  be  an  annual  celebration  only,  has  no  evidence  from 
Scripture,  and  is  contradicted  by  the  most  ancient 
practice. 

6.  The  habitual  neglect  of  this  ordinance  by  persons 
who  prol'ess  a  true  faith  in  Christ,  is  highly  censurable. 
\V'e  speak  not  now  of  Uuakers  and  Mystics,  who  re- 
ject it  altogether,  in  the  face  of  the  letter  ol  their 
Bibles  ;  but  of  many  who  seldom  or  never  communi- 
cate, principally  from  habits  of  inattention  to  an  obli- 
gation which  they  do  not  profess  to  deny.  In  this 
case  a  plain  command  of  Christ  is  violated,  though  not 
perhaps  with  direct  intention;  and  the  benefit  of  that 
singularly  affecting  mean  of  grace  is  lost,  in  which 
our  Saviour  renews  to  us  the  i)lcdges  of  his  love,  re- 
peats the  promises  of  his  covenant,  and  calls  for  invi- 
gorated exercises  of  our  faith,  only  to  feed  us  the  more 
richly  with  the  bread  that  comes  clown  from  heaven. 
If  a  peculiar  condemnation  falls  upon  them  who  jiar- 
lake  "unworthily,"  then  a  jieculiar  blessing  must  fol- 
low from  partaking  worthily ;  and  it  therefore  becomes 
the  duty  of  every  niinister  10  explain  the  obligation, 
and  to  show  the  advantages  of  this  sacrament,  and 
earnestly  to  enforce  its  regular  ob.servanco  u|)oii  all 
those  who  give  salisliiclory  evidence  of  "  re|)enlaiicc 
towards  God,  and  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesu»  Clirist." 


Till:;  EM) 


TEXTS  MORE  OR  LESS  ILLUSTRATED. 


Chap.  Vcr.  Page 
GENESIS. 

1      1         79,167 

3  22        201,234 

4  4        282 

7        284 

fi      5        247 

8  21         247 

9  6        403 

15  1         200 

6        310 

16  7        200 

17  1        149 

7-14  430 

23      2        284 

25    23        329 

49    10        71 

18        201 

EXODUS. 

3  14        Ifi7 

5  3        291 

7    11         62,67 

10    25  26  291 

22  20        215 

23  20        174 

30    12-16  276 

33  19        329 

34  6        99 

LEVITICUS. 

4  21-29  279 

5  15  16  276 

6  25        279 

15    31        276 

17    10  11  276 

25    49        401 

NUMBERS. 

5      8        262 

24  27        168 

DEUTERONOaiY. 

4  7        200 

5  22        180 

6  7        409 

10    15  16  412 

21    22  23  262 

23    15  16 401 

28    15  10  72 

30    11        171 

30  6        434 

31  29        72 

32  43        201 

1  SAMUEL. 

20      6        391 

2  SAMUEL. 

7  21         200 

8  7        76 

9  10        401 

19    19        302 

1  KINGS. 

18  24        200 

1  CHRONICLES 

17    19        200 

Ff 


Chap.  Ver.  Page 
JOB. 

5  7        248 

11  12        248 

14  4         248 

15  14        232,248 

16        248 

20      4  5     232 

31  33        232 

33      4        232 

PSALMS. 

2      7        189 

14      2  3 248 

32  1         300 

33  6         222 

51      5        248 

58      3  4    248 

72      5        214 

100      3        167 

104    27-30  222 

106    30  31  301 

no      1        201 

122      6        387 

PROVERBS. 

8    22        190 

16  4        348 

22  15        248 

29  15        248 

30  4        171,191 

ISAIAH. 

6  l,&c 223,348 

8  8        184 

9  6        205 

34  16        169 

40      3-6     178 

3        181 

43  8        180 

45  24        300 

46  5        207 

48    16        169,223 

53      1,  &c 74,261 

JEREMIAH. 

18                330 

19               332 

23  5  6     181,300 

33  6        300 

16        181,300 

34  2        77 

EZEKIEL. 

28  2        183 

29  11         77 

44  27        262 

45  19        262 

DANIEL. 

2    11         182 

IIOSEA. 

6      7        248 

12  5 180 

.lOEL. 


Chap.  Ver.  Page 

IIAGGAI. 
2      4-7     169,223 

MICAII. 

5      2         190 

ZECHARLA.II. 

10      1         387 

MALACHI. 

1  4         334 

6        168 

2  14  15  406 

MATTHEW. 

1    23        183 

3  3    181 

II    442 

17    192 

7  11    24* 

10  20    222 

12  31    225 

14  33    211 

15  4-6  408 

18  18    426 

19  4  3 233 

3-9  406 

13   339 

17-19  381 

20  15  16  346 

28    266 

22   1-14  342 

24  24    63 

26  28    268 

63    194 

28  20    206 

19    223 

30    429 

MARK. 

10  45    260 

13  32 206 

10  14    437 

LUKE. 

1  16  17  181  164 

35    196 

9   1    210 

47  48  437 

10  20    348 

18  13  14  295 

24  47    260 

51  52  211 

JOHN. 

1   1    184,199 

3    208 

10    184 

11    187 

14    192 

15    170 

49   188 

3   8    248 

22  23  443 

31    172 

5  18   198 

37   192 

6  37    Sli 


450 

Chap.  Vcr. 


TEXTS  ILLUSTRATED. 


JOHN. 


Pago     Chap.  Ver. 


6 

64 

8 

58 

10 

15 

26 

29 

33 

12 

23  24 

37-40 

41 

13 

18 

11 

16 

15 

16 

10 

26 

Id 

15 

17 

5 

9 

SO 

22 

22  23 

3 

30 

38 

5 

4 

7 

35 

59 

a 

38  39 

10 

41 

13 

38  39 

15 

38 

48 

14 

11 

23 

15 

21 

17 

29 

18 

9  10 

20 

28 

28 

25 

207 
172 
322 
346 
194 
198 
260 
348 
109 
3-16 
190 
340 
340 
190 
208 
173 
322 
221 
-126 


ACTS. 


ROMANS. 


....  342,430 
429 
225 
206 
211 
443 
422 
295 
418 
208 
347 
183 
422 
391 
228 
351 
270 

169,  223,  348 


ROMANS. 

34     191 

21        214 

60     3^2 

28        434 

10        248 

2122 300 

24        205,207 

25  26  203,268,  295 

31        395 

3        301 

4-8     295,302 

28-      201 

6-8     260 

10  11  20.1 

12-21  357 

18  19 ,244,  301,302 

1-6     375 

n  ~     444 

l,&c........".."i  375,395 

18        249 

1        249,314 

3-4     195,376 

5-9     219 

17        313 

15  16 314 

30        343 

I      l.&c 328 

5        IBO 

•lA        342 

I    13        161 

19        328 

1      5        335 

6        308 


Page 

327,  33! 

3S7 
322 


1  CORINTmANS. 


2 

30 

S 

;{ 

7 

3 

19-20 
14 

9 

23-26 
35 
15 


2  CORINTIIIANS. 

6        

6        

21         

18  19  

,1        


212 

301 
270 
248 
349 
205 
205 
437 
178 
445 
378 
347 


225 
377 
262,301 
2f4 
374 


Chap.  Vcr. 


1  TiMornv. 


GALATIANS. 


6 
16 
21 
13 
10 
21 
27-29 

4-6 
21-31 

2-4 


342 

431 

....  297,304 

252,  262,  205 

....    180,431 

304 

432 

314 

336 

431 


EPHESIANS. 

4-6  341 

7  263,265,208 

9  428 

16  265 

4-6  347 

8  178 

11  417 

22-24  229,  248 


1     14 


PHILIPPIANS. 


COLOSSIANS. 


279 
407 
410 
403 


216 

387 


219 


14  15  209,270 


10-12 
10 


1  TIIESSALONIAN.S. 
23        

2  TIIESSALONIANS. 
89     

13  14  

10        

1  TIMOTHY. 


264 
206 
219 
432 
229 


374 


04 
340 
212 


277 


6 

13  14 
14 


1      0 


2  TIMOTHY. 


Fags 

260 
233 
207 


417 


9  10 343,347 


13 

7 
5  0 


TITUS. 


10 
14 

6 
12 
15 

4-8 
27 

13  14 
22-24 
26-31 

0 

4 
19 
26 
25  26 

8 


HEBREWS. 


2    19-23 


JAMES. 


1  PETER. 


2 
3 
11 

18  19 
24 
18 
20  21 


348 
214 
212 

185 
313 

443 

222 
2(18 
219 
189,  196 
212 
185 
205 
219 
196 
206 
220 
323 
280 
280 
280 
323 
289 
283 
430 
178 
178 


1      4  i 


2  PETER. 


1  JOHN. 


2  JOHN. 


JUDE. 


REVELATION. 


SIO 

340 
313 
222 
205 
261 
178 
433 


222 

322,349 

214 


2C9 
202 
283 
262 
169 


22 


417 


349 


205 
205,208 
S05 
427 
205 


GENERAL   INDEX, 


Page 


Abel's  Sacrifice 282 

Actions,  quality  of, 9 

Adam,  relation  of,  to  hi3  descendants 242, 357 

imputation  of  his  sin 243,  301,  357 

Adam's  fall  not  willed  by  God 367 

Adoption,  what 314 

African  slavery 402 

Agency,  moral, 9 

Angel  of  the  Lord,  phrase  of, 174, 180 

Church 418 

Archbishops,  origin  of, 418 

Arianism 221 

Ark,  dimensions  of, 96 

Article  XVII.  of  English  Church 361 

Articles  of  Faith 424 

Astronomical  objections  to  Scripture  answered  ...    91 

Atonement 80 

what, 262 

objections  to,  answered 2G5, 267 

cxientof, 319 

Augsburg  Confession 361 

B 

BArxiSM,  form  of, 223 

infant,  antiquity  of, 440 

benefits  of, 440 

mode  of, 441 

nature  of, 429,433 

obligation  of, 439 

of  houses 438 

of  John 442 

of  proselytes 435 

put  in  the  place  of  circumcision  . . .  432,  434 

subjects  of, 435 

Baxterianism 361 

Beasts,  clean  and  unclean,  282 

Believers,  true,  may  perish 320 

Bishops,  differ  not  in  order  from  Presbyters..  417,  419 

office  of, 417 

succession  of, 419 

Blood,  prohibition  of, 285 

Body,  human,  affords  proof  of  God's  existence.. .  Ill 
,  Budhu,  religion  of, 15 


OAtLiNG,  what, 342,  344 

Calvinistic  theories 351 

Calvin's  opinions 351 

Casuistry 383 

Cause  and  Effect,  relation  of, 103 

Causes,  kinds  of, 103 

Charity,  active  expression  of, 400 

source  of, 399 

universal 399 

Children,  duties  of, 408 

government  of, 409 

Christ,  acts  of,  proofs  of  his  Divinity, 208 

attributes  of,  divine, 205 

death  of,  merits  of, 269 

necessary 259 

propitiatory 259 

vicarious , 260 

died  for  allmen  320 

humanity  of, 218 

prc-existence  of, 170 

resurrection  of, 60 

the  Creator 208 

the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament 173 

litlesof, 180 

worship  paid  to, 811 

Christianity,  connects  morals  with  doctrines 383 

diffusion  of, 88 


F.ige 

Christianity,  efllfecta  of, 89 

Church  authority, ends  of, 424 

In  censures 425 

in  discipline 426 

in  doctrine 424 

government  in, 41fi 

Bjnritual 416 

persons  to  whom  committed,.  417 

of  Christ,  what, 410 

Reformed,  what, 354 

unity  of, 420 

Churches,  free  associations 421 

laws  of  Christ  imperative  upon, 422 

liberty  in  forms  of, 424 

share  of  the  people  in  government  of, .  422 
Circumcision,  controversy  in  primitive  Church. . .  431 

remarks  on, 4:iO 

Confession,  Augsburg 301 

Confessions  of  faith 424 

Conscience,  right  of, 404 

Councils,  origin  of, 424 

Covenant,  Abrahamic, 430 

D 

Deacons,  office  of, 4!7 

Death  eternal 243 

of  Christ,  necessary 25'J 

notuiijust 273 

propitiatory 259 

vicarious S60 

spiritual 241 

victory  over, 377 

What,  as  effect  of  sin 241 

Decrees,  object  of, 355 

what, 305 

Diocesses,  primitive, 418 

Port,  Synod  of, 325,339,  358 

Duelling,  sinfulness  of, 404 

Duties  of  children 40S 

of  husbands  and  wives 405,  407 

of  masters 410 

of  parents 409 

of  servants 410 

of  sovereigns 412 

of  subjects 411,  412 

we  owe  to  God 885- 

E 

Economical  justice 405 

Egj^jt,  plagues  of, 59,67 

Elders,  office  of, ,.. ..  417 

Election  and  calling,  what, 326 

eternal  and  temporal, 337 

of  the  Christian  Church 328 

of  the  Jews 328 

personal  and  collective 328,  337 

three  kinds  of, 327 

unconditional 334,  337,  339 

unto  faith 341 

Emmanuel,  title  of  Christ 183 

Episcopacy,  matter  of  prudential  regulation 419 

remarks  on » 417,  420 

Eternity,  attribute  of  Christ 205 

Ethical  justice 401 

Evangelists,  what, 417 

Evidence,  authentjcating, 40 

collateral, 40, 88 

external, 32' 

internal, 38,78 

rational, 40 

Evil  spirits,  power  of, 63 

Exceptions  to  moral  rules 383 

Excommunic-atiui),  wliat, 41/i 


452 


INDEX. 


I'.-ige 

External  duties  to  GoJ 387 

F 

Faith,  condition  of  justiflcatlon 307 

errors  rcsjicctins, 308 

imputed  lor  righteousness 302 

justifying, 304,305,  308 

not  mere  belief, 311 

objections  to,  considered 307 

Fall  account  of,  historical 233 

effects  of, 239 

traditions  respecting, 234 

Fathers  of  families  invested  with  a  religious  of- 
fice    390 

Fear  of  God 386 

not  servile .'. .  386 

practical  effects  of, 387 

Foreknow,  to,  phrase  of, 343 

Form  of  God,  phrase  of, 217 

French  Church,  confession  of, 300 

O 

General  tendency,  doctrine  of, 384 

Geological  objections  to  Scripture 93,  97 

Oerm-theory  of  the  resurrection 379 

God,  acta  of, 99 

atitle  of  Christ,  182 

attrJ  butes  of, 1 00 

demonstrations  of,  a  posteriori, )  05 

demonstrations  of,  d  priori, 121 

duties  v/e  owe  to  him 385 

eternity  of, 129 

existence  of, 79,  99, 100 

not  dis(;overed  by  reason 101 

failhMncss  of, 100 

goodness  of, 148 

iiolincssof, 157,  254 

immutability  of, 144 

import  of  the  word, 182 

justiceof,    158,254 

liberty  of, 140 

mercy  of, 157 

names  of, 99 

necessary  existence  of, 122 

omnipotence  of, 131 

omnipresence  of, 133 

omniscience  of, 135 

prescience  of, 136,  367 

perfect, 160 

proofs  of  his  being, 105 

spirituality  of,   125 

truth  of, 100 

unity  of, 123 

unsearchable, 100 

wills  all  men  to  be  saved 326 

wisdom  of, 146 

Govcnnnont,  an  ordinance  of  God 411 

of  Church,  spiritual, 416 

in  its  pastors, 417 

resistance  to,  if  lawful, 413 

share  of  the  people  in, 422 

Grace  of  God,  resistible 373 

II 

riE ATHENS,  case  of, 373 

morals  of, 27 

religions  of, 28 

state  ol'  r^jligious  knowledge  among,.  23 

Heylcn,  Dr.,  defended, 359 

Holiness,  what, 387 

Holy  Spirit,  divinity  of, 222,223 

influence  of. 83 

personality  of, 221, 222, 223 

procession  of, 221 

witncssof, 314 

four  opinions  respecting, .  315 

ITusband  and  wife,  duties  of, 405,  407 

Ilyjiostatical  union 217 

I 

InnNTiTY,  personal, 380 

Image  of  God,  what, 216 

Immutability  of  God,  what 144,  389 

l/npetation,  what, 305 

Independent  form  of  Chtirch  {fovommeni 421 

Infant  teptism ....  435 


Page 

Infants,  members  of  Christ's  Church 437 

salvation  of, 244,  339 

Influonco,  employment  of, 4i  j 

J 

J.VC0B  and  Esan,  caseof, 329 

.lehovah,  title  of  Christ 160 

Justice,  economical, 405 

ethical, 401 

political, 411 

of  God,  what,  254 

Justification,  by  laith  alone 306 

concomitants  of, 313 

explained 294 

just 268,269 

not  at  the  last  day 312 

not  eternal, 290 

not  imputation  of  Christ's  righteous- 
ness    296 

not  sanctification 296,  309 

pardon  of  sin 295 

I'opish  notion  of, 30S 

St.  James  and  St.  Paul  reconciled  on 
doctrine  of, 310 

K 
Keys,  iwwerof, 426 

King  ol'  Kings,  title  of  Christ, 187 

L 

Lanouage,  analogical, 280 

figurative, 280 

Law,  mora  1 ,  subject  of  revelation 10 

Liberty,  right  to, 401,404 

Lite,  riglitto, 401,402 

what, 127 

Liturgies 392 

Logos,  whence  derived, 201 

Lord,  atitle  of  Christ, 181 

Lord's  day 394 

Lord's  Supper,  a  sacrament, 447 

different  views  of, 446 

nature  of, 446 

obligatory 445 

Love  of  God  duty  of, 385 

nature  of, 385 

philosophic  and  Christian 385 

M 

Magianism 21 

Mohammed,  success  of, 88 

IVIan,  fallen  state  of, 79 

fall  of, 226 

liberty  of, 155 

primitive  state  of, 227 

why  created, 231 

moral  freedom  of, 235 

effoetsof  his  fall, 239 

his  own  fault  if  not  saved, 321 

Marriage 405 

ends  of, 405 

both  a  civil  and  religious  contract 406 

Masters,  duties  of, 4 10 

Memra,  title  of  Christ 201 

Merits  of  Christ 241 

Men,  duty  of  all,  to  believe  the  Gospel, 320 

Mercy,  works  of, 400 

Miracles,  definition  of, 38 

possible 34 

their  authenticating  character 34 

credible 35 

office  of, 39 

of  Scripture 58 

objections  to,  answered 61 

pretended 06 

Moral     virtue,    ground    on    which    Christianity 

places  it, 385 

agency 9 

obligation 31,383 

government 226 

principles  of, 251 

law 381 

established  by  the  Gospel 381 

philosophy 382 

UBOOf, 383 

piecilit^,  reasons  of     . ^''■' 


INDEX. 


453 


Pago 

Moral  rulca,  exceptions  to 383 

sense 383 

Murder,  what, 403 

self, 402 

Mysteries 91 

N 

Nature,  human,  corruption  of, 245 

Neighbours,  duties  to, 399 

O 

Obligation,  what 384 

Objections  to  the  Scriptures  answered 89 

Omnipotence,  attribute  of  Christ 208 

Omnipresence 205 

Omniscience 206 

Oracles,  heathen, >  .  65,  68, 75 

Ordination  of  Presbjiers  from  the  Jews 418 

Origin  of  Archbishops 418 

Primates..  ..^ 419 

Original  sin 239 

P 

Pardon  of  sin  not  by  prerogative 256, 296 

Parents 409 

Parishes,  primitive 419 

Pastors,  office  of, 417,  421 

authority  of, 422 

Patriarchs,  faith  of, 286 

rise  of, 419 

Penance,  ancient, 427 

Person,  what, 161 

Pharaoh,  case  of, 330 

Philosophical  objections  to  Mosaic  account  of  crea- 
tion and  deluge 93 

Political  justice 411 

Polygamy 400 

Potestas,  SoyiiaTiKJ], 424 

SiaTaKTiKTi, 425 

EtaKpiTLKri, 425 

Potter,  power  of,  over  the  clay 331 

Power,  origin  of, 411 

Praise,  duty  of, 394 

Prayer,  efficacy  of,  upon  others 389 

ejaculatory, 389 

enjoined 387 

famUy, 390 

forms  of, 392 

consistent  with  Divine  wisdom 389 

objections  to, 388 

private, 390 

public, 391 

reason  of, 387 

right  of, 377 

what 387 

whether  it  has  moral  influence, 388 

whether  opposed  to  predestination, 388 

Precepts,  general  application  of, 383 

moral  and  positive, 237 

Prednmnation 355 

Predestination,  what 344 

origin  of, 354 

Presbyters,  office  of, 417 

of  same  order  as  Bishops 417,  419 

Preterition 355 

Primates,  origin  of, 419 

Property,  right  of, 401,  404 

Prophecy 38 

double  sense  of, 70 

objections  to  evidence  of, 75 

scriptural, 69 

Prophets,  false, 76 

offipe  of, 417 

Propitiation,  what, 262 

Q 
Quality  of  actions 9 

R 

Reason,  weakness  of, 12,32 

use  and  limitation  of, 41 

Reasons  on  which  moral  precepts  rest 383 

-Reconciliation,  what, 261 

Rectitude,  what, .; .384 

Rpilcmption 254,  265 

free , 267 


Redemption,  illustration  of  God's  righteousness  . .  268 

Regeneration,  what, 809,  313 

Religion,  natural, 14 

corruj)tion  of,  among  heathen  nations  ...    23 

'Repentance '257 

not  regeneration 314 

Reprobation,  absolufo,  contrary  to  the  Divine  attri- 
butes    338 

Resurrection  of  the  body 378,  379 

Reverence  of  God 38fl 

Revelation,  characters  ol'  a, 29 

evidences  of, 33 

necessary 10,  23,27,28 

Revolution  of  1688  414 

Righteousness,  imputed,  doctrine  of,  considered. . .  296 

Armuiius's  opinion 299 

Calvin's  view  of, 298 

Mr.  Wesley's  view  of, 299 

Rights,  natural, 401 

of  conscience 404 

of  liberty 401,  404 

oflife 401,  402 

of  property 401,  404 

S 

Sabbath,  obligation  of, 394 

observance  of, 398 

recreations  upon, 399 

Sabellianlsm 221 

Sacraments,  number  of, 427 

different  views  of  their  nature, 428 

of  baptism 429 

of  Lord's  Supper 445 

seals 429 

signs 429 

Sacrament,  what, 423 

Sacrifices 274 

a  patriarchal  rite 281 ,  282 

Divine  appointment  of, 291 

expiatory, 275 

hirnian, 29 

of  Abel 282 

of  the  law 275 

primitive,  282 

types 278 

Sanctification 374 

Satisfaction,  opinions  concerning, 270 

Scientia  Media 368 

Scotland,  Church  of,  Calvlnistic  361 

Scriptures,  antiquity  of, 44 

credibility  of, 57 

genuineness  of, 46 

testimonies  to, 50 

harmony  of, 85 

manneroi; 87 

moral  tendency  of,  85 

preservation  of, 54 

style  of, 87 

Serpent,  the  Devil 238 

Servants,  duties  of, 410 

Sin,  a  debt  how, 268 

impulsive  cause  of  Christ's  sufferings 261 

imputation  of, 243 

original, 226 

in  what  it  consists, 251 

Slavery 401 

African, 402 

among  the  Hebrews 401 

in  Christian  States 402 

Slaves,  duties  of  Christian  governments  respect- 
ing,   402 

Son  of  God,  title  of  Christ, 188 

Son,  only-begotten, 192 

Soul,  traduction  of, 252 

Sovereign,  duties  of, 412 

Sovereignty  of  God 372 

Space 123 

State,  intermediate, 377 

Subjects,  duties  of, 411,412 

Sublapsarianism 355 

Submission  to  God 385 

Suicide 402 

Supralapsarianism 355 

Synagogues,  rulers  of, 418 

modes  of  woTSljip  In 418 


454 


INDEX 


TiiASKgoiviNo,  (iQty  of, <  *» 3'>1 

Traditions  of  iho  Ilciithen *- • 10 

Trinity Y^  ^^ 

important  of  tlio  doctrino Mw 

proofs  of,  from  6criptiirc, 107 

Trust  in  God • 3^^ 

friendship  witli  Goil,  necessary  to, . .  380 

Truth,  origin  of,  among  the  Ileaihcu 10 

Tyi)C8 70 

D 

Unity  of  the  Church '■ 420 

Universal  charity,  source  of, 399 

active  expression  of, 400 


V  ''*«' 

Vavdois,  opinions  of,  on  predestination 3<)0 

Virtue,  what, «. .  Sfrl 

Virtuca  in  the  unregcnerato 252 

VV 

WI3STMINSTEU  Confession 301 

Wife,  duties  of, 405,  4(17 

Will,  freedom  of, 326,  309 

of  God,  Rotircn  of  moral  obligation 384 

Word,  title  of  Christ 184,  J'JO 

World,  the  extent  of  the  term 321 

Worship,  supreme  and  inferior 215 

ends  of, 391 

family, 390 

public, 891 


VALUABILE  WORKS, 

Printed  by  J.  Si  J.  H.vRrEn,  New-York,  and  for  sale  by  Iho  Booksellers  generally 
in  the  United  States. 


THE  HISTORICAL  WOHKS  of  the  Rev.  WIL- 
LTAM  R01}1=;RTSUN,  V.U.;  coiiiprisin?  Iiis  HIS- 
TORY (>r  AMERICA ;  CHARLES  V. ;  SCOTLAND, 
nnd  INDIA.  ln3vol9. 8vu.  Kiubdlisilcd  willi  Plates. 
(Stereotypml.) 

Harper's  edition  of  these  valuaWc  standard  works  is  far  superior,  in 
every  respect,  to  any  oUier  ediliou  ever  publislied  in  this  country  j  and 
is  to  be  preferred  to  Jones's  Uuivereity  edition,  as  tiio  type  is  lai'ger, 
the  printing  and  paper  are  equally  good,  and  they  are  sold  for  less 
tlian  the  cash  price  of  that  o'udensed  edition.  Each  volume  is  a 
6e|iarate  history  in  itself;  and  may  be  purchased  separately,  or  bound 
uuiforjuly  with  tlie  other  volumes  ia  sets. 

GIBBON'S  HISTORY  of  tlie  DECLINE  and 
FALL  of  the  ROMAN  EMPIRE.  In  4  vols.  8vo. 
With  Plates. 

Harper's  edition  of  Gibbon's  History  is  stereotyped,  and  ^eit  caro 
lias  been  taken  to  render  it  correct  and  perfect.  The  dates  orii^inally 
inh-oduced  by  the  Author  are  preserved  in  the  Tables  of  Contents 
prefiied  to  the  Volumes,  and  also  imbodied  in  the  Text.  This  will 
render  the  present  edition  decidedly  preferable  to  the  English  edition 
in  four  volumes,  as  in  the  latter  the  dates  and  Tables  of  tjoatents  are 
entirely  omitted. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  MODERN  EUROPE;  with  a 
View  of  the  Progress  of  Society,  from  tlie  Rise  of  the 
Modern  Kingdoitis  to  the  Peace  of  Paris,  in  17G3.  By 
William  Russell,  LL.D. ;  and  from  the  Peace  of  Paris, 
in  17U3,  to  the  Treaty  of  Amiens,  in  1802.  By  William 
Jones,  Esq.  In  3  vols.  8vo.  With  Engravings.  (Ste- 
reotyped. Uniform  with  the  works  of  Robertson  and 
Gibbon.) 

HOOPER'S  MEDICAL  DICTIONARY.  From 
the  last  London  Edition.  With  additions,  by  Samuel 
Akerly,  M.D.    8vo.    (Stereotyped.) 

In  order  to  render  this  stereotype  edition  of  Hooper's  Medical  Dic- 
tionary more  ac^ep!ahle  to  the  medical  public  of  tlie  United  States, 
considerable  adli'iws  liave  been  made,  particularly  on  Materia 
Mcdica,  Mineralo^,  Botany,  Chyniistry,  Biography,  5tc.  &c. 

GOOD'S  (Dr.  John  Mason)  STUDY  OF  MEDI- 
CINE. In  5  vols.  8vo.  A  new  edition.  With  addi- 
tions by  Sanmel  Cooper,  M.D. 

THE  BOOK  OF  NATURE  ;  being  a  popular  Illus- 
tration of  the  general  Laws  and  Phenomena  of  Crea- 
tion, in  its  Unorganized  and  Organized,  its  Corporeal 
and  Mental  Departments.  By  John  Mason  Good,  M.D. 
and  F.R.S.    In  one  vol.  8vo.    (Stereotyped.) 

**  — the  work  is  certainly  the  best  philosophical  digest  of  the  kind 
which  we  have  seen." — London  MotUfUy  litjoicw. 

COOPER'S  DICTIONARY  of  PRACTICAL  SUR- 
GERY. Revised  and  Enlarged.  In  2  vols.  8vo. 
(Stereotyped.) 

BROWN'S  DICTIONARY  OP  THE  HOLY 
BIBLE.  From  the  Inst  genuine  Edinburgh  edition. 
Containing  the  Author's  last  additions  and  corrections, 
and  further  enlarged  and  corrected  by  his  Sons;  with  a 
Life  of  the  Author ;  and  an  Essay  on  the  Evidence  of 
Christianity.    Two  volumes  in  one,  8vo. 

A  CONCORDANCE  to  the  HOLY  SCRIPTURES 
of  the  OLD  and  NEW  TESTAMENTS  ;  by  tiie  Rev. 
John  Brown,  of  Haddington.  Printed  on  Diamond 
type,  in  the  32mo.  form.    (Stereotyped.) 

This  convenient  and  beautiful  little  pocket  volnme  contains,  ver- 
batim, the  same  as  the  original  duodecimo  edition. 

ENGLISH  SYNONYMES,  with  copious  Illustra- 
tions and  Explanations,  drawn  from  the  best  writers. 
By  George  Crabh,  M.A.  A  new  Edition,  enlarged. 
8vo.    (Stereotyped.) 

DOMESTIC  DUTIES;  or  Instructions  to  Young 
Married  Ladies,  on  the  Martagement  of  their  House- 
liold,  and  the  Regulation  of  their  Conduct  in  the 
various  relations  and  duties  of  Married  Life.  By  Mrs. 
William  PaRkes.  Fifth  American  from  the  last 
London  Edition,  with  Notes  and  Alterations  adapted 
to  the  American  Reader.    12mo.    (Stereotyped.) 

Dr.  Kitchiner's  COOK'S  ORACLE  and  HOUSE- 
KEEPER'S MANUAL.  Containing  Receipts  for 
Cookery,  and  Directions  for  Carving,  &c.  &c. ;  hoirm 
the  Result  of  actual  E.\pcriincntH  Instituted  in  the 
Kitchen  of  William  KrrrmNER,  M.D.  Adapted  to 
the  American  Public,  by  a  Mediciil  <i«iitleman  12ruo. 
(Stereotvped.) 


SERMONS  ON  IMPORTANT  SUBJECTS,  by  the 
late  Rev.  and  pious  Samuel  Jiavies,  A.M.,  sonic  time 
President  of  the  College  of  New-Jersey.  To  which 
arc  pi efi.xed.  Memoirs  and  Character  of  the  Author: 
and  two  Sermons  on  occasion  of  his  Death,  by  the 
Rev.  Drs.  Gibbon  and  Finley.  Fourth  American 
lOiiiUoii,  containing  all  the  Author's  Sermons  over  pub- 
lished.   In  3  vols.  8vo. 

ELEMENTS  OF  SURVEYING.  With  Copper- 
plate  Engravings.  By  Charles  Davics,  Professor  of 
Mathematics,  U.  S.  Military  Academy.  8vo.  (Tlie 
Tables  carefully  revised  and  stereotyped.)! 

GIBSON'S  SURVEYING.  Improved  and  en- 
larged. By  James  Ryan,  Teacher  of  Mathematics, 
&c.  Svo. 

HISTORICAL  VrEW  of  the  LITERATURE  of 
the  SOUTH  OF  EUROPE.  By  M.  De  Sisnumdl. 
Translated  from  the  Original,  with  Notes.  By  Thomas 
Roscoc,  Esq.    In  2  vols.  8vo. 

THE  WORKS  of  the  Rev.  JOHN  WESLEY,  A.M. 
With  his  LIFE.  Complete  in  10  vols.  Svo.  From  tlio 
last  London  Edition. 

WESLEY'S  MISCELLANEOUS  WORKS.  Con- 
taining his  Tracts,  Letters,  &c.  Sec.  From  tlie  last 
London  Edition.    In  3  vols.  Svo. 

WESLEY'S  SERMONS.  Containing  several  Ser- 
mons never  before  published  in  this  country.  In  3  vo- 
lumes.   Svo. 

THE  HISTORY  of  the  JEWS,  from  the  earliest 
period  to  the  present  time.  By  Rev.  H.  H.  Milman. 
With  numerous  Maps  and  Engravings.  In  3  vols. 
ISmo.    (Stereotyped.) 

THEHISTORYof  NAPOLEON  BUONAPARTE. 
With  numerous  Engravings,  lu  2  vols.  ISmo.  (Ste- 
reotyped.) 

PELHAM ;  or,  THE  ADVENTURES  OF  A  GEN- 
TLEMAN. A  Novel.  In  2  vols.  12mo.  (By  the  Au- 
thor of  "  The  Disou'ned,"  and  "  Devereux.")  From 
the  second  London  Edition.    (Stereotyped.) 

THE  DISOWNED.  By  the  Author  of  "Pelham," 
and  "  Devereux."  A  Novel.  In  2  vols.  (Stereotyped.) 

DEVEREUX.  A  Novel.  In2voIs.  12mo  By  the 
Author  of  "Pelliam,"  and]  "  The  Disowned."  (Ste- 
reotyped.) 

WAVERLEY;  or,  'Tis  Sixty  Years  Since.  A 
Novel.  In  2  vols.  12nio.  Revised,  corrected,  and  en  ■ 
larged,  by  the  Autlior. 

*#«  Harper's  stereotype  edition  of  Waverley  contains  upwards  of 
thirteen  thtrusand  words,  in  alterations  and  additions,  not  in  any 
former  edition. 

LETTERS  FROM  THE  iEGEAN.  By  James 
Emerson,  Esq.     In  1  vol.  Svo. 

THE  LITERARY  REMAINS  OF  THE  LATE 
HENRY  NEELE,  Author  of  the  "Romance  of  His- 
tory," &c.  &c.— consisting  of  Lectures  on  English 
Poetry,  Tales,  and  other  Miscellaneous  Pieces  in  Prose 
and  Verse.    Svo. 

PRESENT  STATE  OF  CHRISTIANITY,  and  of 
the  Missionary  Establishments  for  its  Propagation,  in 
all  Parts  of  the  World.  Edited  by  Frederic  Scho- 
berl.    12ino. 

COMPLETE  WORKS  of  Dr.  SAMUEL  JOHN- 
SON. Comprising  the  Rambler— Idler— Rasselas — 
Lives  of  the  Poets — Letters — Poems — Miscellanies, 
&c.  With  an  Essay  on  his  Life  and  Genius,  by  Arthur 
Murphy,  Esq.    In  3  vols.  Svo.    [In  Press.] 

VAN  HALEN'S  NARRATIVE  of  his  Imprison- 
ment in  the  Dungeons  of  the  Inquisition,  his  Escape, 
his  Journey  to  Madrid,  Sec.  &c.    Svo. 

THE  REMINISCENCES  OP  THOMAS  DIBDIN. 
Author  of  the  "  Cabinet,"  &c.  &c.    2  vols,  in  I.    Svo. 

TIIE  CONDITION  OF  GREECE,  in  1827  and  1828. 
By  J.  P.  Miller.    12mo. 

THiO  RIVALS  OF  ESTE,  AND  OTHER  PO£iM3 
By  James  G.  Brooks  und.Mary  E.  Brooks.    ISrao. 


Popular  Wor7;:s  Recently  Published. 


THE  LIFE  OF  NELSON.    By  Robert  Southcy, 
Bsij.    ISmo.  with  .a  Portrait.    (S'.creotypcd.) 

THE  LIFE  OF  ALEXANDER  THE  GREAT.    Cy 
Rov.  J.  Williams.     Ibiiio.  witii  a  Map.    (Stereotyped.) 

PAUL  CLIFFORD.    A  Novel.    By  the  Author  of 
"  Peltiam,"  &c.    In  2  vols.  12mo.    (Stercolj-ped.) 

O'iNEIL.    A  Poem.    With  several  Pieces  In  Prose. 
12iiio.     (Stereotyped.) 

FALKLAND.    A  Novel.    12ino.    By  the  Author  of 
"  Pelham,"  &u.    (Stereotyped.) 

LIFE  OF  LORD  BYRON.   By  Thomas  Moore,  Esq. 
In  2  vols.  bvo.    (Stereotyped.) 

LIVES  OF  THE  SIGNERS  of  tho  Declaration  of 
Independence.    By  N.  Dwight.    12nio.    (Stereotyped.) 

OVID  DELPUINI,  and  SMART'S  HORACE.    Cor- 
rect Editions. 

THE  LIFE  and  REMAINS  of  Dr.  CLARKE.    8vo. 
An  interesting  and  uselul  work. 

'   WALTER  COL YTON.    A  Novel.    In  2  vol.'j.  12mo. 
By  the  Authorof  "  Brambletye  House,"  "  Zillah,"  <tc. 

A  Novel 


THE  BARONY. 

Miss  A.  M.  Porter. 


In  2  vols.  12mo.    By 
Ky 


CLOUDESLEY.    A  Novel.    In  2  vols.  12mo. 
the  Author  of  "  Caleb  Williains,"  &c. 

DOOM  OF  DEVORGOIL;  and  AUCHINDRANE. 

By  Walter  Scott,  Bart.    12iiio. 

THE  LOST  HEIR.    A  Novel.    In  2  vols.  I2mo. 

STORIES  OF  A  BRIDE.    In  2  vols.  12mo. 

THE  ENGLISH  AT  HOME.  A  Novel.  In  2  vols. 
12mo.  By  the  Author  of  "  The  English  in  Italy,"  and 
"  Tho  English  in  France." 

PERKIN  WARBECK.  A  Novel.  In  2  vols.  12mo. 
By  Mrs.  Shelley. 

APICIAN  MORSELS.  A  Comical  Work.  With 
Cuts.     12mo. 

THE  SUBALTERN'S  LOG  BOOK.  A  Novel.  In 
2  vols.  12mo. 

IIAJJI  BABA.    A  Novel.    In  2  vols.  12mc. 

DE  LISLE.    A  Novel.    In  2  vols.  12mo. 

TRAITS  OF  TRAVEL.    A  Novel.    In  2  vols.  12mo. 

By  the  Author  of  "  High- Ways  and  By-Ways." 

THE  NEW  FOREST.  A  Novel.  In  2  vols.  12mo. 
By  the  Author  of  "  Brambletye  House,"  "  Zillah," 
"  "The  Tor  JliU,"  "  Reuben  Apsley,"  "  Gayetics  and 
Gravities,"  &c.  &c. 

THE  LAST  OF  THE  PLANTAGENTITS.  An 
Historical  Romance.    In  2  vols.  12mo. 

THE  COLLEGIANS.    A  Novel.    In  2  vols.  I2mo. 

THE  RIVALS.    A  Novel.    In  2  vols.  I2mo. 

PRIVATE  LIFE.    A  Novel.    In  2  vols.  12mo. 

ROMANCE  OF  HISTORY.  Second  Series.  Si-ain. 
In  2  vols.  12mo. 

HUNGARIAN  TALES.  In  2  vols.  12mo.  By  the 
Author  of  '•  Tho  Lottre  de  Cachet,"  and  •'  Romances 
of  Real  Life." 

CONTRAST.  A  Novel.  By  Regina  Maria  Roche, 
Author  of  "Tho  Children  of  the  Abbey,"  vfcc.  &c.  In 
2  vols.  12iuo. 

COMING  OUT :  and  tho  FIELD  OF  THE  FORTY 
F<jOT.STEPS.  Novels.  By  Misses  Jane  and  Anna 
Maria  Porter.    In  3  vols.  12mo. 

ROMANCE.-?  OF  REAL  LIFE.  In  2  vols.  I2mo. 
By  the  Author  of  "  Hungariitn  Tales." 

DARNLEY.  A  Novel.  By  the  Aulhgr  of  "  Ricli.v 
Ueu."    In  2  vols,  I2m<.>. 


LAWRIE  TODD;  or,  The  Settlers  in  the  Wood. 
By  .John  Gait,  Esq.  Author  of  "  The  Annals  6t  the  Pa- 
rish," "  The  Ayrshire  Legatees,"  &c.    In  2  vols.  12mo. 

BEATRICE ;  a  Tale,  founded  on  Facts.  By  Mrs. 
Holland.    In  2  vols.  12mo. 

SKETCHES  OF  IRISH  CHARACTER.  By  Mrs. 
a.  C.Hall.    12mo. 

TALES  AND  SKETCHES.  By  a  Country  School- 
master.   12rno. 

YESTERDAY  IN  IRELAND.  A  Novel.  In  2  vols 
12rao.    By  the  Author  of  "  To-day  in  Ireland." 

TALES  OF  THE  WEST.  By  the  Author  of  "  Let 
ters  from  the  East,"  &c.    In  2  vols.  12mo. 

THE  EXCLUSIVES.    A  Novel.    In  2  vols.  ISmo. 

ST.  VALENTLNE'S  DAY;  or.  The  Fair  Maid  of 
Perth.  Being  Second  Series  of  "  Chronicles  of  Canon- 
gate."   By  tlio  Author  of  "  Waverley ."   In  2  vols.  12mo. 

TALES  OF  A  GRANDFATHER.    By  Sir  Walter 

Scott.    First,  Second,  and'Tliird  Series. 

POSTHUMOUS  PAPERS,  Facetious  and  FancifUl, 
of  a  Person  lately  about  London.    12mo. 

LIFE  OF  1VL\NSIE  WAUCH,  TaUor  in  Dalkeitli. 
12mo. 
V/ALDEGRAVE.    A  Novel.    In  2  vols.  12mo. 

THE  ADVENTURES  OF  A  KING'S  PAGE.     A 

Novel.    In  2  vols.  12mo. 

RYBRENT  DE  CRUCE.  A  Novel.  In  2  vols. 
12mo. 

THE  SCHOOL  OF  FASHION.    A  Novel.    In  2 

vols.  12iuo. 

STRATTON  HILL.    A  Tale  of  the  Civil  Wars.    In 

2  vols.  12mo. 

ALMACK'S  REVISITED ;  or,  Herbert  MUton.  A 
Novel.    In  2  vols.  I2mo. 

PEACE  CAMPAIGNS  OF  A  CORNET.  A  Novel. 
In  2  vols.  12mo. 

TALES  OF  MILITARY  LIFE.  In  2  vols.  12mo 
By  the  Author  of  "  The  Military  Sketch  Book." 

FOSCARINT ;  or,  the  Patrician  of  Venice.  A  Novel. 
Ill  2  vols.  12mo. 

THE  NORTHERN  TRAVELLER.  Fouilh  Edi- 
tion.   18mo.    With  numerous  Engravings. 

STORIES  OF  WATERLOO,  and  OTHER  TALES. 

In  2  vols.  12mo. 

THE  COUNTRY  CURATE.  A  Novel.  In  2  vols. 
12mo.  By  the  Author  of  "  The  Subaltern,"  and  "  The 
Chelsea  Pensioners." 

NATURAL  HISTORY  OF  INSECTS.  With  Se- 
veral Hundred  Woodcuts.    In  2  vols.  18mo. 

RALPH  MARVYN;  or,  The  Maniac's  Prophecy. 
A  Ta'c.  By  William  Leg^ett,  Esq.,  Author  of  "  Lei- 
sure Hours  at  Sea,"  "  Tales  and  Sketches  by  a  Country 
Schoolmaster,"  «fcc.    In  2  vols.  12mo. 

FITZ  OF  FITZ-FORD.  A  Novel.  In  2  vols.  12mo. 
By  the  Author  cf  "  De  Foix,"  "  White  Hoods,"  <fcc.  &c 


NEW  WORKS.— J.  &  J.  Harper  are  publisliing, 
weekly,  new  and  standard  works  by  the  best  authors, 
English  and  American.  Several  gentlemen,  of  high 
lilerary  acquirements  and  correct  taste,  having  been 
engaged  to  examine  all  now  works  as  they  emanate 
from  the  English  press,  and  also  such  original  works 
as  may  be  presented  in  manuscript,  the  public  may  rest 
assurcd4)MMu>  works  will  be  publisiicd  by  J.  &  J.  U.  ^— ,^ 
•-'^-ch  as  are  Sfecfctiug,  iiwUui  live,  and  moral 


^''^Vt&.^^feft^^-.'i, 


#^i#te^Mi 


'^i^-^.^   .   4' .-.,,, ■)IK,- 


Princeton   Theological   Seminary   Libraries 


1    1012  01198  6942 


Date  Due 

■*^ 

AwM^'PtcJ 

<i^^.>,^,,..,..»..»8H 

(J:^*ii«>c* 

j 

m 

PRINTED 

IN   U.  S.  A. 

J^^^" 


